Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Tax Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would link corporate tax credits to megawatts of ‘‘renewable’’ capacity, names nuclear as eligible
Summary
A bill filed Jan. 17 would add a Massachusetts Energy Credit for corporations, tying a percentage tax credit to the megawatts of energy a corporation generates and listing wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear as eligible sources. The bill text contains an apparent drafting error in its megawatt bands.
A bill filed Jan. 17 would create a Massachusetts Energy Credit for corporations that reduces corporate tax liability based on the amount of electricity a corporation produces, with credit rates that increase with the megawatts (MW) of reported capacity.
The bill, filed with the Senate and presented by Bruce E. Tarr (by request), would amend Chapter 63 of the Massachusetts General Laws by inserting a new section titled "Massachusetts Energy Credit for Corporations." The text sets progressive credit percentages starting at 0.7% for 0–14 MW and rising to 10.5% for 141–150 MW.
The bill text lists the following bands and credit rates: 0–14 MW: 0.7%; 15–20 MW: 1.4%; 21–30 MW: 2.1%; 31–40 MW: 2.8%; 41–50 MW: 3.5%; 51–60 MW: 4.2%; 61–70 MW: 4.9%; 61–80 MW: 5.6%; 81–90 MW: 6.3%; 91–100 MW: 7.0%; 101–110 MW: 7.7%; 111–120 MW: 8.4%; 121–130 MW: 9.1%; 131–140 MW: 9.8%; and 141–150 MW: 10.5%.
The bill defines eligible "renewable energy" in Section 2 to include wind turbine energy, solar panels, hydroelectric energy, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. The text therefore treats nuclear energy as eligible for the credit for the purposes of the proposed section.
The filing lists petitioners Sofia Isabella FloresQuero Llamas and Mariah Delaney Eskel as accompanying the bill. The bill text does not specify an effective date, the administering agency, reporting or measurement rules for megawatts, nor any fiscal-impact estimates.
The bill appears to contain a numerical drafting inconsistency: it lists both a 61–70 MW band (4.9%) and a 61–80 MW band (5.6%), which overlap and omit an explicitly labeled 71–80 MW band. That inconsistency is present in the filed text and would need clarification or correction in later drafting or legislative review.
No votes, committee referrals, or implementation details appear in the filed text provided; the document is a legislative filing rather than a record of debate or committee action.
