greenhouse gas emissions
Subscribe to greenhouse gas emissions's Posts

Key Takeaways | Hospitals and Renewable Energy: New Financial Incentives and Opportunities in the Inflation Reduction Act

During this webinar, Heather Cooper and Carl Fleming, partners in the McDermott’s energy & project finance group, teamed up with McDermott+Consulting’s Debra Curtis to break down the key opportunities and actionable steps that your in-house team stakeholders need to know about to take advantage of what the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) has to offer. Discussion topics included a highlight of important provisions in the IRA and the incentives they hold for hospitals, an update on how the Biden administration is approaching climate change and healthcare, how to track funding sources and apply for tax credits and deductions and more.

Below are key takeaways from the discussion:

1. Hospitals, Healthcare and Climate Change. Hospitals and the healthcare sector both have a role to play in climate change mitigation. The healthcare sector accounts for about 8.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and about 4.5% of emissions worldwide. These emissions are generated mostly from running energy-draining facilities 24/7. Hospitals have an opportunity to not only track and report emissions, but also to reduce them.

2. Hospitals and Healthcare Systems Now Face Climate Change Operational Risk. While there may have been a lack of oversight and accountability on hospitals and the healthcare sector in regard to climate change, there are now several forces pushing hospitals—and the healthcare system more broadly—to undertake efforts to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

3. Health Sector Climate Pledge. On June 30, 2022, US President Joe Biden announced the “Health Sector Climate Pledge.” As a result, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in partnership with the White House, is mobilizing the healthcare sector to reduce emissions. Under the Pledge, 61 of the largest US hospital and health sector companies (which account for about 650 hospitals) committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030. Additionally, in response to the Biden administration’s directive to federal agencies on climate change, the HHS has taken several other steps to address the issue. Internally, it has created small offices to examine climate change, health equity and environmental justice.

4. The IRA Is Historic. Perhaps the biggest incentive for hospitals to take action comes from the IRA, which President Biden signed into law back in August. The IRA is the largest climate change legislation ever enacted globally and provides for $369 billion in climate change programs and incentives with a 10-year timeframe (versus the prior one-to-three-year increments). It also greatly expands tax credits for US companies that adopt energy-saving renewable technologies and, for the first time, makes these credits available to nonprofits—a category that includes just over half of the nation’s hospitals.

5. The IRA Unlocks Opportunities for Hospitals. Under the IRA, hospitals now (1) have access to a new significant financial incentive for energy efficiency, (2) gain access to the previously restricted tax equity market via [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Key Takeaways | Clean Hydrogen Producers Get a Big Boost from the Inflation Reduction Act

Green hydrogen is a developing industry in the United States. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which includes $369 billion in energy and climate spending, even introduces a clean hydrogen production tax credit (PTC) and broadens the existing investment tax credit (ITC) to apply to hydrogen projects.

During the latest webinar in our Navigating the New Energy Landscape series, Partners Heather Cooper and Christopher Gladbach were joined by Ivana Jemelkova from FTI Consulting, Ulrich Reinhard from Air Liquide and Tommy Gerrity from Ørsted for a discussion on the future of green hydrogen development following the passage of the IRA.

Below are key takeaways from the discussion:

1. The IRA introduces a new PTC for hydrogen produced after 2022 for a 10-year period from the date the project in question is placed in service. The credit is calculated as a percentage of $0.60/kg based on the resulting lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate and may be multiplied by five for the satisfaction of the wage and apprenticeship rules (as slightly modified compared to the standard tax credit-related wage and apprenticeship rules). To qualify for this PTC, hydrogen must be produced in the United States in the ordinary course of a trade or business for sale or use, and the production must be verified by an unrelated person.

2. The IRA also introduces a new ITC equal to the energy percentage of the cost basis of each specified clean hydrogen production facility placed in service during a taxable year based on the resulting lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate. The credit may also be multiplied by five for the satisfaction of the wage and apprenticeship rules and is eligible to credit adders for the domestic content and energy communities’ bonuses. To be eligible for this ITC, construction of the specified clean hydrogen production facility in question must begin before 2025.

3. Although the tax incentives related to hydrogen are new, the hydrogen industry has been around for over a century. Yet, it is not until recently that hydrogen production technologies have been seen as a clean energy solution. As such, there has been a visible uptick in the delivery of hydrogen through (1) renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar (referred to as green hydrogen), and (2) other energy sources, such as natural gas, supported by carbon capture and storage technology (referred to as blue hydrogen). This trend will be even further bolstered by the IRA, which strives to minimize the carbon impact over the production lifecycle of hydrogen from various energy sources and technologies.

4. With the United States being the second largest consumer in the world, industry experts believe there will be no shortage of demand for hydrogen and hydrogen-related technologies in the near future, especially in light of the enactment of the IRA. Yet, despite the growing opportunities related to hydrogen (g., its use to [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Key Takeaways | Technology-Neutral Tax Credits: When Will ITC and PTC Disappear?

During this webinar, McDermott Partners Heather Cooper and Joel Hugenberger hosted Jay Chang, managing director at CCA Group, for a discussion on how the new technology-neutral tax credit will work and how it may impact the industry moving forward.

Below are key takeaways from the discussion:

1. The newly introduced technology-neutral tax credits (for both the investment tax credit (ITC) and production tax credit (PTC) regimes) are unique in that they can be applied to any facility producing energy so long as the greenhouse gas emissions from said facility are net zero. At this time, emission classes have not yet been established by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), although carbon dioxide capture can be taken into account for calculating the emissions rate under the new technology-neutral tax credit regime. (More guidance surrounding this topic is expected before 2025.) However, it is expected that traditional renewables facilities (e., solar and wind) will be treated as having net zero emissions. Nonetheless, all technologies will have the option to select either ITCs or PTCs and not be restricted by their respective industry (as was previously the case).

2. Generally, the technology-neutral tax credits will follow the ITC and PTC mechanism; there will be 30% ITCs and 100% PTCs, each with potential adders or penalties against each, respectively. The technology-neutral tax credits will also be subject to identical wage and apprenticeship rules that apply to the current tax credits in connection with PTCs and ITCs.

3. Technology-neutral ITCs and PTCs are applicable to projects placed in service after 2024 (e., on or after January 1, 2025). The old ITC and PTC regimes are set to apply to projects that begin construction prior to or during the year 2024. For those projects that overlap between both periods, it is unclear as to which regime would apply. Taxpayers are still awaiting additional guidance from the IRS concerning this inquiry.

4. Technology-neutral PTCs are available to taxpayers without them having to provide evidence of a sale of output. Now, so long as the output is verified by a third-party meter reader, a taxpayer can take advantage of these new credits. Additionally, taxpayers can now claim these technology-neutral tax credits for new additions to existing facilities (which could be particularly beneficial for facilities that might be upsized post-2024.)

5. To note, assuming greenhouse gas emissions reach a target of 25% of the current 2022 rates, technology-neutral ITCs and PTCs will begin to be phased out starting in 2034. Projects beginning construction in 2034 will be entitled to 75% of tax credits. In the following year, projects will be entitled to 50% of tax credits, with projects being entitled to 0% of tax credits in 2036. However, if the proposed greenhouse gas emissions goal is not reached by 2034, this proposed timeline will be extended.

6. In the past, renewable technologies have had to quickly [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Key Takeaways | In the Room Where It Happened

On August 25, McDermott Will & Emery kicked off its latest 10-part weekly webinar series focused on navigating the new energy landscape following the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the Act)—the largest and most important climate action in US history.

During the first webinar, McDermott Partners Carl Fleming and Edward Zaelke hosted Greg Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), for a discussion on the conversations leading up to this historic legislation and its future impact on the renewable energy industry.

Below are key takeaways from the discussion:

1. The Act represents a major win for the renewable energy industry, particularly its extension of tax credits up to a 10-year (or potentially longer) period, allowing businesses in the energy sector to plan on stable tax platforms for longer than a couple of years—something that is truly unprecedented for the renewables industry. Other major highlights include the introduction of tax credits for energy storage and new technologies, such as hydrogen, programs to encourage domestic manufacturing and the monetization of tax credits. The McDermott Energy & Project Finance team has already seen a spike in standalone energy storage mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity and a heightened interest in financing structures.

2. Of further noteworthy importance is the Act’s introduction of the ability to transfer tax credits. Although the direct pay provisions of the Act were not as broad as hoped for by many, Greg believes that the transferability provisions will have a significant impact on the renewable energy market. In his view, the constraints on transferability are minimal and allow for the monetization of credits without partnership flips or sale-leasebacks, although there may still be a role for these types of transactions. According to Greg, the market will likely see a mix of tax equity structures and other kinds of financing as there is now more latitude as to how to monetize these credits. The Energy & Project Finance team is currently advising on a number of innovative structures to allow clients to capitalize on this new game changer for tax credits.

3. Another notable feature of the Act is the ability to stack credits related to domestic content, energy communities and wage and apprenticeship requirements. Although further regulations and guidance are needed in these areas, it is agreed amongst industry specialists that appropriately stacking these incentives could make renewable energy projects much more lucrative while creating beneficial societal impacts, such as building a domestic workforce and supply chain and transitioning away from fossil fuel-driven economies. The Energy & Project Finance team is working with various clients to narrow down such requirements and to help properly “stack” these credits.

4. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions was a true driving force behind the Act and is a meaningful step toward addressing climate issues. However, the devil will be in the details regarding how [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Why 2030 is the New 2050 after the Leaders Climate Summit and What President Biden’s Accelerated Transition to a Sustainable Economy Means for Renewables Developers, Investors and Corporates

2030 is the new 2050 as US President Joe Biden has officially set a new goal for fighting climate change over the next decade in the United States. At the Leaders Climate Summit (the Summit) on Earth Day, he announced that America would aim to cut its greenhouse gas emissions at least 50% below its 2005 levels by 2030. If successful, this transition would lead to a very different America and would affect virtually every corner of the nation’s economy, including the way Americans get to work, the sources from which we heat and cool our homes, the manner in which we operate our factories, the business models driving our corporations and the economic factors driving our banking and investment industries. The effectiveness of this transition lies in the administration’s ability to pull on two historically powerful levers: Tax policy and infrastructure funding. However, tax policy will call upon multiple sublevers, such as increased tax rates, expanded tax credits, refundability, carbon capture, offshore wind, storage, transmission and infrastructure investment. All of this will be bolstered by the American corporate sector’s insatiable appetite for environmental, sustainability and governance (ESG) goal investment.

QUICK TAKEAWAYS

There were six key announcements at the Summit for renewables developers, investors and corporates to take note:

  1. The United States’ commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% – 52% below its 2005 emissions levels by 2030
  2. The United States’ economy to reach net-zero emissions by no later than 2050
  3. The United States to double the annual climate-related financing it provides to developing countries by 2024
  4. The United States to spend $15 billion to install 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations along roads, parking lots and apartment buildings
  5. A national goal to cut the price of solar and battery cell prices in half
  6. A national goal to reduce the cost of hydrogen energy by 80%

President Biden’s goals are ambitious. It is clear from the history of renewable incentives in the United States as well as current developments that moving forward, the green agenda will predominately rely on two primary levers being pulled at the federal level: Tax policy and infrastructure funding. The federal tax levers mentioned above will not be pulled in a vacuum. Instead, they will be pulled in the midst of a tectonic shift among individual investors that now demand that institutional investors and corporations begin to create and meet ESG goals as individual customers are beginning to take a corporation’s climate goals and footprint into account when making purchasing decisions.

As a result, we discuss the following areas in greater detail below:

  1. Tax policy
    1. increased tax rates
    2. expanded tax credits
    3. refundability
    4. carbon capture
    5. offshore wind
    6. storage
    7. transmission
  2. Infrastructure bill
  3. ESG environment

DEEPER DIVE: BREAKING DOWN EACH LEVER AS WELL AS ITS OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

  1. Tax Policy: The consistent message from the Biden Administration, at the Summit and elsewhere, makes clear that tax policy will likely play a significant role in the administration’s ambitious climate agenda. At [...]

    Continue Reading



read more

New Climate Change Guidance for NEPA Reviews

In the United States, federal agencies that license, permit or finance energy and infrastructure projects must, with some limited exceptions, analyze the environmental impacts of those projects before they approve them, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  But to what extent must those agencies consider climate change impacts as part of their NEPA reviews? The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has just issued a guidance document that addresses that question.

CEQ’s guidance document—an August 1 memorandum addressed to the heads of all federal departments and agencies—urges federal agencies to consider two climate change-related topics when conducting NEPA reviews.

The first topic is the impact of a proposed project on climate change, and the memorandum urges federal agencies to approach that topic by focusing on the project’s direct, and indirect, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agencies are encouraged to calculate a project’s anticipated emissions using existing government resources and calculators, and to draw upon existing government literature on the impacts of such emissions. The memorandum acknowledges that “the totality of climate change impacts is not attributable to any single action,” but concludes that climate-related impacts are exacerbated by some government actions and encourages agencies to compare the level of emissions expected from a proposed project to the level expected under alternative project scenarios. The memorandum provides scant details on how to calculate “indirect” GHG emissions but does suggest that for projects involving fossil fuel extraction, the indirect impacts turn, at least in part, on the anticipated ultimate use of the extracted fuel.

The second topic is the impact of climate change on the project, and on the project’s impacts.Here, CEQ’s memorandum encourages federal agencies to consider a proposed project’s impacts not simply on environmental conditions as they currently exist but as they will exist in the future and reflecting any changes that are expected as a result of climate change. Thus, if a project will draw water from a river that is already being, or that will be, diminished because of changing snowfall or rainfall patterns, that is an impact that should be acknowledged. The memorandum also encourages agencies to incorporate climate change resiliency and adaptation planning into their NEPA reviews, especially when analyzing project alternatives and potential mitigation measures. The memorandum suggests, for example, that agencies consider whether a proposed project’s design makes it more vulnerable to changing climate conditions (such as, in some areas of the country, increased risk of wildfires) than alternative projects.

CEQ’s memorandum applies to all new NEPA reviews and states that agencies “should exercise judgment” when considering whether to apply the guidance to currently ongoing reviews. CEQ states in the memorandum that it “does not expect agencies to apply” the guidance to projects for which a final environmental impact statement or environmental assessment has already been issued.




read more

Implications of the Clean Power Plan Stay

Late in the day on Tuesday, February 9, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed, for at least a year and possibly longer, the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) widely-publicized regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-, oil- and gas-fired power plants.  The stay means that the CPP’s requirements and deadlines are on hold, at least until resolution of the pending legal challenges to the CPP.  But what are the broader implications of the Court’s decision?

First, the stay decision bodes poorly for the ultimate fate of the CPP, even though the Supreme Court did not opine as to the CPP’s legality.  The stay decision signals, at a minimum, that a majority of the Supreme Court is sympathetic to the challengers’ claims that the CPP is unlawful.  Indeed, it signals more than that—a distrust of EPA’s assertions about the minimal burdens imposed by the CPP.  That said, the CPP may yet survive judicial review and, even if it does not survive, EPA may be able to promulgate a replacement regulation that achieves similar results, although such a replacement would surely take several years to develop.

Second, environmentally, the stay is unlikely to have any immediate effect on emissions levels, primarily because the CPP itself does not require any immediate emissions reductions.  But that does not mean the stay has no environmental consequences.  The stay fosters uncertainty about the fate of the CPP, and one potential consequence of that uncertainty is that EPA will feel compelled to devote additional resources to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, especially the oil and gas sector.

The Obama administration has limited time to pursue such alternatives, but the next administration, if it shares President Obama’s commitment to addressing climate change, may focus much more intensively on addressing the carbon content of fuels, to make up for the delays and uncertainties created by the CPP stay decision.

The stay also raises questions about the fate of the recently secured Paris agreement, since some parties to that agreement may now be wondering whether the US is capable of meeting its commitment to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.  If other countries doubt the reliability of the US commitment, they may be less bold about seeking emissions reductions themselves.  Indeed, it is precisely such doubts that may drive EPA to pursue more oil and gas regulations.

Finally, lurking in the Supreme Court’s action may be a deeper signal about the fate of the Chevron doctrine, a topic that should be of interest to all entities subject to regulation in the United States, not just to those subject to the Clean Air Act.  A recurring theme in the legal challenges to the CPP is that the CPP raises questions of such extreme economic and political significance that EPA is not entitled to deference as to how those questions should be resolved.  It is not clear what role that theme played in the Supreme Court’s [...]

Continue Reading




read more

EPA Publishes its Proposed Regulations for Existing Power Plants – Starting the Public Comment Period

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register its June 2, 2014, proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants.  The act of publication triggers the start of the 120-day public comment period, meaning that interested parties must submit comments to the agency by no later than October 16, 2014.

On Thursday, June 26, McDermott will be hosting a complimentary webinar on critical issues to address during the comment period.  Click here to register.




read more

EPA’s Proposed Power Plant Regulations – Simpler Than You Think

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-anticipated proposal for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants on June 2, 2014, to much fanfare.  The proposal is simpler than it looks.  Here are the key points.

1.  The Proposed Rule is Only 38 Pages Long.  It’s the “Justification” That Takes up Space.  Many observers have been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material associated with the EPA’s proposal – a 607-page preamble, a “legal memorandum” defending the proposal, a “regulatory impact analysis” discussing the proposal’s impacts and several “technical support documents.”  All of that material is important, but if you want to understand the heart of what EPA is proposing, focus on the draft regulatory text – the actual proposed rule.  Read the other material if you want to understand EPA’s justification for the rule.

2.  The Gist of the Proposed Rule: Target Rates and State Compliance Plans.  The rule applies to state governments, not to power plant owners and operators.  The rule requires each state to submit a plan to EPA showing how that state will reach a target CO2 emission rate for its existing power plants (coal, oil and gas) by 2030, as well as how the state will reach an interim target rate for the years between 2020 and 2029.   Thus, the rule has two parts: the “target rate,” and the requirement that each state submit a plan for reaching the target rate.  The target rate is going to be the most controversial aspect of the rule.  EPA set a different target rate for each state, and the manner in which it did so is what the fight is going to be about.  As for how to achieve the target rate, that is a bit less controversial because EPA has given the states a lot of flexibility.  In essence, the states can get to their targets however they want – by mandating heat rate improvements, by implementing a cap-and-trade system, by reducing demand for electricity – as long as they demonstrate that their plan will in fact get them there.

3.  The Easiest Way to Comply:  Follow RGGI.  The easiest way for states to comply with this proposed rule is to develop and participate in a program like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).  Participating in a RGGI-type cap-and-trade program may not get every state all the way to its target rate, but it will help many states get a long way toward that goal.  Equally important, RGGI is a relatively simple cap-and-trade system.  That means that implementing a RGGI-like program faces fewer bureaucratic and legal obstacles than some of the other compliance mechanisms available to the states.

4.  The Proposal Raises at Least Three Overarching Legal Questions. 

First, does EPA have authority to issue the rule in the first place?  This question turns on the language of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 111(d).  Some lawyers contend that rather than authorizing EPA to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, Section 111(d) actually prohibits such [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Massachusetts Permit for New Natural Gas Plant Incorporates Global Climate Conditions Including Sunset Date

The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (Siting Board) approved a certificate for a 630-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Salem last month.  The certificate is unique in that it incorporates the terms of a settlement agreement that imposes greenhouse gas emissions caps and requires the plant to sunset operations no later than 2050.

The facility is scheduled to begin operations in 2016 and will replace a 63-year-old oil- and coal-fired plant.  The emissions caps, which would gradually decrease beginning in 2026, could be satisfied by emissions reductions from reduced operations or carbon-capture systems; credits or allowances from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI); Renewable Energy Certificates; or investment in Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard-eligible local renewable generation, energy efficiency or demand-response measures.

The certificate is the result of a settlement reached between the developer and an environmental organization.  The project is the first request to construct a generating facility since the state’s enactment of the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2008 (GWSA).  The GWSA requires greenhouse gas emissions reductions from all sectors of the economy to reach a target of a 25 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2025 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050.  However, there are currently no regulations implementing the act with respect to Siting Board decisions.  The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs produced a Climate Plan that indicates at least some natural gas-fueled electric generation could comport with the GWSA targets.

The Siting Board initially approved the construction of the project and determined that it complied with the GWSA without the conditions of the settlement agreement, indicating that decreasing emissions caps or an expiration date may not be necessary for Siting Board approval of other projects.  However, after that decision was appealed by the environmental organization, the developer acceded to the environmental conditions in the hopes that they will demonstrate that the fossil fuel-fired plant can meet the requirements of the GWSA.  The settlement agreement was incorporated as a condition of the final certificate issued by the Siting Board.




read more

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
GCR 100 global elite