Senator McNary’s SB 1329 would standardize solar property valuation; assessors and rural counties oppose

Senator McNary presented SB 1329 to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation as a measure to create statewide standards for assessing large-scale solar property once the current exclusion ends in 2027. She said the bill is intended to "take the new revenue and help to understand how to assess it," adding that the change will result in "counties receiving new revenue from solar property tax."

John Redlingschaefer, senior tax counsel for Avantis, told the committee the industry is "ready to pay its fair share" but asked for consistent assessment rules to avoid overassessment that would drive projects to other states. "SB 1329 mitigates the risk of over assessment," Redlingschaefer said, arguing that assessments based on the industry's net cost to build are "fair" and provide pricing certainty that benefits ratepayers. Several trade groups and utilities — including the State Building Construction Trades Council, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and Southern California Edison — also testified in support, stressing the need for predictability for investors and grid reliability.

Opponents, led by county assessors and representatives of rural counties, said the bill creates structural problems. Laura Avila, speaking for the California Assessors Association, said the measure "predetermines the value" by statute and limits assessors' ability to determine fair market value as required by California law. Avila argued that a fixed 25-year "useful life" and exclusion of revenue streams such as renewable energy credits would distort income and cost approaches and produce assessments that are "below market." Polly Yoder, representing eight Central Valley counties, said the approach amounts to "preferential tax treatment for large scale commercial solar projects at the direct expense of rural counties" and warned of local revenue losses.

The author said several amendments had been accepted, including removing a reference to any preferred methodology and narrowing the scope of excluded intangibles, but defended the bill as a tool to encourage in-state development and to prevent projects from shifting to other states. After debate, the item was referred to the committee suspense file for further consideration.

What’s next: SB 1329 was referred to the committee suspense file for additional review and potential amendment before a final committee vote.