Advertisement

June 18, 2013

How to Provide More Certainty in Financing Biomass Power Projects

Having spent the last 2 days meeting with developers and biomass industry executives at the 2011 International Biomass Conference & Expo in St. Louis, I seemed to hear the same story over and over again: financing the construction of a biomass project is difficult without long term certainty regarding the availability of the current trio of federal tax incentives: the investment tax credit (the "ITC"), the federal grant in lieu of the investment tax credit (referred to as the "1603 Grant") and the production tax credit (the "PTC").

These incentives are excellent tools to help finance power plant construction.  However, the problem with these current federal tax incentives is that they are available only if a power plant is placed in service within a certain timeframe.  Although Congress has in the past extended the deadline for qualifying for these incentives, these extensions have typically been for only one or two years at a time.  Given how long it takes to permit and construct a power plant, many biomass power plants under consideration might not be operational before the current incentives expire.  Any such risk would understandably spook a lender or investor in the biomass project.

For the biomass industry, this uncertainty has not only stifled the development of power plants, but also has stifled the development of the feedstock supply sector (thus exacerbating the difficulties in developing biomass power plants).  Biomass power plant developers often complain that the difficulty in securing a dependable feedstock supply is a barrier to developing such power plants.  Simultaneously, potential feedstock suppliers complain that they can't develop a feedstock supply sector because they can't depend on enough biomass power plants being built to purchase their product.  Coupled with the current low cost of natural gas (an alternative to biomass-derived power), this financing uncertainty has created a strong headwind to biomass power development. 

One solution would be for Congress to make these federal incentives open-ended programs without deadlines.  A precedent for this solution can be found in the federal low-income housing tax credit, which does not have an expiration date, and has thus been a remarkably effective tool over the last few decades to spur the construction of low-income housing.  A middle-ground (at least from a Congressional budget perspective) would be to give these federal incentives a long deadline (e.g., 5 years) to help provide time to develop the feedstock infrastructure.  Although either solution would be expensive at a time when Congress is searching for budget cuts, it would better align federal spending with the oft-stated goal of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Hamang B. Patel Michael Best Friedrich LLP
Partner

Hamang Patel is a partner in Michael Best's Madison office, practicing principally in tax and business law. Mr. Patel has extensive experience in federal, state and local tax issues arising from a broad range of complex transactions involving partnerships and joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, dispositions of subsidiaries and divisions, tax-free reorganizations, spin-offs, new market tax credit financings, REIT acquisitions, renewable energy tax incentives and real estate transactions including tax-deferred 1031 exchanges. His practice further includes general corporate and...

608-283-2278

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.