The US Treasury is closing comment on its proposed guidance for two new clean energy credits. Halcyon has done a first cut on 1,500+ comments, with more to come next week.

In early June, the US Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service released their proposed guidance on two new credits supporting zero-carbon power generation.  The Clean Electricity Production Credit and the Clean Electricity Investment Credit (Sections 45Y and 48E of the Internal Revenue Code) have been open for public comments since then, with the comment period closing tonight at midnight Eastern time. 

 Halcyon has been analyzing those comments as they come in. Here is our first pass, with more to come next week once the window is closed and all comments are posted. 

Takeaway 1: there are a lot of comments (and they’re all last-minute)

If you’ve read our previous work on proposed rule comments, you know that submissions total in the thousands.  The clean hydrogen credit rules, for instance, received more than 30,000 comments in the end. We’re not quite there with 45Y and 48E, but we do have more than 1,500 comments processed, with hundreds more to come today and continued processing next week.

Also, the comment flow is quite back-loaded.  The comment window has been open for two months, but the government received almost no comments until last week.  That makes timely analysis tricky – and it’s why Halcyon treats this as an information and engineering challenge first. 

Takeaway 2: comments are mostly form letters (mostly: one form letter!)

This finding will not surprise readers of our earlier analysis on clean hydrogen credits –  but it’s worth calling out again here.  Of the more than 1,500 comments Halcyon has reviewed so far, more than 1,200 are from a single form letter source: The Story of Stuff Project. The letter urges the Treasury to exclude waste-to-energy and waste incineration from the credit program. 

Takeaway 3: discrete comments are longer (and more technical)

The few dozen discrete comments the Treasury has received tend to be longer, more technical, and more specific about needs and actions.  Some of the comments include very narrow discussions of what should and should not be allowed into greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis calculations, for instance.  

Halcyon expects more of these filings to come in today, with more to analyze and discuss. So, stay tuned for more next week.  We will have hundreds more comments processed, and a fuller understanding of what types of companies –  and which specific entities –  support which elements of these latest credits for US clean energy. 

Here are some of the topics we’ll query across the full set of comments:

Here are some of the topics we’ll query across the full set of comments:

• Does [X] support or oppose the rule?
• Does [X] support or oppose any particular technologies?
• Does [X] support or oppose book and claim accounting for renewable fuels?
• Should energy storage receive a 30% credit?
• What arguments are made for technology-specific lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations?  

Got any specific queries you'd like us to run? Drop a line and let us know. 

Comments or questions? We’d love to hear from you - sayhi@halcyon.eco, or find us on LinkedIn and Twitter.