Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill repeals Internal Revenue Code section 45Q, eliminating the federal tax credit for carbon oxide capture, utilization, and sequestration. It makes multiple conforming amendments across the tax code to remove or adjust references to section 45Q and preserves certain regulatory language for counting captured CO2 in electricity emissions accounting.
Progressives emphasize climate and emissions harms from repeal.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly focused and strongly constructed as a statutory repeal: it identifies the specific provision to be repealed, makes detailed conforming amendments across the Internal Revenue Code, and sets an effective date.
The bill repeals Internal Revenue Code section 45Q, eliminating the federal tax credit for carbon oxide capture, utilization, and sequestration.
It makes multiple conforming amendments across the tax code to remove or adjust references to section 45Q and preserves certain regulatory language for counting captured CO2 in electricity emissions accounting.
The repeal applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Narrow but politically charged; passage likely only if it fits broader dealmaking or majority priorities across both chambers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly focused and strongly constructed as a statutory repeal: it identifies the specific provision to be repealed, makes detailed conforming amendments across the Internal Revenue Code, and sets an effective date. The drafting is precise where statutory text changes are required.
Progressives emphasize climate and emissions harms from repeal.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize climate and emissions harms from repeal.
Likely to oppose the bill as a setback to U.S. climate policy and clean energy deployment.
Views the 45Q credit as an important financial incentive for carbon capture projects and for scaling carbon removal technologies.
Mixed view: acknowledges fiscal arguments for removing subsidies but worries about climate impacts and economic disruption.
Would weigh revenue savings against likely reduction in CCS deployment and prefer transitional safeguards.
Likely to support the bill as a restoration of fiscal restraint and reduction of industrial subsidies.
Views repeal as eliminating government picking of winners in energy technology markets.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but politically charged; passage likely only if it fits broader dealmaking or majority priorities across both chambers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate and emissions harms from repeal.
Narrow but politically charged; passage likely only if it fits broader dealmaking or majority priorities across both chambers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly focused and strongly constructed as a statutory repeal: it identifies the specific provision to be repealed, makes detailed conforming amendments across t…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.