U.S. “renewables” mad scramble to build is on

The big, beautiful new tax law creates a not-so pretty loophole that untold billions of dollars’ worth of renewable projects are going to try to squeeze through. Anytime you screw with the market, you get screwy results, and this is titanic screwing. Watching it could be great fun.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The big, beautiful new tax law creates a not-so pretty loophole that untold billions of dollars’ worth of renewable projects are going to try to squeeze through. Anytime you screw with the market, you get screwy results, and this is titanic screwing. Watching it could be great fun.

The specifics are simple enough. The massive federal subsidies for wind and solar will end soon, with one big exception. Any project that can get under construction in less than a year from now and come online by 2030 still gets all the goodies.

Given that the queue of proposed wind and solar projects tops a trillion dollars, there will be many billions worth that try to make the short-term construction deadline. That many of these likely will fail makes it especially interesting. It is a prescription for financial chaos.

Of course the huge immediate question is, what does it take to be under construction? The subsidies are in the form of investment and production tax credits so the IRS makes the rules. Happily, a similar but much smaller version of this issue occurred in 2013.

The IRS has a little rule book titled “Beginning of Construction for Purposes of the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit and Energy Investment Tax Credit” here:

The rules are only for wind projects, but the application to solar looks simple, at least for big projects. Rooftop solar might be much more complicated and something to watch.

The simplest way to do it is called a “safe harbor” by the IRS. The developer just has to invest 5% of the project cost up front in actual development and then add “continuously” to that over time.

The 5% need not include any site development, so this works for projects that do not yet have a site which might be a lot of them. The developer just has to fund binding contracts for the stuff that will go into the site once actual construction begins.

Where this gets tricky is that the wind and solar components production capacity probably does not exist to supply all the stuff needed for everybody to meet the 5% requirement in less than a year from now. This could create a seller’s market with prices quickly rising to what the highest bidders will pay. There could be a lot of losers.

It is possible that promissory contracts to make the stuff will eventually be okay. as long as they are funded and binding. But then, the second requirement of continuous development becomes a problem. Development with what?

So a mad scramble to try and quickly spend a lot of money in less than a year seems likely. Whether it can be done remains to be seen.

It is also worth noting that in the long run renewables may not live or die in this scramble. The idea that renewables require subsidies may be incorrect to a considerable degree. This is because most states have energy transition mandates that, in effect, require buying more and more renewables output.

To begin with, 28 states have “renewable portfolio standards” that specifically require ever-increasing use of renewables. Others, like Virginia, have net-zero emission reduction laws that, for practical purposes, have the same result.

But how this works out without massive federal subsidies remains to be seen. Tax credit subsidies are invisible, never showing up on someone’s bill. Absent these subsidies, the cost of the mandates hits the ratepayers in a highly visible way.

Increasing electricity rates are already becoming a political issue. The long-term effect of ending the subsidies well might be ending the mandates once their true cost becomes clear.

It looks like the U.S. renewables industry is going to be scrambling financially. This is certain for the next twelve months and maybe long after that. Watching the mad scramble could be both enlightening and entertaining.

Stay tuned to CFACT as this show unfolds.

BP set to scale back green investments

Oil giant BP has said it will “fundamentally reset” its strategy as profits dropped sharply last year.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

From the BBC:

Oil giant BP has said it will “fundamentally reset” its strategy as profits dropped sharply last year.

It is widely expected to say later this month that it will scale back renewable projects and increase oil and gas production following similar moves from rivals including Shell and Equinor.

BP’s net income fell to $8.9bn (£7.2bn) in 2024, down from $13.8bn the previous year.

It said lower oil and gas prices, plus lower profits from its refineries, had dented how much money it had made.

Five years ago BP set a target of 50GW of renewables generation capacity by 2030.

That is expected to be abandoned on 26 February in a major change of strategy.

BP has already been scaling back on renewables.

In December it put the majority of its offshore wind assets into a joint venture with Japanese company Jera to separate them from the company’s core fossil fuel business.

It is expected to cut its previous $10bn commitment in renewables until 2030 by up to a half.

BP also froze new wind projects in June last year.

Activist shareholder Elliott Management hasbought a stake in BP to push for more investment in oil and gas, with investors anticipating board changes.

AJ Bell analyst Russ Mould said the sharp drop in profit “provided plenty of fodder” for hedge fund Elliott, with BP having done “little to reassure other shareholders that the current plan is working”.

He added that “a clear and credible plan is desperately needed if BP is going to remain the master of its own destiny”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30d4ernzqjo

Five years ago, there were still obscene subsidies available for renewable energy.

Now those subsidies have dried up and, despite what AEP would tell you, there is no profit to be had.

Aussie Green Hydrogen Project Scrapped, “Not Viable”

Energy of the future? Even a $28.3 million grant from the West Australian Government company was not enough to push the project over the line.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Energy of the future? Even a $28.3 million grant from the West Australian Government company was not enough to push the project over the line.

Australian green hydrogen project scrapped due to transport costs, pumped hydro on hold

Giles Parkinson 26 July 2023

Canadian gas giant Atco says it has scrapped plans for one of the first commercial scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government’s renewable agency, and has also put a proposed pumped hydro project in NSW on hold.

Atco had planned to build a 10MW green hydrogen electrolyser next to Bright Energy’s 180MW Warradarge wind farm in Western Australia (pictured above), fuelling the plant with renewable energy and producing 4.3 tonnes of green hydrogen a year.

But Atco’s $53 million Clean Energy Innovation Park – also known as the Mid West project – has been scrapped because it would involve trucking the hydrogen to points where it can be injected into the gas network.

Atco has now decided that this is not viable and says it will relinquish the $28.3 million grant promised by ARENA.

Atco says it is still confident green hydrogen can be delivered, but says it needs to be located closer to heavy industry where the green hydrogen can be used.

Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-green-hydrogen-project-scrapped-due-to-transport-costs-pumped-hydro-on-hold/

This cancellation casts a long shadow over Australia’s alleged renewable hydrogen revolution.

Renewable projects need vast acreages of cheap land, but major gas pipelines are rarely built to the middle of nowhere.

So unless Aussie governments are prepared to sweeten the pot even further, pour ridiculous sums of money into building hydrogen ready pipelines between proposed hydrogen parks and the rest of the gas network, why would anyone proceed with green hydrogen projects which even with subsidies are struggling to be commercially viable?

Even funnier, if Aussie governments do pour money into building a pipe network, all that extra public spending will drive up inflationary pressures, which will in turn drive up interest rates and the cost of borrowing money to fund major projects.

Either way, Aussie green energy enthusiasts lose.

The only remaining questions, why didn’t Atco instead choose to store their hydrogen, instead of piping the hydrogen, and use the hydrogen as energy storage, to “firm” electricity output from the Warradage Wind Farm? Or alternatively, they could have converted the hydrogen to green Ammonia, which is much easier to store or transport than green hydrogen?

I think we all know the answer to those questions.