Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member and former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, questioned Treasury Department nominee Derek Theurer on the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Grassley asked whether Theurer would advise the Treasury Department to maintain its longstanding interpretation of “began construction.” Grassley requested a timeline on formal guidance for implementing the clean fuels tax credit to provide Iowa’s biofuels industry greater certainty.
Grassley also questioned Bryan Switzer, nominee to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, about America’s trade balance with China.
On Wins on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
The One Big Beautiful Bill was an historic achievement. We averted the largest tax increase in history. It made pro-growth business provisions permanent. It unlocked business investment that will create jobs. The bill also provides additional middle-class tax relief.
Implementing the Bill as Congress Intended
As Treasury works to implement the bill, the agency must work with members to ensure the provisions are implemented according to the statute and faithful to congressional intent.
So, the first question is a very general one. Can we count on you to keep Congress well informed during the implementation process and consult with [relevant] members of Congress where questions arise as to what was congressional intent?
Wind and Solar Provisions, 45Z Implementation
There are several provisions that I’m particularly interested in, in seeing faithfully implemented. This includes the structure of the phase-out for the wind and solar credits and modifications to the Clean Fuels Production Credit. And, remember, you’re talking to the father of the Wind Energy Tax Credit.
I worked with my colleagues to provide wind and solar an appropriate glide path for the orderly phase-out of the tax credits. Ultimately, Congress enshrined in statute a 12-month transition period based on when projects “begin construction.”
What it means for a project to “begin construction” has been very well established by Treasury guidance for more than a decade. Moreover, Congress specifically references current Treasury guidance to set that term’s meaning in law. It seems to me, this is a case where both the law and congressional intent are very, very clear.
So, Mr. Theurer, will you commit to advising the Department that both the law and congressional intent are clear and that the “beginning of construction” – those official words – means what it has meant for more than a decade?”
Impact of the Clean Fuels Credit on Biofuels
The reconciliation bill includes an extension and modification of [the] Clean Fuel[s] Production Tax Credit under 45Z. Implementing this credit properly and quickly is important for the biofuels industry and its participants, especially farmers. The Biden administration failed to meaningfully address 45Z regulations, which has caused major market disruptions, including plant closures.
When can we expect to see guidance formally implementing the clean fuels credit so the biofuels industry can confidently move forward with operations?
America’s Trade Balance with China
You will be handling areas of international trade, and I’m interested in China. Based on your personal history, you know how challenging this will be. Do you think that the whole United States economy needs to decouple completely from China, or only certain sectors of our economy?
So Senator Grassley wants “Iowa’s biofuels industry greater certainty’. I do not care about their contracts or plans and desires to keep their gravy train at our expense running, including special treatments, marketing mandates and propaganda and then no doubt to be tapped for the bill to ameliorate their environmental impacts including ground water issues and runoff, extra cost fuels because of their inefficiencies, forgoing or inhibiting cheaper dependable energy sources because biofuels are just not that good.
The whole thing of half the corn acreage in the state for ethanol, along with solar and wind are boondoggles built on ridiculous claims and scare tactics. And now we have boondoggle on top of boondoggle with the CO2 pipeline nonsense. Chuck if we are going to subsidize farmers don’t do it by way of counterproductive “industries” that deserve to die if they cannot live without federal support.
I would rather we have more subsidized feed for livestock farmers and subsidies for other crops to insure abundant food stuffs at affordable prices. As for wind and solar there is no current cost-effective way to dispose of those uneconomic creations after their limited useful life. And besides they are ugly (Trump’s descriptor) bird-killing, monstrosities.