New York Assembly Bill A06198

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/25
• Refer: 2/27/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides for a tax abatement for electric energy storage equipment placed in service after January 1, 2027 and before January 1, 2029.

Summary

A06198 amends New York’s real property tax law to expand an existing tax abatement framework for solar electric generating systems and energy storage systems. The bill adds a new provision specifically for electric energy storage equipment placed in service on or after January 1, 2027 and before January 1, 2029, allowing owners to claim an annual tax abatement during the compliance period. Under the new provision, the abatement would equal the lesser of 10 percent of eligible electric energy storage equipment expenditures, the amount of taxes payable in the tax year, or $62,500. The bill also retains the existing rule for combined solar and storage systems placed in service between January 1, 2024 and January 1, 2035, which provides a 7.5 percent abatement subject to the same tax and dollar caps. The act would take effect immediately.

Impact

The bill would amend section 499-bbbb of the real property tax law, creating a targeted property tax incentive for standalone electric energy storage equipment and preserving the current abatement for solar-plus-storage projects. Its practical effect would be to reduce property tax liability for qualifying storage projects, potentially improving project economics for developers, property owners, and energy storage investors in New York. The measure does not create a new tax category, but rather adjusts the percentage and timing rules governing an existing abatement program.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and policy-oriented, favoring expansion of incentives for clean energy infrastructure. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to encourage deployment of battery storage and related equipment by making the tax treatment more favorable. No contrary positions or formal opposition are reflected in the available record.

Contention

No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no documented contention in the record supplied. Potential areas of debate, if raised, would likely concern the fiscal cost of the abatement to local governments, whether the incentive is sufficiently targeted to spur storage deployment, and whether the 2027-2029 eligibility window is appropriately timed. The bill’s supporters would likely be clean energy advocates, storage developers, and property owners seeking lower upfront costs, while critics could include local tax officials or fiscal watchdogs concerned about foregone revenue.