HR-4720-117
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Schweikert asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 4720, a bill originally introduced by Representative Reed, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
What it does
This bill would create new federal tax credits for businesses that build or acquire facilities using emerging energy technologies, including carbon capture equipment and energy storage systems. It would also establish a separate tax credit for producing electricity from clean hydrogen — defined as hydrogen produced with greenhouse gas emissions between zero and 2,500 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilogram. Both credits would reduce the federal income tax owed by qualifying businesses.
Who benefits
Energy companies and developers that build or invest in emerging energy technology facilities, carbon capture equipment, or energy storage systems. Businesses that produce electricity from clean hydrogen. Investors and shareholders in those companies. Workers employed in constructing or operating qualifying facilities. Communities where new energy facilities are built may see local economic activity.
Who is hurt
Competing energy producers that do not qualify for the new credits — such as conventional fossil fuel generators without carbon capture — would face a relative cost disadvantage. Taxpayers broadly, to the extent the credits reduce federal revenue and contribute to the deficit. Hydrogen producers using methods that exceed the 2,500g CO2-e threshold would be excluded from the production credit. Established clean energy technologies already covered by existing credits (e.g., wind, solar) would not receive additional benefit from this bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the existing federal tax code does not adequately incentivize emerging energy technologies — such as advanced energy storage, carbon capture, and clean hydrogen — that are critical to diversifying the nation's energy supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions over time. They contend that targeted tax credits lower the financial risk for private investors, accelerating the deployment of technologies that are not yet cost-competitive but hold significant long-term potential. Supporters also argue that the bill would spur domestic manufacturing and construction jobs in the energy sector, strengthen U.S. competitiveness in global clean energy markets, and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. They note that the clean hydrogen definition is technology-neutral, allowing a range of production pathways to qualify as long as emissions stay within the defined threshold.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would direct federal tax benefits toward a narrow set of technologies whose commercial viability and emissions benefits remain uncertain, amounting to government picking winners and losers in the energy market rather than allowing competition to determine outcomes. They contend that the clean hydrogen emissions threshold of 2,500g CO2-e per kilogram is too permissive, potentially subsidizing hydrogen production methods that still generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. Critics also argue that the revenue lost through these credits would add to the federal deficit without a guaranteed return in energy output or emissions reductions. Some opponents further contend that existing tax credits for energy investment are already sufficient, and that adding new, overlapping credits creates unnecessary complexity in the tax code that disproportionately benefits large corporations with the resources to navigate it.
Constitutional context
Tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives under the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). This bill was introduced in the House, satisfying that requirement. The credits would be administered under Congress's taxing and spending power (Art. I, Sec. 8). As income tax credits, they operate under the authority established by the Sixteenth Amendment. The bill does not raise significant apportionment concerns, as income tax credits are not subject to the direct tax apportionment requirement. Moore v. United States (2024) is relevant background for how courts assess the boundaries of income taxation, though this bill's credits are straightforward reductions of income tax liability and do not present the same realization questions at issue in Moore.
Checks and balances
The bill would expand the legislative branch's use of the tax code to shape private energy investment decisions. The Treasury Department (executive branch) and the IRS would gain administrative authority to define, interpret, and enforce the qualifying criteria — including what constitutes "emerging energy technology" and how emissions rates are calculated and verified. This gives the executive branch meaningful discretion in determining which projects and companies receive the credits in practice.
Historical precedent
The Production Tax Credit (PTC, 1992) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC, 1978, expanded 2005) established the framework of using federal tax credits to incentivize specific energy technologies. The Section 45Q carbon capture tax credit (2008, expanded 2018) is a direct predecessor for carbon capture incentives. The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) later expanded and restructured many of these energy tax credits, including for clean hydrogen (Section 45V).