Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Trump Opened a Back Door to Kill Wind and Solar Tax Credits

The Senate told renewables developers they’d have a year to start construction and still claim a tax break. Then came an executive order.

Trump burning a calendar.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Renewable energy advocates breathed a sigh of relief after a last-minute change to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act stipulated that wind and solar projects would be eligible for tax credits as long as they began construction within the next 12 months.

But the new law left an opening for the Trump administration to cut that window short, and now Trump is moving to do just that. The president signed an executive order on Monday directing the Treasury Department to issue new guidance for the clean electricity tax credits “restricting the use of broad safe harbors unless a substantial portion of a subject facility has been built.”

The broad safe harbors in question have to do with the way the government defines the “beginning of construction,” which, in the realm of federal tax credits, is a term of art. Under the current Treasury guidance, developers must either complete “physical work of a significant nature” on a given project or spend at least 5% of its total cost to prove they have started construction during a given year, and are therefore protected from any subsequent tax law changes.

As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin previously reported, oftentimes something as simple as placing an order for certain pieces of equipment, like transformers or solar trackers, will check the box. Still, companies can’t just buy a bunch of equipment to qualify for the tax credits and then sit on it indefinitely. Their projects must be up and operating within four years, or else they must demonstrate “continuous progress” each year to continue to qualify.

As such, under existing rules and Trump’s new law, wind and solar developers would have 12 months to claim eligibility for the investment or production tax credit, and then at least four years to build the project and connect it to the grid. While a year is a much shorter runway than the open-ended extension to the tax credits granted by the Inflation Reduction Act, it’s a much better deal than the House’s original version of the OBBBA, which would have required projects to start construction within two months and be operating by the end of 2028 to qualify.

Or so it seemed.

The tax credits became a key bargaining chip during the final negotiations on the bill. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska fought to retain the 12-month runway for wind and solar, while members of the House Freedom Caucus sought to kill it. Ultimately, the latter group agreed to vote yes after winning assurances from the president that he would “deal” with the subsidies later.

Last week, as all of this was unfolding, I started to hear rumors that the Treasury guidance regarding “beginning of construction” could be a key tool at the president’s disposal to make good on his promise. Industry groups had urged Congress to codify the existing guidance in the bill, but it was ultimately left out.

When I reached out to David Burton, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright who specializes in energy tax credits, on Thursday, he was already contemplating Trump’s options to exploit that omission.

Burton told me that Trump’s Treasury department could redefine “beginning of construction” in a number of ways, such as by removing the 5% spending safe harbor or requiring companies to get certain permits in order to demonstrate “significant” physical work. It could also shorten the four-year grace period to bring a project to completion.

But Burton was skeptical that the Treasury Department had the staff or expertise to do the work of rewriting the guidance, let alone that Trump would make this a priority. “Does Treasury really want to spend the next couple of months dealing with this?” he said. “Or would it rather deal with implementing bonus depreciation and other taxpayer-favorable rules in the One Big Beautiful Bill instead of being stuck on this tangent, which will be quite a heavy lift and take some time?”

Just days after signing the bill into law, Trump chose the tangent, directing the Treasury to produce new guidance within 45 days. “It’s going to need every one of those days to come out with thoughtful guidance that can actually be applied by taxpayers,” Burton told me when I called him back on Monday night.

The executive order cites “energy dominance, national security, economic growth, and the fiscal health of the Nation” as reasons to end subsidies for wind and solar. The climate advocacy group Evergreen Action said it would help none of these objectives. “Trump is once again abusing his power in a blatant end-run around Congress — and even his own party,” Lena Moffit, the group’s executive director said in a statement. “He’s directing the government to sabotage the very industries that are lowering utility bills, creating jobs, and securing our energy independence.”

Industry groups were still assessing the implications of the executive order, and the ones I reached out to declined to comment for this story. “Now we’re circling the wagons back up to dig into the details,” one industry representative told me, adding that it was “shocking” that Trump would “seemingly double cross Senate leadership and Thune in particular.”

As everyone waits to see what Treasury officials come up with, developers will be racing to “start construction” as defined by the current rules, Burton said. It would be “quite unusual” if the new guidance were retroactive, he added. Although given Trump’s history, he said, “I guess anything is possible.”

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

EV Fee

On forever chemicals, Indian and Swedish nuclear, and Ford’s battery business

EV charging.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: A raging brushfire in the suburbs north of Los Angeles has forced more than 23,000 Californians to evacuate • The Guayanese capital of Georgetown, newly awash in offshore oil money, is also set to be drenched by thunderstorms through next week • Temperatures in Washington, D.C., are nearing triple digits today.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Congress proposes a $130 per year fee on electric vehicles

A bipartisan budget deal to fund roads, railways, and bridges for the next five years would also slap a $130 per year fee on drivers registering electric vehicles, with a $35 fee for plug-in hybrids. Late Sunday, lawmakers on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the text of the 1,000-page bill. Roughly a sixth of the way through the legislation is a measure directing the Federal Highway Administration to impose the annual fees on battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles — and to withhold federal funding from any state that fails to comply with the rule. If passed, the fees would take effect at the end of September 2027. The fees — which increase to $150 and $50, respectively, after a decade — are designed to reinforce the Highway Trust Fund, which has traditionally been financed through gasoline taxes. In a statement, Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican and the committee’s chairman, said the legislation “ensures that electric vehicle owners begin paying their fair share for the use of our roads.” But Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, called the proposal “simply a punitive tax that would disproportionately impact adopters of electric vehicles, with no meaningful impact on” maintaining the fund. “Drivers of gas-powered vehicles pay approximately $73 to $89 in federal gas tax each year,” Gore said. “The proposed fee would charge an unfair premium on EV drivers, at a time when all Americans are looking for ways to save money.”

Keep reading...Show less
Green
NextEra and Dominion merging.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

America’s largest renewable developer is swallowing up the utility at the heart of the data center boom.

NextEra Energy, which also owns the utility Florida Power & Light, announced Monday morning that it had agreed to acquire Dominion Energy, the utility that operates in Virginia and the Carolinas. The deal would create an energy giant valued at around $67 billion. It would also — importantly for Virginia and PJM Interconnection, the 13-state electricity market of which the state is a part — create a battery electric storage giant.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
AM Briefing

A $400 Billion Megamerger

On Thacker Pass, the Bonneville Power Administration, and Azerbaijan’s offshore wind

Dominion Energy headquarters.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: New York City is bracing for triple-digit heat in some parts of the five boroughs this week • The warm-up along the East Coast could worsen the drought parching the country’s southeastern shores • After Sunday reached 95 degrees Fahrenheit in the war-ravaged Gaza, temperatures in the Palestinian enclave are dropping back into the 80s and 70s all week.


THE TOP FIVE

1. The Iran War energy crisis enters a new phase: ‘We are living on borrowed time’

Assuming world peace is something you find aspirational, here’s the good news: By all accounts, President Donald Trump’s two-day summit in Beijing with Chinese President Xi Jinping went well. Here’s the bad news: The energy crisis triggered by the Iran War is entering a grim new phase. Nearly 80 countries have now instituted emergency measures as the world braces for slow but long-predicted reverberations of the most severe oil shock in modern history. With demand for air conditioning and summer vacations poised to begin in the northern hemisphere’s summer, already-strained global supplies of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel will grow scarcer as the United States and Iran mutually blockade the Strait of Hormuz and halt virtually all tanker shipments from each other’s allies. “We are taking that outcome very seriously,” Paul Diggle, the chief economist at fund manager Aberdeen, told the Financial Times, noting that his team was now considering scenarios where Brent crude shoots up to $180 a barrel from $109 a barrel today. “We are living on borrowed time.”

Keep reading...Show less
Blue