Margery Conner Technical Editor Margery Conner's PowerSource streams the latest developments in electronic power design and related technologies.


Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Power Management Articles

Blog

Monday, August 25, 2008

The taxing problem of solar energy: Solar exemptions not to everyone’s taste

Aug 25 2008 11:46AM | Permalink | Email this | Comments (12) |
Blog This! using:  Blogger.com | LiveJournal |
Digg This | Slashdot This | add to Del.icio.us


Seems that politicians at the local level in California are concerned that state tax breaks will preclude the county from getting its part of the energy projects tax pie.  

Solar farm3 new solar energy farms are currently pending in the eastern part of San Luis Obispo (SLO) County. California currently exempts solar energy systems from property taxes, but the exemption is set to expire at the end of the year. Assembly Bill AB 1451, recently passed by the legislature but not yet signed into law, would extend the exemptions for 7 more years. SLO County officials are concerned that the tax break will cost the county “millions” of dollars in lost property tax revenue from the new solar farms, and county officials are not too happy about that.

The first paragraph from the local article on the lost revenues says, “County officials are concerned that a bill passed by the state Legislature that extends property tax breaks for new solar power plants could cost the county millions of dollars in annual revenues.”

But if the bill doesn’t pass, the county still won’t get any new revenue because the solar firms won’t build the plants. And there’s not a lot you can use land for in eastern SLO county to generate money. “God-forsaken” is an often-used term.

And the exemption applies only to the cost of the facility; the land itself is not exempt, and building a solar farm there will increase the land’s value and thus its taxes. Plus, the new facility provides skilled jobs to the local labor force. (Although some locals aren’t too happy about the jobs either because they might not be union jobs. You can read the comments at the end of the article link.)

Local leaders won’t go so far as saying the politically-correct green solar farms shouldn’t have exemptions – they just don’t think they should be property tax exemptions. According to the article, county officials prefer incentives in the form of state income tax credits. This is the root of  the tug-of-war: Much of local property tax goes into county tax coffers, while most of the state income tax goes to the state. The state legislature is passing the solar tax exemption, so they make it a tax that affects county taxes rather than the state. State politicos are happy, county guys not so much.

And here I thought getting a critical mass of solar electricity-generating plants was a technology problem. Nah, the problem is always people.


Related entries in: Power Sources/Controllers | Solar/Photovoltaics | 


Reader Comments


at 8/25/2008 1:50:34 PM, Chris PE said:
Problems are always people. Some big companies do not understand that TEMPORARY relief on taxes is the incentive , not a benefit.Are they going to give away the energy or sell it? If sell then taxes are due for the land and installation on it, just loke we ALL pay taxes.California relief tax was mainly related to private homes not multi-billion dollars companies.I cannot even believe that there is a problem.I say TAX THEM , just like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS.

at 8/25/2008 1:58:47 PM, David T said:
It's probably a question of economics --- without the tax break, the solar power company probably cannot offer power at a cheap enough rate for them to have any customers. For the time being, solar power requires extensive subsidies.

at 8/25/2008 2:56:03 PM, RobS said:
No, the problem isn''t people. As David T correctly stated, it''s economics. If and when solar generation becomes economical without subsidies and tax advantages, these issues will disappear. Of course, that day is coming fast with ongoing throttling for traditional fossil fuel and nuclear power generation. Solar will have its day in the sun, and we''ll all be a bunch poorer for it.

at 8/25/2008 8:45:28 PM, TS said:
If there were a fossil fuel powered electrical plant in the county and the solar farm is to replace it, I am sure the people will not object to the tax break. Education and awareness of the benefits of solar energy is important. "Air" is no longer free, sad to say.

at 8/26/2008 7:44:06 AM, Chris PE said:
RobS - Missed a point here.The point is GREED. In older days return in 10-20 years was OK. Now the investment has to have IMMEDIATE return.Life and how you call it "economics" changed from sensible to greedy.It's not like we had not had a new nuclear power plants built and no one is frantic about it.Edison just adds a small percentage to a bill and everyone is happy.Do you think that "solar farm" will not charge you "recovery cost" ?Let's not get too carried away with that "economics" stuff.EVERY new product needs investment and I hope that you don't compare cost of solar "farm" to a nuclear plant , because it is miniscule in comarison.Our economy relies on taxes and it is a real "economics".

at 8/26/2008 9:30:52 AM, Beenthere said:
This seems to be the reverse of the NIMBY problem where nobody wants power generation in their "backyard". As soon as SLO county realizes that the whole project might move to another location for tax relief they'll change their tune. Greed is its own punishment in cases like this. The county receives clean power in exchange for the use of some marginal land. Sounds like they're already getting a pretty good deal..

at 8/26/2008 10:51:57 AM, Chris PE said:
This may be out of context, but it's funny how we don't want our government to control anything , but we want and expect them to subsidize everything....I do agree with Beenthere that local governments get too greedy.After all it is some "trash" land that will be used for that....and by the way (I should patent an idea,LOL) Why don't we put all those solar installation on top of our "closed" garbage dumpa and create "silver mountains"?

at 8/26/2008 10:53:29 AM, Chris PE said:
I meant garbage dumps

at 8/31/2008 9:50:48 AM, Russ said:
There is a plan for funding renewable energy refered to as the PRE-Plan. Its just a concept at this point, but it would allow every utility customer to invest in large-scale renewable projects and receive a portion of the electricity produced as their ROI. With such a plan real estate tax breaks could then potentially benefit everyone. ProfitableRenewableEnergy.com is the site to read about it, but even without the PRE-Plan, not taxing real estate used by a utility that passes its costs on to the rest of us probably makes sense. I'm not sure how PG&E and others are compensated, but if their profit is based on costs, it would make sense to keep those costs as low as possible.

at 9/3/2008 7:25:11 AM, Tom said:
New business and new jobs require more infrastructure - schools, roads, police, fire,... So it is not completely unreasonable that county officials would want some new tax revenue from a new business. But they will get more taxes from everything that spins off from the farm that is not tax exempted. They need to present budgets - how much public expense will this create versus how much revenue will actually come in?

at 9/3/2008 8:09:08 AM, JEB said:
The county will probably reduce the local funding for the infasturcure for the solar farm. This is the economics of the situation. The county cannot continue to fund roads, sewage etc. for something that has little return for them. The only profit for them is doing the proper "green" thing.

at 9/8/2008 8:18:55 AM, Janusz N said:
Hi. There is one simple and elegant solution for all the problems - the Carbon Tax (CT). Conventional power plant should pay CT proportional to amount of carbon emitted to atmosphere. That will increase the cost of conventional produced energy and make the solar plant more profitable. The money from CT will go to clean air. The CT will help solve problems with electric cars. For each lb of carbon fuel we will pay CT. Similar solution is used for water pollution. I know that nobody likes to pay more for gas or pay extra tax but we may have no other choice. In Europe folks pay twice as much for gasoline (as in US)and that promotes use small cars, propane powered cars etc.

Post a comment


Display Name

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above:


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2008 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites

ADVERTISEMENT
You will be redirected to your destination in few seconds.