Tag: clean energy

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. 

Relief Arrives for Renewable Energy Industry – Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

On August 12, 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“Act” or “IRA”), a $400 billion legislative package containing significant tax and other governmental incentives for the energy industry, in particular the renewable energy industry. The bill will have an immediate impact on the wind and solar industries, along with other clean energy projects and businesses.

SUMMARY

The IRA is a slimmed down substitute for the Build Back Better bill resulting from a compromise with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), whose support was necessary for the bill to pass the Senate.

The IRA comes as welcome news to the renewable energy industry as important tax incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy resources are set to expire or wind down. Existing law also did not provide any federal tax incentives for the rapidly growing stand-alone energy storage and clean hydrogen industries.

The IRA fixes that, and more. The Act extends the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar, geothermal, biogas, fuel cells, waste energy recovery, combined heat and power, small wind property, and microturbine and microgrid property for projects beginning construction before January 1, 2025. It also extends the production tax credit (PTC) for wind, biomass, geothermal, solar (which previously expired at the end of 2005), landfill gas, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower, and marine and hydrokinetic resources for projects beginning construction before January 1, 2025. The IRA also allows taxpayers to include their interconnection costs as part of their eligible basis for the ITC.

The Act now allows the ITC to be taken for stand-alone energy storage (previously storage was only allowed an ITC if it was part of another project, e.g., solar). Other technologies are also benefitted from the IRA, including carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) (tax credit extended and modified), clean hydrogen (a new credit of up to $3.00 per kilogram of clean hydrogen produced), nuclear power (a new credit of up to 1.5c/kWh) and biofuel (existing credit extended).

The ITC and PTC now come with strings attached. To qualify for the restored 30% ITC and the 2.6c/kWh PTC (adjusted for inflation), projects must pay prevailing wages during construction and the first five years (in the case of the ITC) and 10 years (in the case of the PTC) of operation, while also meeting registered apprenticeship requirements. Projects that fail to satisfy the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements will only receive an ITC of 6% or a PTC of .3c/kWh (adjusted for inflation). The prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements apply to employees of contractors and subcontractors as well as the company. These requirements are effective for projects that begin construction 60 days after the IRS issues additional guidance on this issue. Certain exceptions apply, including for certain small (less than 1 MW) facilities.

On the flip side, the Act includes enhancements that, in the case of the ITC, can increase the credit percentage if a project satisfies certain additional criteria. Bonuses are available for projects that (1) satisfy certain U.S. domestic content requirements (10%) or (2) are located in an “energy community” (10%) or an “environmental justice” area (10% or 20%). An “energy community” is defined as a brownfield site, an area which has or had significant employment related to oil, gas, or coal activities, or a census tract or any adjoining tract in which a coal mine closed after December 31, 1999, or in which a coal-fired electric power plant was retired after December 31, 2009. An “environmental justice” area is a low-income community or Native American land (defined in the Energy Policy Act of 1992) (10%) or a low-income residential building or qualified low-income economic benefit project (20%).

The Act also creates two new methods for monetizing the ITC, PTC, and certain other credits. Tax-exempt organizations will be permitted to elect a “direct pay” option in lieu of a tax credit. In a dramatic change that may have substantial impacts on renewable project finance, the Act permits most taxpayers to transfer the ITC, PTC, and certain other tax credits for cash.

For the first time, the Act includes a tax credit, known as the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit, for companies manufacturing clean energy equipment in the U.S. such as PV cells, PV wafers, solar grade polysilicon, solar modules, wind energy components, torque tubes, structural fasteners, electrode active materials, battery cells, battery modules, and critical minerals.

The Act also contains major tax incentives, in the form of credits and enhanced deductions to spur electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles, alternative fuel refueling stations, nuclear power, energy efficiency, biofuels, carbon sequestration and clean hydrogen. Additional grants are available for interregional and offshore wind and electricity transmission projects, including for interconnecting offshore wind farms to the transmission grid.

Additional detail regarding these provisions follow below.

KEY ENERGY PROVISIONS OF THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022

Investment Tax Credit (ITC)

The ITC is extended for projects beginning construction prior to January 1, 2025. The ITC starts at a base rate of 6%. The ITC increases to 30% if a project (1) pays prevailing wages during the construction phase and for the first five years of operation and (2) meets registered apprenticeship requirements. The ITC applies to solar, fuel cells, waste energy recovery, geothermal, combined heat and power, and small wind property, and is now expanded to include stand-alone energy storage projects (including thermal energy storage), qualified biogas projects such as landfill gas, electrochromic glass, and microgrid controllers. For microturbine property the base rate is 2%, which increases to 10% if the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements are met.

Projects under one megawatt (AC) and projects that begin construction prior to 60 days after the Secretary of the Treasury publishes guidance on the wage and registered apprenticeship requirements do not have to meet the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements to qualify for the 30% ITC.

PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT

The new prevailing wage requirement is intended to ensure that laborers and mechanics employed by the project company and its contractors and subcontractors for the construction, alteration or repair of qualifying projects are paid no less than prevailing rates for similar work in the locality where the facility is located. The prevailing rate will be determined by the most recent rates published by the U. S. Secretary of Labor. Prevailing wages for the area must be paid during construction and for the first five years of operation for repairs or alterations once the project is placed in service. Failure to satisfy the standard will result in a significant penalty, including an 80% reduction in the ITC (i.e., an ITC of 6%), remittance of the wage shortfall to the underpaid employee(s) and a $5,000 penalty per failure. For intentional disregard of the requirement the penalty increases to three times the wage shortfall and $10,000 penalty per employee.

The prevailing wage requirement takes effect for projects that begin construction after December 31, 2022, but not before 60 days after the Secretary publishes its guidance. Projects under 1 MW (AC) are exempt from the requirement.

APPRENTICESHIP REQUIREMENT

For projects with four or more employees, work on the project by contractors and subcontractors must be performed by qualified apprentices for the “applicable percentage” of the total number of labor hours. A qualified apprentice is an employee who participates in an apprenticeship program under the National Apprenticeship Act. The applicable percentage of labor hours phases in and is equal to 10% of the total labor hours for projects that begin construction in 2022, 12.5% for projects beginning construction in 2023, and 15% thereafter. Similar penalties to the prevailing wage penalties apply for failure to satisfy the apprenticeship requirement. A “good faith” exception applies where an employer attempts but cannot find apprentices in the project’s locality.

The apprenticeship requirement takes effect for projects that begin construction after December 31, 2022, but not before 60 days after the Secretary publishes its relevant guidance. Projects under 1 MW (AC) are exempt from the requirement.

Credit Enhancements

Domestic Content. Assuming a project meets the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, a qualifying project can earn a 10% ITC bonus (i.e., bringing the ITC to 40%), if it satisfies the domestic content requirement. To satisfy the domestic content requirement a project must use 100% U.S. steel and iron, and an “adjusted percentage” of the total costs of its manufactured components with products that are mined, produced or manufactured in the U.S. The applicable percentage for projects other than for offshore wind facilities initially is set at 40%, increasing to 45% in 2025, 50% in 2026, and 55% in 2027. For offshore wind facilities the adjusted percentage initially is 20%, and phases up to 27.5% in 2025, 35% in 2026, 45% in 2027, and 55% in 2028 and after. The initial domestic content bonus for projects failing to meet the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirement is 2%, which percentage similarly phases up.

Two exceptions exist to the domestic content requirement: (1) if the facility is less than 1 MW (AC) and (2) if satisfying the requirement will increase the overall cost of construction by more than 25 percent, or if the relevant products are not produced in the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or quality. Under these circumstances, the unavailability of the product is counted 100% against the adjusted percentage, that is, the adjusted percentage is calculated as if 100% U.S. content was supplied for the unavailable items.

The domestic content bonus is only available for projects placed in service after December 31, 2022.

Energy Community Bonus. A project can earn an additional 10% ITC bonus if it is built in an energy community. An energy community is defined as (a) a brownfield site (as defined under CERCLA), (b) an area that has or had significant employment related to the coal, oil, or gas industry and has an unemployment rate at or above the national average, or (c) a census tract or adjoining tract in which a coal mine closed after December 31, 1999 or a coal-fired electric power plant was retired after December 31, 2009.

The Energy Community Bonus is only available for projects placed in service after January 1, 2023.

Environmental Justice. An additional 10% and, in some cases, 20% ITC bonus, is available for solar and wind projects of 5 MW AC or less where the project is located in, or services, a low-income community. The environmental justice bonus is limited to a maximum of 1.8 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity in each of calendar years 2023 and 2024, for which a project must receive an allocation from the U.S. Treasury Secretary. The 10% bonus is for projects located in a low-income community or on Native American land (defined in the Energy Policy Act of 1992). The 20% bonus is available for projects that are part of a qualified low-income residential building project or a qualified low-income economic benefit project. A qualified low-income residential project is a residential rental building that participates in a housing program such as those covered under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, a housing assistance program administered by the Department of Agriculture under the Housing Act of 1949, a housing program administered under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, or similar affordable housing programs. A qualified low-income economic benefit project is one where at least 50% of the households have income at less than 200% of the poverty line or at less than 80% of the area’s median gross income.

Storage projects installed in connection with a solar project also qualify for the environmental justice bonus, but not stand-alone storage projects. A project receiving an allocation for the environmental justice credit must be placed in service within four years of the date it receives the allocation.

Stand-Alone Storage. The Act now provides a tax credit for stand-alone energy storage projects. To qualify, the storage project must be capable of receiving, storing and delivering electrical energy and have a nameplate capacity of at least 5 kWh. Thermal storage projects and hydrogen storage projects qualify under the new provision. Like the ITC for other technologies, the base ITC for stand-alone storage is 6%, and increases to 30% for projects that satisfy the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements or if they are placed into service prior to 60 days after the Treasury Secretary issues guidance on prevailing wage and apprenticeship standards.

Interconnection Equipment. Qualifying projects under 5 MW (AC) now may claim an ITC on their interconnection costs. The credit applies even if the interconnection facilities are owned by the interconnecting utility, so long as they were paid for by the taxpayer. This is not a stand-alone tax credit, but rather an additional cost added to a project’s basis eligible for the ITC.

Production Tax Credit (PTC)

The Act extends the production tax credit (PTC) for projects beginning construction before January 1, 2025. The PTC is set at an initial Base Rate of .3c/kwh. Like the ITC, the credit increases to 1.5c/kwh for projects satisfying the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. The 1.5 c/kWh, with the inflationary adjustment provided for the PTC, brings the PTC up to 2.6c/kWh in 2022. In addition to wind projects, the PTC is available to solar, closed-loop and open-loop biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, qualifying hydropower, and marine and hydrokinetic facilities. Thus, solar projects may now choose either the PTC or the ITC. They cannot receive both.

CREDIT ENHANCEMENTS

Like the ITC, a project can receive an enhanced PTC similar in degree to those under the ITC for satisfying the domestic content, energy community and/or environmental justice requirements. For projects meeting the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements the increase for each applicable bonus is generally 10% of the underlying credit and, for projects failing to satisfy those requirements, 2%.

Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit

The Act creates a new clean electricity tax credit (ITC and PTC) that replaces the existing ITC and PTC once they phase out at the end of 2024. The successor ITC/PTC is technology neutral. Any project producing electricity can qualify for the tax credit if its greenhouse gas emissions rate is not greater than zero. The successor ITC is 30% and the PTC is 1.5c/kWh, escalated annually with inflation. The Clean Energy ITC/PTC will phase out the later of 2032 or when emission targets are achieved (i.e., the electric power sector emits 75% less carbon than 2022 levels). Once the target is reached, facilities will be able to claim a credit at 100% value in the first year, then 75%, then 50%, and then 0%.

Clean Hydrogen Production Credit

This Act for the first time provides a tax credit for qualifying clean hydrogen projects. The credit is available for clean hydrogen produced at a qualifying facility during the facility’s first 10 years of operation. The base credit amount is $0.60 per kilogram (kg) times the “applicable percentage,” adjusted annually for inflation. For projects meeting the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements the credit amount is five times that base amount, or $3.00/kg times the applicable percentage, adjusted annually for inflation.

The applicable percentage for hydrogen projects achieving a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate of less than 0.45 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg is 100%. The applicable percentage falls to 33.4% for hydrogen projects with an emissions rate between .45kg and 1.5kg, and to 25% for hydrogen projects with an emissions rate between 1.5 kg and 2.5 kg. For hydrogen projects with a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate between 4 kg and 2.5 kg of CO2e per kg, the applicable percentage is 20%.

To qualify for the credit, the facility must begin construction before January 1, 2033. Facilities existing before January 1, 2023 can qualify for a credit based on the date that modifications to their facility required to produce clean hydrogen are placed into service. Taxpayers may also claim the PTC for electricity produced from renewable resources by the taxpayer if the electricity is used at a clean hydrogen facility to produce qualified clean hydrogen. The Direct Pay option, discussed below, is available for clean hydrogen projects.

Taxpayers can elect to claim the ITC in lieu of the clean hydrogen production credit. However, taxpayers claiming the clean hydrogen credit cannot also claim a tax credit for carbon capture under Section 45Q, and vice versa.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Credit

Under prior law, industrial carbon capture or direct air capture (DAC) facilities that began construction by December 31, 2025, could qualify for the Section 45Q tax credit for carbon oxide sequestration. This credit could be claimed for carbon oxide captured during the 12-year period following the facility being placed in service. The per metric ton tax credit for geologically sequestered carbon oxide was set to increase to $50 per ton by 2026 ($35 per ton for carbon oxide that is reused, such as for enhanced oil recovery) and adjusted for inflation thereafter.

The Act extends the deadline for construction to January 1, 2033 and increases the credit amount. The base credit amount for CCS is $17 per metric ton for carbon oxide that is captured and geologically sequestered, and $12 per metric ton for carbon oxide that is reused. For facilities that meet the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements during construction and for the first 12 years of operation, the credit amounts are $85 per ton and $60 per ton, respectively.

The credit amount for carbon oxide captured using DAC and geologically sequestered is also increased under the Act to a base rate of $36 per metric ton, and to $180 per metric ton for projects that meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. The rates are indexed for inflation beginning in 2026.

The Act reduces the minimum plant size required to qualify for the credit:  from 100,000 to 1,000 tons per year for DAC; from 500,000 to 18,750 metric tons per year for electric generating facilities paired with qualifying CCS equipment, and from 25,000 to 12,500 metric tons per year for any other facility. A CCS project paired with an electric generating unit will be required to capture at least 75% of unit (not facility) CO2 production.

Advanced Energy Project Credit

The Act provides a 30% credit for investments in projects that re-equip, expend, or establish certain domestic manufacturing or industrial facilities to support the production or recycling of renewable energy property. Examples of such facilities include those producing or recycling components for:

  • Energy storage systems and components;
  • Grid modernization equipment or components;
  • Equipment designed to remove, use, or sequester carbon oxide emissions;
  • Equipment designed to refine, electrolyze, or blend any fuel, chemical, or product which is renewable or low-carbon and low-emission;
  • Property designed to produce energy conservation technologies (residential, commercial and industrial);
  • Electric or fuel-cell vehicles, including for charging and refueling infrastructure;
  • Hybrid vehicles weighing less than 14,000 pounds and associated technologies, components, or materials;
  • Re-equipping industrial and manufacturing facilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20%;
  • Re-equipping, expanding, or establishing an industrial facility for the processing, refining or recycling of critical materials.

Projects not satisfying the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements will only receive the base ITC credit of 6%.

The Act makes $10 billion available for qualifying advanced energy projects. Of that amount, at least $4 billion must be allocated to projects located in energy communities. The Treasury Secretary will establish a program to award credits to qualifying advanced energy projects. Applicants awarded credits will have two years to place the property in service. The provision goes into effect on January 1, 2023.

Advanced Manufacturing Production

The Act creates a new production tax credit that can be claimed for the domestic production and sale of qualifying solar and wind components, such as inverters, battery components and critical minerals needed to produce these components.

Credits for solar components include:

  • for thin film photovoltaic cell or crystalline photovoltaic cell, 4 cents per DC watt of capacity;
  • for photovoltaic wafers, $12 per square meter;
  • for solar grade polysilicon, $3 per kilogram;
  • for polymeric backsheet, 40 cents per square meter; and
  • for solar modules, 7 cents per DC watt of capacity.

For wind energy components, if the component is an offshore wind vessel, the credit is equal to 10% of the sales price of the vessel. Otherwise, the credits for various wind components vary as set forth below, which amount is multiplied by the total rated capacity of the completed wind turbine on a per watt basis for which the component is designed.

The applicable amounts for wind energy components are:

  • 2 cents for blades
  • 5 cents for nacelles
  • 3 cents for towers
  • 2 cents for fixed platform offshore wind foundations
  • 4 cents for floating platform offshore wind foundations
  • for torque tubes and longitudinal purlin, $0.87 per kg
  • for structural fasteners, $2.28 per kg
  • for inverters, the credit is an amount multiplied by the inverter’s AC capacity, with different types of inverters eligible for specified credit amounts ranging from 1.5 cents to 11 cents per watt
  • for electrode active materials, the credit is 10% of the production cost
  • for battery cells the credit is $35 per kilowatt hour of battery cell capacity. Battery modules qualify for a credit of $10 per kilowatt hour of capacity (or $45 in the case of a battery module which does not use battery cells).

A 10% credit is also available for the production of critical minerals. Critical minerals include aluminum, antimony, barite, beryllium, cerium, cesium, chromium, cobalt, dysprosium, europium, fluorspar, gadolinium, germanium, graphite, indium, lithium, manganese, neodymium, nickel, niobium, tellurium, tin, tungsten, vanadium and yttrium.

For purposes of the credits for battery cells and modules, to qualify the capacity-to-power ratio cannot exceed 100:1. The term ‘capacity-to-power ratio’ means the ratio of the capacity of the cell or module to the maximum discharge amount of the cell or module.

The advanced manufacturing credit phases out for components sold after December 31, 2029. Components sold in 2030 are eligible for 75% of the full credit amount. Components sold in 2031 and 2032 are eligible for 50% and 25% of the full credit amount, respectively. No credit is available for components sold after December 31, 2032. The phase-out does not apply to the production of critical minerals.

DIRECT PAY

The Act contains a valuable cash payment option that allows certain organizations to treat certain tax credit amounts including, among others, the ITC, PTC, clean hydrogen, and carbon capture credits, as payments of tax and then receive a refund for that tax that is deemed paid. Under the so-called “direct pay” option, in lieu of receiving a tax credit, an eligible entity will be treated as if it had paid taxes in the amount of the credit, for which it can then receive a cash refund. Entities eligible for the direct pay option include tax-exempt organizations, state and local governments, Indian tribes (as defined in the Act), the Tennessee Valley Authority, and any Alaska Native Corporation. The direct pay option is subject to an annual election and must be claimed by a partnership or S corporation rather than its partners or S corporation shareholders. Refunds under the direct pay provisions are treated the same as tax credits for purposes of basis reduction, depreciation rules, and recapture.

For qualifying facilities electing direct pay that do not meet the domestic content requirements, a reduction applies for projects beginning construction in 2024 (90%) and 2025 (85%). Thereafter, the direct pay option will not be available for projects that do not satisfy the domestic content requirement.

TRANSFERRABLE CREDITS

The IRA allows eligible taxpayers that do not elect the direct pay option to transfer certain credits to unrelated taxpayers including, among others, the ITC, PTC, clean hydrogen, and carbon capture credits. The transferred credit must be exchanged for cash. Credits may only be transferred once. Carryforwards or carrybacks are not transferable. Payments made to the transferor of the credit are not taxable to the transferor, nor is the payment by the transferee to the transferor deductible to the transferee.

The credit period for transferred credits is 23 years (including three years for carrybacks). The credit must be used in earliest possible year of transferee. A 20% penalty may apply for both direct payments and transfers where excessive payments have occurred.

Zero Emission Nuclear Power Production Credit

The Act includes a new PTC for the production of electricity from an existing nuclear facility that was placed in service before the date of enactment of the Act. To qualify, the electricity from the facility must be produced and sold to an unrelated person after December 31, 2023. The credit terminates on December 31, 2032. The base PTC amount is 3 cents per kWh, but is increased five times if wage and apprenticeship requirements are met (to 1.5 cents per kWh), in each case adjusted annually for inflation and reduced by a reduction amount to the extent electricity from the plant is sold at a price over $0.025/kWh.

Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen-Fueled Cars

The Act includes a $7,500 credit for taxpayers purchasing new electric vehicles and a $4,500 tax credit for used ones. The Act eliminates the previous “per-manufacturer” limits that applied to the new vehicle credit, but imposes new domestic content and assembly requirements, as well as caps on the retail price of new vehicles, and the income of the taxpayers purchasing the vehicle.

The Act also sets aside financing and credits to promote electric vehicle manufacturing. It calls for $2 billion in grants to help convert existing auto manufacturing factories into ones that make electric vehicles and $20 billion of loans for new clean vehicle manufacturing facilities. The Act extends the credits to hydrogen-fueled cars in addition to EVs.

Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit

The Act revives the expired credit for alternative fuel refueling property (i.e., electric vehicle chargers), allowing it for property placed in service before December 31, 2032. The base credit is 6% of the cost of property, and is increased to 30% if wage and apprenticeship requirements are met. The previous $30,000 cap is also increased to $100,000.

OFFSHORE WIND

The IRA puts in place a 10-year window in which a lease for offshore wind development cannot be issued unless an oil and gas lease sale has also been held in the year prior and is not less than 60 million acres. The Act also withdraws the Trump administration’s moratorium on offshore wind leasing in the southeastern U.S. and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

GREEN BANK

The Act includes $27 billion toward a clean energy technology accelerator to support deployment of emission-reduction technologies, especially in disadvantaged communities. The EPA Administrator would be permitted to disburse $20 billion to “eligible recipients,” which are defined as non-profit green banks that “provide capital, including by leveraging private capital, and other forms of financial assistance for the rapid deployment of low- and zero-emission products, technologies, and services.

Clean Fuel Production Credit

The Act creates a new tax credit for domestic clean fuel production starting in 2025 and expires for transportation fuels sold after December 31, 2027. The tax credit is calculated as the applicable amount multiplied by the emissions factor of the fuel. The base credit is $0.20 per gallon of transportation fuel produced at a qualified facility and sold, which increases to $1.00 if prevailing wage requirements are met. The base credit is $0.35/gallon for sustainable aviation fuel, $1.75 if labor and wage requirements are satisfied. The emissions factor of the fuel may reduce the credit amount. The credits are adjusted for inflation. The credit cannot be claimed if other clean fuel credits are claimed, including clean hydrogen production.

Article By Kris J. Eimicke and Merrill Kramer of Pierce Atwood LLP

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

©2022 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

Key Takeaways from U.S. Supreme Court Decision in West Virginia v. EPA

On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. __, 2022 WL 2347278 (June 30, 2022), a case involving the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) and the Trump Administration’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. Applying the “major questions” doctrine, the Court held that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when promulgating the CPP. This decision has implications for the Biden Administration’s planned re-work and reissuance of the CPP and other options for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electric power and other sectors. It also carries implications outside the environmental realm, providing litigants a powerful new administrative law precedent to challenge agency rules.

Key Takeaways and Issues to Watch

1. “Major questions” doctrine. The most significant takeaway of the opinion is the Court’s elaboration and application of the “major questions” doctrine, as a limit on federal agency regulatory authority. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that in “certain extraordinary cases” where an agency asserts broad authority of “economic and political significance,” courts should look for a clear statement of congressional authorization before green-lighting the action. Based on the “major questions” doctrine, the Court rejected the CPP’s partial reliance on generation shifting (from coal-fired power plants to natural gas or renewable electricity generation) as a component of the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) for reducing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. The Court held that Clean Air Act Section 111(d), 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), a rarely-used statutory provision, was not sufficient to support a rulemaking that “restructure[ed] the Nation’s overall mix of electricity generation….” Because the Court determined this result would carry consequences of economic and political significance, the Court found the rule triggered the “major questions” doctrine. The Court reiterated that although Section 111(d) authorizes EPA to establish emission guidelines for existing major sources of air pollution based on BSER, the Agency could not do so using such transformative measures.

This decision represents the Supreme Court’s first formal assertion of the “major questions” doctrine, applicable when an agency claims broad authority based on new interpretations of older statutes or statutes in which the grant of authority is not explicitly stated. Although this was not the first Supreme Court case employing this logic, this was the first case where the Court formally used the phrase “major questions” doctrine. Other cases the Court pointed to include a 2000 case rejecting the asserted authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products, like cigarettes, as drug-delivery “devices,” and more recent cases from this Supreme Court term concerning the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to apply long-extant legal authorities in the context of COVID-19.

2. Chevron deference doctrine. The Court does not strike down Chevron as some parties had predicted or sought. That doctrine—requiring courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of an ambiguous statute it is charged with administering—survives for now. Indeed, the majority opinion did not even cite Chevron deference.

3. Biden EPA. This decision immediately affects the scope of the Biden Administration’s approach to regulating power sector GHG emissions. The Administration has said that it wants to start these rules from a clean slate.

a. On-site measures. As noted in the decision, the Administration may be more likely to consider on-site measures as the BSER. Such options might include partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) or natural gas co-firing. The Obama EPA had declined to use those options for existing sources because it believed generation shifting was a less expensive way for industry to comply. But EPA had used partial carbon capture to set the limits for new sources, so it may review that issue now. Since the CPP’s issuance, the IRS Section 45Q tax credit for CCS and commercialization of CCS technologies that did not exist when the CPP was drafted may also affect the EPA’s approach now.

b. Generation shifting off the table. At least for setting the stringency of BSER, EPA will not be able to rely on generation-shifting measures. Advances in CCS technologies and the Section 45Q tax credit may also affect how EPA defines BSER for coal-fired plants in particular.

c. Seeking GHG reductions as “co-benefits” of other power sector rules. The Biden EPA may also consider other power plant emission rules under other CAA programs to achieve GHG reductions as “co-benefits.” Programs for regional haze, interstate air pollution, and hazardous air pollutants regulate other emissions, but often have the effect of reducing GHGs as well.

d. Other climate authorities will likely get a more intense look. The decision may also likely cause the Biden EPA to consider other, more clearly established GHG sources or authorities to seek additional GHG emissions reductions (e.g., mobile sources, HFCs).

4. Congressional action remains key. The Court’s decision underscores that certain rulemakings will need to rely on clear legislative authority to withstand legal challenges. Notably, the decision does not divest Congress from the ability to delegate “major questions” like this to federal agencies; it only requires that such delegations be clearly stated. Congress retains authority to act in any number of ways on climate change—including with economy-wide emissions programs (as it considered during the first Obama term), or by drafting clearer EPA authority—but with a narrowly-divided House and Senate, these actions seem unlikely.

5. Power sector practical effects. The practical outcome for the power sector is limited. That sector, in many respects, has already decarbonized at a rate faster than provided for by the CPP, largely for economic reasons.

6. States. This decision will likely encourage some states to use their authority to regulate GHG emissions, given the narrowed scope of EPA’s authority.

7. Future challenges. Expect litigants to rely heavily on the West Virginia decision in other rulemaking challenges going forward, whenever agencies act under existing authorities in a way that, in the Chief Justice’s words, “raises an eyebrow.” This may include not only EPA regulatory efforts to address modern environmental challenges, but actions of other federal agencies such as efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to regulate internet service providers to impose net neutrality, or efforts by the Securities and Exchange Commission to establish ESG disclosure requirements. Litigants will have a powerful tool to challenge those rules if they can persuasively phrase the question in “major question” terms.

Article By Eric L. Christensen, Brook J. Detterman, David M. Friedland, Jennifer J. Leech, and Zachary B. Pilchen of Beveridge & Diamond PC

For more environmental law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC

ARPA-E: Biden’s Proposed FY 2023 Budget Boosts Investment in Clean Energy Technologies

On March 28, 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration sent the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 to the United States Congress (“Congress”). The President’s proposed $5.8 trillion budget for FY 2023 allocates billions of dollars toward combating climate change and boosting clean energy development. Biden’s budget requests $48.2 billion for the Department of Energy (“DOE”), with $700 million of those funds allocated to the DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program (“ARPA-E”).[1] With these increased funds, the Biden administration plans for ARPA-E to expand its scope beyond energy technology–focused projects to include climate adaptation and resilience innovations.[2]

What Is ARPA-E?

ARPA-E is a United States federal government agency under the purview of the Department of Energy that funds and promotes the research and development of advanced energy technologies. ARPA-E was recommended to Congress in the 2005 National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Bright Economic Future, which published recommendations for federal government actions to maintain and expand U.S. competitiveness.[3] In 2007, ARPA-E was officially created after Congress implemented a number of the report’s recommendations by enacting the America COMPETES Act.[4] The 2007 Act was superseded by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, which incorporated much of the original language of the 2007 Act but made some modifications to ARPA-E structure.[5] In 2009, ARPA-E officially commenced operations after receiving its first appropriated funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 —$400 million to fund the establishment of ARPA-E.[6]

ARPA-E’s mission is statutorily defined as overcoming “the long-term and high-risk technology barriers in the development of energy technologies.”[7] This involves the development of energy technologies that will achieve various goals, including the reduction of fossil fuel imports, the reduction of energy-related emissions, improvements in energy efficiency, and increased resilience and security of energy infrastructure.[8] The statute directs ARPA-E to pursue these objectives through particular means:

  1. Identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental and applied sciences;
  2. Translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations; and
  3. Accelerating transformational technological advances in areas industry is unlikely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.[9]

The Impact of ARPA-E

Since 2009, ARPA-E has provided approximately $3 billion in R&D funding for over 1,294 potentially transformational energy technology projects.[10] Publishing annual reports to analyze and catalog its influence, the agency tracks commercial impact with key early indicators, including private-sector follow-on funding, new company formation, partnership with other government agencies, publications, inventions, and patents.[11]

Many ARPA-E project teams have continued to advance their technologies: 129 new companies have been formed, 285 licenses have been issued, 268 teams have partnered with another government agency, and 185 teams have together raised over $9.87 billion in private-sector follow-on funding.[12] In addition, ARPA-E projects fostered technological innovation and advanced scientific knowledge, as evidenced by the 5,497 peer-reviewed journal articles and 829 patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that sprung from the ARPA-E program.[13] ARPA-E recently announced that it is starting to count exits through public listings, mergers, and acquisitions. As of January 2022, ARPA-E has 20 exits with a total reported value of $21.6 billion.[14]

How Does Biden’s FY 2023 Budget Affect ARPA-E?

Biden has requested a 56% increase for ARPA-E, to $700 million.[15] The budget also proposes expansions of ARPA-E’s purview to more fully address innovation gaps around adaptation, mitigation, and resilience to the impacts of climate change.[16] This investment in research and development of high-potential and high-impact technologies aims to help remove technological barriers to advance energy and environmental missions.[17]

The request provides that ARPA-E shall also expand its scope “to invest in climate-related innovations necessary to achieve net zero climate-inducing emissions by 2050.”[18] Given the increasing bipartisan support for alternative energy funding and ARPA-E’s continuing and rising commercial impact, it is likely that ARPA-E’s funding and support of the research and development of early-stage energy technologies will continue to pave the way for the commercialization of advanced energy technologies.

Endnotes

  1. https://www.law360.com/articles/1478133/biden-budget-provides-billions-for-clean-energy
  2. https://www.energy.gov/articles/statement-energy-secretary-granholm-president-bidens-doe-fiscal-year-2023-budget
  3. https://doi.org/10.17226/24778
  4. Id. at 22
  5. Id.
  6. Id.
  7. 42 U.S.C. § 16538(b)
  8. 42 U.S.C. § 16538(c)(1)(A)
  9. 42 U.S.C. § 16538(c)(2)
  10. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/about/our-impact
  11. Id.
  12. Id.
  13. Id.
  14. Id.
  15. https://www.science.org/content/article/biden-s-2023-budget-request-science-aims-high-again
  16. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.pdf
  17. Id.
  18. https://www.science.org/content/article/biden-s-2023-budget-request-science-aims-high-again

Article By Kaoru C. Suzuki of Mintz

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

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Commercial PACE Works: National Study Shows Only One Default Out of 1,870 Deals

A recent study by the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab shows that commercial property assessed clean energy loans (PACE) are growing in popularity and are a good bet for lenders and property owners. Through 2017, projects worth $887 million have been completed, creating more than 13,000 jobs.1 The study found just one default on a PACE loan out of 1,870 deals nationwide since 2008.2

PACE is an innovative program that enables property owners to obtain low-cost, long-term loans for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation improvements. Projects financed using PACE can generate positive cash flow upon completion with no up-front, out-of-pocket cost to property owners—eliminating the financial barriers that typically prevent investment in revitalizing aging properties. The term of a PACE Financing may extend up to the useful life of the improvement, which may be as high as 20 years or more, and can result in cost savings that exceed the amount of the PACE financing. The result is improved business profitability, an increase in property value, and enhanced sustainability. PACE financing is also available for new construction under Wisconsin law.

Along with the Wisconsin Counties Association, Slipstream and other partners, von Briesen had a leadership role in creating PACE Wisconsin, a joint powers commission comprising a consortium of Wisconsin counties. von Briesen’s vision of a uniform PACE program throughout the state was implemented through creation of a joint powers commission open to any county that wishes to join. PACE is now available in 43 Wisconsin counties, representing 85% of the state’s population.

The recent PACE study also showed that most jurisdictions adopting PACE programs are using a model similar to the one adopted in Wisconsin, because it is easy for local governments to administer.3 Midwestern states are leading the way in expanding PACE. Wisconsin now ranks 11th in PACE financing deals completed, according to PACENation data through 2017.4 In 2019 PACE Wisconsin closed an $8.8 million deal on a historic hotel renovation in Green Bay, financed with a taxable bond offering by the Public Finance Authority. PACE Wisconsin has $15 million in total closings so far in 2019, and over $10 million in the pipeline for the rest of the year.

PACE Wisconsin has registered more than 80 contracting firms that are ready to make buildings more efficient and more comfortable, and has 17 capital providers available to finance building upgrades and new construction. PACE Wisconsin is also supporting legislation to improve the program by reducing paperwork requirements and making financing available for electric vehicle charging equipment. More information about PACE Wisconsin can be found on its website, www.pacewi.org.

1 PACE Market Data, PACENation website, https://pacenation.us/pace-market-data/(accessed August 4, 2019)
2 Commercial PACE Financing and the Special Assessment Process: Understanding Roles and Managing Risks for Local Governments, Greg Leventis and Lisa Schwartz, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, June 2019, http://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/final_cpace_brief_1_ 112308-74205-eere-c-pace-report-arevalo-fz.pdf (accessed August 4, 2019).
3 Commercial PACE Financing and the Special Assessment Process: Understanding Roles and Managing Risks for Local Governments, Greg Leventis and Lisa Schwartz, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, June 2019, http://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/final_cpace_brief_1 _112308-74205-eere-c-pace-report-arevalo-fz.pdf (accessed August 4, 2019).
4 Study: Nonpayment risk remote for commercial clean energy loans, Frank Jossi, Midwest Energy News, July 31, 2019, https://energynews.us/2019/07/31/national/study-nonpayment-risk-remote-for-commercial-clean-energy-loans/ (accessed August 4, 2019) (citing PACE Market Data, PACENation website, https://pacenation.us/pace-market-data/ (accessed August 4, 2019)).

©2019 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

Baker-Polito Administration Awards $3.7 Million in Grants for Clean Energy Technology

On November 1, the Baker-Polito Administration awarded $3.7 million in grants to increase the adoption of cost-saving clean energy technologies by Massachusetts low-income residents as part of the Commonwealth’s Affordable Clean Residential Energy Program (ACRE).

Launched in April of this year, the ACRE program evolved out of the Administration’s $15 million Affordable Access to Clean and Efficient Energy (AACEE) Initiative, which focuses on coordinating the agencies that serve the energy and housing needs of Massachusetts’ low- and moderate-income residents. The Initiative’s goal is to increase the number of renewable technologies employed by low-income, single-family homes throughout the Commonwealth. To that end, an AACEE working group published a report last year highlighting recommendations to address barriers to clean energy investment by the state’s low-income residents. These recommendations, which included maximizing clean energy market growth in the low-income housing community and structuring clean energy incentives to better serve low-income residents, have served as a guidepost for the Initiative and its suite of programs.

Through ACRE, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) is awarding $2 million to Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD), a non-profit human services organization helping low-income residents in the greater Boston region transition from poverty to stability. ABCD will assist in the installation of air-source heat pumps and solar photovoltaic systems, weatherization, and energy efficient lighting as well as appliance replacement for qualifying single-family homes with reported incomes below 60 percent of the State Median Income.

Energy Futures Group, an expert consulting services organization focused on the design and evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, will receive the remaining $1.7 million of the Administration’s funding and will focus their efforts on Western Massachusetts residents living below 80 percent of the State Median Income.

The ACRE program will give low-income homeowners access to renewable technologies, allowing these households to reduce energy costs without out-of-pocket investment. In addition to helping mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the expanded use of energy efficient appliances benefits all Massachusetts’ ratepayers. By increasing the affordability and accessibility of these technologies, Massachusetts continues to affirm its role as a leader in clean energy generation and the fight against climate change.

This post was written by Sahir Surmeli of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.,©1994-2017
For more Environmental & Energy legal analysis, go to The National Law Review