How Developers Should Think of the New IRA Credit Rules
A conversation with Scott Cockerham of Latham and Watkins.
This week’s conversation is with Scott Cockerham, a partner with the law firm Latham and Watkins whose expertise I sought to help me best understand the Treasury Department’s recent guidance on the federal solar and wind tax credits. We focused on something you’ve probably been thinking about a lot: how to qualify for the “start construction” part of the new tax regime, which is the primary hurdle for anyone still in the thicket of a fight with local opposition.
The following is our chat lightly edited for clarity. Enjoy.
So can you explain what we’re looking at here with the guidance and its approach to what it considers the beginning of construction?
One of the reasons for the guidance was a distinction in the final version of the bill that treated wind and solar differently for purposes of tax credit phase-outs. They landed on those types of assets being placed in service by the end of 2027, or construction having to begin within 12 months of enactment – by July 4th, 2026. But as part of the final package, the Trump administration promised the House Freedom Caucus members they would tighten up what it means to ‘start construction’ for solar and wind assets in particular.
In terms of changes, probably the biggest difference is that for projects over 1.5 megawatts of output, you can no longer use a “5% safe harbor” to qualify projects. The 5% safe harbor was a construct in prior start of construction guidance saying you could begin construction by incurring 5% of your project cost. That will no longer be available for larger projects. Residential projects and other smaller solar projects will still have that available to them. But that is probably the biggest change.
The other avenue to start construction is called the “physical work test,” which requires the commencement of physical work of a significant nature. The work can either be performed on-site or it can be performed off-site by a vendor. The new guidance largely parrotted those rules from prior guidance and in many cases transferred the concepts word-for-word. So on the physical work side, not much changed.
Significantly, there’s another aspect of these rules that say you have to continue work once you start. It’s like asking if you really ran a race if you didn’t keep going to the finish line. Helpfully, the new guidance retains an old rule saying that you’re assumed to have worked continuously if you place in service within four calendar years after the year work began. So if you begin in 2025 you have until the end of 2029 to place in service without having to prove continuous work. There had been rumors about that four-year window being shortened, so the fact that it was retained is very helpful to project pipelines.
The other major point I’d highlight is that the effective date of the new guidance is September 2. There’s still a limited window between now and then to continue to access the old rules. This also provides greater certainty for developers who attempted to start construction under the old rules after July 4, 2025. They can be confident that what they did still works assuming it was consistent with the prior guidance.
On the construction start – what kinds of projects would’ve maybe opted to use the 5% cost metric before?
Generally speaking it has mostly been distributed generation and residential solar projects. On the utility scale side it had recently tended to be projects buying domestic modules where there might have been an angle to access the domestic content tax credit bonus as well.
For larger projects, the 5% test can be quite expensive. If you’re a 200-megawatt project, 5% of your project is not nothing – that actually can be quite high. I would say probably the majority of utility scale projects in recent years had relied on the manufacturing of transformers as the primary strategy.
So now that option is not available to utility scale projects anymore?
The domestic content bonus is still available, but prior to September 2 you can procure modules for a large project and potentially both begin construction and qualify for the domestic content bonus at the same time. Beginning September 2 the module procurement wouldn’t help that same project begin construction.
Okay, so help me understand what kinds of work will developers need to do in order to pass the physical work test here?
A lot of it is market-driven by preferences from tax equity investors and tax credit buyers and their tax counsel. Over the last 8 years or so transformer manufacturing has become quite popular. I expect that to continue to be an avenue people will pursue. Another avenue we see quite often is on-site physical work, so for a wind project for example that can involve digging foundations for your wind turbines, covering them with concrete slabs, and doing work for something called string roads – roads that go between your turbines primarily for operations and maintenance. On the solar side, it would be similar kinds of on-site work: foundation work, road work, driving piles, putting things up at the site.
One of the things that is more difficult about the physical work test as opposed to the 5% test is that it is subjective. I always tell people that more work is always better. In the first instance it’s likely up to whatever your financing party thinks is enough and that’s going to be a project-specific determination, typically.
Okay, and how much will permitting be a factor in passing the physical work test?
It depends. It can certainly affect on-site work if you don’t have access to the site yet. That is obviously problematic.
But it wouldn’t prevent you from doing an off-site physical work strategy. That would involve procuring a non-inventory item like a transformer for the project. So there are still different things you can do depending on the facts.
What’s your ultimate takeaway on the Treasury guidance overall?
It certainly makes beginning construction on wind and solar more difficult, but I think the overall reaction that I and others in the market have mostly had is that the guidance came out much better than people feared. There were a lot of rumors going around about things that could have been really problematic, but for the most part, other than the 5% test option going away, the sense is that not a whole lot changed. This is a positive result on the development side.
