HR-311-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Scott Perry (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would repeal several federal tax credits related to alternative and clean fuels, including credits for clean fuel production, second-generation biofuels, biodiesel, sustainable aviation fuel, and alcohol fuel and biodiesel mixtures. It would also repeal provisions allowing a credit or refund of excise taxes paid on those fuels when used for nontaxable purposes. Most of the credits being repealed had already expired or were set to expire by the end of 2024 or 2027.
Who benefits
Conventional petroleum fuel producers and refiners, who would face less tax-subsidized competition from alternative fuel producers. Fiscal conservatives seeking to reduce federal tax expenditures. Taxpayers broadly, to the extent that repealing credits reduces the federal deficit. Corn and soybean farmers would face no new competitive disadvantage beyond what already exists, since most credits had already expired.
Who is hurt
Producers of clean fuels, biodiesel, sustainable aviation fuel, and second-generation biofuels who relied on or anticipated these credits — particularly for the clean fuel production credit, which was set to run through 2027. Airlines and aviation companies that had planned around the sustainable aviation fuel credit. Agricultural producers (soybean, corn, and other feedstock farmers) who supply the biofuel industry and benefit indirectly from demand those credits supported. Rural communities with biofuel production facilities. Companies that had made capital investments based on the continued availability of these credits.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these credits represent billions of dollars in federal subsidies to specific fuel industries that should compete on their own merits in the marketplace. They contend that many of the credits had already expired, making their formal repeal a fiscally responsible housekeeping measure that eliminates dead-letter provisions and prevents future reinstatement without explicit congressional action. They further argue that the clean fuel production credit — the only forward-looking credit in the bill — distorts energy markets by artificially favoring certain producers over others.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that these credits were enacted to advance national energy security, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and lower greenhouse gas emissions — goals with broad bipartisan support. They contend that the clean fuel production credit in particular was actively in use and that its repeal would strand investments already made by domestic producers in reliance on the law. They further argue that conventional fossil fuel production also benefits from longstanding federal tax preferences, making selective repeal of clean fuel credits a one-sided intervention in energy markets rather than a neutral removal of subsidies.
Constitutional context
Tax legislation must originate in the House under the Origination Clause (Art. I, §7, cl. 1), and this bill was introduced in the House and referred to the Ways and Means Committee, satisfying that requirement. The Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) gives Congress broad authority to create and repeal tax credits. No significant constitutional tension is present in a straightforward repeal of existing tax provisions.
Checks and balances
Congress holds authority to repeal these tax credits through the normal legislative process; the Executive Branch (IRS/Treasury) would implement the changes through updated guidance; no new agency authority is created or removed.
Historical precedent
Congress has repeatedly allowed energy tax credits to expire and later reinstated them — a pattern sometimes called the "tax extenders" cycle — most recently consolidated in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which extended and expanded many of the same credits this bill would repeal.