Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 2263

Should the IRS Streamline Tax Credit Rules for Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Projects?

Argument in favor

Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) projects are eligible for the Section 45Q tax credit, but it’s difficult for developers to claim this credit for them. Clarifying the IRS rules regarding the 45Q tax credit would help make CCUS projects commercially viable sooner. Capturing more CO2 will help reduce emissions.

Paul's Opinion
···
09/28/2019
If we make it easier, companies will find it cost effective. But you must have very tight oversight; because business will do anything to skate the rules.
Like (33)
Follow
Share
RjGoodman's Opinion
···
09/28/2019
Yes. This is good as long as the entire process includes all of the regulations to monitor and insure credits are properly protected.
Like (11)
Follow
Share
Robert j.'s Opinion
···
09/28/2019
Storage should be verifiable by conventional testing.
Like (6)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The rules governing Section 45Q tax credits are meant to ensure that carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project developers can only claim the credits for eligible projects. Loosening the rules, as this bill would do, could allow developers to claim the 45Q credit for projects that don’t permanently sequester carbon.

jimK's Opinion
···
09/29/2019
I hate political doublespeak. This bill allows developers to claim a tax credit without having to do anything that actually does capture and sequester NET carbon emissions. It is a gift to fossil fuel interests under the guise of a meaningful title. I support any emission source carbon sequestering that significantly reduces overall NET emissions using effective storage technologies, not just geological. Tax credits are certainly warranted for pilot projects with potential and for industrial applications capable of significant carbon emission reductions. If practicable methods are developed for capturing, sequestering and storing carbon emissions in a way that completely removes them from the environment, it will ease the transition to the global net zero world society needed to stop climate change. Since this bill seems to allow reusing carbon emissions to increase the net carbon emissions from ‘enriched’ fuels; This particular legislation is crap which needs to be captured and sequestered along with the sponsor who would mislead us. ... ... ... ... I truly wish the goofballs arguing that climate change is not real would take some time to check their sources. The few who make these claims are overwhelmingly discredited by credentialed scientists who have spent their lives measuring, modeling and predicting climate change; all predicted changes made to date have occurred exactly as predicted and a little sooner than expected. Talking heads considering sun spots, precessional wobble of the earths axis, prior epochs with global extremes are simply nuts- making pronouncements that are either factually nonsense or based on cherry picking some factoids without considering all of the facts. Please study this for yourselves; don’t listen to pundits, conspiracy theorists or politicians. Sorry I had to do this yet again.
Like (86)
Follow
Share
Phillip's Opinion
···
09/29/2019
Firstly I smell a rat. The fact that it helps energy companies without permanent sequestration etc. these companies make billions in tax free profits as it is. They should be using the profits for this and permanently trying to offset the damage their products do to the environment
Like (29)
Follow
Share
burrkitty's Opinion
···
09/29/2019
Republicans and environmental bills are always made of lies. I’ve haven’t seen a legitimate one since before Regan. This is no exception. This bill undermines the laws that make corporations prove their technology works before claiming tax credits. A boon for corporations bottom line, but nothing for the people or the environment the laws are supposed to support. Corporations don’t need more help avoiding taxes and I dispute that any corporate welfare law needs MORE loopholes. Vote NO!
Like (27)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Finance
    IntroducedJuly 25th, 2019

What is Senate Bill S. 2263?

This bill — the CO2 Regulatory Certainty Act — would amend the Internal Revenue Code to revise requirements for the secure geological storage of carbon dioxide for the purpose of the tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration. It would direct the Department of Treasury to use its existing authorities to help ensure carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project developers can utilize the Section 45Q tax credit.

Currently, CCUS project developers can claim a tax credit for CO2 sequestration but IRS guidance doesn’t reflect differences between the two existing sequestration methods, permanent or geological storage and enhanced oil and gas recovery. Consequently, the IRS guidelines subject enhanced oil and gas recovery applications to regulations meant for geological storage, making it difficult to access the tax credit. This bill would clarify and align IRS guidelines to match current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations reflecting the operational and legal differences between enhanced oil and gas recovery and geological storage under the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Impact

Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project developers; tax credits for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project developers; the IRS; and the Internal Revenue Code.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 2263

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) reintroduced this bill from the 115th Congress with lead sponsor Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) to align tax guidelines with existing federal regulations and accelerate work on carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) projects

“CCUS technologies offer the capability to continue relying on all of our nation's vast energy resources while also improving environmental stewardship and reducing emissions. The IRS' guidelines for accessing the 45Q tax credit don't properly reflect regulations for CCUS at the EPA, unnecessarily increasing costs and holding back the development and use of this technology. As the IRS is in the process of implementing the recently expanded and extended 45Q tax credit, I believe this is the best opportunity to provide ongoing certainty and regulatory flexibility for project developers and to make CCUS technology more commercially-viable. I will continue to work with the IRS and through the legislative process to ensure that the 45Q tax credit more effectively advances CCUS technology."

Original cosponsor Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) adds

“Under current regulations, energy companies are unsure if they can take advantage of the 45Q tax credit. This legislation aligns Treasury's regulations with the EPA's, which will provide much-needed clarity and consistency for North Dakota's energy stakeholders. If 45Q is going to successfully incentivize carbon capture, it must be applicable to all producers who participate, not just a select few."

Clean Water Action’s National Oil and Gas Program Director, John Noël, criticized this legislation in November 2017. In a post on the Clean Water Blog, he argued that this by allowing CCUS developers to qualify for Section 45Q tax credits without proving that their operations actually permanently sequester carbon, this bill would allow them to “qualify for tax credits without actually having to do any work.” Noël concludes that this bill would “dismantle commonsense and proven environmental protections while padding [CCUS developers’] bottom lines with taxpayer handouts.”

This legislation has four Republican cosponsors in the 116th Congress. Last Congress, it had four Republican Senate cosponsors and didn’t receive a committee vote. Its two House companion in the 115th Congress, H.R.4857 and H.R.2010, both had six Republican House cosponsors. None of the three bills received a committee vote last Congress.

AKA

CO2 Regulatory Certainty Act

Official Title

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance the requirements for secure geological storage of carbon oxide for purposes of the carbon oxide sequestration credit, and for other purposes.

    If we make it easier, companies will find it cost effective. But you must have very tight oversight; because business will do anything to skate the rules.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    I hate political doublespeak. This bill allows developers to claim a tax credit without having to do anything that actually does capture and sequester NET carbon emissions. It is a gift to fossil fuel interests under the guise of a meaningful title. I support any emission source carbon sequestering that significantly reduces overall NET emissions using effective storage technologies, not just geological. Tax credits are certainly warranted for pilot projects with potential and for industrial applications capable of significant carbon emission reductions. If practicable methods are developed for capturing, sequestering and storing carbon emissions in a way that completely removes them from the environment, it will ease the transition to the global net zero world society needed to stop climate change. Since this bill seems to allow reusing carbon emissions to increase the net carbon emissions from ‘enriched’ fuels; This particular legislation is crap which needs to be captured and sequestered along with the sponsor who would mislead us. ... ... ... ... I truly wish the goofballs arguing that climate change is not real would take some time to check their sources. The few who make these claims are overwhelmingly discredited by credentialed scientists who have spent their lives measuring, modeling and predicting climate change; all predicted changes made to date have occurred exactly as predicted and a little sooner than expected. Talking heads considering sun spots, precessional wobble of the earths axis, prior epochs with global extremes are simply nuts- making pronouncements that are either factually nonsense or based on cherry picking some factoids without considering all of the facts. Please study this for yourselves; don’t listen to pundits, conspiracy theorists or politicians. Sorry I had to do this yet again.
    Like (86)
    Follow
    Share
    Firstly I smell a rat. The fact that it helps energy companies without permanent sequestration etc. these companies make billions in tax free profits as it is. They should be using the profits for this and permanently trying to offset the damage their products do to the environment
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Republicans and environmental bills are always made of lies. I’ve haven’t seen a legitimate one since before Regan. This is no exception. This bill undermines the laws that make corporations prove their technology works before claiming tax credits. A boon for corporations bottom line, but nothing for the people or the environment the laws are supposed to support. Corporations don’t need more help avoiding taxes and I dispute that any corporate welfare law needs MORE loopholes. Vote NO!
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    Do not Support S. 2263 It’s just another bill with an Orwellian name. Meaning it does the opposite of what you’d think, if you don’t look at the details and think it through. In general I support simplicity and clarity. However, the bill itself seems to be more for the benefit of the Petroleum Industry and is not it in the best interests of the country. (See @Jimk’s post on this issue for some of the detail’s.) Furthermore, consider the following: These multi-billion dollar companies invest millions annually in lawyers and lobbiests; what need do they have for simplicity and clarity? Their job is to create laws and to find or invent loop holes to avoid regulation and taxation.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes. This is good as long as the entire process includes all of the regulations to monitor and insure credits are properly protected.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    No every industry needs to do their part in a clean environment. It is just the cost of doing business.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Fossil Fuel industries are sufficiently profitable to invest in this technology as opart of their ongoing R&D. We subsidize the fossil fuel industry, they have an obligation to participate in mitigation strategies in order to secure their future growth and earnings.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    This sounds like a tax loophole for corporations to avoid paying taxes or having any environmental oversight
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    No as climate change is a lie made up to scare small children like Democrats like to do. The Earth heats up and cools which is why The global warming scam was renamed to climate change
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    JimK said it best, yet again. :) I request everyone take time to read his comment and act on it, particularly those who disagree. Thank you to all Countable members on either side of these debates who take the time to put a real answer, rather than name-calling, ghost-blaming, or bone-throwing. We can’t let the outspoken morons continue to control the narrative in this country simply because the ignorant have been encouraged to speak before thinking.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Storage should be verifiable by conventional testing.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is designed to allow energy companies another way to circumvent environmental rules, further poison the environment, and reduce their costs without having to prove anything. EPA rules have already been gutted as have the clean air and clean water acts. When will life become more important than money?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I actually feel that the IRS is unconstitutional and should be shut down or at least repurposed to collect tariffs what happens to all that money from Chinese imports being raised?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    A republican trying to do something about climate change? The devil you say! Oh, wait, they just want to divert tax credits to fossil fuel companies that aren’t permanently sequestering CO2, so... yep, it’s a bait and switch. This kind of shit should be grounds for a recall.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Vote no. This was written to benefit Big Oil & Gas, not the environment.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) projects are eligible for the Section 45Q tax credit, but it’s difficult for developers to claim this credit for them. Clarifying the IRS rules regarding the 45Q tax credit would help make CCUS projects commercially viable sooner. Capturing more CO2 will help reduce emissions. SneakyPete..... 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻. 9.38.19......
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Defang the beast, do not feed it.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    This is gobbledygook meant to just make money for an elite few and subject the rest of us to ever rising inflationary prices and a redistribution of wealth. We decided NOT to join the Paris Accord, so let’s just drop all of these carbon and carbon tax issues, shall we?
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Mr Hoeven of ND is trying to sell us a pig in a poke. No.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE