Rendering of the Green River Energy Center, one of the country’s largest solar and storage projects. (Courtesy of rPlus Energies)
Tensions between Republican lawmakers and solar energy developers came into the public eye when a House committee debated a bill that expanded the funding mechanisms for the state’s Species Protection Account on Thursday.
While most agreed that the intentions of HB378 were noble, as it would broaden conservation efforts for Utah’s endangered wildlife, the fact that it would impose a substantial tax on privately-owned solar and wind generation facilities woke concerns in the clean energy industry. Especially because the levy would apply for both new and ongoing projects.
House Majority Assistant Whip Casey Snider, R-Paradise, who sponsored the bill, anticipated during his presentation that there would be pushback from people working in the renewable energy sphere, but stood firm on his proposal.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
“The reality is wind, and in particular solar in this state, has very large and natural impacts to a landscape,” Snider said. “Now there is this carbon neutral discussion that occurs, and that’s probably what will be discussed at some point here. But they do not pay to mitigate their impacts like oil and gas does. They do not pay to mitigate their impacts like mining does.”
Starting on Jan. 1, 2026, a new annual tax would be placed on wind and solar facilities, which would be calculated by multiplying the megawatts, or portion of megawatts of capacity, by $2,100, according to the bill text.
The House Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee voted 10-1 to recommend the bill to the House floor in its current form.
“We’re trying to raise a nominal amount between $5 (million) and $10 million in aggregate, year over year, to help protect these critical species,” Snider said. “And while most of the players on this bill have come to the table, there’s still probably some contention with solar in particular. I think that’s unfortunate, but hopefully we can find a way through this.”
Snider patterned the bill after what Wyoming does in order to generate enough funds to make a difference, Snider said. Currently, the only other deposits in the account are brine shrimp royalties. Oil, gas and other energy entities don’t pay the tax for this specific account, but they pay mitigation dollars, he added. Meanwhile, solar and wind operators “are not assisting in the way that some of these other industries are.”
Low margins for renewables
Members of large solar energy companies, the Utah Association of Counties and the Utah Taxpayers Association said they had concerns about the effects of the legislation, arguing that it could disincentivize clean energy projects and big economic opportunities for rural communities.
One of them was Theresa Foxley, chief of staff at rPlus Energies, the developer of the Green River Energy Center, an Emery County solar energy project — poised to be one of the largest in the country.
New Utah solar energy park, one of the largest in the U.S., could power 88,000 homes
While Foxley said the company has been involved in conversations with Snider on the bill, the concern over “imposing new taxes on contracted, under construction, and operational solar and wind projects in the state” lingered.
“Changes like those proposed in HB378, can severely strain the economics of an existing project and send a negative message to developers in the financial institutions that provide capital for these projects,” Foxley said. “Utah has a sterling brand as a safe and stable investment destination, and this legislation does threaten to tarnish that brand.”
Since the Green River Energy Center has the capacity of producing 400 megawatts of solar energy and 400 megawatt four-hour battery power, the center would have to pay an additional $1.2 million a year to operate in Utah “on a project that’s already under construction and that was underwritten to a specific set of laws.”
Two members of the Species Protection Account Advisory Committee, who also represent the Utah Mining Association and the Utah Petroleum Association, spoke in favor of the bill.
One of them was Brian Somers, president of the mining association, who defended the fund arguing that the committee works in extensive plans to ensure that the endangered species list becomes smaller through mitigation efforts.
An endangered species listing can be very problematic for mining operations, Somer said. “And ensuring that we don’t have unnecessary listings is incredibly critical to ensure that these industries that in most rural counties, where they have extensive extractive industries, are the largest private employers and by far provide the highest wages of any industries in these rural counties, is critically important.”
‘The irony’
Most members of the committee defended Snider’s intentions, saying that he had a precedent of working with those affected by his bills to reach an agreement.
“We’ve heard from the solar groups how they’ve dumped millions and millions of dollars back into the local communities and jobs,” Rep. David Shallenberger, R-Orem, said. “What we haven’t heard is helping be stewards of the land and helping look after some of these other aspects, like the wildlife.”
After the debate, Snider seemed to grow more frustrated with the lack of consensus between the Legislature and the clean energy groups that opposed his bill, which he called “the irony of ironies.”
“Green energy, just so the committee and the public is aware, is fighting a bill to improve conservation in this state,” Snider said.
He added that he tried to work something out before the legislation was heard by the committee, but with little success.
“When I approached solar about finding a way to pay for this that keeps them whole, their first response to me was, ‘yeah, we’ll give you $25,000 per project,’” he said. “Go to Washakie, go to Promontory, go to Emory County, go to Carbon County and tell me that $25,000 is a worthy impact fee for what you have done to that landscape.”
Snider said he’s optimistic about finding a way forward with the issue. But, ultimately, he wanted his colleagues to know — “Solar is not paying its fair share. They are free-riding off of every industry in this state. They contribute nothing to conservation, and I think it’s about time that they step up like every other industry has done.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.