So, I own over 400 acres in central Texas that is currently leased out for cattle grazing. In mid-July, I received an unsolicited letter from someone wanting to lease some of the acreage for a solar farm. Didn't think too much of it, but within 3 weeks after that, I received 2 more unsolicited letters inquiring about the same thing - so, 3 letters from 3 different companies. They're all wanting to do long-term (30 year) leases.

Does anyone on this board have any experience with solar farms and can you tell me about some of the issues and pitfalls one needs to be wary of?

Thanks.

There is a recent thread somewhere here...mostly negative towards leasing your land.

Edit for link:

https://texags.com/forums/34/topics/3388629/1

I won't begrudge anyone for getting life-changing money. But, if you want any kind of civil relationship with your neighbors and community, putting in a solar farm will ruin it.

Live in an area right now where one is going in. The uproar from the locals is huge. No taxing entity would give the company an abatement. Vicious.

Probably best advice I could give is fine a law firm with a lot of experience. These companies know what they are doing and have the staff lawyers to write contracts totally in favor of them.

Protect yourself. Spend the money on a very good law firm to help you navigate this thing.

I don't trust any solar or wind companies. They care nothing about your community or its future. They only care about profits. They are companies so nothing wrong with that. But they aren't in it for the people or the communities they invade, divide and conquer. Their goal is to give as little as possible to gain complete and total control of they land they want and/or need, not to benefit anyone they are leasing from or any taxing entity they fall within.

It won't be your last letter...

I've got a 60 acre tract in Leon County... I'm up to 3 unsolicited contacts.

Commented on the other solar farm threads but have been doing more research so I'll add to it.
Several solar farms are currently under construction near my ranch in SE Tx. Both solar projects actually purchased the land after years of studies and applying for local school and county property tax abatements. And getting the long term tax abatements.
Another nearby farm is under a lease contract where the current owners would do a 30 year lease to the solar farm if they decide to move forward.

Hopefully someone in the industry will tell us more, but I understand the big draw for these solar companies is the 30 percent solar federal investment tax credit. Have heard they get this tax credit that can then be sold for cash to an unrelated company needing a credit. The solar project is a break even business at best but it's the tax credit they are after. So a nearby 300 million solar farm will get a 90 million tax credit that can then be sold for a high percentage of the 90 million. Start up company owners and executives can possibly pull the cash and leave a big mess in bankruptcy on someone else's property.

Your talking about tax equity. banks buy a stake into the deal for the tax equity. the company uses the funds to support the investment decision.

WaldoWings said:

---

I don't trust any solar or wind companies. They care nothing about your community or its future. They only care about profits. They are companies so nothing wrong with that. But they aren't in it for the people or the communities they invade, divide and conquer. Their goal is to give as little as possible to gain complete and total control of they land they want and/or need, not to benefit anyone they are leasing from or any taxing entity they fall within.

---

To add to your excellent list, these companies really have no risk as the industry is heavily subsidized by Big Brother. Businesses take enormous risk with investment, labor, borrowing, etc., with no guarantee of success. These companies rely on gov't.

We get them weekly.

Sell it or keep it. But DONT lease it.

What are the lease terms typically offered?

A neighbor was recently offered 700 per acre per year for a 30 year lease. Not sure if there is a time escalator or inflation adjustment in the contract. Makes little sense to lease to me as his property is conservatively worth 10,000 per acre. So if he sold instead of leasing could get long term cds today at 5.5 percent or $550 per acre in annual interest payments with the cash from the sale sitting in his account.

One of the solicitors mentioned adding a BESS (Battery Energy Storage System (?)) whereby during evening hours, the power generated and charged to the BESS is discharged to the transmission lines. FWIW, I think it was a system from Tesla. Anybody heard of these solar farms including a BESS?

Quote:

---

…whereby during evening hours, the power generated and charged to the BESS is discharged to the transmission lines.

---

I should think the discharge is more likely to occur during the peak demand hours midday…?

hillcountryag86 said:

---

WaldoWings said:

---

I don't trust any solar or wind companies. They care nothing about your community or its future. They only care about profits. They are companies so nothing wrong with that. But they aren't in it for the people or the communities they invade, divide and conquer. Their goal is to give as little as possible to gain complete and total control of they land they want and/or need, not to benefit anyone they are leasing from or any taxing entity they fall within.

---

To add to your excellent list, these companies really have no risk as the industry is heavily subsidized by Big Brother. Businesses take enormous risk with investment, labor, borrowing, etc., with no guarantee of success. These companies rely on gov't.

---

Geez, tough crowd

tlh3842 said:

---

hillcountryag86 said:

---

WaldoWings said:

---

I don't trust any solar or wind companies. They care nothing about your community or its future. They only care about profits. They are companies so nothing wrong with that. But they aren't in it for the people or the communities they invade, divide and conquer. Their goal is to give as little as possible to gain complete and total control of they land they want and/or need, not to benefit anyone they are leasing from or any taxing entity they fall within.

---

To add to your excellent list, these companies really have no risk as the industry is heavily subsidized by Big Brother. Businesses take enormous risk with investment, labor, borrowing, etc., with no guarantee of success. These companies rely on gov't.

---

Geez, tough crowd

---

Tell us where we're wrong.

The sponsor company puts in their own equity and/or has back leverage so they are taking risk as these facilities are not 100% financed by tax equity.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

…whereby during evening hours, the power generated and charged to the BESS is discharged to the transmission lines.

---

I should think the discharge is more likely to occur during the peak demand hours midday…?

---

mid day peak (supply/demand wise or energy value wise) is soooo two years ago. The new peak is in the evening as the sun goes down as solar quits putting out.

Mas89 said:

---

A neighbor was recently offered 700 per acre per year for a 30 year lease. Not sure if there is a time escalator or inflation adjustment in the contract. Makes little sense to lease to me as his property is conservatively worth 10,000 per acre. So if he sold instead of leasing could get long term cds today at 5.5 percent or $550 per acre in annual interest payments with the cash from the sale sitting in his account.

---

You make a good point. And, unless the lease provides that the solar leasing company is on the hook (and can back it up) for all the property taxes for the next 30 years, he'd be paying probably 2% of that $10,000/acre ($200) out of his $700/acre collected, netting him only $500/acre.

But, surely the lease would provide for payment of all property taxes by the solar company, right? Or is that a 'gotcha' that an unsuspecting landowner might overlook?

Ribeye-Rare said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

A neighbor was recently offered 700 per acre per year for a 30 year lease. Not sure if there is a time escalator or inflation adjustment in the contract. Makes little sense to lease to me as his property is conservatively worth 10,000 per acre. So if he sold instead of leasing could get long term cds today at 5.5 percent or $550 per acre in annual interest payments with the cash from the sale sitting in his account.

---

You make a good point. And, unless the lease provides that the solar leasing company is on the hook (and can back it up) for all the property taxes for the next 30 years, he'd be paying probably 2% of that $10,000/acre ($200) out of his $700/acre collected, netting him only $500/acre.

But, surely the lease would provide for payment of all property taxes by the solar company, right? Or is that a 'gotcha' that an unsuspecting landowner might overlook?

---

The first offer I passed up on was 800 per acre with an annual 3% increase for the 30 year primary term with a 10 year extension at the owners option.

They would pay all property taxes including the rollback as the property comes out of Ag.

I declined for other reasons.

Ribeye-Rare said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

A neighbor was recently offered 700 per acre per year for a 30 year lease. Not sure if there is a time escalator or inflation adjustment in the contract. Makes little sense to lease to me as his property is conservatively worth 10,000 per acre. So if he sold instead of leasing could get long term cds today at 5.5 percent or $550 per acre in annual interest payments with the cash from the sale sitting in his account.

---

You make a good point. And, unless the lease provides that the solar leasing company is on the hook (and can back it up) for all the property taxes for the next 30 years, he'd be paying probably 2% of that $10,000/acre ($200) out of his $700/acre collected, netting him only $500/acre.

But, surely the lease would provide for payment of all property taxes by the solar company, right? Or is that a 'gotcha' that an unsuspecting landowner might overlook?

---

I was really hoping our Aggie expert RME would answer on the other thread some of the tax implications. Hopefully he will return to the discussion.

The numbers we are discussing above are for the LAND only. Not including the solar farm infrastructure built out. A google search shows a cost to build as 1 million per megawatt so the 100 MW project near us could cost 100 million to build I assume on the 500 acres. Not sure how much of that would be construction cost and how much would be permanently on the tax roll as an improvement.

But using 50 percent of construction cost as improvement or structure value, the 50 million on 500 acres would be $ 100,000 per acre and with a 2 percent annual rural tax rate would pay $2,000 per acre in property taxes for the improvements alone. Not including the land value. So it's good to see why these companies are all wanting tax abatements from our local rural school districts and counties. Using our speculative numbers above, the 500 acre project would pay 1.1 million per year in local property taxes assuming 110,000 value per acre and a 2 percent tax rate when including the land value.

To answer your question, the Lease better specify that the solar company pays all property taxes as the LAND OWNER is responsible for all taxes, including improvements. And guess who is responsible if the solar company goes bankrupt leaving all the improvements on the land…

hillcountryag86 said:

---

I won't begrudge anyone for getting life-changing money. But, if you want any kind of civil relationship with your neighbors and community, putting in a solar farm will ruin it.

Live in an area right now where one is going in. The uproar from the locals is huge. No taxing entity would give the company an abatement. Vicious.

Probably best advice I could give is fine a law firm with a lot of experience. These companies know what they are doing and have the staff lawyers to write contracts totally in favor of them.

Protect yourself. Spend the money on a very good law firm to help you navigate this thing.

---

What am I missing here? Why would anyone care if a solar farm was installed on someone else's land?

The Kraken said:

---

hillcountryag86 said:

---

I won't begrudge anyone for getting life-changing money. But, if you want any kind of civil relationship with your neighbors and community, putting in a solar farm will ruin it.

Live in an area right now where one is going in. The uproar from the locals is huge. No taxing entity would give the company an abatement. Vicious.

Probably best advice I could give is fine a law firm with a lot of experience. These companies know what they are doing and have the staff lawyers to write contracts totally in favor of them.

Protect yourself. Spend the money on a very good law firm to help you navigate this thing.

---

What am I missing here? Why would anyone care if a solar farm was installed on someone else's land?

---

Who wants to live next to a solar farm? Surrounding land values will be diminished. In our instance, in the Hill Country, people buy and build for the views. Instead of looking out over the hills, they see an endless mass of panels.

The Kraken said:

---

hillcountryag86 said:

---

I won't begrudge anyone for getting life-changing money. But, if you want any kind of civil relationship with your neighbors and community, putting in a solar farm will ruin it.

Live in an area right now where one is going in. The uproar from the locals is huge. No taxing entity would give the company an abatement. Vicious.

Probably best advice I could give is fine a law firm with a lot of experience. These companies know what they are doing and have the staff lawyers to write contracts totally in favor of them.

Protect yourself. Spend the money on a very good law firm to help you navigate this thing.

---

What am I missing here? Why would anyone care if a solar farm was installed on someone else's land?

---

Have you been around these solar farms at all?

The land is essentially useless once the panels get installed. Hell, before that really because of the electrical infrastructure that is required to transmit the panel generated electricity to either the battery banks or to the grid. But beyond that, solar fams render land useless for anything once they are up and running - the operator sprays periodically for weeds, and given what I've seen of how they are maintained most of the time (some exceptions, always are), not a lot of care done on the spraying aspect.

You also have erosion issues because of the lack of any vegetation growth over much of the land, so when it's raining and wet, you get silting and when it's dry you get all kinds of dust issues....which both also are really good at spreading seeds and pollen for the weeds that grow.

Damage to panels is common, and they aren't Johnny on the spot on repairs.

I don't know for sure, but am guessing, that heat generation is also an issue with the panes. After all, they are dark and designed to absorb sunlight....and you can't do that without generating radiating heat.

Battery banks take up land, i'm betting there are noise issues associated with them as well. If you've ever been around large transformers...they aren't quiet. All of the ones around my area also have small co-gens within a short distance, so you get to deal with a power generation cogen next door. Plus the additional transmission infrastructure that is required to get them connected to the grid.

And once these are installed - as shown above, you are looking at permanent fixtures for a minimum of 30 years, sometimes as much as 40 years. They are there for essentially life, for all practical purposes.

Complain about wind and pipelines all you want....but they don't completely take the land like solar does.

Schmellba do the ones you have been around put off any glare? Of the multiple new ones being proposed in our area, one is on both sides of a major highway. Seems like any glare could cause accidents potentially.

Mas89 said:

---

Schmellba do the ones you have been around put off any glare? Of the multiple new ones being proposed in our area, one is on both sides of a major highway. Seems like any glare could cause accidents potentially.

---

Honestly, I don't think glare is a huge issue. Glare seems like it would be counter productive to me as far as using sunlight to generate electricity. Glare = reflected sunlight, which is inefficient to something already inefficient to begin with.

A handful of people in my neighborhood have had them installed on their roofs or yards and I've never noticed anything out of the ordinary glare wise.

hillcountryag86 said:

---

tlh3842 said:

---

hillcountryag86 said:

---

WaldoWings said:

---

I don't trust any solar or wind companies. They care nothing about your community or its future. They only care about profits. They are companies so nothing wrong with that. But they aren't in it for the people or the communities they invade, divide and conquer. Their goal is to give as little as possible to gain complete and total control of they land they want and/or need, not to benefit anyone they are leasing from or any taxing entity they fall within.

---

To add to your excellent list, these companies really have no risk as the industry is heavily subsidized by Big Brother. Businesses take enormous risk with investment, labor, borrowing, etc., with no guarantee of success. These companies rely on gov't.

---

Geez, tough crowd

---

Tell us where we're wrong.

---

I think I see where you're wrong:

To add to your excellent list, these companies really have no risk as the industry is heavily subsidized by Big Brother. Businesses take enormous risk with investment, labor, borrowing, etc., with no guarantee of success. These companies rely on gov't.

I'll try to stay away from the oil company and farming comparisons....

rme said:

---

hillcountryag86 said:

---

tlh3842 said:

---

hillcountryag86 said:

---

WaldoWings said:

---

I don't trust any solar or wind companies. They care nothing about your community or its future. They only care about profits. They are companies so nothing wrong with that. But they aren't in it for the people or the communities they invade, divide and conquer. Their goal is to give as little as possible to gain complete and total control of they land they want and/or need, not to benefit anyone they are leasing from or any taxing entity they fall within.

---

To add to your excellent list, these companies really have no risk as the industry is heavily subsidized by Big Brother. Businesses take enormous risk with investment, labor, borrowing, etc., with no guarantee of success. These companies rely on gov't.

---

Geez, tough crowd

---

Tell us where we're wrong.

---

I think I see where you're wrong:

To add to your excellent list, these companies really have no risk as the industry is heavily subsidized by Big Brother. Businesses take enormous risk with investment, labor, borrowing, etc., with no guarantee of success. These companies rely on gov't.

I'll try to stay away from the oil company and farming comparisons....

---

Nice you made assumptions that I don't think others are not heavily subsidized.

But back to the topic of solar. Those companies absolutely do not have anywhere near the risk that the majority of businesses carry. You are wrong if you think the government doesn't make it easy for solar.

No way anyone would get in the solar business unless taxpayers are right there to make sure they don't fail.

There is a solar farm being built not far from where I live. This area is notorious for bad hailstorms every couple of years. I doubt those fools ever stopped to think about that. Our tax dollars will be used to repair all of those solar panels being built in a year or two when the next bad storm comes through.

Good old solar power.

Rape the land. Destroy the wildlife habitat. Remove the green leafy biomass, and replace it with steel, glass, and concrete…

All in the name of muh environment.

A man melts the sand so he can see the world outside…

Anyone who opposes leasing for solar power doesnt have much farm land that generally doesnt produce much income

I believe the BESS systems are intended to extend the solar impact on the grid into the evening hours (ie change the shape of their output curve so that the electrical generation of the panels is spread over a longer time frame and not concentrate as much at mid-day).

They're playing with supply / demand curves and electricity rates. In some locations, the grid may pay more for the electrical output during the late evening hours than peak panel output / mid-day hours which justifies the capital investment in the BESS.

2040huck said:

---

Anyone who opposes leasing for solar power doesnt have much farm land that generally doesnt produce much income

---

Ignorant, misinformed comment.

Clearly have not read every post on this thread with logical reasons against. And comments are coming from those going thru the solar farm issue.

Nobody, but nobody on here has chastised anyone for taking big money. But there are many, many reasons to not only oppose the farms, but also disdain the companies and our government.

2040huck said:

---

Anyone who opposes leasing for solar power doesnt have much farm land that generally doesnt produce much income

---

Some places that has rapidly changed. What do you think pays better? A solar farm lease OR the land with a new subdivision and five homes per acre on the previous ranch land?
And guess which scenario pays more in local property taxes.

ETA if you tie up your land for 30 plus years, you or your heirs might miss out on who knows what because of the solar fields.

hillcountryag86 said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Anyone who opposes leasing for solar power doesnt have much farm land that generally doesnt produce much income

---

Ignorant, misinformed comment.

Clearly have not read every post on this thread with logical reasons against. And comments are coming from those going thru the solar farm issue.

Nobody, but nobody on here has chastised anyone for taking big money. But there are many, many reasons to not only oppose the farms, but also disdain the companies and our government.

---

No argument with this. Some companies deserve the contempt, many are excellent partners for landowners and communities. The government is, unfortunately, the government.