On Nov. 8, Riverside County’s board of supervisors unanimously voted for a $450 per acre annual fee on utility-scale solar projects like the Blythe and Ivanpah solar plants. That’s less than the $640 per acre annual fee the county wanted to impose, but far more than the $140 per acre fee that solar developers said they could support.

For a 4,000-acre project like Ivanpah’s first phase, that’s $1.8 million a year. If the $640-per-acre fee was imposed, it would amount to $2.6 million annually.

Riverside County is a hotbed for solar development, and the fees will help boost revenue for the county in lieu of property tax breaks the projects are granted by California.

County Supervisor John Benoit said he doesn't want to see projects happen without benefitting local residents, The Press Enterprise reported.

Under the fees approved on Nov. 8, however, solar projects can qualify for incentives, like hiring people in the county after the projects are completed, that will reduce the fee as low as $225 per acre, the newspaper said.

Solar industry advocates opposed the level of the fees and commissioned a study to show the impact they would have on the projects and the county.

“I think the magnitude of the fees they’re talking about reveals the lack of the county's understanding of the dynamics of the industry,” said Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies Executive Director John White prior to the council’s decision. “There is a feeling there is a land rush they could get in on. But it could be very short-lived if they overplay their hand. I think the county has misjudged their leverage and there’s some danger that this could lead to a breakdown.”

White and others had thought the county would delay a vote on the fee. His group co-commissioned a study to evaluate the impact of the fee.

“We have an independent analyst that we hope can bring some facts and analysis to the moment,” he said. However, the study isn’t expected before early 2012.

The imposition of the fees ignores the other positive impacts the projects have for the county, according to White. There are significant economic and fiscal benefits to the county through the projects, he said.

However, White attributed some of the failure to the solar developers.

“Some of this is that the industry’s done a bad job of communicating,” White said.

This could be a warning signal for the solar industry to spend more time educating local governments about their projects.

“The solar industry must pay attention and see how it went awry and how they could improve their relationships,” White said.