Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53)
47 Yea53 Nay0 Not voting1/2 required
SJRES-107-119
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 53. Record Vote Number: 70.
Sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify an IRS rule that defined when wind and solar energy facilities must "begin construction" to qualify for clean electricity production and investment tax credits before those credits expire. If passed, the IRS rule would be voided and the agency would be prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization. The resolution was introduced in the Senate but a motion to proceed was rejected 47–53.
Who benefits
Fossil fuel energy producers who compete with wind and solar and would benefit from fewer subsidized competitors. Taxpayers and deficit hawks who oppose the revenue cost of extended tax credits. Landowners and communities opposed to wind and solar development who would see fewer projects qualify for credits. Members of Congress who prefer that tax credit eligibility rules be set by statute rather than agency interpretation.
Who is hurt
Wind and solar energy developers who relied on the IRS rule to plan project timelines and secure financing — particularly those with projects already underway. Investors and lenders with capital committed to projects whose tax credit eligibility depended on the rule. Workers in wind and solar construction and manufacturing who may see projects delayed or cancelled. Rural landowners who lease land for wind and solar projects and receive royalty income. Utilities and electricity consumers in regions where wind and solar projects would have reduced electricity costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the IRS rule improperly extended the window for wind and solar projects to qualify for tax credits that Congress intended to phase out, effectively rewriting the statutory sunset schedule through administrative action. They contend that under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), agencies cannot use ambiguous statutory language to make major economic decisions — like extending billions of dollars in tax credits — without clear congressional authorization, and that Congress, not the IRS, should determine eligibility deadlines for credits worth tens of billions in federal revenue.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the IRS rule provided necessary technical clarity on a longstanding construction-start standard that has governed energy tax credits for years, and that invalidating it would retroactively disrupt projects already in development based on reasonable reliance on agency guidance. They contend that eliminating the rule would strand billions in private investment, reduce domestic clean energy capacity, and increase electricity costs — and that Congress already set the credit phase-out schedule in statute, leaving the IRS with legitimate authority to define the technical construction-start requirements needed to implement it.
Constitutional context
The major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the end of Chevron deference under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) are directly relevant: courts would now independently assess whether the IRS had clear statutory authority to define "beginning of construction" in a way that affects tens of billions in tax credits. The Nondelegation and Vesting Clauses (Art. I, §1) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) also bear on whether Congress sufficiently authorized the IRS's interpretive choices.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by nullifying the executive branch IRS rule; the CRA's anti-re-promulgation rule further limits the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule, shifting ongoing policy control from the executive to the legislative branch.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify agency rules on multiple occasions, most notably in 2017 when it repealed 14 rules issued in the final months of the Obama administration, including an EPA stream protection rule affecting energy development.
Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53)