HR-8482-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Pat Harrigan (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would make two changes to federal tax credit rules for nuclear power facilities. First, it would allow nuclear facility owners to elect out of a limitation that reduces tax credits for "public utility property," giving them access to the full investment tax credit. Second, it would remove a restriction that currently prevents nuclear facilities from transferring tax credits tied to "progress expenditures" — costs incurred during multi-year construction — to other parties. Both changes would take effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2026.
Who benefits
Nuclear power plant developers and owners, including both large utilities and independent power producers building new nuclear capacity. Investors and tax equity partners who purchase transferred credits. Construction and engineering firms that work on nuclear projects, who may see increased project viability. Communities near planned nuclear facilities that could gain jobs and local tax revenue. Electricity consumers in regions where new nuclear capacity reduces grid strain or stabilizes long-term power prices.
Who is hurt
Competing clean energy developers (solar, wind, geothermal) who do not receive equivalent credit enhancements and may face a less level competitive landscape for capital. Federal taxpayers broadly, as expanded credits reduce federal revenue. Natural gas power plant operators who may face increased competition from nuclear capacity that becomes more financially viable. Ratepayers in jurisdictions where utilities pass construction cost risks through to customers, if projects are delayed or over budget.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that nuclear energy provides around-the-clock, carbon-free electricity that wind and solar cannot reliably replicate without large-scale storage, and that the current public utility property limitation and progress expenditure restrictions create financing barriers unique to nuclear's long construction timelines. They contend that removing these obstacles aligns nuclear's tax treatment with other clean energy technologies already eligible for full credits under the Inflation Reduction Act's Section 48E framework, correcting an unintended disparity that discourages investment in a proven low-carbon baseload resource.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that nuclear construction projects have a well-documented history of massive cost overruns and delays — the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 project in Georgia came in roughly $17 billion over budget and years behind schedule — and that expanding tax credits shifts financial risk from developers to federal taxpayers without addressing the underlying cost and project management challenges. They contend that the same capital could generate more clean energy capacity per dollar if directed toward technologies with more predictable construction costs, and that the progress expenditure transfer provision in particular could enable speculative credit monetization before projects are completed.