Wednesday, May 13, 2026
  1. HB 82: Report Card Changes for the 2021–22 School Year
  2. Analysis of November 2025 School Levy Results
  3. Analysis of Ohio Residential Property Taxes: A Balanced Approach to Reform
  4. Ohio Economically Disadvantaged Cost Study
  5. OEPI Analysis of Property Tax Provisions in the FY26–27 State Budget
  6. Revenue Generated by Emergency & Substitute Levies
  7. Impact of the Proposed Elimination of Inside Millage
  8. OEPI Analysis of the Impact of Eliminating Inside Millage
  9. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony on HB 96 (Senate Education Committee)
  10. Ohio Property Tax Trends (1975-2023)
  11. State Share of Base Cost Funding FY99-FY19
  12. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony on HB 96 (House Education Committee)
  13. Factors Behind the Transitional Aid Guarantee
  14. OEPI Analysis of Administrator Data
  15. OEPI Initial Analysis of Executive Budget K-12 Funding Proposal
  16. OEPI Analysis of Cupp Report Administrator Data
  17. OEPI Analysis of K-12 Budget Proposal
  18. OEPI Review of Ohio School Finance Study
  19. November 2024 School Levies Overview
  20. OEPI’s Ohio Special Ed Cost Analysis
  21. Ohio Property Tax Reappraisal Trends
  22. FY24 vs FY25 State Foundation Funding Comparison
  23. 2003-2023 Ohio Property Tax Reappraisal Analysis
  24. FY24 vs. FY25 School Funding Comparison
  25. Testimony on Property Tax Review and Reform
  26. Ohio School Funding Summary from FY11-FY24
  27. Dr. Fleeter on 10WBSN’s Report on Ohio Sports Gaming Revenue
  28. Dr. Fleeter’s Summary of Replacement Levy Utilization by Ohio School Districts (2014–2023)
  29. Ohio Property Tax Trends (1975–2022)
  30. OEPI HB 920: Updated Explanation
  31. Ohio School Voucher Overview
  32. Overview of Senate FY24–25 State Budget
  33. Constructing an Adequate School Funding Formula
  34. Summary of LSC HB 1 Fiscal Note
  35. House Bill 1 Summary & Analysis
  36. OEPI Economically Disadvantaged Student Cost Study
  37. Ohio Gifted Education Incentives Study
  38. Ohio Educational Service Center Cost Study
  39. Ohio English Learner Cost Study
  40. Ohio Gifted Funding Accountability Study
  41. Ohio Special Ed Cost Study
  42. New vs. Renewal Operating Levies (1994-2022)
  43. FY22 Report Card Analysis
  44. Overview of November 2022 Ohio School Levies
  45. Solar Energy Property Taxes vs. PILOT for Energy Projects (PPT)
  46. Solar Power Installation Property Taxes vs. PILOT Comparison
  47. CAUV Formula Change Analysis
  48. 2003-2022 Levies by Election
  49. New vs. Renewal and Replacement Operating Levies (1984-2022)
  50. School Operating Levies (1976-2022)
  51. School Operating & Capital Levy Totals, By Year (1984-2022)
  52. Changes in Ohio School Funding & TPP Replacement (FY11–FY22)
  53. Overview of May 2022 Ohio School Levies on the Ballot
  54. Overview of the Ohio Senate’s FY22-23 School Funding Formula
  55. The Central Importance of the DeRolph Rulings to School Funding in Ohio
  56. HB 82 Report Card System Changes
  57. Ohio Income Tax Changes and Equity (1972–2021)
  58. HB 110 EdChoice Voucher Program Changes
  59. HB 110 School Funding Formula Changes
  60. Ohio School Funding Trends (FY11–FY21)
  61. Ohio FY20 GRF Tax Revenue: COVID Impact & Recovery
  62. Ohio Solar Energy & Impact on School District Revenues
  63. House & Senate Bills Seek to Revise Ohio’s School Report Card
  64. OEPI Testimony on HB 110 School Funding
  65. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony to the Senate Primary and Secondary Education Committee on HB 110.
  66. Updated: COVID-19 Impact on Ohio GRF Revenues (FY20 & FY21)
  67. 2020 Ohio School Levy Summary & Analysis
  68. HB 305 School Funding Plan Overview
  69. EdChoice Voucher Program Update
  70. OEPI President Message on OEPI’s Value
  71. OEPI Property Trends Report (1975-2015)
  72. Update: Appeal of Natural Gas Pipeline Values
  73. Update on Ohio’s Controversial Territory Transfer Law
  74. COVID-19 Impact on Ohio GRF Revenues (FY20 & FY21)
  75. Supplemental Funding for Power Plant Districts
  76. OEPI Officers Update
  77. Appeal of Natural Gas Pipeline Values
  78. Ohio’s Controversial Territory Transfer Law
  79. 2019 Ohio School Levy Summary & Analysis
  80. Analysis of the Cupp-Patterson School Funding Proposal (HB 305)
  81. OEPI Press Release on 20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph
  82. 20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph
  83. OEPI Analysis of Ed Trust “2018 Funding Gaps” Report
  84. OEPI Research Update: GRF Revenues, School Funding, and District Trends (2017)
  85. House Finance Primary and Secondary Ed Subcommittee House Bill 49 Testimony
  86. Analysis of HB 398 & SB 246 Changes to Ohio’s CAUV Formula
  87. OEPI Research Update: GRF Revenues, Funding Formula Issues & School Levies (2016)
  88. Community School Funding & Ohio Education Finance Trends
  89. CS Deduction and the Gain Cap
  90. Open Enrollment
  91. FY16-17 GRF Tax Revenues
  92. Casino & VLT Revenues
  93. OEPI Value Added Newsletter Article
  94. Senate Bill 208 Modifications to TPP Replacement Payments
  95. 2015 School Levy Update
  96. FY 16-17 Guarantee & Gain Cap
  97. Preliminary FY 15 Ohio Test Score Analysis
  98. Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) Revenue Update
  99. FY16-17 Phase-Out of TPP Replacement Payments
  100. FY16-17 School Funding Components
  101. Casino Tax Revenue Update
  102. Budget Bill Changes Election Law
  103. Transitional Aid Guarantee Analysis
  104. School Funding Comparison & Analysis: FY15 vs. FY17 Plans
  105. Recent Changes in Ohio Property Valuations
  106. State/Local Share of Funding in FY14-15 as Proposed by the Governor and House for FY16-17

With more frequency, communities are being asked to consider the option of installing a solar power facility. The decision to move forward with a solar power facility requires the evaluation of many factors. This article provides a brief overview of how the property tax vs payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) options for a solar power installation project compare. The information is presented in a bullet point format for ease of use in discussions with your communities.

 

Property Taxes

  • Solar power installations are classified as Public Utility Tangible Personal Property (PUTPP). PUTPP valuation is set by the Ohio Department of Taxation (ODT) not by the county auditor (as is the case with residential, agricultural and business real property).
  • PUTPP equipment such as that involved in solar installations is broken into 3 categories:
  1. Electricity production equipment (30-year depreciation);
  2. Electricity transmission and distribution equipment (30-year depreciation); and
  3. General business equipment (15-year depreciation).
  • The initial PUTPP valuation is generally based on the construction cost of the project and this value is then reduced for depreciation for up to 30 years.

 

Property that depreciates over 30 years has its value reduced by about 3.3% annually for 20 years and then by about 1.7% for 10 years.

 

Property that depreciates over 15 years has its value reduced by about 6.7% annually for 9 years and by a lesser amount for 6 years.

  • Ohio does not allow PUTPP property to depreciate below 15% of the initial valuation.
  • Depreciation means that solar property tax payments will decline over time until they level off after 30 years when depreciation hits the 15% minimum level (assuming a constant tax rate).
  • PUTPP taxpayers are allowed to appeal the valuation set by the ODT. The first appeal is to the state Tax Commissioner. If that is unsuccessful, the taxpayer can then appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals. If that is unsuccessful, the taxpayer can file a legal challenge which can go all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court.
  • Ohio’s recent history indicates that it is not uncommon for valuations of power generation facilities to be challenged after the property has been sold or when market circumstances change (for example coal-fired power plants). Thus, a change in the price of solar panels could conceivably impact the cost of a project and hence its taxable value.
  • If a facility is shut down its taxable value is typically reduced to $0. In this case both PUTPP tax payments and PILOT payments would be $0.
  • Ohio’s school funding formula functions so that if a school district gets poorer over time it will get more state aid and if school district gets wealthier over time it will get less state aid.
  • If the PILOT payment option is not taken, then the annual taxable public utility property value of the Solar installation within the district’s boundaries will be included in the school district’s wealth calculation. This will typically mean that the school district will get less state aid because it is now wealthier in the eyes of the state aid formula.
  • If a school district is on the transitional aid guarantee, then the increase in property valuation if no PILOT is granted will push it further onto the guarantee (meaning it will take the district longer to get back “on the formula”).

 

Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOTs)

  • Senate Bill (SB) 232 (2010) allows for renewable energy projects (such as solar projects) to be designated as “qualified energy projects” (QEPs).
  • If a project is designated as a QEP, then the project owner can make Payments in Lieu of Taxes (commonly referred to as “PILOT” payments) instead of paying property taxes based on the valuation of the project equipment’s PUTPP and the value of the land on which it sits.
  • SB 232 calls for an annual PILOT payment of $7,000 per MW to be split across all government taxing authorities where the project is located, with the option for an additional $2,000 per MW annual payment which would go entirely to the county where the project is located.
  • County Commissioners in the county where the project is located must vote to approve the PILOT payment by designating the project as a QEP.
  • Unlike PUTPP property taxes which will decline over time, PILOT payments are a constant amount every year for the life of the project so long as the “nameplate” generation capability (in MW) of the solar facility remains the same. As such, PILOT payment amounts are more certain over time than are property taxes because they are not subject to challenges by utility owners in the same way that PUTPP valuations (and hence taxes) can be.
  • Another critically important difference is that if the PILOT is granted the Solar property valuation is not included in the district’s wealth and its state aid is not reduced.

 

Property Taxes vs PILOT Payment Comparison Over Time

The graph shows year-by-year property taxes vs PILOT payments for a hypothetical example where the total value of taxes and PILOT payments over the 35-year time frame are approximately equal. In this example, property tax payments are higher for the first 16 years while PILOT payments are higher for the remaining 19 years of the hypothetical 35-year project timeframe.

Conclusions

Based on the discussion above, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  1. Total PUTPP taxes can be higher or lower than total PILOT payments over the life of a Solar project depending on local tax rates.
  2. PUTPP taxes start out at a high level in year one and then decline over time due to depreciation. Depreciation stops in year 30.
  3. PILOT payments remain the same each year.
  4. Because PUTPP taxes start out high and then decrease over time, PUTPP taxes will typically be higher than the annual PILOT amount for the first 15-18 years of a project’s life and lower than the annual PILOT amount for the remaining years.
  5. Solar utility owners have the right to challenge the assessed value of a project’s PUTPP equipment set by the Ohio Department of Taxation. This can mean that property taxes owed can change over time from pre-project estimates.
  6. PILOT amounts are set in statute and are not subject to the same type of challenges as are property tax values. In this regard, PILOT amounts are more stable and predictable over time than are PUTPP taxes.
  7. PILOT payments do not impact the state foundation aid formula.
  8. However, if a PILOT is not approved the assessed PUTPP value of the Solar installation will be included in a school district’s property valuation and the district will appear wealthier when state aid is computed. This will typically result in a district either experiencing a reduction in state aid and/or becoming subject to the guarantee.
Tags:

Related Article