Category: Energy Law

Oil Pollution Act: Tips for Spill Response, Compliance, and Enforcement

Oil spills commonly occur when least expected and, even in smaller quantities can significantly disrupt business operations and create risks for enforcement and/or litigation. It’s important that companies are prepared and know the environmental requirements for when the least expected happens, including understanding what actually is “oil” (hint: it’s broader than you might think!), who to notify, legal authorities at play, and best practices to ensure compliance and minimize exposure to regulators and/or private parties.

What is “Oil” Anyway?

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) make up the federal statutory framework for oil spills. However, many companies may not realize that both petroleum-based and non-petroleum-based substances are regulated as “oil” under the CWA and OPA. As a result, many companies may not realize that they are subject to these laws and, therefore, fail to adequately prepare for compliance and/or response both pre- and post-spill.

Specifically, Section 311(a)(1) of the CWA defines oil as “oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” 40 CFR § 112.2 further defines oil as “oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” This definition is notably broader than what many may consider “oil” (i.e., crude oil and refined petroleum products) and encompasses animal fats, vegetable oils, and non-petroleum oils.

When to Notify?

The CWA and OPA require companies to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of oil spills as soon as they are discovered (i.e., within 15 minutes). This applies to all discharges that reach navigable waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) or adjoining shorelines and (1) cause a sheen; (2) violate applicable water quality standards; or (3) cause a sludge or emulsion beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. In practice, this typically results from a sheen, which 40 C.F.R. § 110.1 defines as an “iridescent appearance on the surface of water.” The Oil Pollution Prevention regulations (discussed further below) also identify discharges from regulated facilities that require reporting, though there are exceptions—for example, when the discharge is in compliance with a permit under Section 402 of the CWA.

Under state and local laws, notification may be much more stringent. For example, California requires immediate reporting of “any significant release or threatened release” of a hazardous material, which includes oil. This can be subjective and requires a fact- and legal-specific evaluation of whether the release qualifies as “threatened” and/or “significant.” In Georgia, immediate notification is required either when the oil creates a “significant sheen on top of state waters” or when the amount discharged is unknown—further creating different criteria for when reporting is required. Regardless of what triggers notification, it is important that companies understand that different agencies—federal, state, and local—may each have different reporting requirements, and accurate and timely reporting is absolutely crucial. Often, failure to timely report is the first violation sought by agencies and can result in increased penalties and additional scrutiny.

What Authorities Are at Play?

At the federal level, two agencies primarily exercise authority over oil spills—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Coast Guard (CG). Depending on the location of the spill, the EPA or CG may lead federal oversight with the EPA overseeing inland spills and CG overseeing offshore spills. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration may also exercise authority for pipeline or railroad releases, respectively.

As mentioned above, Section 311 of the CWA and OPA—enacted in 1990 in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill—make up the federal statutory framework for oil spills. In practice, these authorities are best categorized into two areas: (1) oil spill response; and (2) oil spill prevention and preparedness. It is important for companies to understand the expectations for both (discussed in more detail below), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (often referred to as the National Contingency Plan or NCP), which outlines the federal government’s cleanup strategy for responding to oil spills, including other cleanups under CERCLA. The goal of the NCP is to ensure that resources are available and responses are consistent. Thus, when the federal government oversees a cleanup, the federal On-Scene Coordinator will expect that all response efforts, including those conducted by the responsible party, are consistent with the NCP.

At the state level, most utilize their respective water laws to address oil spills, though some states, like Louisiana, have laws comparable to OPA. At the local level, municipalities have notification and emergency response authorities that will be applicable. In the end, it’s very important that companies understand that several layers of government may have some form of oversight depending on the size, impact, and location of an oil spill.

OPA v. CWA

While the CWA and OPA are complimentary, including OPA amending the CWA, companies should understand the goals and implications of both. Generally, the CWA focuses on oil spill enforcement for cleanups and penalties, and the OPA broadens national and regional capability for preventing, responding to, and paying for oil spills.

For the CWA, Section 311(b)(3) expressly prohibits the discharge of oil (or hazardous substances) into or upon WOTUS and adjoining shorelines in quantities that may be harmful.1 For oil, this generally means discharges to WOTUS that cause sheening or violate applicable water quality standards. Sections 311(c) and (e) of the CWA provide extensive authority to the federal government to respond to these discharges, including threatened discharges, by issuing orders—either unilaterally or by consent—to owners, operators, or persons in charge of the facility from which the discharge occurs.

Sections 311(b)(6) and (7) of the CWA further empower the federal government to pursue significant penalties—both administrative and civil—for spills that reach WOTUS and/or when responsible parties fail to comply with an order. If gross negligence or willful misconduct is involved, you can expect even greater penalties—commonly more than three-fold—not to mention possible criminal liability. Internally, the EPA utilizes the Civil Penalty Policy for Sections 311(b)(3) and (j) of the CWA and factors outlined in Section 311(b)(8) of the CWA, including the seriousness of the violation, economic benefit to the responsible party, history of prior violations, and efforts to minimize or mitigate the discharge, to evaluate enforcement and penalty calculations.

Akin to the CWA, Section 2702(a) of OPA also makes responsible parties liable for removal costs and natural resource damages resulting from any discharge of oil, including a substantial threat of discharge, to WOTUS and adjoining shorelines. Notably, this includes not only costs incurred by the federal government, but also costs or damages to private parties, including damages for the loss of personal property, loss of revenues/profits due to injury, and cost of additional services during or after a spill. OPA further aims to strengthen national and regional response strategies, amend the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, require facilities to develop prevention and response plans, and establish a fund for damages and cleanup costs—each discussed below.

While it is typically always the priority of the federal government to have responsible parties pay for and conduct their own spill cleanups, when a responsible party is unknown, unable, or refuses to pay, funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) can be utilized to pay for the response. The OSLTF is managed by the CG’s National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) and the NPFC thereby manages any oversight or cleanup costs incurred by the federal government. Thus, if an oil spill occurs at your facility and the federal government incurs costs responding or overseeing, the NPFC will be the entity that seeks recovery of those costs—even if the EPA later pursues penalties for the same discharge pursuant to Sections 311(b)(6) and (7) of the CWA. In addition, when a non-liable party performs a cleanup or incurs damages as a result of an oil spill, that party may file a claim for reimbursement directly against the responsible party and/or seek reimbursement from the NPFC.

Lastly, regarding liability, both the CWA and OPA are strict liability and provide limited liability defenses for acts of God, acts of war, or acts/omissions of third parties—comparable to CERCLA. Even so, it’s important to note that Section 309(g)(6) of the CWA states that the federal government may not seek enforcement, including penalties, if the state “has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action” under a comparable state law. This includes issuing a final order or directing a responsible party to pay a penalty. As mentioned above, states typically pursue oil spill violations via their respective water laws, which may be considered comparable. State penalties may often be substantially less than those sought by the federal government—thus, early engagement with the state can be advantageous depending on the circumstances.

Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations

Section 311(j) of the CWA and OPA, as outlined in 40 C.F.R. Part 112, require facilities that store oil in significant quantities to prepare Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans to prevent accidental releases from reaching WOTUS or adjoining shorelines. Facilities with a greater risk of release and impact to WOTUS may also be required to develop a Facility Response Plan (FRP) to prepare for “worst-case spills.” At the outset, companies should confirm whether these regulations are applicable to their operations and facilities.

SPCC plans are required for facilities that are: (1) non-transportation-related (i.e., they store, process, or consume oil rather than simply move it from one facility to another); and (2) collectively store more than 1,320 gallons of oil above ground or 42,000 gallons below ground that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to a WOTUS or adjoining shorelines. This can include oil drilling and production facilities, oil refineries, industrial, commercial, and agricultural facilities storing/using oil, facilities that transfer oil via pipelines or tank trucks (including airports), and facilities that sell or distribute oil, like marinas. Practically, these regulations require facilities to have a written plan certified by a professional engineer (apart from qualified facilities), maintain adequate secondary containment for oil storage, maintain updated lists of the federal, state, and local agencies that must be contacted in case of a spill, and follow regular inspection requirements, among other requirements.

In addition to SPCC, FRP plans are required for facilities that could reasonably expect to cause “substantial harm” to the environment by discharging oil into or upon WOTUS. They either have: (1) total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons and transfer oil over water to/from vessels; or (2) total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and either do not have sufficient secondary containment, are located at a distance such that a discharge could cause “injury” to habitat or shut down a drinking water intake, or within the past five years, have had a reportable discharge greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons. If so, given that FRP is self-identifiable, the facility must prepare and submit its FRP plan to its applicable EPA regional office. Among other things, these plans include evaluating , medium, and worst-case discharge scenarios, descriptions and records of self-inspections, drills, and response training, and diagrams of the facility site plan, drainage, and evacuation plan.

EPA commonly conducts inspections at subject facilities to ensure that SPCC and FRP plans are effectively implemented. Should your facility have an oil spill, plan on an inspection very soon to evaluate compliance and mitigation efforts with your respective requirements.

Suggested Actions

Beyond being aware of the above implications and requirements, below are several actions to consider to ensure compliance and minimize possible enforcement and/or litigation when the least expected occurs.

  • Act Fast: Should an oil spill occur, regardless of size, act fast to respond, mitigate, and determine if notification is required. This includes immediate internal coordination with those responsible for responding, as well as outreach to your environment counsel and/or consultant. If the determination for reporting is close, it is recommended that you report (with a qualified caveat) rather than withhold.
  • Education and Training: Ensure your staff is trained to effectively respond to, report, and prevent oil spills. Oil spills happen despite best attempts otherwise. When the inevitable happens, make sure facility staff are prepared to respond and mitigate the potential impacts of the spill, including having spill reporting hotlines and other contact numbers easily accessible and staff trained on where all information is located. Also, learn from past spills and/or near spills by conducting evaluations and identifying lessons learned to be utilized to prevent future spills.
  • Prepare for Outside Communication: If the spill is significant or causes public impacts, be prepared for outreach by the public, including local news and community groups. Notifications to the NRC are available online and impacts to public or private property often lead to alerts to local news and organizations. Ensure your public affairs contact(s) are aware and develop necessary communication, including desk statements, should the spill create public attention.
  • Review Compliance: Evaluate your current compliance with federal, state, or local requirements, including the development, assessment, and update (if needed) of SPCC and/or FRP response plans. This includes determining if either or both are required at your facility. Should a spill occur, it is important to make sure your response plans are up-to-date and ready for implementation.
  • Regular Audits and Updates: Periodically audit your spill response and prevention measures (SPCC and FRP plans), including any changes to facility operations, secondary containment features, or volumes of oil stored, to identify and correct inaccuracies and ensure that your plans are up-to-date. For FRP, this includes submitting updates to the appropriate EPA regional office within 60 days of each change that may materially affect the response to a worst-case discharge.
  • Insurance: Though not always necessary, consider appropriate insurance coverage to mitigate potential financial liabilities.
  • Consultation: If you have any doubts about your obligations during an oil spill or need assistance with compliance, please do not hesitate to contact your environment counsel or consultants for guidance and support.

1 While this discussion focuses on the impacts of oil spills, it’s important to remember that Section 311 of the CWA (though not OPA) also applies to hazardous substances—discharges to a WOTUS that exceed a reportable quantity pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 117.3—though the federal government may typically utilize the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), or combination thereof, to pursue such releases.

© 2024 Beveridge & Diamond PC
For more news on Oil Spills, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Federal Court Directed to Rule on Challenge to WV Pooling Statute

A federal appeals court has instructed a lower court to resolve a pending suit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia’s oil and gas pooling and unitization law. The federal district court previously declined to resolve certain constitutional issues presented in the suit on the grounds that those issues should be decided by a state court instead of a federal court.

In 2022, the West Virginia Legislature enacted Senate Bill 694 to revise West Virginia law governing the pooling and unitization of oil and gas formations associated with horizontal well development. Pooling and unitization essentially involves combining separately owned properties into a single “unit” through which one or more horizontal wells are drilled. The oil and gas produced from the horizontal well is then allocated among all the properties in the unit for purposes of calculating production royalties payable to the mineral owners.

Prior to Senate Bill 694 becoming effective on June 7, 2022, formation of a pooled unit for a horizontal well drilled through “shallow” oil and gas formations, which includes the Marcellus Shale, required consent of 100% of the mineral owners for all the properties to be included in the unit. This 100% consent requirement did not apply to horizontal wells drilled through “deep formations” such as the Utica Shale. One of the more significant changes made by SB 694 was to allow the West Virginia Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to approve units for shallow formations where at least 75% of the mineral owners consent, provided other requirements are also satisfied. This means that up to 25% of a unit could potentially include properties for which the mineral owner did not consent to being part of a unit.

Before Senate Bill 694 became effective, a pair of mineral owners (Scott Sonda and Brian Corwin) filed a lawsuit in the federal District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia seeking to preclude the law from taking effect. Governor Jim Justice was the only defendant named in the case. In their suit, Sonda and Corwin alleged that the law was illegal for several reasons, including the claim that the law authorizes the unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation and deprives landowners of due process of law.

Federal Judge John Preston Bailey initially dismissed all of their claims for two reasons. First, Judge Bailey concluded that Sonda and Corwin lacked standing to bring the challenge because (a) their property had not been pooled into a unit without their consent and no operator had sought approval of a unit to include their property without their consent; and (b) the Commission, not the Governor, has the power to directly enforce Senate Bill 694.

Second, Judge Bailey ruled that, even if Sonda and Corwin established standing, Governor Justice had constitutional immunity from the suit because he had no direct authority to implement Senate Bill 694. Rather, the Commission has the authority to implement the law.

Instead of dismissing their suit entirely, Judge Bailey granted leave for Sonda and Corwin to amend their complaint to name the Commission as a defendant instead. Sonda and Corwin did so, and also named as defendants each person who serves on the Commission. The amended complaint still does not allege that mineral properties owned by Sonda or Corwin were pooled into a unit without their consent. Instead, the amended complaint attempts to address the standing issue by alleging that Senate Bill 694 effectively eliminates their ability to challenge whether they are being fairly compensated for oil and gas produced from their property that was pooled into a unit with their consent.

The Commission moved to dismiss the amended complaint for various reasons, including Sonda’s and Corwin’s lack of standing to bring the case. Judge Bailey did not address the standing issue, but agreed with the Commission with respect to three of the five claims asserted by Sonda and Corwin. Judge Bailey then abstained from addressing the Commission’s arguments for dismissal of the other two claims, which asserted constitutional violations, because he believed that those issues were more appropriate for resolution by a state court instead of a federal court.

The Commission appealed Judge Bailey’s decision to abstain from addressing the arguments for dismissal of the constitutional claims. By opinion issued on January 31, 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Bailey should not have abstained. The appellate court also directed Judge Bailey to first address the standing issue before addressing any other pending issue. The opinion does not specify a deadline for Judge Bailey to rule on those issues. If Judge Bailey finds that Sonda and Corwin continue to lack standing to assert their claims, the case will presumably be dismissed on that ground alone. If Judge Bailey concludes that Sonda and Corwin have established standing, Judge Bailey will likely address the merits of the Commission’s other arguments for dismissal.

© Copyright Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.
For more news on the Constitutionality of West Virginia’s Oil and Gas Laws, visit the NLR Election Law / Legislative News section.

USDA Requesting Comments on New AFIDA Regulations that Could Impact Renewable Energy Developers

On December 18, 2023, the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture published Notice in the Federal Register that it is considering changes to its FSA-153 Form required to report foreign interests in agricultural land pursuant to the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (“AFIDA”), 7 U.S.C.A.§ 3501 et seq.

Interested stakeholders are invited to provide comments regarding the proposed changes no later than February 16, 2024. The Federal Register Notice is available in its entirety via the following link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/18/2023-27683/request-for-information-on-agricultural-foreign-investment-disclosure-act-afida-fsa-153-form.

Many renewable developers are subject to AFIDA and regularly report long-term wind and solar leasehold interests to the USDA. The changes proposed by the USDA may directly impact the data required to be reported by renewable developers. In additional to comments requested on other AFIDA reporting matters, the USDA requests public input on the following:

(1) Are long-term leasehold filings—particularly those in the wind turbine and solar panel industries—“different enough” from land ownership purchase or sale filings that a separate version of the FSA–153 form should be created? Should a different “logic path” of questions be developed for long-term leasehold filings?

(2) Many foreign wind energy companies have long-term leaseholds on U.S. agricultural land farmed by U.S. producers that trigger the AFIDA reporting requirement. Currently, the entire acreage of the parcel is captured; this is because the number of wind turbines that will be established on the land (if any) is often an unknown at the time of AFIDA reporting. In addition, the existence of the leasehold generally precludes other energy company involvement on the acreage. Does this approach overstate foreign energy company activity on U.S. agricultural land? If so, how should the acreage associated with these leaseholds be captured?

(3) How should solar panels or photovoltaics—which are situated above the agricultural land—be treated for AFIDA reporting given that AFIDA uses an acreage basis for reporting?

(4) Some foreign owners are providing a very low estimate of the value of the lease (as the flat payment is low) on the FSA–153 form while others are providing the estimated value of the entire parcel. How should “interest in the value of the agricultural land” be defined for leases?

(5) In addition to the legal description of each leasehold parcel already required to be reported on Form FSA-153, is it an undue burden on foreign owners or their representatives to require one or more of the following: (a) the longitude and latitude for each parcel; (b) the property tax ID number assigned by the county; and (c) the FSA tract number and the FSA farm number?

As many renewable developers are aware, AFIDA imposes reporting requirements with respect to the acquisition or disposition of interests in agricultural property by a foreign-owned entity or an entity in which a “significant interest or substantial control” is held by a non-U.S. parent.

Sales and acquisitions in particular may be highly scrutinized by the USDA to ensure that a disposition is filed by the selling entity and an acquisition form is filed by the acquiring entity. If, for example, an entity sells a portfolio of wind or solar leases, that entity should file FSA-153 dispositions, and the purchaser should file FSA-153 acquisitions for the same property. In addition to acquisitions and dispositions, reporting of an amended FSA–153 is triggered when the land use changes, the tiers of ownership change, or the name of the foreign person changes.

Although AFIDA’s requirements have been in existence for many years, the USDA’s recent imposition of significant fines and penalties (up to 25% of the FMV of the property) to developers who fail to file (or are late to file) FSA-153 reports has engendered a new interest in AFIDA and made it more crucial to consider these reporting requirements in any diligence analysis.

Significant interest or substantial control is defined by Federal regulations as an ownership interest of ten percent or more. “Foreign owners” also includes long-term leaseholders in the wind and solar industries.

AFIDA generally defines “agricultural land” as ten acres or more of land that has been used for agricultural purposes (e.g. farming, cropland, ranching, grazing, timber production) within the last five years. These definitions apply even if the land has been planned and plotted or re-zoned for nonagricultural purposes.

Agricultural land is categorized as cropland, forestland, pastureland, other agriculture, and non-agricultural land (homesteads, farm roads).

7 C.F.R. §781.2(c) defines “any interest in real property” as all interest acquired, transferred or held in agricultural lands, except:
(1) Security interests;
(2) Leasehold interests of less than ten (10) years;
(3) Contingent future interests;
(4) Noncontingent future interests which do not become possessory upon the termination of the present possessory estate;
(5) Surface or subsurface easements and rights of way used for a purpose unrelated to agricultural production, and;
(6) An interest solely in mineral rights.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more news on Agricultural Land and Renewable Energy Developers, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

U.S. EV Sales Are Slowing: Implications for the Auto Industry

Throughout the past decade, analysts and policymakers have promoted electric vehicles (EVs) as the cars of the future, highlighting their potential to provide effective, environmentally friendly transportation for individual and business purposes alike. Pure EV sales in the United States rose from just over 10,000 in 2011 to nearly 500,000 in 2021, and the country is expected to add 1 million new EVs to its roads in 2023, aided by government subsidies. However, over the past year, the EV market has been struggling with price cuts and rising inventories; in August 2023, it took about twice as long to sell an EV in the U.S. as it did the previous January. Given the expectations for an EV takeover of the automotive industry, it is important to understand what is driving this slowdown, and how it may affect individuals and businesses in the years to come.

The Transportation of Tomorrow

Though fuel-powered motors were traditionally preferable due to their superior energy storage and range, concerns over their environmental impact in the late 20th century propelled people to consider electricity-powered substitutes. Hybrid EVs, which use electric motors alongside internal combustion engines, became more widespread starting in the 1990s, while fully battery-powered electric cars, which only use energy stored in on-board batteries, have increasingly become practical options in the consumer market starting in the 2010s, though their recharging requirement remains a sore spot. Given the efficiency gap between fuel-powered motors and contemporary battery technologies, as well as typically higher costs for EV production, governments have often stepped in to offer economic incentives for EV purchasing and manufacturing, attempting to guide long-term automotive supply and demand toward sustainable transport options.

Government incentives for EV adoption have grown steadily over the past three decades, with large markets like the U.S. and EU commencing efforts in the 2000s, later followed by developing economies such as China and India. For years, the U.S. federal government and state governments have offered tax credits for producers and consumers adopting qualified electric drive motor vehicles, with states like California going even further by offering HOV lane access for EVs operated by a single occupant. President Biden designated increased EV adoption as a substantial element of his Investing in America agenda, setting a goal for 50% of all new vehicle sales in the U.S. to be electric by 2030. However, despite increasing environmental awareness and policy pressures, consumer demand has not always followed suit.

Wavering Consumer Demand

Currently, there is an oversupply of electric vehicles in the industry, reflecting continued automaker and government investment against slowing consumer demand. While most American consumers view adopting EVs as an inevitability, their anxieties relating to the range that the battery can produce and a lack of public charging infrastructure still induce uncertainties over dependability. During the COVID-19 pandemic, shelter-in-place orders reduced the need for frequent personal transportation, allowing consumers greater flexibility to adopt EVs. However, now that pandemic restrictions no longer present a substantial external variable and more workers are required to return to the office, vehicles powered by internal combustion engines remain preferable as the most reliable transport option. This is supported by the changing profile of the EV consumer – the percentage of EV shoppers trading in a vehicle they already own has doubled over the past decade, indicating that many EV consumers do not rely on them as their primary mode of transport. Amplifying the charging concern, a Pew Research Center survey from July found that Americans have low levels of confidence that the U.S. will build necessary EV infrastructure, including critical charging ports, dampening enthusiasm that the Biden administration’s EV goals will be met on time.

On the other hand, pricing continues to be another hurdle for greater EV adoption. According to Cox Automotive, the average transaction price for a vehicle in the U.S. was around $48,000 in September 2023; for EVs, the number was between $53,000 and $60,000. The higher price tag for EVs tends to be a result of manufacturing costs remaining more expensive than they would be for producing gasoline-powered vehicles, given the auto industry’s substantially longer experience making internal combustion engines compared to EV technologies and the still-inflexible EV supply chain. High interest rates render borrowing money for car payments more expensive, along with inflation reducing consumer purchasing power and global supply chain disruptions contributing to the issue as well. According to S&P Global Mobility, while 86% of U.S. car buyers were considering an EV in 2021, the number fell to 67% in 2023. Despite government tax credits, investing in a relatively more expensive EV purchase is a hefty request for many American consumers concerned about short-term costs in today’s economy.

Effects on the Auto Industry

The auto sector is facing the classic problem for a sector in transition, i.e., growing supply to pace with developing demand. The current market condition is not a problem of declining demand but supply outpacing demand and the auto industry is already making corrections. Ford, having opened reservations for its fully electric F-150 Lightning model in May 2021, closed them by the end of the year due to excess supply, and by September 2023, announced it was ramping up production of its hybrid F-150s in response to lowered than anticipated sales of the Lightning. Lucid, a high-profile luxury EV brand, has seen two consecutive quarters of weaker than expected demand, most recently delivering 600 fewer of its Air luxury sedans than Wall Street had expected in the second quarter of 2023. Tesla’s aggressive price cuts have hindered the growth of competition in the EV industry, with two-thirds of all EVs sold by the Elon Musk-owned automotive giant, as consumers find it difficult to afford suitable alternatives. At the end of the second quarter of 2023, several automakers announced their decision to move to the Tesla charging standard, stranding many vehicles on factory floors with an obsolete charging outlet, thus further exacerbating the dilemma.

Pushback against public sector efforts to mandate EV adoption may also reshape expectations for how the auto industry will move forward in the coming decade. On November 8, the U.S. Senate voted 50-48 to overturn Biden’s decision to waive some “Buy America” requirements for government-funded electric vehicle charging stations. Western lithium and graphite miners have started charging the EV supply chain higher prices to reduce dependence on Chinese supply of these materials. Owing to anxieties over cheap Chinese-manufactured EVs flooding the American market as has happened in Europe and a potential Chinese monopoly of rare earth minerals critical in EV production, these protectionist moves on an already inflexible EV supply chain are likely to further delay progress toward the administration’s vehicle electrification aims. EV adoption also remains inconsistent across U.S. regions, being significantly lesser in states like Texas where gas prices and home energy rates are lower, compared to others like California where the opposite is true. Nonetheless, there are reasons to remain optimistic about the long-term growth of EV sales in the auto industry – an S&P study in 2023 showed that people were willing to accept charging times of less than an hour and less range on an EV compared to a gasoline equivalent, and while the number of EV buyers fell from 2021 to 2023, it was still higher than in 2019. Understanding that a gradual shift towards electricity-powered vehicles is still probable, individuals and businesses alike should note that it will likely occur over a longer period than analysts and policymakers predict. Meanwhile, greater hybrid vehicle production and purchasing could generate a slew of new opportunities in the short to medium term.

 

This article was authored by William Samir Simpson.

© 2023 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
For more news on Electric Vehicle Sales, visit the NLR Utilities & Transport section.

Taking Stock of a Big Month for Methane Policy

November has been a big month for methane policy, featuring announcements of new international, domestic, and private sector initiatives.  A common thread across all of the new initiatives is the aim of achieving more ambitious, credible, and internationally consistent standards for measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.  Below is a review.

China’s Methane Pledge.  China is the world’s largest emitter of methane, accounting for 14% of the global total, and, for the first time, the government made an international announcement about methane policy.  At a November summit held in Sunnylands, California, President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a new agreement to address climate change. Previous Chinese pledges had only targeted carbon dioxide, but the new agreement includes a first-ever commitment by the country to tackle non-CO2 emissions, including methane.  Just prior to the Sunnylands summit, the Chinese government issued an action plan outlining goals to curb flaring and to develop a methane MMRV program.

EU Methane Regulation.  The European Union (EU) also broke new ground on methane policy this month.  After all-night talks, the EU’s governing entities finalized a new Methane Regulation, which targets not only domestic sources of methane but also emissions attributable to imports of natural gas into the Continent—including from the United States. For imports, the Regulation establishes phased requirements.  The first phase focuses on data collection coupled with a mechanism for detecting and rapidly addressing large leaks.  The second phase will condition imports on application of prescribed, uniform MMRV measures.  Starting in 2030, importers will be subject to a limit on their methane “intensity”—a metric that measures methane emissions per unit of gas throughput.  The methane intensity limit will apply across the entire value chain, from pre-production through final delivery.  The Regulation requires the EU Commission to promulgate the intensity standard by 2027.

International Working Group on MMRV for Natural Gas Markets.  To support not only these emerging governmental policies but also expanding private sector efforts to create a market for “Differentiated Gas,” a multilateral initiative was announced in November—the International Working Group to Establish a Greenhouse Gas Supply Chain Emissions Measurement, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MMRV) Framework for Providing Comparable and Reliable Information to Natural Gas Market Participants (the Working Group). The Working Group’s members consist of the U.S. government, eleven other governments, the European Commission, and the Mediterranean Gas Forum.  The Working Group’s objective is to develop a consensus-based, consistent international framework for supply chain MMRV.  A consistent framework will make it easier for buyers to demand and suppliers to provide natural gas with a lower greenhouse gas profile.  The Working Group will not prescribe emission targets, but it acknowledges that governments may use its work products to inform regulatory processes.

The Working Group has stated that it will draw on input from expert stakeholders.  To that end, a consortium of three universities participating in the Energy Emissions Modeling and Data Lab (EEMDL) has convened a group of academic, think tanks, ENGO, and market experts to develop recommendations for MMRV standards for the Differentiated Gas market. (I am a participating expert in the EEMDL initiative.)  This month, a subset of the experts group published a paper in Nature Energy outlining the issues.

Financial Institutions Call for Industry Action.  Underscoring the increasing private sector demand for Differentiated Gas, two major financial institutions released reports in November calling for industry action.  JP Morgan, one of the world’s largest financiers of fossil fuel projects, issued a report underscoring its commitment to achieve a net zero-aligned emission intensity reduction target for its oil and gas sector portfolio. Methane reductions are a key element of its net-zero strategy.  To that end, the report identifies and exhorts the industry to adopt best-in-class practices for methane MMRV and mitigation.

In the same week, one of the world’s largest insurance underwriters for the oil and gas sector, Chubb, rolled out a Methane Resource Hub, a digital resource center for its clients. The site provides information on MMRV and mitigation techniques, technologies, studies, and policies.

Waiting for EPA.  Also expected in November is EPA’s proposed implementation rules for the “Methane Fee” that was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).  The IRA provisions apply a per-ton fee to facilities in the oil and gas sector that exceed specified methane intensity limits.  To implement the fee, EPA will need to promulgate methods for facility-level methane intensity measurements.  A significant issue in the rulemaking is the extent to which EPA will allow affected facilities to use advanced methane measurement technologies to calculate their annual emissions.

© 2023 Van Ness Feldman LLP
For more news on methane policy, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

EPA Ramps Up Climate Enforcement

Facilities operating across the country need to be prepared for increased climate-driven enforcement at all levels of federal government—especially at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With EPA’s Climate Enforcement and Compliance Strategy announcement last week, the Agency has gone all-in on enforcement and compliance programs “to address climate change, wherever appropriate, in every matter within their jurisdiction.” This initiative is consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order 14008, which calls for a government-wide approach to tackling the climate crisis. The strategy also underscores the Agency’s announcement of its first-ever National Enforcement and Compliance Initiative (NECI) on climate change, which targets, among others, methane emissions at oil and gas facilities and landfills, as well as illegal importation of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Companies with exposure to high-Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and related climate risks, both in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and non-CAA context, should be on notice of increased scrutiny moving forward, including climate-focused auditing and inspections by the Agency and GHG-driven injunctive relief.

In the wake of EPA’s announcement of this new enforcement and compliance strategy, watch for the following developments:

  • EPA will increasingly prioritize enforcement and compliance actions to mitigate climate change, including further scrutiny of high-GHG emitters through information requests, inspections, and formal enforcement. Oil and gas facilities and landfills have been specifically targeted, but any facility with high GHG emissions should expect greater enforcement scrutiny.
  • Enforcement demands will likely include higher penalties, compared to other non-GHG-driven cases, more GHG-related injunctive relief, as well as more climate adaptation and resilience requirements. This relief could include more fence-line monitoring or flare gas reductions or recovery, among other priorities.
  • Climate-focused injunctive relief measures will not be limited to CAA. Expect a renewed emphasis on green remediation technologies at Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective action sites, as well as a push for green infrastructure, resiliency planning, and stormwater management enhancements in Clean Water Act settlements.
  • Plan for EPA to scrutinize GHG emissions reports more closely. Carefully evaluate these submissions to ensure consistency with reporting regulations.
  • EPA will be interested in Supplemental Environmental Projects that reduce GHGs.  Consider clean and renewable energy projects or other GHG mitigation projects as part of any strategy to resolve an enforcement case, particularly if the penalty demand is large.

Facilities located in Environmental Justice (EJ) communities should particularly expect additional climate-related scrutiny, as EPA has indicated that “[t]hese efforts are particularly necessary in overburdened and marginalized communities that are on the frontlines of the climate crisis.” Facilities will need to engage in more extensive consultation with local communities to evaluate remedy selection, including any climate adaptation efforts, as well as more protracted enforcement negotiations to evaluate community-focused injunctive relief (i.e., climate risk reporting, additional community engagement, etc.).

Finally, be prepared to respond to these issues quickly, including the Biden Administration’s broader EPA enforcement agenda, which is expected to increase enforcement dramatically over the coming months and years. Apart from EPA, broader scrutiny of corporate climate reporting will become more common as the Securities and Exchange Commission looks to finalize its proposed Climate Risk Disclosure Rule, requiring public companies to disclose climate-related risks and emissions data, among other requirements. Facilities should review publicly available information and emissions reporting for consistency and accuracy.

© 2023 Beveridge & Diamond PC
Article by: Andrew C. Silton , Allyn L. Stern , Barbara M.R. Marvin of Beveridge & Diamond PC 
For more articles on the EPA, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy and Resources section.

Renewable Energy Tax Credit Transfer Guidance Provides Both Clarity And Pitfalls

Highlights

The renewable tax credit transfer market will accelerate with new government guidance; public hearing and comments deadlines are scheduled for August

Risk allocation puts the usual premium on sponsors with a balance sheet and/or recapture insurance coverage

While the guidelines provide clear rules and examples, many foot faults are present

On June 14, 2023, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service issued long-awaited guidance on the transferability of certain renewable energy-related federal tax credits. The guidance takes the form of a notice of proposed rulemaking, proposed regulations, and an online Q&A, with a public hearing to follow in August.

Under new Code Section 6418, eligible taxpayers can elect to transfer all or any specified portion of eligible tax credits to one or more unrelated buyers for cash consideration. While the tax credits can be sold to more than one buyer, subsequent transfers by the buyer are prohibited.

This alert highlights several practical issues raised by the guidance, which should allow participants waiting for more clarity to proceed.

Individual Buyers Left Out

  • The guidance applies the Code Section 49 at risk rules and Section 50(b) tax-exempt use rules, generally restricting sellers in calculating the amount of tax credits for sale, and Code Section 469 passive activity rules, generally restricting buyer’s use of such tax credits, in various contexts. On the buyer side, these rules appear to be more restrictive than the limitations that would apply to identical tax credits in an allocation, rather than sale, context. Suffice to say, this will prohibit individuals from taking part in the transfer market for practical purposes outside of fact patterns of very limited application.
  • While this result may not be surprising since such rules currently severely restrict individuals from participating in traditional federal tax credit equity structures, there was some hope for a different outcome due to the stated policy goal of increasing renewable energy investment (not to mention the Inflation Reduction Act’s general departure from decades of case law precedent and IRS enforcement action prohibiting sales of federal tax credits with the enactment of Section 6418).

Lessees Cannot Sell the Tax Credits

  • A lessee cannot transfer the credit. With the prevalence of the master lease (inverted lease) structure in tax equity transactions, this prohibition created an unexpected roadblock for deal participants who have been structuring tax equity transactions with backstop type sale provisions for almost a year now. This presents developers, at least in the inverted lease context, with a choice of utilizing a traditional tax equity structure for the purpose of obtaining a tax-free step up in basis to fair market value, or forgoing the step up for less financing but also less structure complexity. The standard partnership flip project sale into a tax equity type of holding company structure could still remain a viable alternative.
  • As the transfer is generally made on a property-by-property basis by election, creative structuring, in theory, could allow for a lessor to retain certain property and sell the related tax credits (e.g., on portfolios with more than one solar installation/project, or even with large projects that go online on a block-by-block basis assuming the “energy project” election is not made – a term that future guidance will need to provide more clarity on).
  • However, this seems to be an ivory tower conclusion currently, and the practical reality is that too many unknown issues could be raised by such out of the box structuring, including the fact that conservative institutional investors may refuse to participate in such a structure until clear objective guidance is published addressing the same.

Bonus Credits Cannot Be Sold Separately

  • Bonus credits cannot be sold separately from the underlying base credit. This is more problematic for certain adders – for example, the energy community adder rules are now out and amount to simply checking a location on a website. Others (e.g., the low-income community or domestic content adder) require more extensive and subjective application and qualification procedures which makes when and how such adders can be transferred difficult to ascertain. Projects hoping to transfer such credits may need to be creative in compensating buyers for such uncertainty and qualification risk. Tax equity transactions that closed prior to the guidance’s issuance may also need to be revisited, as provisions in such transaction documents commonly attempted to bifurcate the bonus credit away from the base credit in order to allow the sponsor to separately sell such adders.

Buyers Bear Recapture Risk and Due Diligence Emphasis

  • While the Joint Committee on Taxation Bluebook indicated the buyer is responsible for recapture, industry participants were still hoping such risk would remain with the seller. Outside of the limited situation of indirect partnership dispositions (which still results in a recapture event to the transferring partner if triggered), the recapture risk is borne by the buyer, using the rationale that the buyer is the “taxpayer” for purposes of the transferred tax credits. While this is familiar territory for tax equity investors, whose allocated tax credits would be reduced in a recapture scenario, tax credit purchase transactions are now burdened with what amounts to the standard tax equity type of due diligence, including negotiation of transaction documents outside of a basic purchase agreement.
  • The guidance provides that indemnity protections between the seller and buyer are permitted. Tax equity transactions historically have had robust indemnification provisions, which should remain the case even more so in purchase/sale transactions. Tax equity investors traditionally bear “structure risk” dealing with whether the investor is a partner for tax purposes – such risk is eliminated in the purchase scenario as the purchasing investor no longer needs to be a partner (subject to the caveat of a buyer partnership discussed below).
  • If the buyer claims a larger credit amount than the seller could have, such “excessive credit transfer” will subject the buyer to a 20 percent penalty on the excess amount (in addition to the regular tax owed). All buyers are aggregated and treated as one for this purpose – if the seller retains any tax credits, the disallowance is first applied to the seller’s retained tax credits. A facts and circumstances reasonable cause exception to avoid this penalty is provided, further emphasizing the need for robust due diligence.
  • Specific non-exclusive examples that may demonstrate reasonable cause include reviewing the seller’s records with respect to determining the tax credit amount, and reasonable reliance on third-party expert reports and representations from the seller. While not unique to this new tax credit transfer regime, the subjective and circular nature of such a standard is complex – for example, when is it not “reasonable” for buyers or other professionals to rely on other board certified and licensed professionals, such as an appraiser or independent engineer with specialized knowledge?
  • Buyers thus need to remain vigilant about potential recapture causing events. For example, tax equity investors will not generally allow project level debt on investment tax credit transactions without some sort of lender forbearance agreement that provides that the lender will not cause a tax credit recapture event (such as foreclosing and taking direct ownership of the project). Buyers remain responsible for such a direct project level recapture event, which again aligns the tax credit transfer regime with tax equity due diligence and third-party negotiation requirements. The guidance is more lenient for the common back-leverage debt scenario.
  • While similar interparty agreements between back leverage lenders and the tax equity investor are required for non-project level debt facilities to address tax credit recapture among other issues, the guidance provides that a partner disposing of its indirect interest in the project (e.g., the lender foreclosing and taking ownership of a partner’s partnership interest) will remain subject to the recapture liability rather than the buyer provided that other tax-exempt use rules are not otherwise implicated. However, the need to negotiate such lender related agreements is still implicated as not all recapture risk in even this scenario was eliminated to the buyer.
  • While the recapture risk could place a premium on production tax credit deals (that are technically not subject to recapture or subjective basis risk), the burdensome process of needing to buy such tax credits on a yearly basis in line with sales of output may make such transactions more tedious.
  • The insurance industry already has products in place to alleviate buyer concerns, but this is just another transaction cost in what may be a tight pricing market. Not unlike tax equity transactions, sponsor sellers with a balance sheet to backstop indemnities may be able to demand a pricing premium; other sponsors may need to compensate buyers with lower credit pricing to reward such risk and or/to allow the purchase of recapture insurance. While this seems logical, the guidance also includes anti-abuse type rules whereby low credit pricing could be questioned in terms of whether some sort of impermissible transfer by way of other than cash occurred (e.g., a barter for some sort of other service). What the IRS subjectively views as “below market” pricing could trigger some sort of audit review based on this factor alone which further stresses the importance of appropriate due diligence.

Partnerships and Syndications

  • The guidance provides very clear rules with helpful examples, which should allow partnership sellers and buyers to proceed with very objective parameters. For example, the rules allow a partnership seller to specify which partner’s otherwise allocable share of tax credits is being sold and how to then allocate the tax-exempt income generated. The cash generated from sales can be used or distributed however the partnership chooses.
  • Similar objective rules and examples are provided for a buyer partnership. Subsequent direct and indirect allocations of a purchased tax credit do not violate the one-time transfer prohibition. Purchased tax credits are treated as “extraordinary items” that must be allocated among the partners of the buyer partnership as of the time of the transfer, which is generally deemed to occur on the first date a cash payment is made. Thus, all partners need to be in the partnership on such date to avoid an issue. Purchased tax credits are then allocated to the partners in accordance with their share of the nondeductible expenditures used to fund the purchase price.
  • What level of end-user comfort is needed in such a syndicated buyer partnership is an open question. While the rules provide objective guidelines in terms of when and how such purchased credits are allocated, subjective questions that are present in (and focused on) traditional tax equity partnerships are implicated. For example, could a syndication partnership set up for the business purpose of what amounts to selling the tax credits somehow run afoul of the subjective business purpose and disguised sale rules in tax credit case precedent, such as the Virginia Historic Tax Credit Fund state tax credit line of precedent? Will the market require a robust tax opinion in such scenario, thereby driving up transaction costs?
  • An example in the proposed regulations speaks to this sort of partnership formed for the specific purpose of buying tax credits, but leaves out of the fact pattern a syndicator partner. The example itself should go a long way towards blessing such arrangements, but the IRS taking a contrary position when dealing with such issues would not be a new situation. For example, the IRS challenged allocations of federal historic tax credits as prohibited sales of federal tax credits to the point of freezing the entire tax equity market with its positions in Historic Boardwalk Hall, which was only rectified with the release of a subsequent safe harbor revenue procedure.
  • Moreover, the guidance provides that tax credit brokers are allowed to participate in the market so long as the tax credits are not transferred to such brokers as an initial first step in the transfer process (as the subsequent transfer to an end user would violate the one-time transfer rule). Specifically, at no point can the federal “income tax ownership” be transferred to a broker. It is an open question if further distinction will be made at where this ownership line should be drawn. For example, can a third party enter into a purchase agreement with a seller and then transfer such rights prior to the transfer election being made? Does it matter under such analysis if 1) purchase price installments have been paid (which implicates rules in the buyer partnership context as noted above) and/or 2) the tax credit generating eligible property has been placed in service (which is when the investment tax credit vests for an allocated tax credit analysis; a production tax credit generally arises as electricity or the applicable source is sold)?
  • Indirectly implicated is what effect the new transfer rules will have on established case law precedent and IRS enforcement action in traditional tax equity structures. The Inflation Reduction Act and guidance dances around certain of these issues by creating a fiction where the buyer is treated as the “taxpayer” – this avoids the issue of turning a federal tax credit into “property” that can be sold similar to a certificated state tax credit. This also provides a more logical explanation as to why the buyer of these federal tax credits does not need to report any price discount as income when utilized, unlike the well-established federal tax treatment of certificated state tax credits that provides the exact opposite (e.g., a buyer of a certificated state tax credit at $0.90 has to report $0.10 of income on use of such tax credit).

Other Administrative and Foot-Fault Issues

  • The purchase price can only be paid in cash during the period commencing with the beginning of the seller’s tax year during which the applicable tax credit is generated and ending on the due date for filing the seller’s tax return with extensions. Thus, such period could be as long as 21.5 months or more (e.g., a calendar year partnership seller extending its return to Sept. 15). Tax equity transactions generally have pricing timing adjusters for failure to meet placement in service deadlines. Such mechanism will not work if advanced payments were made and then the project’s projected placement in service year changes. Tax credit purchase agreements executed prior to the June 14 guidance may require amendments or complete unwinds to line up with the rules to avoid foot faults (e.g., purchase agreements executed in 2022 where a portion of the purchase price was paid in 2022 for anticipated 2023 tax credits would not fall within the “paid in cash” safe harbor period). Advanced commitments, so long as cash is not transferred outside of the period outlined above, are permitted.
  • The typical solar equity contribution schedule of 20 percent at a project’s mechanical completion makes purchase price schedules approximating the same a reasonable adjustment for most investment tax credit energy deals in terms of the timing of financing. In addition, the advance commitment blessing of the guidance will give lender parties the comfort necessary similar to having executed tax equity documents in place. Thus, typical project construction financing mechanisms should be similar in the tax equity versus purchase agreement scenario, with projects that allow for a more delayed funding mechanism possibly obtaining a tax credit pricing premium. Production tax credit deals, for which tax credits can only be paid for on a yearly basis within the cash paid safe harbor timing window, may have more significant project financing hurdles without further tax credit transfer rule modifications.
  • Sellers can only make the transfer election on an original return, which includes extensions. Buyers, by contrast, may claim the purchased tax credit on an amended return.
  • Buyers need to be aware that usage of the purchased tax credits is tied to the tax year of the seller. For example, a fiscal year seller could cause the tax credits to be available a year later than an uninformed buyer anticipated, regardless of when the tax credit was generated using a traditional placement in service analysis. For example, a solar project placed in service during November 2023 by an August fiscal year seller would generate credits first able to be used in a calendar year buyer’s 2024, instead of 2023, tax year. A buyer can use the tax credits it intends to purchase against its estimated tax liability.
  • The pre-registration requirements, which are expansive and open-ended, are also tied to the taxable year the tax credits are generated and generally must be made on a property-by-property basis. For example, 50 rooftop installations could require 50 separate registration numbers outside of the “energy project” election. When such registration information needs updated is also not entirely clear – for example, a project is often sold into a tax equity partnership syndication structure on or before mechanical completion. Needing to update registration information could delay transactions and implicates unknown audit risk.

While these rules provide much-needed clarity, failure to adhere may be catastrophic and will require sellers and buyers to put proper administrative procedures in place to avoid foot faults. The new transfer regime will expand the market to new buyers who may have viewed tax equity as either too complex or had other reasons to avoid these transactions, such as the accounting treatment of energy tax credit structures. However, it would be prudent for such buyers to approach such transactions with eyes wide open.

© 2023 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more Tax Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review. 

Renewable Energy Tax Credits under the Inflation Reduction Act: Opportunities for Exempt Organizations

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA” or “Act”) added and modified several renewable energy tax provisions under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRC”).[1] These changes provide many opportunities for exempt organizations, investors, and developers in clean energy projects to lower their costs by monetizing previously unavailable tax credits and thereby increase their business. Among them:

  • Solar facilities are now eligible for the Section 45 Production Tax Credit
  • An Investment Tax Credit for stand-alone energy storage technology with a minimum capacity of 5 kWh
  • A new two-tier credit system consisting of a base credit and an additional bonus credit for eligible projects that satisfy new prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements
  • New “domestic content,” “energy community,” and “low-income community” bonus credits
  • New “technology neutral” tax credits
  • New ways to monetize tax credits

There has been significant interest in the energy credits by tax exempt organizations, in particular by universities and hospitals. Indeed, these organizations have been looking to minimize their greenhouse gas impact or carbon footprint with the goal of achieving clean energy even prior to the enactment of the IRA. The direct pay option which is now available under the IRA has accelerated the interest in clean energy. Commentators also note that private foundations have been interested in addressing climate change and taking advantage of these newly enacted credits to help spread the use of clean technologies.

Section 6417, discussed below, could be a “game changer” in this regard. Even though certain of the credits have been in existence, unless tax exempts have had a significant amount of unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”), they previously could not avail themselves of the credits prior to the enactment of Section 6417 which provides the direct payment alternative.

The below will outline the new and modified renewable energy tax credits under the IRA, and summarize recent guidance issued by the Treasury Department.

CHANGES TO EXISTING TAX CREDITS

Section 45 Production Tax Credit

Before the enactment of the IRA, the Section 45 Production Tax Credit (“PTC”) was available to electricity produced from certain renewable resources, including wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, municipal solid waste, and marine and hydrokinetic energy. Under the Act, solar facilities and are now also eligible for the PTC. In order to qualify for the PTC, eligible facilities must be placed in service and start construction before the end of 2024. Facilities which begin construction after December 31, 2024, will fall under the new technology-neutral tax credit regimes (discussed below).

Section 48 Investment Tax Credit[2]

Prior to the Act, the Section 48 Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”) was not available to stand-alone energy storage projects. The IRA created an ITC for stand-alone energy storage technology with a minimum capacity of 5 kWh. The term “energy storage technology” includes any technology that receives, stores, and delivers energy for conversion to electricity, or to most technology that thermally stores energy.

Like the PTC, under the Act, eligible facilities can qualify for the ITC as long as they are placed in service and begin construction before the end of 2024. Facilities which begin construction after December 31, 2024, will fall under the new technology-neutral tax credit regimes (discussed below).

STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO THE TAX CREDIT SYSTEM

The IRA created a new two-tier credit system consisting of a base credit and an additional bonus credit that is only available for eligible projects that satisfy the new prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements (discussed below). The new ITC base rate will be 6 percent, and the bonus rate will increase it to 30 percent. The new PTC base rate will be 0.3 cents/kwh and the bonus rate will increase it to 1.5 cents/kwh.

Prevailing Wage Requirement

Taxpayers must pay laborers, mechanics, contractors, and subcontractors a prevailing wage during the construction of the project and with respect to subsequent alterations or repairs of the project following its placement in service. The prevailing wage is based on the pay rates published by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) for the geographic areas and type of job or labor classification. If relevant pay rates are not published, the taxpayer must request a wage determination or wage rate from the DOL.[3]

Apprenticeship Requirement

Taxpayers must also ensure that, with respect to the construction of a qualified facility, no fewer than the “applicable percentage” of total labor hours are performed by qualified apprentices. The “applicable percentage” is: (i) 10 percent for projects beginning construction before 2023, (ii) 12.5 percent for projects beginning construction during 2023, and (iii) 15 percent for projects beginning construction thereafter. Each contractor and subcontractor who employs four or more individuals to perform construction on an applicable project must employ at least one qualified apprentice. A “qualified apprentice” is an individual who is employed by the taxpayer or any contractor or subcontractor and who is participating in a registered apprenticeship program.

If a taxpayer fails to satisfy the apprenticeship requirement during a particular year, the taxpayer may correct the failure by paying a penalty to the IRS equal to $50 ($500 if the apprenticeship requirement was intentionally disregarded) multiplied by the total number of labor hours that did not satisfy the apprenticeship requirement. However, the IRA also includes a “good faith effort” exception if the taxpayer requests qualified apprenticeships from a registered apprenticeship program and either the request is denied, or the program fails to respond within five business days after receiving the request.

ADDITIONAL BONUS CREDITS

The IRA established the “domestic content,” “energy community,” and “low-income community” bonus credits.

Domestic Content

Projects qualifying for certain PTC and ITC credits could qualify for a 10 percent increase to the base and bonus credits if they satisfy the IRA’s new “domestic content” requirements. To qualify for this bonus credit, all steel, iron, and manufactured products that are components of the completed facility are to be produced in the United States.

Energy Community

Facilities located in an “energy community” will also qualify for a 10 percent increase to the base and bonus credits. An “energy community” includes brownfield sites, certain areas with significant employment related to, or local tax revenues generated by, coal, oil, or natural gas, and where there is high unemployment, or a census tract where a coal mine has recently closed or a coal-fired electric plant was retired or removed.

NEW “TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL” TAX CREDITS

The IRA added new tax credits that apply to qualified facilities placed into service after December 31, 2024, and which yield zero greenhouse gas emissions. The Section 45Y Clean Electricity Production Credit (“CEPTC”) and the Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Credit (“CEITC”) will replace the PTC and ITC, respectively, and are intended to be technology neutral. The credit amounts for the CEPTC and CEITC are calculated similarly to the PTC and ITC and are subject to similar prevailing wage and apprenticeship bonus requirements.

NEW WAYS TO MONETIZE TAX CREDITS UNDER THE IRA

The Act established the following two novel methods to monetize energy tax credits.

Direct Pay Available to Tax Exempt Organizations

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, and before January 1, 2033, certain “applicable entities” can make an election to receive a cash payment equal to the value of otherwise allowable tax credits. This option allows for the applicable entities to utilize and monetize the tax credits via a refund, even though the entities generally do not incur tax liabilities. The term “applicable entities” includes tax-exempt organizations, state and local governments, tribal governments, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The direct pay option is also available to taxpayers claiming the Sections 45V, 45Q, and 45X credits even if they do not meet the definition of an “applicable entity.”

Third-Party Sales

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, taxpayers (“transferee”) that do not meet the definition of an “applicable entity” may transfer all or a part of their eligible credits to an unrelated taxpayer (“transferor”) in exchange for cash. The cash consideration is not includible in the income of the transferor and is not deductible by the transferee. Credits may not be transferred more than once. In the case of any transfer election, the transferee taxpayer will be treated as the taxpayer for all purposes under the IRC with respect to such credit. With respect to a project held by a partnership, only the partnership itself (and not its partners) can elect to transfer the eligible credits. (Emphasis added.) Then it is likely to be treated as unrelated trade or business.

All of the tax credits eligible for the direct pay option, except for the Section 45W Clean Commercial Vehicles Credit, are also eligible for sale to a third-party.

NOTICES 2023-17 AND 2023-18

On February 13, 2023, the IRS issued Notices 2023-17 and 2023-18 which provide guidance on the administration of two allocation-based renewables tax credit programs under Sections 48(e) and 48C, respectively.

Notice 2023-17

The Act amended Section 48(e) to provide an increase in the ITC for qualified solar and wind facilities which are deployed in specified low-income communities or residential developments. To receive these increased credit amounts, a taxpayer must receive an allocation of “environmental justice solar and wind capacity limitation” (“Capacity Limitation”). A “qualified solar and wind facility” is any facility that (1) generates electricity solely from a wind facility, solar energy property, or small wind energy property; (2) has a maximum net output of less than five megawatts (as measured in alternating current); and (3) is described in at least one of the four categories described in the chart below.

Notice 2023-17 established the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program under Section 48(e) and provided guidance on the procedures and information required to apply for an allocation of Capacity Limitation. For each of 2023 and 2024, the annual capacity limitation is 1.8 gigawatts of direct current capacity, which will be allocated among four categories of projects as follows:

Category

Required Facility Location

Category

Required Facility Location

Capacity Limitation Allocation (MW)

Bonus Percentage

1

Low-Income Community

700 MW

10%

2

Indian Land

200 MW

10%

3

Qualified Low-Income Residential Building Project

200 MW

10%

4

Qualified Low-Income Economic Benefit Project

700 MW

10%

A taxpayer must submit an application to the IRS in order to receive a Capacity Limitation allocation. Details regarding the application process are forthcoming, however, Notice 2023-17 states that applications will be accepted in a phased approach during a 60-day application window for calendar year 2023. Applications will be accepted for Category 3 and 4 projects beginning in the third quarter of 2023, and Category 1 and 2 project applications will be accepted thereafter.

The Department of Energy (“DOE”) will review applications for statutory eligibility and any other criteria provided by the IRS. On this basis, the DOE will provide recommendations to the IRS regarding the selection of applicants for an allocation of Capacity Limitation. If the selected applications exceed the capacity limitations for a given category, the DOE will use a lottery system or some other process to allocate Capacity Limitations. If accepted, the IRS will notify the applicant of its decision and specify the amount of Capacity Limitation allocated. Within four years of receiving such notification applicants must place the eligible property in service to claim the increased credit rate.

Notice 2023-18

The Act extended the Section 48C Advanced Energy Project Credit (“48C Credit” or “AEPC”), which was originally enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Section 48C provides a credit for investments in projects that fall into one of the following three general categories: (i) clean energy manufacturing and recycling projects, (ii) greenhouse gas emission reduction projects, and (iii) critical materials projects. The AEPC is subject to an aggregate cap of $10 billion, at least $4 billion of which will be allocated to census tracts (or tracts adjacent to census tracts) in which coal mines have been closed after 1999 or coal-fired generation facilities have been retired after 2009.

Notice 2023-18 provides guidance on the process and timeline for applying for an allocation of 48C Credits. The first allocation round of $4 billion began on May 31, 2023. Outlined below is an overview of the application, review, and approval process for the first allocation round of 48C credits:

The applicant submits a “concept paper” to the DOE between May 31, 2023, and July 31, 2023.

After reviewing the concept paper, the DOE will issue a letter to the applicant either encouraging or discouraging the submission of an application. All applicants that submit a concept paper during the above period may submit an application irrespective of the DOE’s response.

The applicant submits an application to the DOE for review. If the applicant intends to apply for a bonus credit because it will satisfy the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, it must confirm this in the application.

The DOE then makes a recommendation as to whether to accept or reject the application and provides a ranking of the applications.

Based on the DOE’s recommendations and rankings, the IRS will make a decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the application and notify the applicant of its decision.

Within two years after receiving an allocation from the IRS, the applicant must provide evidence to the DOE that the certification requirements have been met.

The DOE notifies the applicant and the IRS that it has received the applicant’s notification that the certification requirements have been met.

The IRS will provide a letter to the applicant certifying the project (“Allocation Letter”).

Within two years after receiving the Allocation Letter, the applicant must notify the DOE that the project has been placed in service. The applicant may claim the 48C Credit in the year in which the property is placed in service.

Additional guidance from the Treasury Department and IRS is expected to be released throughout the year.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all “Section” references are to the IRC.

[2] For any investment tax credit under Section 50(b)(3), an exempt organization could only avail itself of such credit to the extent the property in question was used in unrelated business income. So in effect, prior to the enactment of IRA, any property that was used consistent with the tax exempt organization’s mission presented an obstacle which Section 6417 expressly overrides. Section 50(b)(3).

[3] If a taxpayer fails to meet the prevailing wage requirement during a particular year, the taxpayer may cure the failure by paying each worker the difference between actual wages paid and the prevailing wage, plus interest and a penalty of $5,000. If a taxpayer’s failure to pay prevailing wages was due to “intentional disregard,” then the taxpayer must pay each worker three times the difference and pay the IRS a $10,000 penalty per worker.

© 2023 Blank Rome LLP

For more tax news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

U.S. Department of Transportation Finalizes EV Charging Infrastructure Rules

Effective as of March 30, 2023, the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) within the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) announced the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements final rule  (the “Final Rule”) (23 CFR 680).  The Final Rule included several significant updates to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on June 9, 2022 which we summarized in our prior article. These updates function to establish a set of minimum standards and requirements for electric vehicle (“EV”) charging infrastructure projects funded with federal dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”), and with these updates in place, interested parties will have certainty with respect to NEVI-funded projects.1

The key updates included in the Final Rule are located in the following sections:

  1. Installation, operation, and maintenance by qualified technicians of EV infrastructure (§ 680.106)

  2. Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure (§ 680.108)

  3. Data requested related to a project funded under the NEVI Formula Program, including the format and schedule for the submission of such data (§ 680.112)

  4. Network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure (§ 680.114)

  5. Information on publicly available EV charging infrastructure locations, pricing, real-time availability, and accessibility though mapping applications. (§ 680.116)

Installation and Operation

The Final Rule contains modified language clarifying that any time charging stations are installed, there must be a minimum of four (4) ports, notwithstanding the type of port–including Direct Current Fast Charger (“DCFC”) and AC Level 2 chargers. Additionally, charging stations may also have non-proprietary connectors. This modification allows permanently attached non-proprietary connectors to be provided on each charging port so long as each DCFC charging ports have at least one permanently attached CCS type 1 connector and is capable of charging a CCS compliant vehicle.  These modifications will allow for increased accessibility to owners of all types of electric vehicles.

Concerned commenters expressed distain toward the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for lack of clarity on whether the Final Rule would apply to the NEVI formula program, Title 23, and publicly accessible EV chargers funded as a project on a federal aid highway. The FHWA responded in the Final Rule with modified language to confirm its applicability across these programs. To address concerns about opposition to the rule as applied to Title 23 projects, the language in the Final Rule was revised to provide increased flexibility in the use of funds to install different types of chargers, including for projects not located along Alternative Fuel Corridors and installing AC Level 2 charges and DCFCs at lower power levels. Additionally, AC Level 2 charger capability was modified to incorporate the ability to charge at 208-volt.

The Final Rule also reevaluated and modified charging capacity. Modifications require that each DCFW must simultaneously deliver up to 150 kW. Additionally, each AC level 2 port is required to have the capability of providing at least 6 kW, however, the customer has the option to accept a lower power level to allow power sharing or to participate in smart charge management programs. Smart charge management involves controlling charging power levels in response to external conditions and is typically applied in situations where EVs are connected to charges for long periods of time, such that prolonging charging for the benefit of the grid is not objectionable to charging customers. In contrast, power sharing involves dynamically curtailing power levels of charging ports based on the total power demand of all EVs concurrently charging at the same station. Power sharing is permissible above the minimum per-port requirements for DCFC and AC Level 2 chargers. Further, each DCFC port must support output voltage with a permitted range between 250 and 920 volts. This all allows for greater flexibility to manage the cost of the stations designed to meet current and future demand for increases in power, given the strong market trend towards EV charging power capacity above 150 kW for DCFC and above 6 kW for AC Level 2 charging.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking required charging stations to remain open for 24 hours, but commenters believed this requirement did not present a realistic standard nationwide. In the Final Rule, the language was amended to allow for less restrictive charging hours for charging stations located off designated AFCs and requires that the charging station must be available for use at least as frequently as the business operating hours of the site host, with discretion to the site host to allow longer access.

Payment and Price Transparency

Payment and Price Transparency received both modification and expansion under the Final Rule. State programs may allow for certain charging stations to be free, and as such, language in the Final Rule was modified to specify that payment mechanisms may be omitted from charging stations if charging is provided for free. Regarding acceptable payment methods, the Final Rule explicitly incorporated payment by mobile application in the “contactless payment methods” definition. Further, the Final Rule modified acceptable payment methods to include an automated toll-free calling or an SMS option as an additional payment method. While there is no guarantee that every individual will have access or the ability to speak on the phone or send a text, the FHWA sees this addition as a step in the right direction to help bridge the accessibility gap in access and payment for EV charging.

The Final Rule also altered price transparency to require that the dollar per kWh be transparently communicated prior to initiating a charge, and that other fees be clearly explained prior to payment.

Charging Station Information, Data Sharing, and Interoperability of EV Charging Infrastructure

The Final Rule also modified uptime requirements. The uptimes calculations were clarified by modifying the definition of when a charger is considered “up” and further modifying the equation to calculate uptime to the nearest minute to make the calculation more uniform across all charging station operators and network providers.

Open Charge Point Protocol (“OCPP”) and ISO 15118 are key components of interoperability. OCPP is an open source communication standard for EV charging stations and networks, and ISO 15118 is hardware that specifies the communication between EVs including Battery Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. In the Final Rule, the FHWA discussed that OCPP version 2.01 has significant improvements over previous versions and contains compelling benefits to the EV charging ecosystem. As such, the Final Rule contains modifications regarding the charger-to-charger network requiring that charging networks conform to the newer OCPP version 2.01 by one year after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. Additionally, FHWA requires charging station conformance to ISO 15118 and Plug and Charge capability by one year after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. Although many chargers on the market today are not yet using ISO 15118, the FHWA sees value in establishing a national standard for compliance. .

Annual data submittal, quarterly, and one time submittal requirements were modified to be completely streamlined and requiring any data made public to be aggregated and anonymized to protect confidential business information. The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation will establish and manage a national database and analytics platform that will streamline submission of data from States and their contractors along with providing ongoing technical assistance to States.

The Final Rule removed interoperability requirements and instead requires that chargers remain functional even if communication with the charging network is temporarily disrupted.

Community Engagement

For NEVI formula program projects, community engagement outcomes were modified in the Final Rule to require inclusion in the annual state EV infrastructure deployment plan rather than a separate report. This will allow for the type of information and data from the States to be most beneficial for informing and improving community engagement. Though we will have to wait until release of the annual Plan guidance to receive details regarding content expectations, commenters suggested several ways the report could be developed, including (i) conditioning funding for future years on meeting robust engagement requirements, including community engagement and equity and inclusion efforts by States (ii) describing how community engagement informed station and siting operations (iii) describing how workforce opportunities were integrated into community engagement efforts; and (iv) describing engagement with disabled community members.

The Future of EV Infrastructure

We will quickly see the significant effects the Final Rule will have on customers and manufacturers alike in enhancing EV charging capacity across the United States in this rapidly changing and ever-growing sector. As regulators, developers, and financiers of EV infrastructure evaluate the Final Rule, the Foley team is at the ready with significant experience, knowledge and expertise related to each element of this transformation, including issues related to the automotive, manufacturing, supply chain, regulatory, IP, private equity, tax equity, project finance, and public-private financing issues.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more Environmental Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FOOTNOTES

1 For a summary of the NEVI Formula Program, refer to our February 2022 article linked here.

H2 Production: A Shift Towards Electrolysis

Hydrogen production technology, according to the joint EPO-IEA report summarizing patent trends in the hydrogen economy (summarized here), accounts for the largest percentage of patenting activity since 2011 among the three primary stages of the hydrogen value chain (i.e., (i) production, (ii) storage, distribution, and transformation, and (iii) end-use industrial applications). Trends show a shift in hydrogen production from carbon-intensive methods to technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The bulk of recent increased patent activity is directed to electrolysis development, while patent activity related to production from biomass and waste has decreased.

Electrolysis

Electrolysis is attractive because it’s a low-emission source, meaning that hydrogen produced through electrolysis creates little to no greenhouse gas emissions. It is possible that water electrolyzers are powered by electricity derived from natural gas or fossil fuels, but unlike most other hydrogen production technology, electrolyzers do not produce greenhouse gas emissions and thereby offer the ability to produce hydrogen with net zero carbon emissions.

In this article, we will first briefly explain electrolysis and conventional concepts using electrolysis. Then, we will give an example of a technology that recently emerged from conventional electrolysis-based solutions. We will close with a brief description of alternative technologies for hydrogen production.

State of the Art

Electrolyzers use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Specifically, an electrolyzer cell includes an anode and a cathode separated by a polymer electrolyte membrane. Water reacts at the anode to form oxygen and positively charged hydrogen ions. The hydrogen ions selectively move across the membrane to the cathode, where they combine with electrons from an external circuit to form hydrogen gas. A number of cells are assembled into a cell stack that efficiently produces hydrogen and oxygen. A standard electrolyzer stack includes membrane electrode assemblies, current collectors, and separator or bipolar plates.

Electrolyzers also range in size and type. Electrolyzer sizes range from small, appliance-size units to large-scale, central production facilities. Electrolyzer types include polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers, alkaline electrolyzers, and solid oxide electrolyzers. Conventional electrolyzer stacks have capacities of 5 MW to 100 MW per stack, depending primarily on the membrane technology.

Emerging Technologies

EvolOh is a California-based startup planning to build the world’s largest hydrogen manufacturing plant in Massachusetts this year to manufacture its anion-exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyzers. The plant will be used for fabrication and assembly of the AEM electrolyzer stacks for producing green hydrogen1. These compact and high-power density electrolyzer stacks should allow for high-speed manufacturing using low-cost materials based on domestic supply chain and no precious metals. With anticipated power ratings of up to 5 MW for a single stack and 50 MW for a single module, EvolOH’s stacks are intended to be designed for large-scale facilities.

As disclosed in EvolOH’s IP, its electrolyzer stack features a bipolar plate assembly including a bipolar plate, a hydrogen seal, a water seal, and a fluid distribution frame. The fluid distribution frame serves multiple purposes within the electrolyzer stack, including containing a cathode flow field, distributing water flow from one water delivery window to a leading edge of the anode flow field, collecting water and oxygen flow from the anode flow field and distributing the flows to oxygen collection windows, and engaging and curing hydrogen seal between the frame and a bipolar plate adjacent to the cathode flow field and a water seal between the frame and a bipolar plate adjacent to the anode flow field.2 In contrast to conventional bipolar plates that include simple flow distribution channels, the bipolar plate assembly of the EvolOH electrolyzer stack is intended to provide for a scalable electrolysis cell that can be utilized in a variety of electrolyzer types.

Also as described in EvolOH’s IP, its electrolyzer stack includes a compression system having a lower wrap and an upper wrap connected at a joint to form a continuous vertical tension boundary around the cell stack and its end units while providing access to opposite lateral ends of the stack.3 Conventional electrolyzer stacks may apply a compressive load on the cell stack using end structural plates drawn together by tie rods and adjustable elements such as screws, nuts, and springs. Unlike the conventional tie rod compression, the compressive system of EvolOH’s electrolyzer stack is intended to maintain adequate compression on the stack over a range of temperatures taking into account thermal expansion and compression.

EvolOH is among many companies focused on the development of electrolyzer technology to scale-up hydrogen to reach a broader market. For example, Air Liquide and Siemens Energy recently teamed up to form a joint venture last year to produce large-scale hydrogen electrolyzers in Europe. Set to open in 2023, they intend to produce a large-scale electrolyzer with an intended capacity of 100 MW that may reduce costs per kW by 33% by 2030. The EPO-IEA study finds that Siemens is one of the leading applicants in electrolyzer patent families since 2011 and that Air Liquide is a top applicant in patent families directed to established hydrogen production technologies as well as hydrogen storage and distribution technologies.

Alternative Hydrogen Production Options

In addition to electrolysis, hydrogen can be produced from other methods such as biomass or waste via gasification or pyrolysis, recovery of by-product hydrogen from chlor-alkali electrolysis, and methane pyrolysis. Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas through methods such as steam reforming, which emits carbon dioxide in the process. Widespread natural gas infrastructure makes hydrogen production from natural gas appealing, and developments in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology may make this option even more appealing.

In our next post on the EPO-IEA’s report, “Hydrogen Patents for a Clean Energy Future: A Global Trend Analysis of Innovation Along Hydrogen Value Chains,” we will dive into the second technology segment of the hydrogen value chain—hydrogen storage, distribution, and transformation.

Article By Jason A. Engel, Dr. Benjamin Fechner, and Clare Frederick of K&L Gates

For more energy and environment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates