FERC announced actions in response to the 2017 tax reform legislation and a revised income tax policy, which eliminates the income tax allowance for Master Limited Partnerships. Regulated entities should ensure that they comply with FERC’s orders regarding the treatment of income taxes and consider whether to file comments on the proposed rulemaking and notice of inquiry.
by Ari Peskoe
On April 24, four Republican legislators and four Democratic legislators reintroduced the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act in the House and Senate. Master Limited Partnerships (MLP) provide tax advantages to energy project developers but are currently limited under the Tax Code to resources subject to depletion, such as oil and gas, and transportation and storage of certain fuels. The Act would expand the definition of qualified projects to include a range of clean energy resources and infrastructure projects.
An MLP is a business structure that is taxed as a partnership, but whose ownership interests can be traded like corporate stock on a market. Congress enacted legislation in 1987 that allowed entities that earn at least 90 percent of their income from “qualified” sources to be treated as MLPs. Qualifying income includes “income and gains derived from the exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, transportation (including pipelines transporting gas, oil, or products thereof), or the marketing of any mineral or natural resource.” In 2008, Congress expanded the definition of qualifying income to include income from the transportation and storage of certain renewable and alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel and industrial-source carbon dioxide.
As we reported last June, legislators first introduced the MLP Parity Act last year. The Act would have expanded the definition of qualifying income purposes to include income from wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, municipal solid waste, hydropower, marine and hydrokinetic, fuel cells and combined heat and power projects, as well as certain renewable transportation fuels. Those bills were referred to the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee but never advanced. The updated MLP Act introduced on April 24, also includes carbon capture and storage, waste heat to power, renewable chemical and energy efficient building projects.
In public statements, Senators Coon (D-DE) and Murkowski (R-AK), two of the Act’s sponsors, have emphasized that the MLP Parity Act attempts to “level the playing field” by providing renewable energy projects with the same tax benefits that fossil fuel projects have enjoyed. Although the rhetoric should be appealing to both sides of the aisle and the Act is backed by a range of industry groups that would benefit from the legislation, it’s fate in Congress is unclear.
Last week, Sens. Chris Coons, D.-Del., and Jerry Moran, R.-Kan., introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at expanding the use of master limited partnerships (MLPs) from fossil fuel-based energy projects such as oil, natural gas, coal extraction and pipeline projects to also include renewable energy projects. Interests in MLPs are traded on markets, like corporate stock. However, unlike corporations, MLPs are not subject to entity level tax; rather, the profits of MLPs are subject to taxation at the partner level, much like other entities treated as partnerships for federal tax purposes. These benefits are viewed as having significantly increased investment in fossil fuel-based projects in the United States.
Congress first enacted tax legislation specifically relating to MLPs in 1987. The legislation required MLPs to derive at least 90 percent of their income (qualifying income) from certain categories of passive income, including income from resources subject to depletion, such as oil and gas. In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act expanded the definition of qualifying income to include income from the transportation and storage of certain renewable and alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel and industrial-source carbon dioxide. The proposed legislation would expand the definition of qualifying income for MLP purposes to include income from wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, municipal solid waste, hydropower, marine and hydrokinetic, fuel cells and combined heat and power projects, as well as certain renewable transportation fuels.
Under the current legislative regime, developers and investors typically invest in renewable energy projects through entities taxed as partnerships for tax purposes. Tax benefits available to such projects flow through to and are allocated among the partners. MLPs would also permit tax benefits to flow through to and be allocated among the MLP partners. Thus, for federal income tax purposes, there would not be many differences between the traditional partnership scenario and MLPs. From a transaction cost perspective, both traditional renewable energy partnerships and MLPs can involve significant transaction costs to developers and investors. However, since MLP interests are able to be traded on a market, investing in or exiting from MLPs may be easier than selling non-MLP partnership interests in the private market. As a result, MLPs are more attractive for some private investors who are more accustomed to buying and selling shares of stock than investing in partnerships.
Most of the recent legislative focus from the renewable energy community has been on the impending expiration of tax credits related to the investment in and production of electricity through wind. Co-sponsor Coons has indicated that the proposed legislation should not be seen as a replacement to the expiring tax credits but as a complimentary piece of legislation. Without these tax credits or other tax incentives, the benefits of using MLPs alone may not be sufficient to make some renewable energy projects economically viable. However, it bears noting that any tax benefits generated by an MLP structure would be subject to existing limitations on the use of energy tax credits, such as the passive activity loss rules applicable to individuals and the investment tax credit and depreciation [...]