Two years after President Joe Biden’s landmark climate law promised to kick-start green hydrogen production with generous tax credits, companies still don’t know who will qualify.
Billions of dollars in investments sit on the sidelines as a result.
The Biden administration sees green hydrogen as a critical component of the energy transition, a way to clean up heavy industries that can’t easily run on electricity. But the nascent hydrogen economy has been paralyzed waiting for final rules on a key tax credit, which will provide up to $3 for every kilogram of the fuel produced.
Hydrogen companies considered the initial guidelines issued by the Treasury Department late last year too strict and warned that many of their planned plants wouldn’t qualify for the full incentive. Developers have since been left in limbo as they await adjustments before the final rules are approved.
Hy Stor Energy, for example, plans to produce hydrogen in Mississippi using on-site wind and geothermal energy and be operational in 2027.
“Our project has multiple gigawatts of renewables and is holding off billions of dollars in investment,” said chief commercial officer Claire Behar. “That is just one project. If you multiply it by 10 to 20 projects, it’s a massive investment that’s being stalled.”
The delay isn’t simply a case of slow-moving bureaucracy. Industry and environmentalists have engaged in a months-long lobbying fight over the rules, with the federal government trying to strike a balance. But the lack of progress could impede the nation’s decarbonization efforts.
“People in the industry are very frustrated,” said Frank Wolak, chief executive officer of the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association. “The longer people defer investments, the less committed they are.”
Almost all hydrogen produced today is stripped from natural gas in a process that gives off carbon dioxide. But there are cleaner ways to make the fuel, such as capturing the CO2 or splitting the hydrogen from water using renewable electricity. Those cleaner methods are the focus of the Inflation Reduction Act tax credit. The size of the credit available to each project rests on three so-called pillars: ensuring hydrogen is produced using new clean energy sources rather than existing ones, aligning hydrogen production with electricity generation times and adhering to stringent carbon intensity requirements.
Without strict rules on each, environmentalists argue, hydrogen production plants risk driving up greenhouse gas emissions rather than cutting them.
“The first draft in December was an excellent framework that will attract the truly green projects,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “Whatever happens, it’s critical that Treasury uphold this framework and not add exemptions that would water down the emissions integrity.”
Companies counter they need looser rules, at least at first, to get the industry off the ground.
In addition to the tax credits, the federal government has set aside $8 billion to create a series of hydrogen hubs that would match producers of the fuel with customers using it. But leaders of the regional hubs are so worried about the current tax credit guidance that they sent the Treasury Department a letter in February arguing many of their own projects won’t happen unless the rules are changed. The hubs, they said, are expected to generate $40 billion in private investment and support 334,280 jobs.
“Unfortunately, these investments and jobs will not fully materialize unless Treasury’s guidance is significantly revised,” they wrote.
The Treasury Department says it is carefully considering all the many comments it has received as it drafts the final rules, but officials haven’t given any timeline for finishing the work. “Finalizing rules that will help scale the clean hydrogen industry while implementing the environmental safeguards established in the law remains a top priority for Treasury,” a department spokesperson said in an email.
Finding the right balance has been hard. John Podesta, Biden’s senior adviser for international climate policy, called the IRA’s hydrogen incentives “the most complex of the credits, technically and legally” at an event this week celebrating the second anniversary of the law’s passage. He acknowledged the mixed reaction the government’s preliminary guidelines received. “Some people loved it,” Podesta said. “Some people didn’t.”
Even if new guidelines are published now, companies might wait until after the election to see if they need to comply with them, according to Martin Tengler, an analyst at BloombergNEF. Donald Trump has promised to target the IRA if he retakes the White House in November, but his attitude toward hydrogen is unclear.
Policy uncertainty is not confined to the US. German company Thyssenkrupp Nucera in July abandoned its 2025 forecast for its business selling electrolyzers, the machines that split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
“Progress on the regulatory side is recognizable, but at the same time not yet sufficient to accelerate investment momentum again,” Thyssenkrupp Chief Executive Officer Werner Ponikwar said in a statement. “The result is further delays to new projects on the customer side.”
Rival Siemens Energy AG has invested €30 million to produce electrolyzer stacks in Berlin together with industrial gas company Air Liquide.
“In the short term, we do observe delays in the release of funding commitments due to regulatory uncertainties, for example in the US and in Europe,” Chief Financial Officer Maria Ferraro said in an analyst call in May. Long-term prospects for the business, however, remain intact, she added.
Some in the industry expect the Treasury Department to soften its rules — although that hasn’t happened yet. Andy Marsh, CEO of Plug Power Inc., said he expects new guidance soon.
“We won’t be surprised if there’s some announcement after the Democratic convention and a further announcement after the election,” he said during the company’s earnings call last week. “I think it’s really clear that the regulations on the three pillars are going to become much looser.”
Carbon-free green hydrogen remains far more expensive than hydrogen from natural gas, and until that changes, companies have little incentive to start using it as a fuel. But costs won’t come down until the wave of planned green hydrogen plants start opening, Tengler said. And they won’t move forward until the federal government finalizes its tax rules.
“The only way green hydrogen becomes cheaper is by building projects, but with these early projects stalled, the industry is being choked before it’s even born,” Tengler said.
Depreciation is a cornerstone of financial accounting, playing a critical role in accurately representing an asset’s value over its useful life. Beyond its technical definition, depreciation serves as a vital tool for financial reporting, tax planning, and operational strategy. This article dives into the primary methods of depreciation and their strategic importance for businesses aiming to optimize asset valuation.
At its core, depreciation is the process of allocating the cost of a tangible asset over its expected lifespan. It ensures that financial statements reflect the true economic wear and tear of assets, offering stakeholders a clear picture of a company’s financial health. Choosing the right depreciation method is crucial for aligning financial reporting with operational realities.
One of the most commonly used methods is the straight-line method, celebrated for its simplicity. This approach spreads the depreciation expense evenly across the asset’s useful life. While straightforward, it doesn’t always capture an asset’s actual usage pattern, especially for items that experience higher wear and tear in their early years.
For businesses with assets that lose value more quickly in their initial years, the declining balance method provides a better alternative. As an accelerated depreciation method, it assigns higher depreciation expenses in the earlier periods of an asset’s life. This approach can align better with revenue generation during an asset’s most productive years while potentially offering upfront tax advantages.
The units of production method is particularly suitable for assets whose depreciation is directly tied to usage, such as manufacturing equipment or company vehicles. This method calculates depreciation based on output, ensuring expenses reflect actual wear and tear. It’s a practical choice for industries with fluctuating production volumes.
Another accelerated option, the sum-of-the-years’ digits method, combines aspects of straight-line and declining balance approaches. By applying a weighted percentage to each year of an asset’s life, this method suits technology assets or other items prone to rapid obsolescence, offering a balanced middle ground for depreciation calculation.
Selecting the right depreciation method is a strategic decision that extends beyond regulatory compliance. It directly influences financial statements, tax liabilities, and even operational decision-making. Factors such as the asset type, industry norms, and specific usage patterns should inform this choice. For instance, a construction company might benefit from the units of production method, while a tech startup might prefer an accelerated approach for its rapidly depreciating hardware.
Advancements in financial management software have revolutionized depreciation modeling. These tools allow businesses to simulate various depreciation methods, providing data-driven insights to support strategic decisions. Automated tracking, scenario analysis, and real-time reporting capabilities further streamline the process, ensuring compliance and accuracy.
In conclusion, mastering depreciation methods is essential for businesses aiming to maintain accurate financial records and make informed decisions about asset management. Whether choosing simplicity with the straight-line method or leveraging the flexibility of accelerated approaches, businesses that understand and strategically apply depreciation can enhance transparency, optimize tax planning, and improve operational efficiency. By prioritizing accurate asset valuation, companies can better position themselves for long-term success.
One suspect in the two New Year’s Day incidents being probed as terror attacks was a former U.S. Army sergeant from Texas who recently worked for Big Four firm Deloitte. The other was a U.S. Army special forces sergeant from Colorado on leave from active duty.
Law enforcement officials on Thursday said there appears to be no definitive link between the two deadly events: a truck attack in New Orleans that left at least 15 dead and the explosion of a Tesla Cybertruck outside of President-elect Donald Trump’s hotel in Las Vegas that killed the driver and injured seven.
But in addition to the military backgrounds of the suspects — they both served in Afghanistan in 2009 — on the day of the attacks they shared at least one other striking similarity: Both men used the same rental app to obtain electric vehicles.
The driver of the Cybertruck was identified as Matthew Alan Livelsberger of Colorado Springs. He rented the Cybertruck on Turo, the app also used by Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the suspect in the separate attack in New Orleans hours earlier. Turo said it was working with law enforcement officials on the investigation of both incidents.
There are “very strange similarities and so we’re not prepared to rule in or rule out anything at this point,” said Sheriff Kevin McMahill of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The gruesome assault on revelers celebrating New Year’s in New Orleans’ famed French Quarter and the explosion in Las Vegas thrust U.S. domestic security back into the spotlight just weeks before Donald Trump is sworn in as president.
Texas roots
As authorities combed through the macabre scene on Wednesday in New Orleans’ historic French Quarter, they said they discovered an ISIS flag with the Ford F-150 electric pickup truck that barreled through the crowd. Two improvised explosive devices were found in the area, according to the FBI.
Jabbar had claimed to join ISIS during the summer and pledged allegiance to the group in videos posted on social media prior to the attack, according to the FBI. An official said there’s no evidence that ISIS coordinated the attack.
Officials said the 42-year-old Jabbar, who lived in the Houston area, exchanged fire with police and was killed at the scene.
Jabbar has said online that he spent “all his life” in the Texas city, with the exception of 10 years working in human resources and information technology in the military, according to a video promoting his real estate business.
After serving as an active-duty soldier from 2006 to 2015 and as a reservist for about five years, Jabbar began a career in technology services, the Wall Street Journal reported. He worked for Accenture, Ernst & Young and Deloitte.
Jabbar was divorced twice, most recently from Shaneen McDaniel, according to Fort Bend County marriage records. The couple, who married in 2017, had one son, and separated in 2020. The divorce was finalized in 2022.
“The marriage has become insupportable due to discord or conflict of personalities that destroys the legitimate ends of the marital relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation,” the petition stated.
McDaniel kept the couple’s four-bedroom home southwest of Houston. She declined to comment when contacted at her house in suburban Houston.
Fort Bragg
Jabbar moved to another residence in Houston, which the FBI and local law enforcement spent all night searching before declaring the neighborhood of mobile homes and single-story houses safe for residents. Agents cleared the scene shortly before 8 a.m. local time without additional comment.
Jabbar’s mobile home is fronted by an 8-foot corrugated steel fence that was partially torn apart to provide search teams access. Weightlifting equipment and a bow hunting target were scattered across the broken concrete walkway. Chickens, Muscovy ducks and guinea fowl roamed the property.
Behind the home, a yellow 2018 Jeep Rubicon sat with its doors left wide open and a hardcover book written in Arabic sitting atop the dashboard. The license plate expired in May 2023.
The other suspect, Livelsberger, was a member of the Army’s elite Green Berets, according to the Associated Press, which cited unidentified Army officials. He had served in the Army since 2006, rising through the ranks, and was on approved leave when he died in the blast.
Livelsberger, 37, spent time at the base formerly known as Fort Bragg, a massive Army base in North Carolina that’s home to Army special forces command. Jabbar also spent time at Fort Bragg, though his service apparently didn’t overlap with Livelsberger’s.
Las Vegas Sheriff McMahill said they found his military identification, a passport, a semiautomatic, fireworks, an iPhone, smartwatch and credit cards in his name, but are still uncertain it’s Livelsberger and are waiting on DNA records.
“His body is burnt beyond recognition and I do still not have confirmation 100% that that is the individual that was inside our vehicle,” he said.
The individual in the car suffered a gunshot wound to his head prior to the detonation of the vehicle.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board today asked stakeholders for feedback on its future standard-setting agenda.
The FASB published an Invitation to Comment and is requesting feedback on improvements to financial accounting and reporting needed to give investors more and better information that informs their capital allocation decision-making, reduce cost and complexity, and maintain and improve the FASB accounting standards codification.
Stakeholders should review and submit feedback by June 30.
“As a result of the significant progress on the 2021 agenda consultation priorities, the FASB staff is once again seeking stakeholder input on the Board’s future agenda and initiatives,” FASB technical director Jackson Day said in a statement. “We encourage stakeholders to take this opportunity to review the ITC and share their views on financial accounting and reporting priorities they think the Board should address going forward.”
The FASB began the current agenda consultation in 2024, doing outreach to over 200 stakeholders, including investors, practitioners, preparers and academics. The discussion in this ITC is based on input received from those stakeholders and does not contain FASB views. Most of those stakeholders said “there is not a case to make major changes to generally accepted accounting principles at this time,” according to the announcement, so many of the topics that were suggested focus on targeted improvements to GAAP.
The board encourages stakeholders to continue to submit agenda requests about needed improvements to GAAP as they arise.