Utility-scale solar projects in North Carolina could see 500% property tax increase
Rep. Jimmy Dixon (R-Duplin) introduced the bill in early April as a way to address concerns about North Carolina losing productive farmland. The latest version of the bill repeals an 80% tax abatement on utility scale solar projects over four years, ultimately eliminating the abatement entirely.
PAST COVERAGE: Is solar threatening North Carolina farms, or is there room for cooperation?
Stakeholders with the sustainable energy industry and farmers who have chosen to lease to solar companies expressed their concerns that the bill would unfairly penalize a single industry for farmland loss, which occurs primarily through housing development, while interfering with agreements property owners and solar companies entered in good faith.
Before the debate and public discussion in the comittee, Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler voiced his support of the bill.
'We know that solar development has exceeded the amount of farmland we could protect with the Farmland Preservation Trust fund that we have,' he said. 'So, it is time to take a look at this.'
A 2020 report from the American Farmland Trust ranks North Carolina second in states with the most-threatened agricultural land, but the report claims the biggest threats are from urbanization and sprawl from low-density residential land use. It does not mention solar development.
The North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association released a report in 2022, claiming solar occupies 0.28% of agricultural land in North Carolina.
Dixon also emphasized the potential financial boon this bill could provide local governments as they start to collect additional tax revenue, particularly in Tier 1, or the most economically distressed counties in the state, which host a disproportionate number of large-scale solar facilities.
According to a note from the Fiscal Research Division, this could add an additional $60.4 million in local revenue annually by 2030, one of the primary reasons the County Commissioners Association expressed their support for the bill.
Rep. Keith Kidwell (R-Beaufort), who voted to move the bill through the committee called the tax abatements on these projects 'corporate welfare,' arguing solar developers need to pay their fair share if they want to continue doing business in the state.
'We are subsidizing the solar and wind industry through these tax cuts,' he said. 'Now I'll hear the argument that we subsidize other businesses. Okay, let's stop that, too. Let's make everybody pay an equal amount of taxes, because that's what we're supposed to do under the Constitution.'
Joel Olsen, who runs an agrivoltaics facility in Montgomery County that Channel 9 visited earlier this month, spoke at the committee hearing, taking issue with the idea that he is not paying his fair share in taxes.
'When I bought the land, we paid $972 a year in property taxes,' he said. 'Once we completed the solar farm, we paid three years of back taxes. We paid 100% of the real property taxes, and we paid over $100,000 in personal property taxes.'
He said he built his solar project with agriculture in mind, with sheep grazing alongside the panels. Olsen said this bill and rhetoric pitting solar against farming doesn't take farms like his into account.
The bill was reported favorably with a clear voice vote majority and will move to the Energy Committee for further consideration.
This is a revised version of HB 729, original language in the bill would have also increased regulatory constraints by requiring the North Carolina Utilities Commission to refuse to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a utility-scale solar project if the project is to be sited on land currently being used for agricultural production and also required all solar facilities to submit a decommissioning plan to the state.
VIDEO: Agriculture Committee weighs N.C. bill to disincentivize solar on farmland
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD sparks concerns, legal questions
President Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that allows the companies to sell certain chips to China in exchange for giving the U.S. government a 15% cut of those sales. But the unprecedented agreement also has raised concerns from politicians and legal experts over whether the deal is legal and would pose a national security threat. Questions also linger about exactly how the deal, which was announced Monday, would work because the U.S. Constitution bars taxes on exports, although some experts said Trump could find a workaround. The U.S. government might receive $3 billion from the revenue split if China's demand for Nvidia's H20 chip — which is less powerful than the company's highest-end artificial intelligence chip — reaches $20 billion, according to a note from Bernstein Research. 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration that is quite rare,' said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy. Trump's agreement with the world's most valuable company could put pressure on other tech companies and major exporters to strike similar deals with the U.S. government, but it's still unclear what the implications will be internationally, she said. The deal is the latest example of how tech companies are seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration, which has threatened to impose tariffs on semiconductor companies that don't commit to investing in the United States. Apple faced potential tariffs as well, but committed to investing $100 billion more in U.S. manufacturing after Trump criticized the company for expanding iPhone production in India. Trump also placed restrictions in April around the export of certain AI chips, including Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308, over national security concerns. He's called for the resignation of Intel Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan, who has faced scrutiny over his reported investments in Chinese companies, but changed his tune after meeting the executive this week. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have criticized the idea that tech companies should split their sales with the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses that allow them to resume chip sales in China. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the Government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,' Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Select Committee on China, said in a statement. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, (D-Ill.), a ranking member of that committee, said in a statement that the deal raises questions about its legality and how the funds will be used. 'The administration cannot simultaneously treat semiconductor exports as both a national security threat and a revenue opportunity,' he said. 'By putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee.' The White House didn't answer questions about the agreement. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that 'the legality of it, the mechanics of it, is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce.' On Monday, Trump defended the deal with Nvidia, stating that the H20 chips are 'obsolete' and less powerful than the company's more high-end Blackwell chip. At a news conference, Trump said he met with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and initially asked for a 20% revenue split but they came down to 15%. 'We negotiate a little deal,' Trump said. 'So he's selling a essentially old chip.' Trump's remarks came after a report from the Financial Times over the weekend that Nvidia and AMD would pay 15% of their China chip revenue to the U.S. government. AMD didn't respond to a request for comment. An Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement that the company hasn't shipped H20 chips to China for months but it hopes that easing export restrictions will 'let America compete in China and worldwide.' 'America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' For Nvidia, the stakes are high. Huang said in a May interview with Stratechery, a newsletter and podcast, that the Chinese market is about $50 billion a year. Restricting H20 chip sales means that the company is walking away from profits that could be used to compete with China in the race to dominate AI. Taylar Rajic, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she's skeptical that legal concerns would halt the arrangement because it's unclear who would sue. 'I can't identify who would bring that suit forward,' she said. 'It wouldn't be Nvidia because they're the ones who negotiated this deal.' Meanwhile, Chinese officials have their own fears that Nvidia's chips could have location tracking or remote shutdown capabilities, though the company has denied those accusations. 'China obviously has its own concerns and its own national security considerations that it wants to take into account,' Rajic said. 'It just depends on whether or not they want to buy it from us too.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.
Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Can Trump Take Over Police in Other Cities Like He Did D.C.?
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday taking control of Washington, D.C.'s Police Department, part of a sweeping effort by his administration to crack down on crime. As 800 National Guard members and other federal law enforcement officers are fanning out across the nation's capital, Democratic leaders elsewhere are wondering if their cities could be next. That speculation was fueled in part by Trump's vow to intervene in other cities to fight crime, suggesting New York, Baltimore, Oakland as possible future targets. 'They're so far gone," he said. 'This will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C." But Trump's authority to take over local police forces and send troops to patrol streets beyond Washington, D.C. is severely limited by law, legal experts say, since most cities fall under state jurisdiction where governors control the National Guard and local law enforcement. The nation's capital is not a state, giving the President a rare ability to deploy the National Guard and assume control of its police during declared emergencies. In other cities, the President cannot unilaterally commandeer police departments or deploy federal troops for ordinary law enforcement without state approval or a declared federal emergency, says Meryl Chertoff, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law School. 'It was contemplated by the Founders that the states would retain a certain degree of autonomy and a certain degree of individuation,' Chertoff says. 'Generally, the justification for the federal government to get involved is because either there's a commerce issue or a foreign policy issue that is national in scope.' She adds, 'When the President basically says 'I govern all of it,' the Constitution requires that there be some justification for that. And this notion that everything becomes an emergency is often used as a way of bypassing what would ordinarily be state autonomy.' In Washington, D.C., Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allows the president to take control of the city's police during an emergency for up to 30 days. His declaration of the situation as a public safety emergency drew criticism from local officials, as violent crime in the city is at a 30-year-low. Attorney General Pam Bondi was named to oversee the Metropolitan Police Department, while 800 National Guard troops were deployed to patrol the streets. 'Other cities are hopefully watching this,' Trump said. 'They're all watching and maybe they'll self clean up and maybe they'll self do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem.' The law Trump invoked applies only to the District of Columbia because it lacks a governor to approve or deny the federal intervention. 'Washington, D.C. is in a unique position and is uniquely powerless vis-à-vis the federal government,' Chertoff says. In contrast, cities like New York, Baltimore, and Oakland are in states with elected governors who have legal authority over the National Guard and local police. Many of those leaders have pushed back strongly against Trump's threats to federalize their law enforcement. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who announced earlier this month that the city's violent crime rate is at its lowest in decades, responded on social media: 'This is the latest effort by the president to distract from the issues he should be focused on — including the roller coaster of the U.S. economy thanks to his policies,' Scott wrote. 'When it comes to public safety in Baltimore, he should turn off the right-wing propaganda and look at the facts. Baltimore is the safest it's been in over 50 years. Homicides are down 28% this year alone, reaching the lowest level of any year on record.' Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker directly challenged Trump's authority on X, writing, 'Let's not lie to the public, you and I both know you have no authority to take over Chicago,' after the president blamed him for crime in the city. While Trump can't take over the police in other cities, he can deploy the military domestically under certain circumstances. Earlier this year, nearly 5,000 National Guard members and active-duty Marines were sent to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests and protect federal agents, bypassing the state's governor. In his first term, Trump sent federal agents and troops to patrol streets in cities like Portland in response to racial justice protests. In those situations, National Guard troops had specific mandates, and were not supposed to be involved in everyday policing. Legal experts argue that such deployments run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Laura Dickinson, a professor at George Washington Law School, noted that while the president has broad authority to call up the National Guard in D.C., it is highly unusual—and legally fraught—to deploy military forces for routine crime control in cities without a clear federal emergency. 'Democracies around the world and in our country, historically, don't use the military to do law enforcement on a regular basis,' Dickinson says, noting that the National Guard and Marines are not trained for every policing situation. 'It's risky and harmful and impractical for all sorts of reasons.' A legal challenge over Trump's declaration could soon be underway in D.C. Brian Schwalb, the city's Attorney General, called the order 'unlawful' but has not committed to filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. Any litigation would likely take longer than 30 days, the maximum period Trump can retain those emergency powers without Congressional approval. In California, courts are currently reviewing the legality of Trump's order of federal troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer. Beyond direct intervention, Chertoff warns that the Trump Administration could leverage federal funding as a tool to pressure states and cities to comply with its law enforcement priorities 'There is so much federal money going into states,' she says, 'and what the President has done is say, if you don't cooperate with me on, let's say, sanctuary city policies or immigration enforcement, I am going to withhold money that goes into your programs.' This financial leverage, she says, is 'doing indirectly what he cannot under the 10th Amendment, which provides states with a degree of autonomy.'
