Wind industry in holding pattern, awaiting new tax rules

As long as construction starts before year-end, wind and geothermal properties are eligible for the Production Tax Credit. The problem, Hinckley writes, is no one is exactly sure what it means to begin construction.  

Stephan Savoia/AP/File
A wind turbine stands against the Boston skyline. The long awaited rules on how to start project construction for Production-Tax-Credit eligibility still have not been issued, Hinckley writes.

The IRS issued an important piece of guidance related to clean energy finance this week. It is the annual inflation adjustment for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and it increased the credit from 2.2 to 2.3 cents per kWh for full qualifying energy property like wind and geothermal, while the partial credit for sources like open-loop biomass and incremental hydro remained at 1.1 cents per kWh (also adjusted were the inflation factors for Indian and refined coal).

PTC Rules

More important is what is still missing – despite widespread expectation for a first quarter release, the long awaited rules on how to determine the start of construction for purposes of determining what projects will be PTC eligible at the end of 2013 still have not been issued.

When the PTC was extended as part of the fiscal cliff deal during the holidays there was an important change in the method for determining whether a project would qualify for the credit. Historically, the qualification of property was based on the date the property was placed in service (and it’s worth noting that this rule is actually somewhat vague and the application sometimes very nuanced). Now, qualification is based on when construction for the facility begins. As long as construction starts before year-end, property is eligible for the credit.

The problem, and the new rules will address this – no one is exactly sure what it means to begin construction. There are some obvious assumptions that can be made, but at the edges, such as where a developer is contracting for facility components, the final vision or location of a project is not completely fixed, or instances where an adequate financial commitment is made to begin construction, the rules for qualification will be vital. Developers, vendors and especially investors are waiting for clarity before making key project decisions. While some projects are moving, this overhanging uncertainty has slowed countless projects. 

REITs and Energy

Another piece of guidance that was expected from the IRS during the first quarter was a ruling on the use of REITs to own renewable energy assets. REITs are tax advantaged investment vehicles that are currently limited in use to certain real estate investments. If made available to energy asset ownership, REITs would present an enormous opportunity for an inflow of lower cost project capital, which is vital for future industry growth. Under current rules, the consensus view is that the application of a REIT to energy assets is quite limited (though increasingly some groups have started to work using REITs or energy without clear guidance from the IRS and at least one significant investor is purported to have a ruling that would allow the use of REITs for loans secured by renewable energy assets).

New REIT rules would be important, but will have more impact on future energy financing as the initial value remains limited while the tax credits are in place, but as year end approaches and concerns over the future of financing for wind, biomass, and hydro-derived energy will increase the focus on alternative tools like REITs.

May be that this post will need updating within a few days, but for now, the industry waits. Also, be on the look out here for a future discussion on new approaches to deal structuring using REITs (and possibly MLPs, which need a legislative fix to be expanded beyond current uses primarily in oil and gas).

Source: The IRS and Renewable Energy Finance: The Waiting Game

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.