Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill removes federal production and investment tax credits for offshore wind facilities located in the inland navigable waters or coastal waters of the United States. It amends sections of the Internal Revenue Code (Sections 48, 45, and 45Y) to exclude such facilities from eligibility and makes the change effective for energy produced and property placed in service after December 31, 2025.
Liberals stress climate and renewable-job losses; conservatives stress limiting subsidies and protecting coasts.
Narrow, easily understood change could attract supporters and opponents; likely partisan divide and industry pushback.
This bill removes federal production and investment tax credits for offshore wind facilities located in the inland navigable waters or coastal waters of the United States.
It amends sections of the Internal Revenue Code (Sections 48, 45, and 45Y) to exclude such facilities from eligibility and makes the change effective for energy produced and property placed in service after December 31, 2025.
The bill defines a "disqualified offshore wind facility" as one located in inland navigable waters or coastal waters.
Narrow but politically sensitive; likely to face unified opposition from energy and environmental stakeholders and high Senate barriers.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals stress climate and renewable-job losses; conservatives stress limiting subsidies and protecting coasts.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals stress climate and renewable-job losses; conservatives stress limiting subsidies and protecting coasts.
Likely to oppose the bill as a step backward for federal renewable energy policy and climate goals.
Would view removing tax credits as reducing incentives for decarbonization, green jobs, and U.S. clean energy supply chains.
May argue the provision arbitrarily penalizes offshore wind without offering alternatives.
Mixed view: sympathetic to maritime, fisheries, and local impacts but cautious about removing clean-energy incentives outright.
Sees rationale for targeted siting rules but worries about clarity, market disruption, and climate targets.
Would look for narrower approaches or compensating measures.
Likely to support the bill as a reasonable limitation on federal subsidies and an assertion of local/ maritime interests.
Views it as preventing federal overreach, protecting navigation, fisheries, and coastal property values, and stopping taxpayer-funded support for contested projects.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but politically sensitive; likely to face unified opposition from energy and environmental stakeholders and high Senate barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress climate and renewable-job losses; conservatives stress limiting subsidies and protecting coasts.
Narrow but politically sensitive; likely to face unified opposition from energy and environmental stakeholders and high Senate barriers.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow the pro…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.