Pre-election PTC Extension Update

Nov 3, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

The current Congress has been the least productive of any Congress in the last 40 years. To provide some context, 700 bills were enacted by the 100th Congress (1987-1988) during President Reagan’s second term. President Clinton signed more than 300 bills during the 104th Congress (1995-1996), and the second President Bush signed more than 500 bills during the 108th Congress (2003-2004).2  These statistics demonstrate the main reason that the PTC has not yet been extended: dysfunction in Washington has led to gridlock, which means that very little is happening on the legislative front.  We can only hope that the members return from the election ready to work as legislators to do the country’s business.

Second, on October 30, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz restated his support for the extension of the PTC and the investment tax credit: “We need to extend those renewable tax credits and do it in a way that there is predictability on all sides.”3

Third, on October 29, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel implicitly endorsed the PTC extension without referring to it directly: “From my perspective, within the portfolio that I have responsibility for-security of this country-climate change presents security issues for us.  [It] is critically important that we pay attention to this.”4

Fourth, a General Electric (GE) policy expert articulated GE’s current view of the PTC. David Malkin, director of government affairs and policy for GE Energy Management, stated that GE is advocating for an extension of the PTC through 2015 and a three- to five-year phase out.5  This raises the question of whether GE would be prepared to progressively reduce the price of wind turbines over that five-year period.

The GE policy expert added that extending the master limited partnership (MLP) tax rules to wind would help with the transition to a post-PTC era, but expansion of the MLP tax rules to include wind was not the industry’s top priority.6  Here and here are blog posts that address the extension of the MLP rules to renewables.


1 Statistics provided by Maria Sanders of Legislative Intent Service, Inc. (www.legintent.com).

2 Id.

3 Anthony Adragna, Moniz Urges Renewal of Energy Tax Credits, Vows Continued Progress on Climate Change, Daily Tax Report G-3 (Oct. 31, 2014).

4 Id.

5 Julia Pyper, GE Gov’t Affairs Dir.: Midwest Wind Can Compete Without a Fed. Tax Credit, Green Tech Media (Oct. 29, 2014) available at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ge-govt-affairs-director-wind-ptc-can-expire-after-2015.

6 Id.

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.