Arizona Increased Tax Credit for Renewable Energy Facilities Used for Self-Consumption by Five Times per Facility

Oct 1, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

Favorable Revisions

First, taxpayers may now claim a total of $25 million of tax credits per renewable energy facility instead of $5 million.  Previously, a taxpayer could receive a $1 million credit annually for each of the first five years a given renewable energy facility was operational.  The $1 million annual limit has been lifted to $5 million.  The five-year limit remains.

Second, the credit had previously been applicable only for taxpayers using their renewable energy production in furtherance of supporting the taxpayer’s manufacturing facility, but it is now also applicable for taxpayers using such energy for the purpose of supporting the taxpayer’s “International Operations Center.”  An International Operations Center is defined as a facility “that self-consumes renewable energy from a qualified [Arizona renewable energy] facility” and invests $1.25 billion in new capital assets (including costs of land, buildings and equipment) within 10 years, with a minimum of $100 million being spent annually (investments greater than $100 million in any year can be carried forward to make up for any shortfalls in future years).  A certification must be obtained from the Arizona Commerce Authority to validate that an investment is on track for these thresholds and that the property thus qualifies as an International Operations Center.

Third, with respect to International Operations Centers, self-consumption is very broadly defined to include power transferred to a utility “if the utility is the same utility that provides power to the owner’s International Operations Center in [Arizona].”  Therefore, for an International Operations Center, net metering is permitted, and the center does not actually have to use any of the electricity generated at its site.  With respect to manufacturing facilities, “self-consumption” continues to include power transferred to a utility if at least 90 percent of the power is “transferred back for self-consumption in [Arizona].”  

Key Considerations

Key considerations that taxpayers should keep in mind when planning to claim these credits include the following three concepts.

First, timing is critical.  Arizona will issue only $10 million of these credits per year, on a first-come, first-served basis.  This cap has not been increased, even though an individual facility may now qualify for $5 million of credits annually.  Taxpayers interested in claiming these credits should apply for them immediately, because two taxpayers each claiming the maximum would exhaust the available mandate. 

Furthermore, with respect to timing, if an International Operations Center is used, by December 31, 2018, a taxpayer must invest at least $100 million in a renewable energy facility in Arizona.  This $100 million is in addition to the above-mentioned capital spending requirements on the International Operations Center—meaning that a total outlay of at least $1.35 billion will be required to avoid having the credits clawed back.  For manufacturing operations, the rule continues to be that $300 million must be spent on Arizona renewable energy facilities by December 31, 2017, for a taxpayer to be eligible for the credits.    

Second, the credits can be clawed back if it turns out that the capital expenditure requirements are ultimately not met.  For example, if $1.25 billion is not spent on an International Operations Center within 10 years after its certification, the taxpayer will need to reimburse all credits used (potentially $25 million) to the state of Arizona.  Exemption from reimbursement may be granted only under circumstances of extraordinary hardship outside of a taxpayer’s control.

Third, the taxpayer is explicitly permitted to lease an International Operations Center to another party and still be eligible to claim the credits, and it may also be able to lease the associated renewable energy facility as well (with respect to the renewable energy facility, the applicable statutes appear to stipulate only that the taxpayer must “invest” in the facility, without prohibiting the leasing of such a facility).  This creates a significant tax credit opportunity for a financial institution with Arizona tax liability that is interested in making a passive investment in an International Operations Center and an associated renewable energy facility.

*This blog post was originally on Tax Equity Telegraph.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.