When President Jimmy Carter installed rooftop solar panels on the White House, public support for adoption of renewable energy was at a then all-time high and many imagined the possibility of rooftop solar on their own homes and in their own communities. Yet, barriers such as the high up-front installation cost of panels, and of
Over the past decade, Missouri has experienced steady growth in utility-scale solar projects[1] and developers have benefited from a property tax exemption under Section 137.100(10) of the state’s tax code. Since the statutory property tax exemption was passed in 2013, solar facilities have leveraged the tax exemption to offset development and operations costs. Until recently, the solar facility tax exemption had flown largely under the radar, as even the largest solar facilities to come online in Missouri have been smaller than 15 megawatts[2]. Over the last few years, however, Missouri counties have started to see the kind of interest from large utility-scale solar developers that states in the south have been experiencing. But in August of 2022, the Missouri Supreme Court bucked the state’s solar-friendly trend in Johnson v. Springfield Solar 1, LLC, 648 S.W.3d 101 (Mo. 2022), unanimously finding the exemption for “solar energy systems not held for resale” under Section 137.100(10) unconstitutional. The case involved a small solar facility that supplied energy to Springfield, Missouri. The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision means that Springfield Solar 1, LLC could owe Greene County, Missouri more than $400,000 in back property taxes, and more generally, that developers who installed solar equipment in Missouri since 2013 will not be able to rely on the property tax exemption as they had anticipated under the tax code.
Like any acquisition, the purchase of a biofuels company should involve substantial due diligence so the buyer can best determine the value of the target’s assets and liabilities, assess the risks associated with its business operations, and identify areas that may require further investigation.
Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which went into effect in January, it can pay to be a brownfield – a term used to refer to a property that is affected by potential or confirmed contamination. Specifically, the IRA offers incentives to renewable energy development that takes place on a brownfield site, which is included as an “energy community” under the IRA. On April 4, 2023, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Treasury published limited guidance (Notice 2023-29, Energy Community Bonus Credit Amounts under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) on the bonuses available for production and investment of energy facilities in energy communities. Unfortunately, even with the guidance, the eligibility of certain sites as brownfields remains uncertain.
On February 8, 2023, the State of Minnesota enacted House File 7 (“H.F. 7”) to modify electric utility standards and revises the state’s goals for generating carbon-free electricity by 2040. As discussed below, H.F. 7 significantly modifies the legal frameworks that direct and incentivize future Minnesota electric sector developments and has implications for regional energy policy.
The siting of renewable energy infrastructure remains a contentious issue in some communities. Throughout the United States — both on the coasts and in the Midwest — new renewable energy development pits unlikely advocates against unlikely opposition. That said, more and more State governments that are looking to grow their renewable energy industries and meet climate goals are implementing legislative solutions to these renewable energy siting issues.
2022 saw a flurry of renewable natural gas (RNG)-related deals, including in anticipation of (and then in response to) the historic Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Sustainability mandates and the growing maturity of RNG-related credit markets, as well as the IRA’s expansion of investment and production tax credits, drove increased transactions and historic valuations.
On January 27, 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced its intent to invest up to $47 million in funding for clean hydrogen research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) as part of its “Hydrogen Shot” – a program intended to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen to $1 per kilogram in the coming decade by reducing costs and improving the performance of hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen Shot is also part of the Biden administration’s strategy to decarbonize the electric grid entirely by 2035 and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) builds upon recent incentives for investment in hydrogen by encouraging producers and end users of clean hydrogen to continue developing clean hydrogen infrastructure. This article provides an overview of the incentives and how they may be accessed.
The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) recently circulated a Proposed Rule on Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation (“2022 Proposal”). This iteration, as BLM acknowledges, is a revamp of its fraught 2016 attempt to issue a similar rule ostensibly aimed at reducing natural gas waste on federal and Indian leases (“2016 Rule”). The 2016 Rule was ultimately struck down two years ago as unlawful. To the Wyoming federal court, the 2016 Rule sought to regulate air emissions—a role reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the states—rather than prevent the waste of resources through flaring and other means. Undeterred, the Biden Administration believes it has learned from and theoretically fixed the flaws in the 2016 Rule through the 2022 Proposal. The 2022 Proposal claims to focus on reducing operator costs and generating taxpayer revenue. This is a shift from the 2016 Rule, which relied on the benefits from reduced carbon emissions to justify its issuance. Nevertheless, the question to many stakeholders remains: does the 2022 Proposal still exceed BLM’s authority, or has the agency done enough to win a future legal challenge?