Internal Revenue Bulletin 2025-13 (PDF rendition): IRS Revenue Rulings

Preserve advance releases and the authoritative Internal Revenue Bulletin rendition; directory timestamps are file-publication metadata, not legal effective dates. HTML bulletins begin June 2003; earlier available issues require full PDF parsing. Whole bulletin rendition: numbered items are identified below; other legal material and publisher context remain included. This is not a new standalone advance release.

Bulletin No. 2025–13
March 24, 2025
HIGHLIGHTS
OF THIS ISSUE
These synopses are intended only as aids to the reader in
identifying the subject matter covered. They may not be
relied upon as authoritative interpretations.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Rev. Rul. 2025-7, page 1239.
Interest rates: underpayments and overpayments. The rates
for interest determined under Section 6621 of the code for
the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2025, will be 7 per-
cent for overpayments (6 percent in the case of a corpora-
tion), 7 percent for underpayments, and 9 percent for large
corporate underpayments. The rate of interest paid on the
portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000 will
be 4.5 percent.
INCOME TAX
Notice 2025-16, page 1378.
Notice 2025-16 provides for adjustments to the limitation on
housing expenses for purposes of section 911 of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code for the 2025 tax year. These adjustments
are made on the basis of geographic differences in housing
costs relative to housing costs in the United States. If the
limitation on housing expenses is higher for the 2025 tax
year than the adjusted limitations on housing expenses pro-
vided in Notice 2024-31, qualified taxpayers may apply the
adjusted limitations in this notice for the 2025 tax year to
their 2024 tax year.
Rev. Proc. 2025-17, page 1382.
Generally, U.S. citizens or resident aliens living and working
abroad are taxed on their worldwide income. However, if
their tax home is in a foreign country and they meet either the
bona fide residence test or the physical presence test, they
can choose to exclude from their income a limited amount
of their foreign earned income (up to $126,500 for 2024).
Both the bona fide residence test and the physical presence
test contain minimum time requirements. Revenue Procedure
2025-17 provides a waiver under section 911(d)(4) for the
time requirements for individuals electing to exclude their
foreign earned income who must leave a foreign country
because of war, civil unrest, or similar adverse conditions in
that country. Rev. Proc. 2025-17 adds Ukraine, Iraq, Haiti,
and Bangladesh to the list of waiver countries for tax year
2024 for which the minimum time requirements are waived.
T.D. 10023, page 1259.
These final regulations provide rules for the new section 45V
tax credit for the production of qualified clean hydrogen that
was added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The final
regulations provide guidance on how to claim the section
45V credit, a production tax credit, the amount of which is
dependent on the quantity and emissions intensity of the
hydrogen produced. The final regulations also provide guid-
ance on the election to treat qualified property that is part
of a specified clean hydrogen production facility as energy
property under section 48, which is part of the investment
tax credit under section 46.
TAX CONVENTIONS
Announcement 2025-8, page 1384.
The competent authorities of the United States and the Swiss
Confederation have entered a Competent Authority Arrange-
ment under paragraph 3 of Article 25 (Mutual Agreement
Procedure) of the Convention Between the United States of
America and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of
Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income signed at
Washington on October 2, 1996, as amended by the Proto-
col, signed on September 23, 2009, regarding certain U.S.
and Swiss pension or other retirement arrangements, includ-
ing individual retirement savings plans, that may be eligible
for benefits under paragraph 3 of Article 10 (Dividends).
Finding Lists begin on page ii.

The IRS Mission
Provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping
them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and
enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.
Introduction
The Internal Revenue Bulletin is the authoritative instrument
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for announcing offi-
cial rulings and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service
and for publishing Treasury Decisions, Executive Orders, Tax
Conventions, legislation, court decisions, and other items of
general interest. It is published weekly.
It is the policy of the Service to publish in the Bulletin all sub-
stantive rulings necessary to promote a uniform application
of the tax laws, including all rulings that supersede, revoke,
modify, or amend any of those previously published in the
Bulletin. All published rulings apply retroactively unless other-
wise indicated. Procedures relating solely to matters of inter-
nal management are not published; however, statements of
internal practices and procedures that affect the rights and
duties of taxpayers are published.
Revenue rulings represent the conclusions of the Service
on the application of the law to the pivotal facts stated in
the revenue ruling. In those based on positions taken in rul-
ings to taxpayers or technical advice to Service field offices,
identifying details and information of a confidential nature are
deleted to prevent unwarranted invasions of privacy and to
comply with statutory requirements.
Rulings and procedures reported in the Bulletin do not have the
force and effect of Treasury Department Regulations, but they
may be used as precedents. Unpublished rulings will not be
relied on, used, or cited as precedents by Service personnel in
the disposition of other cases. In applying published rulings and
procedures, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations,
court decisions, rulings, and procedures must be considered,
and Service personnel and others concerned are cautioned
against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless
the facts and circumstances are substantially the same.
The Bulletin is divided into four parts as follows:
Part I.—1986 Code.
This part includes rulings and decisions based on provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Part II.—Treaties and Tax Legislation.
This part is divided into two subparts as follows: Subpart A,
Tax Conventions and Other Related Items, and Subpart B,
Legislation and Related Committee Reports.
Part III.—Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous.
To the extent practicable, pertinent cross references to these
subjects are contained in the other Parts and Subparts. Also
included in this part are Bank Secrecy Act Administrative
Rulings. Bank Secrecy Act Administrative Rulings are issued
by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Assistant
Secretary (Enforcement).
Part IV.—Items of General Interest.
This part includes notices of proposed rulemakings, disbar-
ment and suspension lists, and announcements.
The last Bulletin for each month includes a cumulative index
for the matters published during the preceding months. These
monthly indexes are cumulated on a semiannual basis, and are
published in the last Bulletin of each semiannual period.
The contents of this publication are not copyrighted and may be reprinted freely. A citation of the Internal Revenue Bulletin as the source would be appropriate.
March 24, 2025 Bulletin No. 2025–13

Part I
Section 6621.–
Determination of Rate of
Interest
26 CFR 301.6621-1: Interest rate.
Rev. Rul. 2025-7
Section 6621 of the Internal Reve-
nue Code establishes the interest rates
on overpayments and underpayments of
tax. Under section 6621(a)(1), the over-
payment rate is the sum of the federal
short-term rate plus 3 percentage points (2
percentage points in the case of a corpo-
ration), except the rate for the portion of
a corporate overpayment of tax exceeding
$10,000 for a taxable period is the sum
of the federal short-term rate plus 0.5 of
a percentage point. Under section 6621(a)
(2), the underpayment rate is the sum of
the federal short-term rate plus 3 percent-
age points.
Section 6621(c) provides that for pur-
poses of interest payable under section
6601 on any large corporate underpay-
ment, the underpayment rate under section
6621(a)(2) is determined by substituting
“5 percentage points” for “3 percentage
points.” See section 6621(c) and section
301.6621-3 of the Regulations on Proce-
dure and Administration for the definition
of a large corporate underpayment and
for the rules for determining the appli-
cable date. Section 6621(c) and section
301.6621-3 are generally effective for
periods after December 31, 1990.
Section 6621(b)(1) provides that the
Secretary will determine the federal short-
term rate for the first month in each cal-
endar quarter. Section 6621(b)(2)(A)
provides that the federal short-term rate
determined under section 6621(b)(1) for
any month applies during the first calen-
dar quarter beginning after that month.
Section 6621(b)(3) provides that the fed-
eral short-term rate for any month is the
federal short-term rate determined during
that month by the Secretary in accordance
with section 1274(d), rounded to the near-
est full percent (or, if a multiple of 1/2 of
1 percent, the rate is increased to the next
highest full percent).
Notice 88-59, 1988-1 C.B. 546,
announced that in determining the quar-
terly interest rates to be used for overpay-
ments and underpayments of tax under
section 6621, the Internal Revenue Ser-
vice will use the federal short-term rate
based on daily compounding because that
rate is most consistent with section 6621
which, pursuant to section 6622, is subject
to daily compounding.
The federal short-term rate determined
in accordance with section 1274(d) during
January 2025 is the rate published in Rev-
enue Ruling 2025-5, 2025-7 IRB 767, to
take effect beginning February 1, 2025.
The federal short-term rate, rounded to the
nearest full percent, based on daily com-
pounding determined during the month of
January 2025 is 4 percent. Accordingly,
an overpayment rate of 7 percent (6 per-
cent in the case of a corporation) and an
underpayment rate of 7 percent are estab-
lished for the calendar quarter beginning
April 1, 2025. The overpayment rate for
the portion of a corporate overpayment
exceeding $10,000 for the calendar quar-
ter beginning April 1, 2025, is 4.5 percent.
The underpayment rate for large corporate
underpayments for the calendar quar-
ter beginning April 1, 2025, is 9 percent.
These rates apply to amounts bearing
interest during that calendar quarter.
Sections 6654(a)(1) and 6655(a)
(1) provide that the underpayment rate
established under section 6621 applies
in determining the addition to tax under
sections 6654 and 6655 for failure to
pay estimated tax for any taxable year.
Thus, the 7 percent rate also applies to
estimated tax underpayments for the
second calendar quarter beginning April
1, 2025. Pursuant to section 6621(b)(2)
(B), in determining the addition to tax
under section 6654 for any taxable year
for an individual, the federal short-term
rate that applies during the third month
following the taxable year also applies
during the first 15 days of the fourth
month following the taxable year. See
Rev. Rul. 2024-25, 2024-49 IRB 1181 (7
percent rate for the first quarter of 2025).
In addition, pursuant to section 6603(d)
(4), the rate of interest on section 6603
deposits is 4 percent for the second cal-
endar quarter in 2025.
Interest factors for daily compound
interest for annual rates of 4.5 percent, 6
percent, 7 percent and 9 percent are pub-
lished in Tables 14, 17, 19 and 23 of Rev.
Proc. 95-17, 1995-1 C.B. 568, 571, 573,
and 577.
Annual interest rates to be compounded
daily pursuant to section 6622 that apply
for prior periods are set forth in the tables
accompanying this revenue ruling.
DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this revenue
ruling is Casey R. Conrad of the Office of
the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure
and Administration). For further informa-
tion regarding this revenue ruling, contact
Mr. Conrad at (202) 317-6844 (not a toll-
free call).
Bulletin No. 2025–13 1239 March 24, 2025

APPENDIX A
365 Day Year
0.5% Compound Rate 184 Days
DaysFactorDaysFactorDaysFactor
10.000013699630.0008633801250.001713784
20.000027397640.0008770911260.001727506
30.000041096650.0008908011270.001741228
40.000054796660.0009045121280.001754951
50.000068495670.0009182231290.001768673
60.000082195680.0009319341300.001782396
70.000095894690.0009456461310.001796119
80.000109594700.0009593571320.001809843
90.000123294710.0009730691330.001823566
100.000136995720.0009867811340.001837290
110.000150695730.0010004931350.001851013
120.000164396740.0010142061360.001864737
130.000178097750.0010279181370.001878462
140.000191798760.0010416311380.001892186
150.000205499770.0010553441390.001905910
160.000219201780.0010690571400.001919635
170.000232902790.0010827701410.001933360
180.000246604800.0010964841420.001947085
190.000260306810.0011101971430.001960811
200.000274008820.0011239111440.001974536
210.000287711830.0011376251450.001988262
220.000301413840.0011513391460.002001988
230.000315116850.0011650541470.002015714
240.000328819860.0011787681480.002029440
250.000342522870.0011924831490.002043166
260.000356225880.0012061981500.002056893
270.000369929890.0012199131510.002070620
280.000383633900.0012336291520.002084347
290.000397336910.0012473441530.002098074
300.000411041920.0012610601540.002111801
310.000424745930.0012747761550.002125529
320.000438449940.0012884921560.002139257
330.000452154950.0013022081570.002152985
340.000465859960.0013159251580.002166713
350.000479564970.0013296411590.002180441
360.000493269980.0013433581600.002194169
370.000506974990.0013570751610.002207898
380.0005206801000.0013707921620.002221627
390.0005343861010.0013845101630.002235356
400.0005480921020.0013982271640.002249085
410.0005617981030.0014119451650.002262815
March 24, 2025 1240 Bulletin No. 2025–13

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1241 March 24, 2025
420.0005755041040.0014256631660.002276544
430.0005892111050.0014393811670.002290274
440.0006029171060.0014531001680.002304004
450.0006166241070.0014668181690.002317734
460.0006303311080.0014805371700.002331465
470.0006440391090.0014942561710.002345195
480.0006577461100.0015079751720.002358926
490.0006714541110.0015216941730.002372657
500.0006851611120.0015354141740.002386388
510.0006988691130.0015491331750.002400120
520.0007125781140.0015628531760.002413851
530.0007262861150.0015765731770.002427583
540.0007399951160.0015902931780.002441315
550.0007537031170.0016040141790.002455047
560.0007674121180.0016177341800.002468779
570.0007811211190.0016314551810.002482511
580.0007948311200.0016451761820.002496244
590.0008085401210.0016588971830.002509977
600.0008222501220.0016726191840.002523710
610.0008359601230.001686340
620.0008496701240.001700062

March 24, 2025 1242 Bulletin No. 2025–13
366 Day Year
0.5% Compound Rate 184 Days
DaysFactorDaysFactorDaysFactor
10.000013661630.0008610201250.001709097
20.000027323640.0008746931260.001722782
30.000040984650.0008883661270.001736467
40.000054646660.0009020401280.001750152
50.000068308670.0009157131290.001763837
60.000081970680.0009293871300.001777522
70.000095632690.0009430611310.001791208
80.000109295700.0009567351320.001804893
90.000122958710.0009704091330.001818579
100.000136620720.0009840841340.001832265
110.000150283730.0009977581350.001845951
120.000163947740.0010114331360.001859638
130.000177610750.0010251081370.001873324
140.000191274760.0010387831380.001887011
150.000204938770.0010524591390.001900698
160.000218602780.0010661341400.001914385
170.000232266790.0010798101410.001928073
180.000245930800.0010934861420.001941760
190.000259595810.0011071621430.001955448
200.000273260820.0011208391440.001969136
210.000286924830.0011345151450.001982824
220.000300590840.0011481921460.001996512
230.000314255850.0011618691470.002010201
240.000327920860.0011755461480.002023889
250.000341586870.0011892231490.002037578
260.000355252880.0012029001500.002051267
270.000368918890.0012165781510.002064957
280.000382584900.0012302561520.002078646
290.000396251910.0012439341530.002092336
300.000409917920.0012576121540.002106025
310.000423584930.0012712911550.002119715
320.000437251940.0012849691560.002133405
330.000450918950.0012986481570.002147096
340.000464586960.0013123271580.002160786
350.000478253970.0013260061590.002174477
360.000491921980.0013396851600.002188168
370.000505589990.0013533651610.002201859
380.0005192571000.0013670441620.002215550
390.0005329251010.0013807241630.002229242
400.0005465941020.0013944041640.002242933
410.0005602621030.0014080851650.002256625
420.0005739311040.0014217651660.002270317

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1243 March 24, 2025
430.0005876001050.0014354461670.002284010
440.0006012691060.0014491271680.002297702
450.0006149391070.0014628081690.002311395
460.0006286081080.0014764891700.002325087
470.0006422781090.0014901701710.002338780
480.0006559481100.0015038521720.002352473
490.0006696181110.0015175331730.002366167
500.0006832891120.0015312151740.002379860
510.0006969591130.0015448971750.002393554
520.0007106301140.0015585801760.002407248
530.0007243011150.0015722621770.002420942
540.0007379721160.0015859451780.002434636
550.0007516431170.0015996281790.002448331
560.0007653151180.0016133111800.002462025
570.0007789861190.0016269941810.002475720
580.0007926581200.0016406781820.002489415
590.0008063301210.0016543611830.002503110
600.0008200031220.0016680451840.002516806
610.0008336751230.001681729
620.0008473481240.001695413

March 24, 2025 1244 Bulletin No. 2025–13
TABLE OF INTEREST RATES
PERIODS BEFORE JUL. 1, 1975 – PERIODS ENDING DEC. 31, 1986
OVERPAYMENTS AND UNDERPAYMENTS
PERIODRATEIn 1995-1 C.B.
DAILY RATE TABLE
Before Jul. 1, 19756%Table2,pg.557
Jul. 1, 1975–Jan. 31, 19769%Table4,pg.559
Feb. 1, 1976–Jan. 31, 19787%Table3,pg.558
Feb. 1, 1978–Jan. 31, 19806%Table2,pg.557
Feb. 1, 1980–Jan. 31, 198212%Table5,pg.560
Feb. 1, 1982–Dec. 31, 198220%Table6,pg.560
Jan. 1, 1983–Jun. 30, 198316%Table37,pg.591
Jul. 1, 1983–Dec. 31, 198311%Table27,pg.581
Jan. 1, 1984–Jun. 30, 198411%Table75,pg.629
Jul. 1, 1984–Dec. 31, 198411%Table75,pg.629
Jan. 1, 1985–Dec. 31, 198513%Table31,pg.585
Jul. 1, 1985–Dec. 31, 198511%Table27,pg.581
Jan. 1, 1986–Jun. 30, 198610%Table25,pg.579
Jul. 1, 1986–Dec. 31, 19869%Table23,pg.577
TABLE OF INTEREST RATES
FROM JAN. 1, 1987 – Dec. 31, 1998
OVERPAYMENTSUNDERPAYMENTS
1995-1 C.B.1995-1 C.B. RATE
RATETABLEPGRATETABLEPG
Jan. 1, 1987–Mar. 31, 19878%215759%23577
Apr. 1, 1987–Jun. 30, 19878%215759%23577
Jul. 1, 1987–Sep. 30, 19878%215759%23577
Oct. 1, 1987–Dec. 31, 19879%2357710%25579
Jan. 1, 1988–Mar. 31, 198810%7362711%75629
Apr. 1, 1988–Jun. 30, 19889%7162510%73627
Jul. 1, 1988–Sep. 30, 19889%7162510%73627
Oct. 1, 1988–Dec. 31, 198810%7362711%75629
Jan. 1, 1989–Mar. 31, 198910%2557911%27581
Apr. 1, 1989–Jun. 30, 198911%2758112%29583
Jul. 1, 1989–Sep. 30, 198911%2758112%29583
Oct. 1, 1989–Dec. 31, 198910%2557911%27581
Jan. 1, 1990–Mar. 31, 199010%2557911%27581
Apr. 1, 1990–Jun. 30, 199010%2557911%27581
Jul. 1, 1990–Sep. 30, 199010%2557911%27581
Oct. 1, 1990–Dec. 31, 199010%2557911%27581
Jan. 1, 1991–Mar. 31, 199110%2557911%27581
Apr. 1, 1991–Jun. 30, 19919%2357710%25579
Jul. 1, 1991–Sep. 30, 19919%2357710%25579
Oct. 1, 1991–Dec. 31, 19919%2357710%25579
Jan. 1, 1992–Mar. 31, 19928%696239%71625

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1245 March 24, 2025
Apr. 1, 1992–Jun. 30, 19927%676218%69623
Jul. 1, 1992–Sep. 30, 19927%676218%69623
Oct. 1, 1992–Dec. 31, 19926%656197%67621
Jan. 1, 1993–Mar. 31, 19936%175717%19573
Apr. 1, 1993–Jun. 30, 19936%175717%19573
Jul. 1, 1993–Sep. 30, 19936%175717%19573
Oct. 1, 1993–Dec. 31, 19936%175717%19573
Jan. 1, 1994–Mar. 31, 19946%175717%19573
Apr. 1, 1994–Jun. 30, 19946%175717%19573
Jul. 1, 1994–Sep. 30, 19947%195738%21575
Oct. 1, 1994–Dec. 31, 19948%215759%23577
Jan. 1, 1995–Mar. 31, 19958%215759%23577
Apr. 1, 1995–Jun. 30, 19959%2357710%25579
Jul. 1, 1995–Sep. 30, 19958%215759%23577
Oct. 1, 1995–Dec. 31, 19958%215759%23577
Jan. 1, 1996–Mar. 31, 19968%696239%71625
Apr. 1, 1996–Jun. 30, 19967%676218%69623
Jul. 1, 1996–Sep. 30, 19968%696239%71625
Oct. 1, 1996–Dec. 31, 19968%696239%71625
Jan. 1, 1997–Mar. 31, 19978%215759%23577
Apr. 1, 1997–Jun. 30, 19978%215759%23577
Jul. 1, 1997–Sep. 30, 19978%215759%23577
Oct. 1, 1997–Dec. 31, 19978%215759%23577
Jan. 1, 1998–Mar. 31, 19988%215759%23577
Apr. 1, 1998–Jun. 30, 19987%195738%21575
Jul. 1, 1998–Sep. 30, 19987%195738%21575
Oct. 1, 1998–Dec. 31, 19987%195738%21575

March 24, 2025 1246 Bulletin No. 2025–13
TABLE OF INTEREST RATES
FROM JANUARY 1, 1999 – PRESENT
NONCORPORATE OVERPAYMENTS AND UNDERPAYMENTS
1995-1 C.B.
RATETABLEPAGE
Jan. 1, 1999–Mar. 31, 19997%19573
Apr. 1, 1999–Jun. 30, 19998%21575
Jul. 1, 1999–Sep. 30, 19998%21575
Oct. 1, 1999–Dec. 31, 19998%21575
Jan. 1, 2000–Mar. 31, 20008%69623
Apr. 1, 2000–Jun. 30, 20009%71625
Jul. 1, 2000–Sep. 30, 20009%71625
Oct. 1, 2000–Dec. 31, 20009%71625
Jan. 1, 2001–Mar. 31, 20019%23577
Apr. 1, 2001–Jun. 30, 20018%21575
Jul. 1, 2001–Sep. 30, 20017%19573
Oct. 1, 2001–Dec. 31, 20017%19573
Jan. 1, 2002–Mar. 31, 20026%17571
Apr. 1, 2002–Jun. 30, 20026%17571
Jul. 1, 2002–Sep. 30, 20026%17571
Oct. 1, 2002–Dec. 31, 20026%17571
Jan. 1, 2003–Mar. 31, 20035%15569
Apr. 1, 2003–Jun. 30, 20035%15569
Jul. 1, 2003–Sep. 30, 20035%15569
Oct. 1, 2003–Dec. 31, 20034%13567
Jan. 1, 2004–Mar. 31, 20044%61615
Apr. 1, 2004–Jun. 30, 20045%63617
Jul. 1, 2004–Sep. 30, 20044%61615
Oct. 1, 2004–Dec. 31, 20045%63617
Jan. 1, 2005–Mar. 31, 20055%15569
Apr. 1, 2005–Jun. 30, 20056%17571
Jul. 1, 2005–Sep. 30, 20056%17571
Oct. 1, 2005–Dec. 31, 20057%19573
Jan. 1, 2006–Mar. 31, 20067%19573
Apr. 1, 2006–Jun. 30, 20067%19573
Jul. 1, 2006–Sep. 30, 20068%21575
Oct. 1, 2006–Dec. 31, 20068%21575
Jan. 1, 2007–Mar. 31, 20078%21575
Apr. 1, 2007–Jun. 30, 20078%21575
Jul. 1, 2007–Sep. 30, 20078%21575
Oct. 1, 2007–Dec. 31, 20078%21575
Jan. 1, 2008–Mar. 31, 20087%67621
Apr. 1, 2008–Jun. 30, 20086%65619
Jul. 1, 2008–Sep. 30, 20085%63617
Oct. 1, 2008–Dec. 31, 20086%65619
Jan. 1, 2009–Mar. 31, 20095%15569

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1247 March 24, 2025
Apr. 1, 2009–Jun. 30, 20094%13567
Jul. 1, 2009–Sep. 30, 20094%13567
Oct. 1, 2009–Dec. 31, 20094%13567
Jan. 1, 2010–Mar. 31, 20104%13567
Apr. 1, 2010–Jun. 30, 20104%13567
Jul. 1, 2010–Sep. 30, 20104%13567
Oct. 1, 2010–Dec. 31, 20104%13567
Jan. 1, 2011–Mar. 31, 20113%11565
Apr. 1, 2011–Jun. 30, 20114%13567
Jul. 1, 2011–Sep. 30, 20114%13567
Oct. 1, 2011–Dec. 31, 20113%11565
Jan. 1, 2012–Mar. 31, 20123%59613
Apr. 1, 2012–Jun. 30, 20123%59613
Jul. 1, 2012–Sep. 30, 20123%59613
Oct. 1, 2012–Dec. 31, 20123%59613
Jan. 1, 2013–Mar. 31, 20133%11565
Apr. 1, 2013–Jun. 30, 20133%11565
Jul. 1, 2013–Sep. 30, 20133%11565
Oct. 1, 2013–Dec. 31, 20133%11565
Jan. 1, 2014–Mar. 31, 20143%11565
Apr. 1, 2014–Jun. 30, 20143%11565
Jul. 1, 2014–Sep. 30, 20143%11565
Oct. 1, 2014–Dec. 31, 20143%11565
Jan. 1, 2015–Mar. 31, 20153%11565
Apr. 1, 2015–Jun. 30, 20153%11565
Jul. 1, 2015–Sep. 30, 20153%11565
Oct. 1, 2015–Dec. 31, 20153%11565
Jan. 1, 2016–Mar. 31, 20163%59613
Apr. 1, 2016–Jun. 30, 20164%61615
Jul. 1, 2016–Sep. 30, 20164%61615
Oct. 1, 2016–Dec. 31, 20164%61615
Jan. 1, 2017–Mar. 31, 20174%13567
Apr. 1, 2017–Jun. 30, 20174%13567
Jul. 1, 2017–Sep. 30, 20174%13567
Oct. 1, 2017–Dec. 31, 20174%13567
Jan. 1, 2018–Mar. 31, 20184%13567
Apr. 1, 2018–Jun. 30, 20185%15569
Jul. 1, 2018–Sep. 30, 20185%15569
Oct. 1, 2018–Dec. 31, 20185%15569
Jan. 1, 2019–Mar. 31, 20196%17571
Apr. 1, 2019–Jun. 30, 20196%17571
Jul. 1, 2019–Sep. 30, 20195%15569
Oct. 1, 2019–Dec. 31, 20195%15569
Jan. 1, 2020–Mar. 31, 20205%63617
Apr. 1, 2020–Jun. 30, 20205%63617

March 24, 2025 1248 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Jul. 1, 2020–Sep. 30, 20203%59613
Oct. 1, 2020–Dec. 31, 20203%59613
Jan. 1, 2021–Mar. 31, 20213%11565
Apr. 1, 2021–Jun. 30, 20213%11565
Jul. 1, 2021–Sep. 30, 20213%11565
Oct. 1, 2021–Dec. 31, 20213%11565
Jan. 1, 2022–Mar. 31, 20223%11565
Apr. 1, 2022–Jun. 30, 20224%13567
Jul. 1, 2022–Sep. 30, 20225%15569
Oct. 1, 2022–Dec. 31, 20226%17571
Jan. 1, 2023–Mar. 31, 20237%19573
Apr. 1, 2023–Jun. 30, 20237%19573
Jul. 1, 2023–Sep. 30, 2023 7%19573
Oct. 1, 2023–Dec. 31, 20238%21575
Jan. 1, 2024–Mar. 31, 20248%69623
Apr. 1, 2024–Jun. 30, 20248%69623
Jul. 1, 2024–Sep. 30, 20248%69623
Oct. 1, 2024–Dec. 31, 20248%69623
Jan. 1, 2025–Mar. 31, 20257%19573
Apr. 1, 2025–Jun. 30, 20257%19573

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1249 March 24, 2025
TABLE OF INTEREST RATES
FROM JANUARY 1, 1999 – PRESENT
CORPORATE OVERPAYMENTS AND UNDERPAYMENTS
OVERPAYMENTSUNDERPAYMENTS
1995-1 C.B.1995-1 C.B.
RATETABLEPGRATETABLEPG
Jan. 1, 1999–Mar. 31, 19996%175717%19573
Apr. 1, 1999–Jun. 30, 19997%195738%21575
Jul. 1, 1999–Sep. 30, 19997%195738%21575
Oct. 1, 1999–Dec. 31, 19997%195738%21575
Jan. 1, 2000–Mar. 30, 20007%676218%69623
Apr. 1, 2000–Jun. 30, 20008%696239%71625
Jul. 1, 2000–Sep. 30, 20008%696239%71625
Oct. 1, 2000–Dec. 31, 20008%696239%71625
Jan. 1, 2001–Mar. 31, 20018%215759%23577
Apr. 1, 2001–Jun. 30, 20017%195738%21575
Jul. 1, 2001–Sep. 30, 20016%175717%19573
Oct. 1, 2001–Dec. 31, 20016%175717%19573
Jan. 1, 2002–Mar. 31, 20025%155696%17571
Apr. 1, 2002–Jun. 30, 20025%155696%17571
Jul. 1, 2002–Sep. 30, 20025%155696%17571
Oct. 1, 2002–Dec. 31, 20025%155696%17571
Jan. 1, 2003–Mar. 31, 20034%135675%15569
Apr. 1, 2003–Jun. 30, 20034%135675%15569
Jul. 1, 2003–Sep. 30, 20034%135675%15569
Oct. 1, 2003–Dec. 31, 20033%115654%13567
Jan. 1, 2004–Mar. 31, 20043%596134%61615
Apr. 1, 2004–Jun. 30, 20044%616155%63617
Jul. 1, 2004–Sep. 30, 20043%596134%61615
Oct. 1, 2004–Dec. 31, 20044%616155%63617
Jan. 1, 2005–Mar. 31, 20054%135675%15569
Apr. 1, 2005–Jun. 30, 20055%155696%17571
Jul. 1, 2005–Sep. 30, 20055%155696%17571
Oct. 1, 2005–Dec. 31, 20056%175717%19573
Jan. 1, 2006–Mar. 31, 20066%175717%19573
Apr. 1, 2006–Jun. 30, 20066%175717%19573
Jul. 1, 2006–Sep. 30, 20067%195738%21575
Oct. 1, 2006–Dec. 31, 20067%195738%21575
Jan. 1, 2007–Mar. 31, 20077%195738%21575
Apr. 1, 2007–Jun. 30, 20077%195738%21575
Jul. 1, 2007–Sep. 30, 20077%195738%21575
Oct. 1, 2007–Dec. 31, 20077%195738%21575
Jan. 1, 2008–Mar. 31, 20086%656197%67621
Apr. 1, 2008–Jun. 30, 20085%636176%65619
Jul. 1, 2008–Sep. 30, 20084%616155%63617
Oct. 1, 2008–Dec. 31, 20085%636176%65619

March 24, 2025 1250 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Jan. 1, 2009–Mar. 31, 20094%135675%15569
Apr. 1, 2009–Jun. 30, 20093%115654%13567
Jul. 1, 2009–Sep. 30, 20093%115654%13567
Oct. 1, 2009–Dec. 31, 20093%115654%13567
Jan. 1, 2010–Mar. 31, 20103%115654%13567
Apr. 1, 2010–Jun. 30, 20103%115654%13567
Jul. 1, 2010–Sep. 30, 20103%115654%13567
Oct. 1, 2010–Dec. 31, 20103%115654%13567
Jan. 1, 2011–Mar. 31, 20112%95633%11565
Apr. 1, 2011–Jun. 30, 20113%115654%13567
Jul. 1, 2011–Sep. 30, 20113%115654%13567
Oct. 1, 2011–Dec. 31, 20112%95633%11565
Jan. 1, 2012–Mar. 31, 20122%576113%59613
Apr. 1, 2012–Jun. 30, 20122%576113%59613
Jul. 1, 2012–Sep. 30, 20122%576113%59613
Oct. 1, 2012–Dec. 31, 20122%576113%59613
Jan. 1, 2013–Mar. 31, 20132%95633%11565
Apr. 1, 2013–Jun. 30, 20132%95633%11565
Jul. 1, 2013–Sep. 30, 20132%95633%11565
Oct. 1, 2013–Dec. 31, 20132%95633%11565
Jan. 1, 2014–Mar. 31, 20142%95633%11565
Apr. 1, 2014–Jun. 30, 20142%95633%11565
Jul. 1, 2014–Sep. 30, 20142%95633%11565
Oct. 1, 2014–Dec. 31, 20142%95633%11565
Jan. 1, 2015–Mar. 31, 20152%95633%11565
Apr. 1, 2015–Jun. 30, 20152%95633%11565
Jul. 1, 2015–Sep. 30, 20152%95633%11565
Oct. 1, 2015–Dec. 31, 20152%95633%11565
Jan. 1, 2016–Mar. 31, 20162%576113%59613
Apr. 1, 2016–Jun. 30, 20163%596134%61615
Jul. 1, 2016–Sep. 30, 20163%596134%61615
Oct. 1, 2016–Dec. 31, 20163%596134%61615
Jan. 1, 2017–Mar. 31, 20173%115654%13567
Apr. 1, 2017–Jun. 30, 20173%115654%13567
Jul. 1, 2017–Sep. 30, 20173%115654%13567
Oct. 1, 2017–Dec. 31, 20173%115654%13567
Jan. 1, 2018–Mar. 31, 20183%115654%13567
Apr. 1, 2018–Jun. 30, 20184%135675%15569
Jul. 1, 2018–Sep. 30, 20184%135675%15569
Oct. 1, 2018–Dec. 31, 20184%135675%15569
Jan. 1, 2019–Mar. 31, 20195%155696%17571
Apr. 1, 2019–Jun. 30, 20195%155696%17571
Jul. 1, 2019–Sep. 30, 20194%135675%15569
Oct. 1, 2019–Dec. 31, 20194%135675%15569
Jan. 1, 2020–Mar. 31, 20204%616155%63617

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1251 March 24, 2025
Apr. 1, 2020–Jun. 30, 20204%616155%63617
Jul. 1, 2020–Sep. 30, 20202%576113%59613
Oct. 1, 2020–Dec. 31, 20202%576113%59613
Jan. 1, 2021–Mar. 31, 20212%95633%11565
Apr. 1, 2021–Jun. 30, 20212%95633%11565
Jul. 1, 2021–Sep. 30, 20212%95633%11565
Oct. 1, 2021–Dec. 31, 20212%95633%11565
Jan. 1, 2022–Mar. 31, 20222%95633%11565
Apr. 1, 2022–Jun. 30, 20223%115654%13567
Jul. 1, 2022–Sep. 30, 20224%135675%15569
Oct. 1, 2022–Dec. 31, 20225%155696%17571
Jan. 1, 2023–Mar. 31, 20236%175717%19573
Apr. 1, 2023–Jun. 30, 20236%175717%19573
Jul. 1, 2023–Sep. 30, 20236%175717%19573
Oct. 1, 2023–Dec. 31, 20237%195738%21575
Jan. 1, 2024–Mar. 31, 20247%676218%69623
Apr. 1, 2024–Jun. 30, 20247%676218%69623
Jul. 1, 2024–Sep. 30, 20247%676218%69623
Oct. 1, 2024–Dec. 31, 20247%676218%69623
Jan. 1, 2025–Mar. 31, 2025 6%175717%19573
Apr. 1, 2025–Jun. 30, 20256%175717%19573

March 24, 2025 1252 Bulletin No. 2025–13
TABLE OF INTEREST RATES
FOR LARGE CORPORATE UNDERPAYMENTS
FROM JANUARY 1, 1991 – PRESENT
1995-1 C.B.
RATETABLEPG
Jan. 1, 1991–Mar. 31, 199113%31585
Apr. 1, 1991–Jun. 30, 199112%29583
Jul. 1, 1991–Sep. 30, 199112%29583
Oct. 1, 1991–Dec. 31, 199112%29583
Jan. 1, 1992–Mar. 31, 199211%75629
Apr. 1, 1992–Jun. 30, 199210%73627
Jul. 1, 1992–Sep. 30, 199210%73627
Oct. 1, 1992–Dec. 31, 19929%71625
Jan. 1, 1993–Mar. 31, 19939%23577
Apr. 1, 1993–Jun. 30, 19939%23577
Jul. 1, 1993–Sep. 30, 19939%23577
Oct. 1, 1993–Dec. 31, 19939%23577
Jan. 1, 1994–Mar. 31, 19949%23577
Apr. 1, 1994–Jun. 30, 19949%23577
Jul. 1, 1994–Sep. 30, 199410%25579
Oct. 1, 1994–Dec. 31, 199411%27581
Jan. 1, 1995–Jun. 30, 199511%27581
Apr. 1, 1995–Jun. 30, 199512%29583
Jul. 1, 1995–Sep. 30, 199511%27581
Oct. 1, 1995–Dec. 31, 199511%27581
Jan. 1, 1996–Mar. 31, 199611%75629
Apr. 1, 1996–Jun. 30, 199610%73627
Jul. 1, 1996–Sep. 30, 199611%75629
Oct. 1, 1996–Dec. 31, 199611%75629
Jan. 1, 1997–Mar. 31, 199711%27581
Apr. 1, 1997–Jun. 30, 199711%27581
Jul. 1, 1997–Sep. 30, 199711%27581
Oct. 1, 1997–Dec. 31, 199711%27581
Jan. 1, 1998–Mar. 31, 199811%27581
Apr. 1, 1998–Jun. 30, 199810%25579
Jul. 1, 1998–Sep. 30, 199810%25579
Oct. 1, 1998–Dec. 31, 199810%25579
Jan. 1, 1999–Mar. 31, 19999%23577
Apr. 1, 1999–Jun. 30, 199910%25579
Jul. 1, 1999–Sep. 30, 199910%25579
Oct. 1, 1999–Dec. 31, 199910%25579
Jan. 1, 2000–Mar. 31, 200010%73627
Apr. 1, 2000–Jun. 30, 200011%75629
Jul. 1, 2000–Sep. 30, 200011%75629
Oct. 1, 2000–Dec. 31, 200011%75629
Jan. 1, 2001–Mar. 31, 200111%27581

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1253 March 24, 2025
Apr. 1, 2001–Jun. 30, 200110%25579
Jul. 1, 2001–Sep. 30, 20019%23577
Oct. 1, 2001–Dec. 31, 20019%23577
Jan. 1, 2002–Mar. 31, 20028%21575
Apr. 1, 2002–Sep. 30, 20028%21575
Jul. 1, 2002–Sep. 30, 20028%21575
Oct. 1, 2002–Dec. 31, 20028%21575
Jan. 1, 2003–Mar. 31, 20037%19573
Apr. 1, 2003–Jun. 30, 20037%19573
Jul. 1, 2003–Sep. 30, 20037%19573
Oct. 1, 2003–Dec. 31, 20036%17571
Jan. 1, 2004–Mar. 31, 20046%65619
Apr. 1, 2004–Jun. 30, 20047%67621
Jul. 1, 2004–Sep. 30, 20046%65619
Oct. 1, 2004–Dec. 31, 20047%67621
Jan. 1, 2005–Mar. 31, 20057%19573
Apr. 1, 2005–Jun. 30, 20058%21575
Jul. 1, 2005–Sep. 30, 20058%21575
Oct. 1, 2005–Dec. 31, 20059%23577
Jan. 1, 2006–Mar. 31, 20069%23577
Apr. 1, 2006–Jun. 30, 20069%23577
Jul. 1, 2006–Sep. 30, 200610%25579
Oct. 1, 2006–Dec. 31, 200610%25579
Jan. 1, 2007–Mar. 31, 200710%25579
Apr. 1, 2007–Jun. 30, 200710%25579
Jul. 1, 2007–Sep. 30, 200710%25579
Oct. 1, 2007–Dec. 31, 200710%25579
Jan. 1, 2008–Mar. 31, 20089%71625
Apr. 1, 2008–Sep. 30, 20088%69623
Jul. 1, 2008–Sep. 30, 20087%67621
Oct. 1, 2008–Dec. 31, 20088%69623
Jan. 1, 2009–Mar. 31, 20097%19573
Apr. 1, 2009–Jun. 30, 20096%17571
Jul. 1, 2009–Sep. 30, 20096%17571
Oct. 1, 2009–Dec. 31, 20096%17571
Jan. 1, 2010–Mar. 31, 20106%17571
Apr. 1, 2010–Jun. 30, 20106%17571
Jul. 1, 2010–Sep. 30, 20106%17571
Oct. 1, 2010–Dec. 31, 20106%17571
Jan. 1, 2011–Mar. 31, 20115%15569
Apr. 1, 2011–Jun. 30, 20116%17571
Jul. 1, 2011–Sep. 30, 20116%17571
Oct. 1, 2011–Dec. 31, 20115%15569
Jan. 1, 2012–Mar. 31, 20125%63617
Apr. 1, 2012–Jun. 30, 20125%63617

March 24, 2025 1254 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Jul. 1, 2012–Sep. 30, 20125%63617
Oct. 1, 2012–Dec. 31, 20125%63617
Jan. 1, 2013–Mar. 31, 20135%15569
Apr. 1, 2013–Jun. 30, 20135%15569
Jul. 1, 2013–Sep. 30, 20135%15569
Oct. 1, 2013–Dec. 31, 20135%15569
Jan. 1, 2014–Mar. 31, 20145%15569
Apr. 1, 2014–Jun. 30, 20145%15569
Jul. 1, 2014–Sep. 30, 20145%15569
Oct. 1, 2014–Dec. 31, 20145%15569
Jan. 1, 2015–Mar. 31, 20155%15569
Apr. 1, 2015–Jun. 30, 20155%15569
Jul. 1, 2015–Sep. 30, 20155%15569
Oct. 1, 2015–Dec. 31, 20155%15569
Jan. 1, 2016–Mar. 31, 20165%63617
Apr. 1, 2016–Jun. 30, 20166%65619
Jul. 1, 2016–Sep. 30, 20166%65619
Oct. 1, 2016–Dec. 31, 20166%65619
Jan. 1, 2017–Mar. 31, 20176%17571
Apr. 1, 2017–Jun. 30, 20176%17571
Jul. 1, 2017–Sep. 30, 20176%17571
Oct. 1, 2017–Dec. 31, 20176%17571
Jan. 1, 2018–Mar. 31, 20186%17571
Apr. 1, 2018–Jun. 30, 20187%19573
Jul. 1, 2018–Sep. 30, 20187%19573
Oct. 1, 2018–Dec. 31, 20187%19573
Jan. 1, 2019–Mar. 31, 20198%21575
Apr. 1, 2019–Jun. 30, 20198%21575
Jul. 1, 2019–Sep. 30, 20197%19573
Oct. 1, 2019–Dec. 31, 20197%19573
Jan. 1, 2020–Mar. 31, 20207%67621
Apr. 1, 2020–Jun. 30, 20207%67621
Jul. 1, 2020–Sep. 30, 20205%63617
Oct. 1, 2020–Dec. 31, 20205%63617
Jan. 1, 2021–Mar. 31, 20215%15569
Apr. 1, 2021–Jun. 30, 20215%15569
Jul. 1, 2021–Sep. 30, 20215%15569
Oct. 1, 2021–Dec. 31, 20215%15569
Jan. 1, 2022–Mar. 31, 20225%15569
Apr. 1, 2022–Jun. 30, 20226%17571
Jul. 1, 2022–Sep. 30, 20227%19573
Oct. 1, 2022–Dec. 31, 20228%21575
Jan. 1, 2023–Mar. 31, 20239%23577
Apr. 1, 2023–Jun. 30, 20239%23577
Jul. 1, 2023–Sep. 30, 20239%23577

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1255 March 24, 2025
Oct. 1, 2023–Dec. 31, 202310%25579
Jan. 1, 2024–Mar. 31, 202410%73627
Apr. 1, 2024–Jun. 30, 202410%73627
Jul. 1, 2024–Sep. 30, 202410%73627
Oct. 1, 2024–Dec. 31, 202410%73627
Jan. 1, 2025–Mar. 31, 20259%23577
Apr. 1, 2025–Jun. 30, 20259%23577

March 24, 2025 1256 Bulletin No. 2025–13
TABLE OF INTEREST RATES FOR CORPORATE
OVERPAYMENTS EXCEEDING $10,000
FROM JANUARY 1, 1995 – PRESENT
1995-1 C.B.
RATETABLEPG
Jan. 1, 1995–Mar. 31, 19956.5%18572
Apr. 1, 1995–Jun. 30, 19957.5%20574
Jul. 1, 1995–Sep. 30, 19956.5%18572
Oct. 1, 1995–Dec. 31, 19956.5%18572
Jan. 1, 1996–Mar. 31, 19966.5%66620
Apr. 1, 1996–Jun. 30, 19965.5%64618
Jul. 1, 1996–Sep. 30, 19966.5%66620
Oct. 1, 1996–Dec. 31, 19966.5%66620
Jan. 1, 1997–Mar. 31, 19976.5%18572
Apr. 1, 1997–Jun. 30, 19976.5%18572
Jul. 1, 1997–Sep. 30, 19976.5%18572
Oct. 1, 1997–Dec. 31, 19976.5%18572
Jan. 1, 1998–Mar. 31, 19986.5%18572
Apr. 1, 1998–Jun. 30, 19985.5%16570
Jul. 1, 1998–Sep. 30, 19985.5%16570
Oct. 1, 1998–Dec. 31, 19985.5%16570
Jan. 1, 1999–Mar. 31, 19994.5%14568
Apr. 1, 1999–Sep. 30, 19995.5%16570
Jul. 1, 1999–Sep. 30, 19995.5%16570
Oct. 1, 1999–Dec. 31, 19995.5%16570
Jan. 1, 2000–Mar. 31, 20005.5%64618
Apr. 1, 2000–Jun. 30, 20006.5%66620
Jul. 1, 2000–Sep. 30, 20006.5%66620
Oct. 1, 2000–Dec. 31, 20006.5%66620
Jan. 1, 2001–Mar. 31, 20016.5%18572
Apr. 1, 2001–Jun. 30, 20015.5%16570
Jul. 1, 2001–Sep. 30, 20014.5%14568
Oct. 1, 2001–Dec. 31, 20014.5%14568
Jan. 1, 2002–Mar. 31, 20023.5%12566
Apr. 1, 2002–Jun. 30, 20023.5%12566
Jul. 1, 2002–Sep. 30, 20023.5%12566
Oct. 1, 2002–Dec. 31, 20023.5%12566
Jan. 1, 2003–Mar. 31, 20032.5%10564
Apr. 1, 2003–Jun. 30, 20032.5%10564
Jul. 1, 2003–Sep. 30, 20032.5%10564
Oct. 1, 2003–Dec. 31, 20031.5%8562
Jan. 1, 2004–Mar. 31, 20041.5%56610
Apr. 1, 2004–Jun. 30, 20042.5%58612

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1257 March 24, 2025
Jul. 1, 2004–Sep. 30, 20041.5%56610
Oct. 1, 2004–Dec. 31, 20042.5%58612
Jan. 1, 2005–Mar. 31, 20052.5%10564
Apr. 1, 2005–Jun. 30, 20053.5%12566
Jul. 1, 2005–Sep. 30, 20053.5%12566
Oct. 1, 2005–Dec. 31, 20054.5%14568
Jan. 1, 2006–Mar. 31, 20064.5%14568
Apr. 1, 2006–Jun. 30, 20064.5%14568
Jul. 1, 2006–Sep. 30, 20065.5%16570
Oct. 1, 2006–Dec. 31, 20065.5%16570
Jan. 1, 2007–Mar. 31, 20075.5%16570
Apr. 1, 2007–Jun. 30, 20075.5%16570
Jul. 1, 2007–Sep. 30, 20075.5%16570
Oct. 1, 2007–Dec. 31, 20075.5%16570
Jan. 1, 2008–Mar. 31, 20084.5%62616
Apr. 1, 2008–Jun. 30, 20083.5%60614
Jul. 1, 2008–Sep. 30, 20082.5%58612
Oct. 1, 2008–Dec. 31, 20083.5%60614
Jan. 1, 2009–Mar. 31, 20092.5%10564
Apr. 1, 2009–Jun. 30, 20091.5%8562
Jul. 1, 2009–Sep. 30, 20091.5%8562
Oct. 1, 2009–Dec. 31, 20091.5%8562
Jan. 1, 2010–Mar. 31, 20101.5%8562
Apr. 1, 2010–Jun. 30, 20101.5%8562
Jul. 1, 2010–Sep. 30, 20101.5%8562
Oct. 1, 2010–Dec. 31, 20101.5%8562
Jan. 1, 2011–Mar. 31, 20110.5%*
Apr. 1, 2011–Jun. 30, 20111.5%8562
Jul. 1, 2011–Sep. 30, 20111.5%8562
Oct. 1, 2011–Dec. 31, 20110.5%*
Jan. 1, 2012–Mar. 31, 20120.5%*
Apr. 1, 2012–Jun. 30, 20120.5%*
Jul. 1, 2012–Sep. 30, 20120.5%*
Oct. 1, 2012–Dec. 31, 20120.5%*
Jan. 1, 2013–Mar. 31, 20130.5%*
Apr. 1, 2013–Jun. 30, 20130.5%*
Jul. 1, 2013–Sep. 30, 20130.5%*
Oct. 1, 2013–Dec. 31, 20130.5%*
Jan. 1, 2014–Mar. 31, 20140.5%*
Apr. 1, 2014–Jun. 30, 20140.5%*
Jul. 1, 2014–Sep. 30, 20140.5%*
Oct. 1, 2014–Dec. 31, 20140.5%*

March 24, 2025 1258 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Jan. 1, 2015–Mar. 31, 20150.5%*
Apr. 1, 2015–Jun. 30, 20150.5%*
Jul. 1, 2015–Sep. 30, 20150.5%*
Oct. 1, 2015–Dec. 31, 20150.5%*
Jan. 1, 2016–Mar. 31, 20160.5%*
Apr. 1, 2016–Jun. 30, 20161.5%56610
Jul. 1, 2016–Sep. 30, 20161.5%56610
Oct. 1, 2016–Dec. 31, 20161.5%56610
Jan. 1, 2017–Mar. 31, 20171.5%8562
Apr. 1, 2017–Jun. 30, 20171.5%8562
Jul. 1, 2017–Sep. 30, 20171.5%8562
Oct. 1, 2017–Dec. 31, 20171.5%8562
Jan. 1, 2018–Mar. 31, 20181.5%8562
Apr. 1, 2018–Jun. 30, 20182.5%10564
Jul. 1, 2018–Sep. 30, 20182.5%10564
Oct. 1, 2018–Dec. 31, 20182.5%10564
Jan. 1, 2019–Mar. 31, 20193.5%12566
Apr. 1, 2019–Jun. 30, 20193.5%12566
Jul. 1, 2019–Sep. 30, 20192.5%10564
Oct. 1, 2019–Dec. 31, 20192.5%10564
Jan. 1, 2020–Mar. 31, 20202.5%58612
Apr. 1, 2020–Jun. 30, 20202.5%58612
Jul. 1, 2020–Sep. 30, 20200.5%*
Oct. 1, 2020–Dec. 31, 20200.5%*
Jan. 1, 2021–Mar. 31, 20210.5%*
Apr. 1, 2021–Jun. 30, 20210.5%*
Jul. 1, 2021–Sep. 30, 20210.5%*
Oct. 1, 2021–Dec. 31, 20210.5%*
Jan. 1, 2022–Mar. 31, 20220.5%*
Apr. 1, 2022–Jun. 30, 20221.5%8562
Jul. 1, 2022–Sep. 30, 20222.5%10564
Oct. 1, 2022–Dec. 31, 20223.5%12566
Jan. 1, 2023–Mar. 31, 20234.5%14568
Apr. 1, 2023–Jun. 30, 20234.5%14568
Jul. 1, 2023–Sep. 30, 2023 4.5%14568
Oct. 1, 2023–Dec. 31, 20235.5%16570
Jan. 1, 2024–Mar. 31, 2024 5.5%64618
Apr. 1, 2024–Jun. 30, 20245.5%64618
Jul. 1, 2024–Sep. 30, 20245.5%64618
Oct. 1, 2024–Dec. 31, 20245.5%64618
Jan. 1, 2025–Mar. 31, 20254.5%14568
Apr. 1, 2025–Jun. 30, 20254.5%14568
* The asterisk reflects the interest factors for daily compound interest for annual rates of 0.5 percent published in Appendix A of
this Revenue Ruling.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1259 March 24, 2025
26 CFR 1.45V-1; 26 CFR 1.45V-2; 26 CFR 1.45V-4;
26 CFR 1.45V-5; 26 CFR 1.45V-6
T.D. 10023
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
Credit for Production
of Clean Hydrogen and
Energy Credit
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
SUMMARY: This document contains
final regulations implementing the credit
for production of clean hydrogen and
certain provisions of the energy credit as
enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act
of 2022. The regulations provide rules
for: determining lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions rates resulting from hydrogen
production processes; petitioning for pro-
visional emissions rates; verifying pro-
duction and sale or use of clean hydrogen;
modifying or retrofitting existing quali-
fied clean hydrogen production facilities;
using electricity from certain renewable or
zero-emissions sources to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen; and electing to treat
part of a specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility instead as property eligible
for the energy credit. These regulations
affect all taxpayers who produce qualified
clean hydrogen and claim the clean hydro-
gen production credit, elect to treat part
of a specified clean hydrogen production
facility as property eligible for the energy
credit, or produce electricity from certain
renewable or zero-emissions sources used
by taxpayers or related persons to produce
qualified clean hydrogen.
DATES: Effective date: These regulations
are effective January 10, 2025.
Applicability dates: For dates of appli-
cability, see §§1.45V-1(d), 1.45V-2(d),
1.45V-4(g), 1.45V-5(l), 1.45V-6(d), and
1.48-15(h).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Courtney Hutson at (202)
317-5319 or Alan Tilley at (202) 317-
6512 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority
This document contains final regu-
lations that amend the Income Tax Reg-
ulations (26 CFR Part 1) by adding reg-
ulations authorized to be issued by the
Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate
(Secretary) under sections 48 and 45V
of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
The final regulations are issued under the
authority granted under sections 45V(c)
(1)(B), 45V(e)(5), 45V(f), 48(a)(15)
(C), 48(a)(15)(E), 48(a)(16), 6001, and
7805(a) of the Code.
Section 45V(c)(1)(B) provides that
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (life-
cycle GHG emissions) shall only include
emissions through the point of production
(well-to-gate), as determined under the
most recent Greenhouse gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy use in Transporta-
tion model (commonly referred to as the
“GREET model”) developed by Argonne
National Laboratory, or a successor model
(as determined by the Secretary).
Section 45V(e)(5) directs the Secretary
to issue regulations and guidance as she
determines to be necessary to carry out the
purposes of section 45V(e), which relates
to the increased credit amount for quali-
fied clean hydrogen production facilities
that satisfy certain prevailing wage and
apprenticeship requirements.
Further, section 45V(f) directs the Sec-
retary to issue regulations or other guid-
ance to carry out the purposes of section
45V, including for determining lifecycle
GHG emissions.
Section 48(a)(15)(C) provides that the
term “specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility” means any qualified clean
hydrogen production facility (as defined
in section 45V(c)(3))(i) that is placed in
service after December 31, 2022, (ii) with
respect to which (I) no section 45V credit
or section 45Q credit has been allowed,
and (II) the taxpayer makes an irrevocable
election to have section 48(a)(15) apply,
and (iii) for which an unrelated third party
has verified (in such form or manner as the
Secretary may prescribe) that such facility
produces hydrogen through a process that
results in lifecycle GHG emissions that
are consistent with the hydrogen that such
facility was designed and expected to pro-
duce under section 48(a)(15)(A)(ii).
Section 48(a)(15)(E) directs the Sec-
retary to issue such regulations or other
guidance as she determines necessary to
carry out the purposes of the section 48
energy credit, including regulations or
guidance related to the recapture of such
credit that exceeds the allowed amount “if
the expected production were consistent
with the actual verified production (or all
of the credit so allowed in the absence of
such verification).”
Section 48(a)(16) directs the Secretary
to issue regulations or other guidance as
she determines necessary to carry out the
purposes of the section 48 energy credit,
including for recordkeeping or informa-
tion reporting requirements necessary for
the administration of the credit.
Section 6001 provides an express del-
egation of authority to the Secretary, stat-
ing that, “[e]very person liable for any tax
imposed by this title, or for the collection
thereof, shall keep such records, render
such statements, make such returns, and
comply with such rules and regulations
as the Secretary may from time to time
prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of
the Secretary it is necessary, [s]he may
require any person, by notice served upon
such person or by regulations, to make
such returns, render such statements, or
keep such records, as the Secretary deems
sufficient to show whether or not such per-
son is liable for tax under this title.”
These regulations are also issued
under the express delegation of authority
under section 7805(a), which provides that
“[t]he Secretary shall prescribe all needful
rules and regulations for the enforcement
of [the Code], including all rules and reg-
ulations as may be necessary by reason of
any alteration of law in relation to internal
revenue.”
Background
This document contains final regula-
tions to implement the statutory provi-
sions of sections 45V and 48(a)(15) of
the Code, as enacted by section 13204 of
Public Law 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818, 1935

March 24, 2025 1260 Bulletin No. 2025–13
(August 16, 2022), commonly known as
the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).
The IRA added several provisions to
the Code related to the production of, and
investment in, clean hydrogen, which,
along with the provisions of sections 45V
and 48(a)(15), are described in part I of
this Background section. Part II of this
Background section describes a previous
request for public comment on these pro-
visions, and part III describes the proposed
regulations promulgated under these pro-
visions that the final regulations in this
document adopt or modify as explained in
the Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions.
I. IRA Provisions for Clean Hydrogen
Production and Investment
This part I describes the credit for pro-
duction of clean hydrogen as determined
under section 45V (section 45V credit)
and the irrevocable election to claim an
energy credit under section 48 (section 48
credit) in lieu of the section 45V credit.
Also described are statutory exceptions to
the requirement that electricity be sold to
an unrelated person to be eligible for the
renewable electricity production credit
determined under section 45 (section
45 credit) or the zero-emission nuclear
power production credit determined under
section 45U (section 45U credit). Under
these exceptions, electricity produced by
a taxpayer from a qualified facility under
section 45(d) or a qualified nuclear power
facility under section 45U(b)(1) may be
treated as sold by the taxpayer to an unre-
lated person during the taxable year if the
electricity is used by the taxpayer or a
related person at a qualified clean hydro-
gen production facility to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen.
A. Section 45V
1. Amount of Credit
Section 45V provides an income tax
credit for the production of qualified clean
hydrogen. For purposes of section 38, sec-
tion 45V(a) provides that the clean hydro-
gen production credit for any taxable year
is an amount equal to the product of (i)
the kilograms of qualified clean hydro-
gen produced by the taxpayer during such
taxable year at a qualified clean hydrogen
production facility during the 10-year
period beginning on the date such facil-
ity was originally placed in service, and
(ii) the applicable amount as determined
under section 45V(b) with respect to such
hydrogen.
Section 45V(b)(1) provides that, for
purposes of section 45V(a)(2), the appli-
cable amount is an amount equal to the
applicable percentage of $0.60. If the
amount so determined is not a multiple of
0.1 cent, then such amount is rounded to
the nearest multiple of 0.1 cent.
Section 45V(b)(2) provides that, for
purposes of section 45V(b)(1), the appli-
cable percentage is determined based on
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the
process used to produce any qualified
clean hydrogen as follows: (i) if the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate is not greater
than 4 kilograms of carbon dioxide equiv-
alent (CO2e) per kilogram of hydrogen,
and not less than 2.5 kilograms of CO2e
per kilogram of hydrogen, then the appli-
cable percentage is 20 percent; (ii) if the
lifecycle GHG emissions rate is less than
2.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen, and not less than 1.5 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, then
the applicable percentage is 25 percent;
(iii) if the lifecycle GHG emissions rate is
less than 1.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilo-
gram of hydrogen, and not less than 0.45
kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of hydro-
gen, then the applicable percentage is 33.4
percent; and (iv) if the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate is less than 0.45 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, then
the applicable percentage is 100 percent.
Section 45V(b)(3) provides that the
$0.60 amount in section 45V(b)(1) is
adjusted by multiplying such amount by
the inflation adjustment factor (as deter-
mined under section 45(e)(2), determined
by substituting “2022” for “1992” in sec-
tion 45(e)(2)(B)) for the calendar year in
which the qualified clean hydrogen is pro-
duced. If any amount as increased under
section 45V(b)(3) is not a multiple of 0.1
cent, such amount is rounded to the near-
est multiple of 0.1 cent.
1
Section 45V(e)(1) provides that, in the
case of any qualified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility that satisfies the require-
ments of section 45V(e)(2), the amount
of the section 45V credit with respect to
qualified clean hydrogen described in
section 45V(b)(2) is equal to the amount
determined under section 45V(a) (deter-
mined without regard to section 45V(e)
(1)) multiplied by five.
A qualified clean hydrogen production
facility meets the requirements of sec-
tion 45V(e)(2) if: (i) the facility began
construction before January 29, 2023, and
with respect to any taxable year, for any
portion of such taxable year that is within
the 10-year period beginning on the date
the facility is originally placed in service,
the prevailing wage requirements of sec-
tion 45V(e)(3)(A) are met for any alter-
ation or repair of the facility that occurs
after January 29, 2023 (to the extent appli-
cable);
2
or (ii) the facility satisfies the pre-
vailing wage and apprenticeship (PWA)
requirements of section 45V(e)(3)(A) and
(4).
3
Generally, the prevailing wage require-
ments under section 45V(e)(3)(A) with
respect to any qualified clean hydrogen
production facility require the taxpayer
to ensure that any laborers and mechan-
ics employed by the taxpayer or by any
contractor or subcontractor in (i) the con-
struction of such facility, and (ii) with
respect to any taxable year, for any por-
tion of such taxable year that is within the
10-year period beginning on the date such
facility was originally placed in service,
the alteration or repair of such facility, are
paid wages at rates not less than the pre-
vailing rates for construction, alteration,
or repair of a similar character in the
locality in which such facility is located as
most recently determined by the Secretary
1
The IRS will publish the inflation-adjusted section 45V applicable amount annually. The section 45V applicable amounts for calendar years 2023 and 2024 were published in Notice 2024-
45, 2024-26 I.R.B. 1747.
2
Section 45V(e)(3)(A)(ii) requires the payment of wages at prevailing rates “with respect to any taxable year, for any portion of such taxable year which is within the period described in
subsection (a)(2)”, with respect to the alteration or repair of the facility. There is no “period described in subsection (a)(2).” The Treasury Department and the IRS interpret the reference to
“subsection (a)(2)” as a reference to section 45V(a)(1) where the 10-year credit period is identified.
3
See §§1.45-7, 1.45-8, 1.45-12, and 1.45V-3, as published in the Federal Register (89 FR 53184) on June 25, 2024.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1261 March 24, 2025
of Labor, in accordance with subchapter
IV of chapter 31 of title 40 of the United
States Code, commonly known as the
Davis-Bacon Act. Correction and penalty
rules similar to the rules of section 45(b)
(7)(B) also apply.
Section 45V(e)(4) provides that rules
similar to the apprenticeship requirements
of section 45(b)(8) apply for purposes of
section 45V(e)(2)(B).
4
For purposes of section 45V(a), in the
case of a qualified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility that does not satisfy the
requirements of section 45V(e)(2), the
amount of the clean hydrogen production
credit for any taxable year is $0.12, $0.15,
$0.20, or $0.60 per kilogram of qualified
clean hydrogen produced (before tak-
ing into account any inflation adjustment
under section 45V(b)(3)), depending on
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate associ-
ated with the facility’s hydrogen produc-
tion process. For facilities meeting the
requirements of section 45V(e)(2), the
credit amount determined under section
45V(a) (as adjusted for inflation subject
to section 45V(b)(3)) is multiplied by five.
2. Definitions
a. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 45V(c)(1)(A) provides that,
subject to section 45V(c)(1)(B), the term
“lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” has
the same meaning given such term under
section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(H)), as in effect on
August 16, 2022. Under section 45V(c)
(1)(B), the term “lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions” includes emissions only
through the point of production (well-
to-gate), as determined under the most
recent Greenhouse gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy use in Transpor-
tation model, referred to as the “GREET
model” commonly and in this document,
developed by Argonne National Labora-
tory, or a successor model as determined
by the Secretary.
b. Qualified Clean Hydrogen
Section 45V(c)(2)(A) provides that the
term “qualified clean hydrogen” means
hydrogen that is produced through a pro-
cess that results in a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of not greater than 4 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen. Sec-
tion 45V(c)(2)(B) further provides that
the term “qualified clean hydrogen” does
not include any hydrogen unless (i) such
hydrogen is produced (A) in the United
States (as defined in section 638(1) of the
Code) or a United States territory (hav-
ing the meaning of the term “possession”
as defined in section 638(2)), (B) in the
ordinary course of a trade or business of
the taxpayer, and (C) for sale or use; and
(ii) the production and sale or use of such
hydrogen is verified by an unrelated party.
c. Provisional Emissions Rate
Section 45V(c)(2)(C) provides that, in
the case of any hydrogen for which a life-
cycle GHG emissions rate has not been
determined for purposes of section 45V, a
taxpayer producing such hydrogen may file
a petition with the Secretary for a determi-
nation of the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
with respect to such hydrogen, referred to
as a “provisional emissions rate” or PER.
d. Qualified Clean Hydrogen Production
Facility
Section 45V(c)(3) provides that the
term “qualified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility” means a facility (i) owned by
the taxpayer, (ii) that produces qualified
clean hydrogen, and (iii) the construction
of which begins before January 1, 2033.
5
3. Special Rules
a. Treatment of Facilities Owned by More
Than One Taxpayer
Section 45V(d)(1) provides that rules
similar to the rules of section 45(e)(3)
apply for purposes of section 45V. Sec-
tion 45(e)(3) provides that, in the case of
a facility in which more than one person
has an ownership interest, except to the
extent provided in regulations prescribed
by the Secretary, production from the
facility is allocated among such persons
in proportion to their respective owner-
ship interests in the gross sales from such
facility.
b. Coordination with Section 45Q
Section 45V(d)(2) provides that no
section 45V credit is allowed with respect
to any qualified clean hydrogen produced
at a facility that includes carbon capture
equipment for which a credit is allowed to
any taxpayer under section 45Q (section
45Q credit) for the taxable year or any
prior taxable year.
c. Credit Reduced for Tax-Exempt Bonds
Section 45V(d)(3) provides that rules
similar to the rules under section 45(b)
(3) (credit reduced for tax-exempt bonds)
apply for purposes of section 45V. Sec-
tion 45V(d)(3) is effective for facilities
that begin construction after August 16,
2022. See §13204(a)(5)(B) of the IRA.
Section 45(b)(3) provides that the amount
of the credit determined under section
45(a) with respect to any facility for any
taxable year (determined after the appli-
cation of section 45(b)(1) and (2) regard-
ing phaseout and inflation adjustment
rules) is reduced by the amount that is the
product of the amount so determined for
such year and the lesser of 15 percent or
a fraction (A) the numerator of which is
the sum, for the taxable year and all prior
taxable years, of proceeds of an issue of
any obligations the interest on which is
exempt from tax under section 103 and
that is used to provide financing for the
qualified facility, and (B) the denomina-
tor of which is the aggregate amount of
additions to the capital account for the
qualified facility for the taxable year and
4
Under §1.45V-3, the PWA requirements for purposes of section 45V(e)(2)(B) are satisfied if a facility meets the prevailing wage requirements of section 45(b)(7) and §1.45-7, the appren-
ticeship requirements of section 45(b)(8) and §1.45-8, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of §1.45-12. Those regulations are not a part of this Treasury decision and §1.45V-3
is addressed only to the extent necessary for purposes of formatting the final regulations that are the subject of this decision in accordance with CFR standards.
5
Section 45V does not specify an earliest date on which a qualified clean hydrogen production facility must begin construction or be placed in service to be eligible for the section 45V credit.
However, the section 45V credit is available for qualified clean hydrogen produced after December 31, 2022. See §13204(a)(5)(A) of the IRA. Thus, the owner of a qualified clean hydrogen
production facility originally placed in service after December 31, 2012, could claim the section 45V credit for qualified clean hydrogen produced during at least some portion of the 10-year
period described in section 45V(a)(1), provided all other requirements are met.

March 24, 2025 1262 Bulletin No. 2025–13
all prior taxable years. Section 45(b)(3)
further provides that the amounts deter-
mined under section 45(b)(3) for any tax-
able year are determined as of the close
of the taxable year.
d. Modification of Existing Facilities
Section 45V(d)(4) provides that for
purposes of section 45V(a)(1), in the
case of any facility that (A) was origi-
nally placed in service before January
1, 2023, and, prior to the modification
described in section 45V(d)(4)(B), did
not produce qualified clean hydrogen,
and (B) after the date such facility was
originally placed in service (i) is modi-
fied to produce qualified clean hydrogen,
and (ii) amounts paid or incurred with
respect to such modification are properly
chargeable to the capital account of the
taxpayer, such facility is deemed to have
been originally placed in service as of the
date the property required to complete
the modification described in section
45V(d)(4)(B) is placed in service. Sec-
tion 45V(d)(4) is effective for modifica-
tions made after December 31, 2022. See
§13204(a)(5)(C) of the IRA.
B. Electricity Used at a Qualified Clean
Hydrogen Production Facility
Section 45(e)(13) provides that
electricity produced by the taxpayer is
treated as sold by such taxpayer to an
unrelated person during the taxable year
if (i) such electricity is used during such
taxable year by the taxpayer or a per-
son related to the taxpayer at a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility (as
defined in section 45V(c)(3)) to produce
qualified clean hydrogen (as defined in
section 45V(c)(2)); and (ii) such use and
production is verified (in such form or
manner as the Secretary may prescribe)
by an unrelated third party. Section 45(e)
(13) is effective for electricity produced
after December 31, 2022. See §13204(b)
(3) of the IRA.
Section 45U(c)(2) provides that rules
similar to the rules of section 45(e)(13)
apply for purposes of section 45U. Gener-
ally, section 45U is effective for electric-
ity produced at a qualified nuclear power
facility and sold after December 31, 2023,
in taxable years beginning after that date.
C. Election To Treat Clean Hydrogen
Production Facilities as Energy Property
Section 48(a)(15)(A)(i) provides that,
in the case of any qualified property (as
defined in section 48(a)(5)(D)) that is
part of a specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility, such property is treated
as energy property. Section 48(a)(15)(A)
(ii) provides that the energy percentage of
the basis of any qualified property that is
treated as energy property is, for a facility
that is designed and reasonably expected
to produce qualified clean hydrogen with
a lifecycle GHG emissions rate that is:
(i) not greater than 4 kilograms of CO2e
per kilogram of hydrogen, and not less
than 2.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilo-
gram of hydrogen, 1.2 percent; (ii) less
than 2.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram
of hydrogen, and not less than 1.5 kilo-
grams of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen,
1.5 percent; (iii) less than 1.5 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, and
not less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen, 2 percent; and (iv)
less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen, 6 percent. Under
section 48(a)(9), the amount of the sec-
tion 48 credit determined for a specified
clean hydrogen production facility under
section 48(a)(15) is multiplied by five if
the facility meets the requirements of sec-
tion 48(a)(9)(B) (regarding application
of certain maximum net output levels of
electrical or thermal energy or prevail-
ing wage and apprenticeship require-
ments). However, the domestic content
and energy communities bonuses under
section 48(a)(12) and (14) do not apply
to a specified clean hydrogen production
facility.
Section 48(a)(15) is effective for prop-
erty placed in service after December
31, 2022, and for any property the con-
struction of which began before January
1, 2023, only to the extent of the basis
thereof attributable to construction, recon-
struction, or erection after December 31,
2022. See §13204(c)(3) of the IRA.
1. Denial of Production Credit
Section 48(a)(15)(B) provides that no
section 45V credit or section 45Q credit is
allowed for any taxable year with respect
to any specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility or any carbon capture equip-
ment included at such facility.
2. Specified Clean Hydrogen Production
Facility
Section 48(a)(15)(C) provides that the
term “specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility” means any qualified clean
hydrogen production facility (as defined
in section 45V(c)(3)) (i) that is placed in
service after December 31, 2022, (ii) with
respect to which (I) no section 45V credit
or section 45Q credit has been allowed,
and (II) the taxpayer makes an irrevocable
election to have section 48(a)(15) apply,
and (iii) for which an unrelated third party
has verified (in such form or manner as the
Secretary may prescribe) that such facility
produces hydrogen through a process that
results in lifecycle GHG emissions that
are consistent with the hydrogen that such
facility was designed and expected to pro-
duce under section 48(a)(15)(A)(ii).
3. Qualified Clean Hydrogen
Section 48(a)(15)(D) provides that, for
purposes of section 48(a)(15), the term
“qualified clean hydrogen” has the mean-
ing given such term by section 45V(c)(2).
4. Regulations
Section 48(a)(15)(E) requires the Sec-
retary to issue regulations or other guid-
ance as she determines necessary to carry
out the purposes of section 48, including
regulations or other guidance that recap-
tures so much of any section 48 credit
allowed as exceeds the amount of the
credit that would have been allowed if the
expected production were consistent with
the actual verified production (or all of the
credit so allowed in the absence of verifi-
cation).
II. Notice 2022-58
On November 3, 2022, the Department
of the Treasury (Treasury Department)
and the IRS published Notice 2022-58,
2022-47 I.R.B. 483. The notice requested
general comments on issues arising under
section 45V and the associated clean
hydrogen production and investment
incentives in sections 45 and 48. The

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1263 March 24, 2025
notice also requested specific comments
concerning (i) definitions; (ii) boundar-
ies of the well-to-gate analysis for deter-
mining the lifecycle GHG emissions rate;
(iii) the PER process; (iv) recordkeeping
and reporting; (v) verification by unre-
lated parties; and (vi) coordination with
sections 45, 48, and 45Q. Stakeholders
submitted more than 200 comments in
response to Notice 2022-58, and those
comments informed the development of
the proposed regulations.
III. Proposed Regulations
On December 26, 2023, the Treasury
Department and the IRS published pro-
posed regulations under sections 45V
and 48(a)(15) (REG-117631-23) in the
Federal Register (88 FR 89220) to pro-
vide guidance on the credit for production
of clean hydrogen and the energy credit,
respectively (proposed regulations). The
provisions of the proposed regulations are
explained in greater detail in the preamble
to the proposed regulations.
On April 11, 2024, the Treasury
Department and the IRS published a sup-
plemental notice of proposed rulemaking
under sections 45V and 48(a)(15) in the
Federal Register (89 FR 25551) invit-
ing comments on the U.S. Department of
Energy’s (DOE) information collection
related to the DOE’s Emissions Value
Request Process (EVRP) for use by appli-
cants in obtaining an emissions value in
support of a petition for a PER, as set forth
in the proposed regulations. The EVRP is
explained in greater detail in the supple-
mental notice of proposed rulemaking. On
September 30, 2024, the DOE announced
the opening of the EVRP. See Notice of
Availability of the 45V Emissions Value
Request Process (89 FR 80898).
Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions
This Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions summarizes
the proposed regulations and all the sub-
stantive comments submitted in response
to the proposed regulations. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS received
approximately 30,000 written comments
in response to the proposed regulations.
The comments are available for public
inspection at www.regulations.gov or
upon request. A hearing was conducted in
person and telephonically on March 25,
26, and 27, 2024, during which approx-
imately 100 individuals testified.
6
After
full consideration of the hearing testimony
and the comments received, these final
regulations adopt the proposed regula-
tions with modifications in response to the
comments described in this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
also consulted extensively with scientific
and technical experts from across the Fed-
eral government, including personnel from
the DOE and the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA), in developing and
drafting these final regulations. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS had regu-
lar meetings with these experts from the
time that sections 45V and 48(a)(15) were
enacted through the drafting and publica-
tion of the proposed regulations and the
final regulations. The conclusions reached
in these final regulations and explained in
this Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions were deeply informed
by the scientific and technical expertise
that was shared by these experts.
Comments merely summarizing the
proposed regulations, expressing generic,
non-specific, or extraneous concerns,
recommending statutory revisions to sec-
tions 45V, 48(a)(15), or other statutes, or
addressing issues that do not pertain to
the purposes of sections 45V and 48(a)
(15) are not applicable to this rulemak-
ing and are not adopted. Additionally,
except to the extent discussed in this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions, comments addressing the
features of 45VH2-GREET or the con-
tents of any supporting documentation
to be provided in seeking an emissions
value from the DOE are outside the scope
of this rulemaking and therefore are not
addressed herein.
I. General Rules and Definitions
Proposed §1.45V-1 provided defi-
nitions of key terms used in proposed
§§1.45V-1 through 1.45V-6 and 1.48-
15, to determine eligibility for, and the
amount of, the section 45V credit for
production of clean hydrogen. Comments
addressed several of the proposed defini-
tions, as described in this part I.A of the
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions.
In addition, these final regulations add
the new terms “hydrogen gas stream,”
“mixed gas or impurity,” and “productive
use,” which are discussed in part I.A.5 of
the Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions, as well as the terms
“process” and “primary feedstock,” which
are discussed in part I.A.7. With respect
to the definition of “lifecycle GHG Emis-
sions,” the final regulations add a new rule
for certain emissions related to purifica-
tion treated as through the point of pro-
duction, which is discussed in part I.A.6.d
of the Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions. The final regulations
renumber the definitions to incorporate
the added definitions.
A. Definitions
1. Applicable Amount
Section 45V(b)(1) defines applicable
amount, and section 45V(b)(3) provides
the inflation adjustment that applies when
calculating the applicable amount. Pro-
posed §1.45V-1(a)(2) would have adopted
this definition and its related inflation
adjustment provision. No comments
addressed these provisions, and these final
regulations adopt them as proposed.
2. Applicable Percentage
Section 45V(b)(2) defines the term
“applicable percentage.” Proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(3) adopted this definition. No
comments addressed this provision, and
these final regulations adopt the definition
as proposed.
6
A comment requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS (1) hold additional public hearings in, at a minimum, each of the seven regions where hydrogen hubs have been proposed;
(2) provide virtual options for attending and presenting; and (3) clarify the process for participation at the public hearing. The Treasury Department and the IRS held a hearing over three days,
which provided the public an opportunity to present testimony either in person or over the telephone. Individuals, whether testifying or not, could attend the hearing either in person or by
telephone. Notice of the hearing was published as part of the proposed regulations in the Federal Register on December 26, 2023, which provided details to the public on how to participate.
Accordingly, the public was provided a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing process.

March 24, 2025 1264 Bulletin No. 2025–13
3. Claim
Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(4) would have
provided that, with respect to the section
45V credit determined for qualified clean
hydrogen produced by the taxpayer at a
qualified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity, the term “claim” means the filing of
a completed Form 7210, Clean Hydro-
gen Production Credit, or any succes-
sor form(s), with the taxpayer’s Federal
income tax return or annual information
return for the taxable year in which the
credit is determined, and includes the
making of an election under section 6417
or section 6418 and the regulations there-
under, with respect to such section 45V
credit on the applicable entity’s or eligible
taxpayer’s timely filed (including exten-
sions) Federal income tax return or annual
information return.
One comment requested that the final
regulations offer a streamlined process
to claim the section 45V credit for small
producers of hydrogen. Section 45V does
not make any distinction based on the size
of the hydrogen producer, and the impor-
tance of reporting and compliance are the
same regardless of the producer’s size.
Accordingly, providing a more stream-
lined process for claiming the section 45V
credit for small producers is not appro-
priate. Additionally, to clarify, section
1.45V-1(a)(4) has no effect on the proce-
dures for making an election under section
6417 or 6418, the requirements for which
are described in the regulations for each
provision. For procedures for making an
election under section 6417, see §1.6417-
2(b). For procedures for making an elec-
tion under section 6418, see §1.6418-2.
Accordingly, section 1.45V-1(a)(4) is
adopted without change.
4. Facility
a. Equipment Included in the Definition
of Facility
Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(i) would
have provided that, for purposes of the
definition of qualified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility provided at section 45V(c)
(3), the term “facility” means a single pro-
duction line that is used to produce qual-
ified clean hydrogen, unless otherwise
specified. Further, proposed §1.45V-1(a)
(7)(i) would have provided that a “single
production line” includes all components
of property that function interdependently
to produce qualified clean hydrogen.
Components of property would be func-
tionally interdependent if the placing in
service of each component were depen-
dent upon the placing in service of each of
the other components to produce qualified
clean hydrogen. Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)
(iii) would have provided that components
that have a purpose in addition to the pro-
duction of qualified clean hydrogen may
be part of a facility if such components
function interdependently with other com-
ponents to produce qualified clean hydro-
gen. Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(iv) would
have provided an example to illustrate the
definition of facility for purposes of sec-
tion 45V.
Comments asked a variety of questions
about the definition of “facility,” includ-
ing whether specific equipment is part
of a facility. Some comments requested
clarification on the meaning of “single
production line” and “functional inter-
dependence” and whether components
of a facility that produce hydrogen as a
by-product of another production process
are part of a “single production line” that
is used to produce hydrogen. Other com-
ments asked for clarification on whether
designated spaces and equipment neces-
sary for commercial operation, but not
necessary for hydrogen production (for
example, break rooms and lighting) are
part of the “facility.” Another comment
requested that the final regulations spec-
ify a method for allocating lifecycle GHG
emissions across multipurpose compo-
nents. The comment suggested that, in
many cases, it would not be appropriate
to include, through the point of produc-
tion, all lifecycle GHG emissions from
multipurpose components that are part of
the balance of plant, such as the cooling
tower or air compressor if the hydrogen
production process does not consume a
significant amount of energy from the use
of such equipment.
One comment recommended that the
final rules modify the definition of “facil-
ity” to include all electrolyzers within
the balance of plant to prevent hydrogen
producers from designating one electro-
lyzer as having produced hydrogen with-
out energy attribute certificates (EACs)
should a producer not have EACs suffi-
cient to ensure all hydrogen produced at a
facility is qualified clean hydrogen.
Another comment asked whether
the definition of “facility” in proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(7) would create a “circular
loop” wherein the hydrogen producer
would need to identify the components of
the facility in order to obtain an emissions
rate under 45VH2-GREET, but could
not identify the components of the facil-
ity without knowing whether the facility
produces hydrogen at an emissions rate of
not greater than 4 kilograms of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen.
One comment requested clarification
that the definition of facility in proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(7) does not apply for pur-
poses of the definition of “industrial facil-
ity” in §1.45Q-2(d).
One comment requested clarification
on whether a facility includes downstream
property that uses the hydrogen produced
at a qualified clean hydrogen production
facility. Similarly, one comment requested
clarification on whether hydrogen pro-
duction equipment that is installed on the
property of an industrial plant or a gas
utility qualifies as a “facility.” Although
unclear, this comment appears to be
requesting clarification whether an exist-
ing industrial plant or gas utility becomes
a hydrogen production facility if hydro-
gen production equipment is added to the
existing plant or utility.
In response to these comments seek-
ing clarification on what is included in the
definition of facility, these final regulations
modify proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(i) and
(iv), as well as §1.45V-1(a)(7)(ii), which
identifies equipment that is not included
in the definition of facility. Generally, the
definition of “facility” is sufficiently clear
as an established tax concept. The concept
of “functional interdependence” has been
used by courts for many years to decide
whether property was placed in service
for depreciation and the investment tax
credit. See, for example, Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 974 F.2d
422, 434 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[C]ourts appear
to agree that individual components will
be considered as a single property for tax
purposes—when the component parts are
functionally interdependent when each
component is essential to the operation of
the project as a whole and cannot be used

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1265 March 24, 2025
separately to any effect.”). The general
definition of facility in proposed §1.45V-
1(a)(7)(i) uses this “functional interde-
pendence” concept by indicating that a
single production line includes all com-
ponents of property that function inter-
dependently to produce qualified clean
hydrogen. To ease the determination of
what equipment is included, the final reg-
ulations add to this definition the phrase
“through a process that results in the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate used to deter-
mine the credit.” This clarifies that all
equipment used to produce the qualified
clean hydrogen for which the section 45V
credit is determined is included as part of
the qualified clean hydrogen facility. For
example, carbon capture equipment is part
of the facility if it contributes to the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of the process
by which the qualified clean hydrogen
for which the credit is determined is pro-
duced. In addition, these final regulations
update the example in §1.45V-1(a)(7)(iv)
to reflect the modifications made to the
text in §1.45V-1(a)(7)(i).
Purification equipment is part of the
facility if such equipment contributes to
the purity content of the qualified clean
hydrogen for which the section 45V credit
is determined. As discussed in part I.A.6.c
of this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions, purification equip-
ment that is used downstream of the facil-
ity’s process of producing qualified clean
hydrogen is not part of the facility, but
in certain circumstances, emissions from
such purification equipment are within
the well-to-gate system boundary for pur-
poses of the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
analysis.
Regarding multipurpose components,
these final regulations adopt proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(7)(iii) with a clarification that
production is for qualified clean hydro-
gen. Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(iii) already
clarifies that components can have multi-
ple purposes, including but not limited to
the production of qualified clean hydro-
gen, so long as the components function
interdependently with other components
to produce qualified clean hydrogen. With
respect to the allocation of lifecycle GHG
emissions attributed to multipurpose com-
ponents, taxpayers must use a reasonable
method to allocate the inputs used to
determine such emissions.
To the extent a facility produces hydro-
gen as a by-product of another production
process, any components of the facility
that function interdependently to produce
qualified clean hydrogen—regardless of
whether they serve a purpose in addition
to the production of qualified clean hydro-
gen—are part of the qualified clean hydro-
gen production facility.
With respect to whether equipment
necessary for commercial operation, but
not for hydrogen production, is part of the
“facility” (such as break room lighting),
§1.45V-1(a)(7)(i) answers this question. If
the placing in service of such equipment
is not necessary to produce qualified clean
hydrogen and is not part of the process
that results in the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate used to determine the credit,
such equipment does not function interde-
pendently with the qualified clean hydro-
gen production equipment and is not part
of the “facility.” If such non-functionally
interdependent equipment draws from the
same electricity source as the facility, to
the extent it is separately metered, such
electricity usage would not be an input
into 45VH2-GREET. To the extent such
equipment is not separately metered, tax-
payers must use a reasonable method to
allocate such electricity usage.
The final regulations do not adopt the
comment to revise the definition of “facil-
ity” to include all electrolyzers within the
balance of plant. Under §1.45V-1(a)(7)
(i), to the extent each electrolyzer pro-
duces qualified clean hydrogen separately
from the other electrolyzers (that is, does
not function interdependently with the
other electrolyzers), each electrolyzer is
treated as a separate facility. Treating each
electrolyzer within the balance of plant
as a separate facility is consistent with
Revenue Ruling 94-31, 1994-1 C.B. 16,
which held that each wind turbine within
a windfarm is a separate “qualified facil-
ity” under section 45 because each wind
turbine can be separately operated and
metered to produce electricity. Similar
to a wind turbine within a wind farm, an
electrolyzer within the balance of plant
functions separately from the other elec-
trolyzers to produce hydrogen. As to the
concern that EACs may be shifted from
one electrolyzer to another electrolyzer
within the balance of plant, a hydrogen
producer is free to acquire and retire
EACs for some electrolyzers and not for
others, no matter the production technol-
ogy the electrolyzers use and no matter
the extent of their co-location, so long as
the retired EACs are matched to a partic-
ular electrolyzer’s electricity consumption
from which hydrogen is produced. Impos-
ing a rule that co-located electrolyzers are
considered part of the same facility so that
they each receive an equal allocation of
EACs would not necessarily reflect each
electrolyzer’s electricity consumption and
would be inconsistent with existing tax
law’s treatment of the definition of “facil-
ity.”
In response to the comment that ques-
tioned whether the definition of “facil-
ity” in §1.45V-1(a)(7) creates a “circular
loop,” these final regulations modify pro-
posed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(i) to provide that
equipment is part of the facility if it func-
tions interdependently to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen through a process that
results in the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
used to determine the credit. The lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of the hydrogen
production process is not coextensive
with the tax definition of a hydrogen pro-
duction facility. For example, lifecycle
GHG emissions include emissions from
stages of the hydrogen production process
beyond the hydrogen production facility,
such as emissions from growth, gathering,
extraction, processing, and delivery of
feedstock to a hydrogen production facil-
ity. See section 45V(c)(1)(A) (defining
lifecycle GHG emissions by reference to
section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act)
and (B) (describing that lifecycle GHG
emissions include emissions through the
point of production (well-to-gate)); see
also Guidelines to Determine Well-to-
Gate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
of Hydrogen Production Pathways using
45VH2-GREET (45VH2-GREET User
Manual), § 2.4.1 (Emissions of Electricity
Generation), which can be found at www.
energy.gov/45vresources. The Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Revi-
sions to these final regulations generally
refer to the 45VH2-GREET User Manual
as it is currently publicly available, but at
times references intended modifications
to it. As further discussed in the Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions to these final regulations, the
DOE intends to release a new version of

March 24, 2025 1266 Bulletin No. 2025–13
45VH2-GREET with an accompanying
user manual in January 2025.
Regarding whether a “facility”
includes downstream property that uses
hydrogen produced at a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility, down-
stream property that does not contribute
to the facility’s process of producing
qualified clean hydrogen—but instead
only to the later use of such hydrogen
following its production—is not part of
the facility because it does not function
interdependently in the production of the
qualified clean hydrogen for which the
section 45V credit is determined. Further,
§1.45V-1(a)(7)(ii) provides that the facil-
ity does not include equipment used to
condition or transport hydrogen beyond
the point of production.
Regarding the effect of §1.45V-1(a)
(7) on the definition of industrial facil-
ity under §1.45Q-2(d), whether and the
extent to which the section 45V regula-
tions affect terms defined in section 45Q
is a matter that falls within the scope of
section 45Q and is therefore not applica-
ble to these regulations.
Regarding whether an industrial plant
or gas utility becomes part of the hydrogen
production “facility” when hydrogen pro-
duction equipment is installed at the plant
or utility, such an inquiry will depend on
the facts and circumstances of the par-
ticular hydrogen production equipment
and whether such equipment functions
interdependently with the existing indus-
trial plant or utility equipment to produce
hydrogen. Accordingly, these final regula-
tions provide sufficient criteria to apply to
such an inquiry on a case-by-case basis.
b. Equipment Excluded from the
Definition of Facility
Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(ii) would
have provided that a facility does not
include equipment used to condition or
transport hydrogen beyond the point of
production. Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(ii)
also would have provided that a facility
does not include electricity production
equipment used to power the hydrogen
production process, including any carbon
capture equipment associated with the
electricity production process.
Some comments requested clarification
that a “facility” does not include upstream
facilities that generate and supply electric-
ity, fuel, feedstock, water, ammonia, or
other inputs into or for use at the hydro-
gen production facility. Another comment
requested confirmation that a facility pro-
ducing renewable natural gas (RNG) that
is supplied to a facility that uses the RNG
to produce hydrogen does not fall within
the definition of “facility.”
One comment recommended that the
final rules exclude from the definition
of “facility” any facility that includes an
electrolyzer stack that was assembled in
or by a “Covered Nation” as defined in 10
U.S.C. §4872(d)(2), or a “Foreign Entity
of Concern,” as referenced under §40207
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, Public Law 117-58.
The Treasury Department and the
IRS agree that clarification is needed on
whether feedstock production equipment
is part of the “facility.” In addition, clar-
ification is needed on whether feedstock
recovery equipment is part of the “facil-
ity.” Although proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)
(ii)(B) would have excluded electricity
production equipment from the definition
of “facility,” the proposed rules would not
have addressed other types of feedstock
production and recovery equipment,
such as RNG production equipment.
The intent of the proposed rules was to
exclude upstream feedstock production
and recovery equipment, such as RNG
production equipment, from the defini-
tion of facility. Accordingly, these final
regulations add “feedstock-related equip-
ment, including production, purification,
recovery, transportation, or transmission
equipment” to the list of items excluded
from the definition of facility in §1.45V-
1(a)(7)(ii)(B). As discussed in this part
I.A.6.c of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Provisions, however,
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
feedstock growth, gathering, extraction,
processing, and delivery to a hydrogen
production facility are still included in
the lifecycle GHG analysis reflected in
45VH2-GREET.
As to excluding components assem-
bled in or by a “Covered Nation” or a
“Foreign Entity of Concern” from the
definition of facility, there is no provision
of section 45V that imposes such a rule,
so these final regulations do not adopt this
comment.
5. Hydrogen Gas Stream, Mixed Gas or
Impurity, and Productive Use
The final regulations add three new
definitions, “hydrogen gas stream,” to
§1.45V-1(a)(8); “mixed gas or impurity,”
to §1.45V-1(a)(10); and “productive use”
to §1.45V-1(a)(12). The term “hydrogen
gas stream” means a flow of gases that
includes hydrogen, either alone or with
one or more other gases. The term “mixed
gas or impurity” means a non-hydrogen
gas that is part of a hydrogen gas stream.
The term “productive use” means, with
respect to a hydrogen gas stream, a con-
sumption of the hydrogen gas stream in a
manner that generates positive economic
value, which is determined without regard
to the availability of the section 45V
credit. The term “productive use” means,
with respect to qualified clean hydrogen, a
consumption of qualified clean hydrogen
in a manner that generates positive eco-
nomic value, which is determined without
regard to the availability of the section
45V credit. Positive economic value is
determined without regard to the section
45V credit, consistent with the anti-abuse
rule of §1.45V-2(b). Thus, for example, a
hydrogen gas stream produced with the
primary purpose of obtaining the benefit
of the section 45V credit in a wasteful
manner would not have a productive use.
All three terms are relevant to the rule
where certain emissions related to purifi-
cation are treated as through point of pro-
duction, described in part I.A.6.d of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions. The term “productive use”
also relates to the anti-abuse rule described
in part II.B of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions.
6. Lifecycle GHG Emissions
Section 45V(c)(1)(A) provides that,
subject to section 45V(c)(1)(B), the term
“lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” has
the same meaning given such term under
section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. §7545(o)(1)) as in effect on
the date of enactment of section 45V. Sec-
tion 45V(c)(1)(B) provides that the term
“lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” only
includes emissions through the point of
production (well-to-gate), as determined
under the most recent GREET model,

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1267 March 24, 2025
or a successor model (as determined by
the Secretary). Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)
would have defined “lifecycle GHG emis-
sions.” The final regulations renumber
proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8) to §1.45V-1(a)
(9).
Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(i) would
have incorporated the statutory definitions
provided in section 45V(c)(1)(A) and (B),
specifically providing that the term has the
same meaning as that in section 211(o)(1)
(H) of the Clean Air Act as in effect on
August 16, 2022, and includes emissions
only through the point of production
(well-to-gate) as determined under the
most recent GREET model, or a succes-
sor model. These final regulations mod-
ify proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(i) to provide
that, for purposes of section 45V, lifecycle
GHG emissions are determined under the
45VH2-GREET Model. No comments
were received on §1.45V-1(a)(8)(i), and
this provision is adopted as renumbered
§1.45V-1(a)(9)(i) without further changes.
By reference to section 211(o)(1)(H) of
the Clean Air Act, section 45V(c)(1)(A)
requires a complete assessment of direct
and significant indirect emissions associ-
ated with a hydrogen production process.
After consultation with the DOE and the
EPA, the Treasury Department and the
IRS interpret section 45V(c)(1)(A) with
its reference to section 211(o)(1)(H) of
the Clean Air Act as excluding emissions
related to the manufacturing of the equip-
ment within the hydrogen production
pathway (for example, power generators,
hydrogen production facility), from the
definition of lifecycle GHG emissions.
This interpretation is consistent with how
EPA has implemented section 211(o)(1)
(H) of the Clean Air Act for the Renew-
able Fuel Standard (RFS) program
7
.
a. Most Recent GREET Model
Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii) would
have provided that, for purposes of the
section 45V credit, the term “most recent
GREET model” means the latest version
of 45VH2-GREET developed by Argonne
National Laboratory and published by the
DOE, as provided in the instructions to the
latest version of Form 7210, Clean Hydro-
gen Production Credit, or any successor
form(s), on the first day of the taxable year
during which the qualified clean hydrogen
for which the taxpayer is claiming the sec-
tion 45V credit was produced. Proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii) would have further pro-
vided that, if a version of 45VH2-GREET
becomes publicly available after the first
day of the taxable year of production (but
still within such taxable year), then the
taxpayer could, in its discretion, treat such
later version of 45VH2-GREET as the
most recent GREET model.
Several comments recommended
changes to proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii).
Some comments requested that, instead
of identifying 45VH2-GREET as the
“most recent GREET model” under sec-
tion 45V(c)(1)(B), the final regulations
identify the R&D GREET model devel-
oped by Argonne National Laboratory and
published by the DOE as the most recent
GREET model. Comments further recom-
mended that the final regulations require
the use of 45VH2-GREET as a “suc-
cessor model” only if 45VH2-GREET
closely aligns in function and principle
with the version of the R&D GREET
model as it existed at the time that sec-
tion 45V was enacted. Other comments
supported 45VH2-GREET as the best
available open-source lifecycle analysis
methodology for determining lifecycle
GHG emissions for purposes of section
45V. Yet another comment recommended
that a model the comment had developed
should be able to be used as an alternative
to 45VH2-GREET.
Except for changing the nomenclature
of the “most recent GREET model” to the
“45VH2-GREET Model,” as further dis-
cussed in this part I.A.6.a of the Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Revi-
sions, these final regulations do not adopt
the comments recommending changes to
proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii).
Though the Treasury Department
and the IRS continue to view 45VH2-
GREET as the most recent GREET model
for the reasons described in the pream-
ble to the proposed regulations and the
fact that it was developed more recently
than the R&D GREET model, the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS recognize
that the continued existence of the R&D
GREET model and periodic updates
to both 45VH2-GREET and the R&D
GREET model have created some uncer-
tainty in this regard. To avoid any poten-
tial uncertainty about the meaning of the
most recent GREET model, which would
be detrimental to the administration and
implementation of the section 45V credit,
the Secretary is invoking her express del-
egation of authority in section 45V(c)(1)
(B) to determine 45VH2-GREET to be a
“successor model” and to require its use.
In selecting 45VH2-GREET rather
than the R&D GREET model or some
other model, the Treasury Department and
the IRS considered the statutory definition
of lifecycle GHG emissions in section
211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act (as in
effect on August 16, 2022) and the specific
objectives of section 45V, and consulted
with the DOE. 45VH2-GREET best meets
these parameters. It is a model specifically
developed by the Argonne National Labo-
ratory as a derivative of and successor to
the R&D GREET model, designed specif-
ically to address hydrogen production pro-
cesses and to meet the requirements and
objectives of section 45V.
The R&D GREET model has been
maintained by the DOE since 1995 to
enable research regarding lifecycle anal-
yses of hundreds of different methods of
producing, delivering, and using energy.
The model includes many fuels other than
hydrogen (for example, biofuels, synthetic
fuels, fossil fuels, and electrification), and
includes information that is based on pre-
liminary analyses (that is, analyses that
are not yet complete, have significant
technical uncertainties, or are still being
reviewed by laboratory staff, DOE staff,
or independent experts).
8
Annual updates
to the model inform academic studies,
informally guide decarbonization strate-
gies and research and development funded
by both the DOE and industry, and elicit
stakeholder feedback that can improve
7
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Renewable Fuel Standard Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-420-R-10-10-006, at 311-312 (Feb. 2010), available at https://www.regula-
tions.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0324-0652.
8
See generally GREET, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, available at https://www.energy.gov/eere/greet.

March 24, 2025 1268 Bulletin No. 2025–13
the model, particularly with regard to
preliminary pathways. R&D GREET is
a valuable tool to characterize the bene-
fits and impacts of energy technologies in
a directional manner and to test out new
and updated data and parameters, but it is
not appropriate for use in analyses where
a relatively high degree of precision and
certainty is required, given the prelimi-
nary nature of much of the information
represented, and where specific emissions
fluxes and their representation are needed
in a specific fashion (for example, to meet
specifications within the statute). More-
over, because the R&D GREET model
offers users many choices regarding anal-
ysis methodology (for example, co-prod-
uct accounting, system boundaries, and
global warming potential values), differ-
ent users can achieve significantly differ-
ent estimated GHG emissions rates even
when representing the same facility. Many
of these choices would not be appropri-
ate in the specific context of the section
45V credit given the preliminary nature of
much of the data underlying aspects of the
R&D GREET model and the fact that the
model does not require the use of specific
methodologies and accounting parame-
ters. Accordingly, R&D GREET does not
provide the degree of certainty, structure,
and specificity necessary to meet the stat-
utory requirement of reflecting lifecycle
GHG emissions as defined by section
211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act (as in
effect on August 16, 2022), nor does it
meet the specific objectives of such sec-
tion or of the section 45V credit.
In addition, implementation of the sec-
tion 45V credit will be aided by a user-
friendly model that characterizes the life-
cycle GHG emissions rates of different
hydrogen production processes consis-
tently, with high levels of confidence, and
with higher fidelity than R&D GREET,
and consistent with the requirements, pur-
poses, and objectives of the section 45V
credit. The DOE directed the Argonne
National Laboratory to develop 45VH2-
GREET to meet three key parameters:
1) consistency of background assump-
tions for all users and across hydrogen
production processes, while enhancing
user friendliness, 2) technical robustness
of the processes, and 3) consistency with
the other requirements and purposes of
section 45V. Each of these parameters is
explained in additional detail as follows.
First, 45VH2-GREET facilitates con-
sistent analyses across different processes
while enhancing user friendliness. While
R&D GREET allows users to simu-
late hundreds of different fuel pathways
(including but not limited to those that
involve hydrogen) and several different
system boundaries with different user-de-
fined assumptions, 45VH2-GREET exclu-
sively allows simulations of the well-to-
gate emissions associated with hydrogen
production (as specified in section 45V(c)
(1)(B) and in alignment with these final
regulations). The simpler interface in
45VH2-GREET as compared to R&D
GREET ensures that the model is accessi-
ble to a broad range of taxpayers, includ-
ing those without significant prior expe-
rience in lifecycle analysis or a GREET
model.
Second, 45VH2-GREET achieves
technical robustness across hydrogen pro-
duction pathways. Hydrogen production
pathways represented in 45VH2-GREET
are a subset of those in R&D GREET and
were included following rigorous inter-
agency review for technical fidelity and
alignment with the statute. While addi-
tional hydrogen production pathways
are available in R&D GREET, many are
preliminary in nature and inappropri-
ate for analyses requiring relatively high
precision, data reliability, and analytical
rigor to support use in implementation of
the section 45V credit (as described pre-
viously in this part of the Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions
and further in supporting documentation
to R&D GREET
9
). Implementation of the
section 45V credit necessitates the use of
lifecycle GHG emissions rate calculations
that are as precise and robust as feasible,
as section 45V(b)(2) provides differing
applicable percentages based on a range
of lifecycle GHG emissions rates and
section 45V(c)(2)(A) includes within the
definition of qualified clean hydrogen only
hydrogen produced with a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate below a threshold level.
Absent analytically robust emissions cal-
culations, these final regulations would
fail to implement Congress’s directive
to incentivize qualified clean hydrogen
production, as distinguished among the
different applicable percentage brackets,
as well as fail to realize Congress’s under-
lying objective of crediting only qualified
clean hydrogen and providing greater
credit amounts to hydrogen produced with
lower lifecycle GHG emissions rates. As
data on and analyses of additional hydro-
gen production pathways in R&D GREET
become more robust, such pathways may
be incorporated into future versions of
45VH2-GREET.
Additionally, 45VH2-GREET was
developed to align with the text of sec-
tion 45V, which requires that the credit
be based on the “lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions” as defined under section
211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act, sub-
ject to the additional requirements of
section 45V(c)(1)(B), which references
the use of GREET or a successor model
as determined by the Secretary, and limits
the emissions estimates to “well-to-gate”
emissions. Lifecycle GHG emissions are
defined in section 211(o)(1)(H) of the
Clean Air Act to include both direct emis-
sions and significant indirect emissions.
R&D GREET does not robustly account
for the variability in emissions estimates
of all potential significant indirect emis-
sions of certain hydrogen production
pathways, particularly when representing
counterfactual scenarios. The model addi-
tionally does not address the risk of signif-
icant indirect emissions related to changes
in market behavior associated with the
incentives created by section 45V.
10
The
proposed regulations therefore asked for
comments on lifecycle analysis (LCA)
9
Summary of Expansions and Updates in R&D GREET 2023 (2023), Argonne National Laboratory, available at https://greet.anl.gov/files/greet-2023-summary (R&D
GREET Supporting Documentation).
10
For example, in a December 13, 2023, letter to the Treasury Department, the EPA noted that it has interpreted section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act in the context of the Clean Air Act’s
RFS program. In that context, the EPA had previously determined that the version of ANL GREET that existed in 2010 (that is, R&D GREET) was not sufficient to calculate lifecycle GHG
emissions for purposes of 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA also explained that the more recent version of ANL GREET that existed as of December 2023 similarly did not satisfy
the relevant Clean Air Act criteria because it did not include the significant direct and indirect emissions that the EPA had previously determined were necessary. See Letter from Joseph
Goffman, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Lily Batchelder, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, U.S.
Department of the Treasury (Dec. 13, 2023), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Final-EPA-letter-to-UST-on-SAF-signed.pdf.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1269 March 24, 2025
considerations associated with hydrogen
production pathways.
In characterizing the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of a given hydrogen pro-
duction pathway, 45VH2-GREET reflects
key drivers of “lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions” as defined by section 45V(c)
(1)(A) by cross-reference to section 211(o)
(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act, subject to the
additional requirements of section 45V(c)
(1)(B). Consistent with the Clean Air Act,
45VH2-GREET, in conjunction with the
broader regulatory framework, addresses
direct GHG emissions (for example, at
a hydrogen production facility) and sig-
nificant indirect emissions (for example,
upstream emissions associated with elec-
tricity consumption at a hydrogen produc-
tion facility).
Third, 45VH2-GREET is consistent
with the other requirements and pur-
poses of section 45V. The accurate and
fair administration of the section 45V
credit requires the use of fixed “back-
ground data” assumptions for parameters
for which bespoke inputs from hydrogen
producers would present challenges for
tax administration, which requires high
fidelity to ensure the accurate assessment
and reporting of lifecycle GHG emissions
rates associated with the production of
hydrogen. Allowing taxpayers to provide
bespoke values for parameters that cannot
be accurately determined at an individ-
ual taxpayer level or cannot be verified
would invite exaggerated or understated
estimates that could result in inaccurate
section 45V credit determinations. Use of
verifiable data ensures that the section 45V
credit is available only to those facilities
that meet statutory requirements and that
the appropriate section 45V credit amount
is determined with respect to those facili-
ties. To facilitate the use of bespoke values
where feasible and the use of appropriate
alternative values where that is not feasi-
ble, as well as consistency across taxpay-
ers, the proposed regulations introduced
the concepts of “background data” (which
cannot be changed by 45VH2-GREET
users) and “foreground data” (which
allows for bespoke inputs by 45VH2-
GREET users), and 45VH2-GREET dis-
tinguishes between them in a consistent
manner. For example, 45VH2-GREET
incorporates the GHG emissions rates of
regional grids as a fixed background data
parameter that users cannot change. The
values incorporated in 45VH2-GREET as
background data are based on individual
power generators’ reporting to the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA),
emissions factors derived from the EPA’s
Emissions & Generation Resource Inte-
grated Database (eGRID), estimates of
upstream emissions derived by Argonne
National Laboratory, and estimates of
transmission and distribution losses based
on State level reporting to the EIA. Given
that GHG emissions estimates of regional
grids are derived using the best avail-
able data and science, it is unlikely that a
given taxpayer would be able to establish
a value that differs materially from the
45VH2-GREET default and also has high
fidelity. Moreover, given that this param-
eter is expected to be consistent across
all taxpayers within a given region, it is
appropriate to require that all such tax-
payers utilize the same value rather than
allowing for deviation across facilities.
Thus, 45VH2-GREET is consistent
with the specific requirements of section
45V while maintaining R&D GREET’s
overall modeling approach and much of
R&D GREET’s background assumptions.
This furthers the purposes reflected in
section 45V(c)(1)(A) and (B). For these
reasons, the Secretary has determined that
45VH2-GREET is a successor model for
purposes of section 45V(c)(1)(B), and the
final regulations require its use. Accord-
ingly, proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii) is
modified and renumbered as §1.45V-1(a)
(9)(ii) to provide that the term “45VH2-
GREET Model” means the latest pub-
licly available version of 45VH2-GREET
developed by Argonne National Labora-
tory and published by the DOE, as iden-
tified in the instructions to the latest ver-
sion of Form 7210, or a successor form(s),
on the first day of the taxable year during
which the qualified clean hydrogen for
which the taxpayer is claiming the section
45V credit was produced. Additionally,
as further discussed in this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions,
proposed §1.45V-4(a) is modified to pro-
vide that the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of each hydrogen production process
at a qualified clean hydrogen production
facility is determined under the 45VH2-
GREET Model. Conforming changes
have also been made throughout the regu-
latory text to replace “most recent GREET
model” with “45VH2-GREET Model.”
b. Differences from R&D GREET
Several comments requested that
45VH2-GREET include all the pathways
and technologies that are present in R&D
GREET. Some of these comments also
requested that 45VH2-GREET employ
the same methodology used for measuring
lifecycle GHG emissions as those used in
R&D GREET. Some comments specifi-
cally requested that the transportation-re-
lated emissions be consistent between the
two models.
The final regulations do not adopt these
comments. As described in the 45VH2-
GREET User Manual and as described in
this part I.A.6 of the Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions,
some pathways may be included in R&D
GREET but not in a given version of
45VH2-GREET because the pathways
were still preliminary when such version
of 45VH2-GREET was developed and/or
because the pathways did not adequately
address all key sources of direct and sig-
nificant indirect emissions (as required for
consistency with section 211(o)(1)(H) of
the Clean Air Act). Uncertainties around
many of these pathways may include
parameters such as identification of all rel-
evant feedstocks or the choice of counter-
factual scenarios. These uncertainties are
described in sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.4 of the
R&D GREET Supporting Documentation.
Some pathways, such as those using cer-
tain types of biomass, also had uncertain-
ties and had not completed the 45VH2-
GREET technical review process at the
time the most recent version was released,
but may be added in future updates as data
and other parameters become more robust.
The proposed regulations requested com-
ments on lifecycle analysis considerations
associated with some of the pathways that
were not included in the initial 45VH2-
GREET release (for example, certain
RNG pathways and fugitive methane),
which could inform future updates to the
model.
Some specific aspects of hydrogen pro-
duction pathways within R&D GREET
have completed an interagency review
process, have been deemed sufficiently
robust and, have therefore also been

March 24, 2025 1270 Bulletin No. 2025–13
included in 45VH2-GREET. Examples
include default assumptions associated
with methane leakage during natural gas
transportation to a facility or assump-
tions of the emissions that result from
electricity generation from specific gen-
erators. Thus, some assumptions related
to transportation emissions have been
made consistent between R&D GREET
and 45VH2-GREET, while other assump-
tions are still too uncertain to include in
45VH2-GREET but may be included if
deemed sufficiently robust in the future
based on evaluation by interagency tech-
nical experts.
R&D GREET is used for a range of
purposes, including academic studies and
research that do not necessarily require
verification of assumptions with real-
world data at specific facilities and at
times rely on small and therefore uncer-
tain sample sizes or datasets. Implemen-
tation of the section 45V credit, however,
requires that information used to calculate
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate reflect
a given taxpayer’s actual operation with
a reasonable degree of certainty and be
subject to independent verification where
possible or, where not, that values used
appropriately reflect the range of possibil-
ities rather than allowing use of unverifi-
able inputs that inappropriately maximize
the amount of the section 45V credit. As
described previously, use of verifiable data
is necessary in the context of tax adminis-
tration and in particular with respect to the
section 45V credit where eligibility for the
amount of the credit is based on the facili-
ty’s lifecycle GHG emissions rate.
c. Emissions Through the Point of
Production (Well-to-Gate)
Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(iii) would
have provided that, for purposes of sec-
tion 45V(c)(1)(B) and proposed §1.45V-
1(a)(8)(i), the term “emissions through the
point of production (well-to-gate)” means
the aggregate lifecycle GHG emissions
related to hydrogen produced at a hydro-
gen production facility during the taxable
year through the point of production. Fur-
ther, proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(iii) would
have provided that such term includes
emissions associated with feedstock
growth, gathering, extraction, processing,
and delivery to a hydrogen production
facility. Finally, proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)
(iii) would have provided that such term
includes the emissions associated with the
hydrogen production process, inclusive
of the electricity used by the hydrogen
production facility and any capture and
sequestration of carbon dioxide generated
by the hydrogen production facility.
Some comments requested clarification
on the definition of “well-to-gate” and
whether emissions related to hydrogen
purification, compression, liquefaction,
transport, storage, and other activities are
included in the definition for purposes of
calculating the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of the hydrogen. Other comments
provided feedback on the requirement in
proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(iii) that taxpay-
ers calculate the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of hydrogen produced at a hydrogen
production facility based on the aggregate
amount of hydrogen produced at the facil-
ity over the taxable year (in other words,
use the average annual emissions rate).
While some comments supported requir-
ing taxpayers to calculate the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of hydrogen on an
annual basis, other comments requested
that taxpayers be permitted to calculate the
lifecycle GHG emissions rate of hydrogen
produced at their facility on a more gran-
ular basis. One comment expressed disap-
pointment that the Treasury Department
and the IRS did not engage States in defin-
ing lifecycle GHG emissions. Another
comment recommended that the final
regulations require State governments
to adopt regulations to complement and
enhance section 45V. Finally, one com-
ment requested that the term “emissions
through the point of production (well-to-
gate)” exclude emissions from the produc-
tion of hydrogen during natural disasters,
emergency events, start-ups, shut-downs,
and maintenance activities.
Regarding the request for clarification
of whether specific activities fall within
the well-to-gate system boundary, the
definition of “emissions beyond the point
of production (well-to-gate)” in proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(8)(iii) and renumbered as
§1.45V-1(a)(9)(iii) is sufficiently clear.
Comments have indicated confusion,
however, as to how the well-to-gate sys-
tem boundary and the definition of facility
interact. To clarify, the well-to-gate sys-
tem boundary for purposes of determin-
ing the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of a
process is distinct from the definition of
facility for Federal income tax purposes.
First, as specified in §1.45V-1(a)(9)(iii),
the well-to-gate system boundary includes
certain emissions that occur upstream of
the facility. For example, the well-to-gate
system boundary includes emissions asso-
ciated with feedstock growth, gathering,
extraction, processing, and delivery to a
hydrogen production facility. While such
emissions are included in the well-to-gate
system boundary, equipment used in such
upstream activities—such as electric-
ity generating equipment—is not part of
the facility, as specified in §1.45V-1(a)
(7)(ii)(B). Second, as further specified
in §1.45V-1(a)(9)(iii), the well-to-gate
system boundary also includes all emis-
sions resulting from the facility’s hydro-
gen production process, inclusive of the
production of a mixed gas or impurity
and the electricity used by the hydrogen
production facility and any capture and
sequestration of carbon dioxide generated
by the hydrogen production facility. This
includes emissions resulting from the use
of all components that function interde-
pendently to produce the qualified clean
hydrogen for which the section 45V credit
is determined. Emissions from activities
that occur after the facility’s hydrogen
production process is complete, such as
liquefaction, storage, or transport, are
generally beyond the well-to-gate system
boundary. The final regulations include a
non-exhaustive list of examples of such
activities in §1.45V-1(a)(9)(iii). Finally,
as explained in part I.A.6.d, §1.45V-1(a)
(9)(iv) is added to provide that emissions
that result from certain purification activ-
ities that occur downstream of the facil-
ity’s qualified clean hydrogen production
process are still within the well-to-gate
system boundary. Even though equipment
used in such purification activities is not
part of the facility, emissions associated
with such purification are nevertheless
within the well-to-gate system boundary
for purposes of determining the section
45V credit.
However, the Treasury Department
and the IRS, based on advice of the DOE,
note that, in situations where a man-made
chemical is produced using hydrogen
feedstock (for example, ammonia), and
is later cracked or “dehydrogenated” to

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1271 March 24, 2025
release the hydrogen, the chemical rep-
resents a means of hydrogen storage and
the cracking step releases the hydrogen
from such storage. These steps occur
downstream of hydrogen production and
are therefore outside of the well-to-gate
system boundary, and also do not con-
stitute a distinct hydrogen production
process. Accordingly, hydrogen released
from cracking such chemicals cannot be
used to claim the section 45V credit.
Regarding the requirement that tax-
payers calculate the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of their hydrogen on an annual
basis, these comments are addressed in
response to comments received on pro-
posed §1.45V-4(a) in part III.A of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions.
Regarding a comment’s criticism that
the Treasury Department and the IRS did
not engage the States in defining lifecycle
GHG emissions, this term is defined in
section 45V(c)(1)(A) as having the same
meaning given such term under section
211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act. More-
over, States were afforded the opportunity
to comment on the proposed regulations,
and some did. Section 45V does not require
State governments to take any action or to
enact any legislation to complement sec-
tion 45V. Section 45V provides a Federal
income tax credit to owners of qualified
clean hydrogen production facilities for
the production of qualified clean hydrogen
and imposes no obligations on the States.
Accordingly, these final regulations do not
adopt the request to require the States to
enact legislation to complement section
45V.
Finally, regarding the request to
exclude emissions from the production
of hydrogen during periods of natural
disasters, emergency events, start-ups,
shut-downs, and maintenance activities,
section 45V(c)(1) does not provide for or
contemplate any such exceptions. These
final regulations, therefore, do not adopt
this comment’s suggestion.
d. Certain Emissions Related to
Purification Treated as Through Point of
Production.
In consultation with the DOE, the final
regulations add a new §1.45V-1(a)(9)(iv),
which addresses emissions attributable
to the purification of hydrogen. Section
1.45V-1(a)(9)(iv) provides that, if the tax-
payer knows or has reason to know the
purification of a hydrogen gas stream (that
is, removal of a mixed gas or impurity) is
necessary for a hydrogen gas stream to be
productively used, or to be sold for pro-
ductive use, any lifecycle GHG emissions
relating to such purification (for example,
emissions from electricity used in purifi-
cation, or carbon dioxide that is separated
from a hydrogen gas stream and then
vented as part of purification) are treated
as emissions through the point of produc-
tion (well-to-gate). Additionally, if the
taxpayer knows or has reason to know that
a hydrogen gas stream contains less than
99 percent hydrogen and will be com-
busted without purification, any lifecycle
GHG emissions relating to the purification
needed to purify the hydrogen gas stream
to contain 99 percent hydrogen are treated
as emissions through the point of produc-
tion (well-to-gate). Section1.45V-1(a)(9)
(v) provides an example to illustrate this
rule.
To ascertain the emissions associated
with production of hydrogen in a manner
that is consistent with section 45V, which
requires that section 45V credit eligibility
be determined on the basis of “kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen”,
45VH2-GREET levelizes all well-to-gate
emissions associated with a hydrogen pro-
duction process over only the kilograms
of pure hydrogen produced. This includes
emissions attributable to the purification
of a hydrogen gas stream to remove a
mixed gas or impurity. Emissions attrib-
utable to purification include emissions
associated with energy consumption (for
example, electricity consumed by purifi-
cation equipment or by equipment used
for carbon dioxide capture), as well as
greenhouse gases that are separated out
by purification equipment and not seques-
tered (for example, carbon dioxide that is
captured and then vented).
Previous versions of 45VH2-GREET
accounted for carbon dioxide emissions
that may occur from the conversion of
impurities or mixed gases downstream
of the hydrogen production facility, thus
including such emissions in the level-
ization. This approach will be revised in
the forthcoming January 2025 version
of 45VH2-GREET, such that emissions
outside of the well-to-gate boundary are
not accounted for in determining a pro-
cess’ lifecycle GHG emissions rate for
purposes of section 45V. Qualified clean
hydrogen production facilities can there-
fore be designed to achieve the level of
purity required for sale or use (subject to
the rules of section 45V and these final
regulations), without regard to the carbon
dioxide emissions that may occur from the
conversion of impurities or mixed gases
downstream (for example, the ultimate
conversion to carbon dioxide of metha-
nol produced from a mixed gas stream of
hydrogen and carbon monoxide).
As the result of the January 2025
modification to 45VH2-GREET and the
45VH2-GREET User Manual, and to clar-
ify the appropriate well-to-gate boundary,
these final regulations, following consul-
tation with the DOE, clarify the definition
of emissions through the point of produc-
tion (well-to-gate) to address emissions
attributable to purification that the tax-
payer knows or has reason to know are
necessary in order for the hydrogen gas
stream to be productively used, regardless
of where such purification occurs. These
emissions are properly treated as occur-
ring within the well-to-gate boundary in
§1.45V-1(a)(9)(iv).
In certain cases—absent the section
45V credit—the taxpayer would normally
purify a hydrogen gas stream prior to it
being productively used or sold for pro-
ductive use, and such purification would
have lifecycle GHG emissions attributed
to the hydrogen produced. Taxpayers,
however, could have an incentive to
claim that the purification (and its atten-
dant emissions) occurs beyond the hydro-
gen production “gate.” If these emis-
sions occur outside of the “gate,” then
they would not be attributed in 45VH2-
GREET to the hydrogen production pro-
cess and therefore would not be included
in the hydrogen production process’ life-
cycle GHG emissions rate for purposes
of determining the amount of the section
45V credit. The taxpayer may, for exam-
ple, forgo hydrogen purification that it
would have performed absent the incen-
tive of the section 45V credit, and produce
comparatively “impure hydrogen.” The
“impure hydrogen” may then be sold to a
customer who would purify the hydrogen
gas stream (something it would not need

March 24, 2025 1272 Bulletin No. 2025–13
to do absent the incentive to the hydrogen
producer due to the section 45V credit),
thereby generating lifecycle GHG emis-
sions that the taxpayer was able to forgo.
Similarly, a taxpayer could have an incen-
tive to instead sell a stream of impure
hydrogen and a mixed gas or impurity
(such as carbon monoxide), instead of the
purified hydrogen gas stream, for combus-
tion. The DOE has advised that, absent the
section 45V credit, hydrogen gas streams
are consistently sold at purity levels well
above 99 percent today and that custom-
ers would likely have to substantially
modify their operations to accept less pure
gas streams. Therefore, DOE has advised
that the predominant motivation to sell
hydrogen for combustion at lower purities
would be so the emissions associated with
those impurities would not be accounted
for within the well-to-gate boundary.
These circumstances would be incon-
sistent with a purpose of section 45V,
which is to provide an incentive to pro-
duce qualified clean hydrogen and to pro-
vide a higher incentive to produce qual-
ified clean hydrogen as more lifecycle
GHG emissions are avoided. Producing
hydrogen with a lower lifecycle GHG
emissions rate and receiving a section 45V
credit reflecting such an emissions rate in
the case where the taxpayer knows or has
reason to know that the customer must
further purify the hydrogen gas stream
(and emit additional emissions) so that
such gas stream can be productively used
by its customer is contrary to this purpose
and to the requirement in section 45V(c)
(2)(B)(i)(II) for hydrogen to be produced
in the ordinary course of a trade or busi-
ness of the taxpayer. To address this, and
consistent with the purposes of section
45V, in cases where the taxpayer knows or
has reason to know that additional purifi-
cation is needed for a hydrogen gas stream
to be productively used, the final regula-
tions clarify that the emissions associated
with the purification needed to produce
the hydrogen for a productive use occur
within the well-to-gate boundary. Like-
wise, in cases where the taxpayer knows
or has reason to know that a hydrogen
gas stream contains less than 99 percent
hydrogen and will be combusted without
purification, emissions that would have
resulted from purifying the hydrogen gas
stream to that percentage prior to combus-
tion are treated as emissions within the
well-to-gate boundary.
The final regulations are consistent
with the treatment of emissions related to
purification in the January 2025 version
of 45VH2-GREET, which treats emis-
sions attributable to purification that the
taxpayer knows or has reason to know are
necessary in order for the hydrogen gas
stream to be productively used as within
the gate.
7. Process
Section 45V(c)(1)(A) and (B) establish
the boundaries for determining lifecycle
GHG emissions rates associated with the
production of hydrogen. Section 45V(c)
(1)(A) mandates consideration of GHG
emissions that are described in section
211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act. Sec-
tion 45V(c)(1)(B) further specifies that
the term “lifecycle greenhouse gas emis-
sions” only includes emissions through
the point of production (well-to-gate), as
determined under the most recent GREET
model or a successor model as determined
by the Secretary. Accordingly, section
45V(c)(1)(B) specifies an ending bound-
ary (that is, the gate of a hydrogen produc-
tion facility) for the emissions that must
be considered for purposes of the section
45V credit. It also specifies a model for
use in determining lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rates. Taken together, these statutory
rules provide the boundaries for assessing
lifecycle GHG emissions for purposes of
section 45V.
Section 45V provides authority for the
Secretary to specify and clarify how to
determine lifecycle GHG emissions rates
within these statutorily determined bound-
aries. Exercise of this authority is neces-
sary because this statutory framework
must address a wide range of hydrogen
production processes that are currently
viable or that may become viable in the
future, the technical details of each hydro-
gen production process, and scientific
advancements and uncertainties associ-
ated with lifecycle GHG analyses. Con-
gress acknowledged that the Secretary
would need to identify a system for deter-
mining lifecycle GHG emissions rates and
expressly delegated to her the authority to
do so in section 45V(f), which provides
“the Secretary shall issue regulations or
other guidance to carry out the purposes
of this section, including regulations or
other guidance for determining lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions.” As noted pre-
viously, this authority is cabined by the
directives in the statute, most critically the
directive to measure well-to-gate lifecy-
cle GHG emissions as defined by section
211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act.
The term “process,” as used in sections
45V(b)(2)(A) through (D) and in section
45V(c)(2)(A), is a parameter that requires
further clarification. Proposed §1.45V-
4(a) and (b) would have required the sec-
tion 45V credit to be determined accord-
ing to the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
of all hydrogen produced at a hydrogen
production facility during the taxable year.
Under this proposal, the term “process”
included all the operations and inputs used
by a facility to produce hydrogen during a
taxable year.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received a number of comments which
led to a reconsideration of how the term
“process” is used in determining lifecy-
cle GHG emission rates. After review-
ing these comments and reexamining the
meaning of the term “process” as it relates
to the structure and purposes of section
45V, these final regulations add §1.45V-
1(a)(11) to define the terms “process” and
“primary feedstock,” as discussed fur-
ther in this part I.A.7 of this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions.
These final regulations also make a cor-
responding modification to §1.45V-1(b)
regarding the amount of the credit.
Several comments recommended that
45VH2-GREET allow for the blending
of feedstocks, like natural gas and RNG.
In the case of RNG, comments claimed
that given the high cost of RNG, combin-
ing RNG with conventional natural gas
could create certain market efficiencies
that would justify the combined use of
RNG and natural gas. Several comments
opposed allowing the mixing of RNG (or
other types of biomethane) with conven-
tional natural gas to produce clean hydro-
gen; in particular, one comment noted that
“splash blending,” or combining small
amounts of RNG with conventional natu-
ral gas, could cost the U.S. government bil-
lions of dollars annually while potentially
increasing overall emissions. According
to one comment, to avoid splash blending,

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1273 March 24, 2025
each methane-based feedstock should be
considered a separate production line.
Section 45V generally requires that
lifecycle GHG emissions rates be deter-
mined according to the process by which
the hydrogen is produced. Section 45V(b)
(2) provides the rules for determining
the applicable percentages that are ulti-
mately used to calculate the amount of
the section 45V credit. In general, section
45V(b) requires applicable percentages
to be determined with respect to “qual-
ified clean hydrogen which is produced
through a process that results in a lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions rate” that falls
within statutorily mandated emissions rate
ranges. Section 45V(c)(2)(A) defines the
term qualified clean hydrogen as hydro-
gen that is produced through a process that
results in a lifecycle greenhouse gas emis-
sions rate of not greater than 4 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen.
Section 45V does not expressly define
the term “process.” The plain meaning of
the term “process” is “a series of actions or
operations conducing to an end.”
11
In par-
ticular, for lifecycle assessment purposes,
the term “process” has been defined as a
“set of interrelated or interacting activi-
ties that transforms inputs into outputs.”
12

Building upon these definitions, combined
with the statutory distinctions between
processes that result in different specified
ranges of lifecycle GHG emissions rates,
the statutory text indicates that the term
“process” necessarily includes a degree of
uniformity and consistency among those
inputs that can meaningfully differ in their
GHG intensity. Section 45V(b)(2) pro-
vides varying credit amounts for hydrogen
that is “produced through a process that
results in a lifecycle greenhouse gas emis-
sions rate” that falls into specified ranges.
The term “process” must therefore mean
more than just the production technique
because the same production technique,
such as steam methane reforming, could
produce lifecycle GHG emissions rates
that fall into different ranges specified in
the statute depending on the inputs used.
The statute differentiates between “a pro-
cess that results in” one specified range of
GHG emissions rates from “a process that
results in” a different specified range of
GHG emissions rates. See section 45V(b)
(2)(A) through (D). The only effective
way to distinguish between hydrogen
production processes is to define the term
“process” with respect to both the produc-
tion technique and a class of uniform or
similar inputs used in that technique.
This interpretation of the term “pro-
cess” is consistent with the chemical
transformations that are used to produce
hydrogen, and with the language in sec-
tion 45V. Treating input feedstocks with
significantly different attributes as part
of the same hydrogen production process
(for example, by averaging the attributes
of multiple types of methane used over a
time period) often would not accurately
reflect the chemical dynamic whereby
each molecule of hydrogen originates from
distinct source-molecule inputs that have
distinct attributes affecting the lifecycle
emissions of each hydrogen molecule and,
as a result, often would not reflect the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of the resulting
hydrogen molecules, as required by the
statute. The most granular approach to
assessing lifecycle GHG emissions would
therefore be to match each molecule of
hydrogen with its molecular inputs and
identify the lifecycle emissions associated
with the resulting hydrogen. However,
this level of granularity is impractical to
administer and unnecessary to implement
the statute. The feasible and appropriate
approach to aggregating molecules is to
assess each hydrogen production process
by grouping source molecules into catego-
ries of primary feedstock.
This aggregation approach best imple-
ments the statutory requirements of section
45V because the production of hydrogen
using inputs with similar attributes can be
expected to produce consistent emissions
results, allowing the appropriate determi-
nation of eligibility and credit amounts
under section 45V. An approach that incor-
rectly assumed all hydrogen molecules are
a blend of feedstocks would not yield a cor-
rect lifecycle assessment, would have per-
verse incentive effects (as discussed subse-
quently in this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions), and would be
no more administrable than the approach
adopted in these final rules.
With the exception of geologic hydro-
gen, all hydrogen production processes
involve conversion of hydrogen-contain-
ing molecules into pure hydrogen. In elec-
trolysis, for example, the feedstock—the
source of the hydrogen molecules—is
water, which contains no carbon and
therefore does not directly produce carbon
dioxide (or other GHGs) in the production
of hydrogen. By contrast, in steam meth-
ane reforming, the feedstock is water and
methane, which produces hydrogen and
carbon dioxide when reformed. In pyroly-
sis, the feedstock is organic matter, which
produces hydrogen and solid carbon when
pyrolyzed. In methane pyrolysis, the feed-
stock is methane, which is converted into
hydrogen and solid carbon through the
application of high temperatures.
Energy attributes and lifecycle GHG
emissions can vary considerably among
hydrogen-containing feedstocks. For
instance, the water inputs into electrolysis
generally have limited upstream emissions
and zero direct GHG emissions from the
chemical reaction that produces hydrogen.
Hydrocarbon inputs into methane reform-
ing produce a standard quantity of direct
emissions through the chemical reaction
that produces hydrogen, but upstream
emissions vary considerably for different
sources. Different hydrocarbon inputs
have significantly different upstream prac-
tices (for example, methods of gathering,
processing, or delivery) and counterfactu-
als, among other factors, which result in
dramatic differences in resulting lifecycle
GHG emissions rates of producing hydro-
gen from that methane source.
Because of the potential for significant
variation in the lifecycle GHG emissions
rates associated with different inputs, and
the structure of section 45V, it is necessary
to assess hydrogen production using dif-
ferent hydrogen-containing feedstocks as
distinct processes. Accordingly, these final
regulations distinguish processes based
on their hydrogen-containing feedstock,
which is referred to in these final regu-
lations as a “primary feedstock.” A “pri-
mary feedstock” is defined in §1.45V-1(a)
(11) as a hydrogen-containing chemical
that is transformed to produce hydrogen
at a hydrogen production facility and has
11
Process, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/process.
12
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14040:2006, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework (2d ed. 2006).

March 24, 2025 1274 Bulletin No. 2025–13
uniform or similar attributes distinguished
by the source from which it is derived, if
such source materially affects the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate associated with
use of the chemical to produce hydrogen.
If the term “process” were instead inter-
preted to encompass feedstocks with sig-
nificantly different attributes as relevant
to determining lifecycle GHG emissions,
then the approach to determining whether
a “process” has comported with statutorily
prescribed lifecycle GHG emissions rate
ranges for the purposes of determining the
amount of the section 45V credit would
not effectively, in fact, incentivize the
production of hydrogen within a specific
lifecycle GHG emissions rate range. For
example, allowing a process to calculate
a single emissions rate based on a mix of
feedstocks with disparate attributes would
increase the risk that hydrogen produc-
tion that would otherwise not meet the
statutory emissions requirements receives
the section 45V credit simply by virtue
of being commingled or averaged with
hydrogen production that does meet the
statutory emissions requirements using
other inputs. This would be a foresee-
able and inappropriate result if, as several
comments urged, the term “process” were
interpreted as any activities and inputs
that resulted in the production of a kilo-
gram of hydrogen. The statute’s singular
reference to “a process” and “a lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions rate” indicates
that the statutory references to the term
“process” requires evaluation on the basis
of each specific process, with uniformity
and consistency across its operations and
primary feedstock that generally results
in a consistent lifecycle GHG emissions
rate. Defining the term “process” based
solely on the type of a facility’s opera-
tions that produce hydrogen (for example,
steam methane reforming or autothermal
reforming) is not appropriate because such
operations could rely on feedstocks with
materially different attributes and carbon
intensities, which would result in very dif-
ferent lifecycle GHG emission rates that
would not be observable if feedstocks are
aggregated. Thus, feedstocks to a process
should have attributes with a sufficient
degree of uniformity and consistency to
be considered part of the same “process.”
Separately evaluating each hydrogen
production process at a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility is consistent
with the statutory language and scheme of
section 45V, which requires accuracy in
determining “a lifecycle [GHG] emissions
rate” for hydrogen produced via “a pro-
cess.” See section 45V(c)(2)(A).
For these reasons, consistent with the
transformation of feedstock in the produc-
tion of hydrogen, §1.45V-1(a)(11) defines
the term “process” to mean the operations
conducted by a facility to produce hydro-
gen (for example, electrolysis or steam
methane reforming) during a taxable year
using one primary feedstock. A facility
producing hydrogen through electrolysis,
for example, will have a single hydrogen
production process in a taxable year with
water as its primary feedstock. Electricity
with different attributes would not result
in distinct processes because electricity is
not a primary feedstock (that is, it is not
contributing hydrogen atoms to the hydro-
gen molecule); additionally, electricity
cannot be differentiated at the molecular
level. Electricity and heat are integral to
the operations of hydrogen production
facilities, and the form of energy used by
a facility (for example, electricity versus
heat) plays an essential role in discerning
different hydrogen production processes.
The energy powering a facility’s opera-
tions enables the chemical transformation
of molecular feedstocks into hydrogen, but
energy does not itself contribute atoms to
the hydrogen produced by a facility. Thus,
the final regulations do not treat electric-
ity and heat as primary feedstocks, but
instead require tracking and assessing the
emissions associated with energy used in a
process through different mechanisms, as
described in part III.D of this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions
and specified in 45VH2-GREET. For a
facility that produces hydrogen through
steam methane reforming using fossil
natural gas, for example, the combination
of fossil natural gas and water would be
considered one primary feedstock because
hydrogen molecules derive from both
fossil natural gas and water and this form
of hydrogen production requires use of
both water and methane. Thus, a facility
producing hydrogen exclusively through
reforming of fossil natural gas with water
would have a single hydrogen produc-
tion process in a taxable year. A facility
producing hydrogen through reforming
of both fossil natural gas and RNG from
animal manure with water would have
two hydrogen production processes in
that year; the primary feedstock for one
process would be fossil natural gas and
water, and the primary feedstock for the
other process would be RNG from animal
manure and water.
As further specified in the 45VH2-
GREET User Manual and reflected in
45VH2-GREET, some types of primary
feedstocks are distinguished by their ori-
gin (for example, methane from a specific
source), as well as attributes of that source
as relevant to determining lifecycle GHG
emissions. While these final regulations
cannot anticipate and address all possible
primary feedstocks that may be utilized
for hydrogen production, the Treasury
Department and the IRS note that it is
currently appropriate to treat fossil natural
gas, RNG derived from landfill gas, RNG
derived from animal waste, RNG derived
from wastewater treatment plants, and gas
derived from coal mine methane as dis-
tinct primary feedstocks. If a facility uses
any of these gas streams in combination
with water via interdependent steps (for
example, in the case of reforming), then
the combination of that gas stream (for
example, fossil natural gas, RNG derived
from landfill gas, etc.) and water is a sin-
gular primary feedstock. Such treatment
implements the definition of primary
feedstock adopted here, which treats as a
single feedstock that which has uniform
or similar attributes distinguished by the
source from which it is derived, if such
source materially affects the lifecycle
GHG emissions associated with use of the
molecule to produce hydrogen.
If a facility utilizes more than one pri-
mary feedstock to produce hydrogen, then
that facility will have an equal number of
separate hydrogen production processes
that each must be assessed separately to
determine a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate for the quantity of hydrogen pro-
duced through that process for purposes
of section 45V. For example, if a taxpayer
procures RNG sourced from a blend of
sources, the taxpayer must account for the
share of RNG derived from each source
distinctly within 45VH2-GREET or an
Emissions Value Request Application.
Future releases of 45VH2-GREET and
analyses conducted through the DOE’s

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1275 March 24, 2025
EVRP may address additional primary
feedstocks, but any new primary feed-
stock must also be treated as distinct.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that there is precedent for this type of
approach for assessing emissions associ-
ated with the production of fuels. The RFS
is another example of a framework that
requires a determination of what activities
should be aggregated or separated for pur-
poses of lifecycle analysis to determine
GHG emissions. Similar to the approach
provided for here, the RFS conducts
LCAs for distinct feedstock-technolo-
gy-output combinations because those
combinations have the potential to have
distinct lifecycle emissions that should be
credited differently under the RFS’s statu-
tory scheme. See “Regulation of Fuels and
Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable
Fuel Standard Program,” 75 FR 14670,
14713 (Mar. 26, 2010) (EPA final regula-
tion providing that different combinations
of feedstock, production process, and fuel
that result in different lifecycle GHG out-
comes must be evaluated separately).
8. Qualified Clean Hydrogen
Section 45V(c)(2)(A) provides that
“qualified clean hydrogen” means hydro-
gen which is produced through a process
that results in a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of not greater than 4 kilograms of
CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen. Fur-
ther, section 45V(c)(2)(B) provides that
such term does not include any hydrogen
unless the production and sale or use of
such hydrogen is verified by an unrelated
party, and such hydrogen is produced in
the United States (as defined in section
638(1) of the Code) or a United States
possession (as defined in section 638(2));
in the ordinary course of a trade or busi-
ness of the taxpayer; and for sale or use.
Proposed §1.45V-1(a)(9) substantially
repeats the statutory definition.
Several comments requested clarifica-
tion on the definition of “qualified clean
hydrogen.” Some comments requested
clarification that hydrogen does not need
to be of a certain level of purity to consti-
tute “qualified clean hydrogen.” Specif-
ically, comments requested clarification
that “qualified clean hydrogen” includes
hydrogen that is produced as one of sev-
eral constituents in a gas stream so long
as the gas stream is valorized. The com-
ments suggested that the statute does not
specify that the hydrogen production
must isolate the hydrogen or that the gas
stream containing the hydrogen achieve a
certain threshold hydrogen content to be
eligible for the credit. These comments
further suggested that requiring hydro-
gen to be separated from other compo-
nents in a gas stream when those compo-
nents would be immediately recombined
with the hydrogen would be inefficient.
One comment requested clarification
on whether there are specific metering
requirements for monitoring the purity of
the hydrogen.
These final regulations do not modify
the definition of “qualified clean hydro-
gen” to specify a certain level of purity,
or to specify that no level of purity is
required. A purity requirement does not
need to be added to the definition of “qual-
ified clean hydrogen” because 45VH2-
GREET already accounts for impurities
by assessing the well-to-gate emissions of
a hydrogen production facility over only
the kilograms of pure hydrogen produced.
The treatment of mixed gases or impuri-
ties is further discussed in part I.A.6.d. of
this Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions.
The decisions to characterize well-to-
gate emissions of hydrogen based only
on the kilograms of pure hydrogen pro-
duced, and to address impurities through
the well-to-gate lifecycle GHG emissions
analysis (in 45VH2-GREET or the PER
process)—rather than by requiring hydro-
gen to be of a certain level of purity—are
consistent with Congress’s directive under
section 45V(c)(1)(A) and (B) to determine
lifecycle GHG emissions as defined under
section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act
and 45VH2-GREET.
As to the request for clarification
on whether there are specific metering
requirements for monitoring the purity
of the hydrogen, as discussed in this part,
impurities are accounted for through the
well-to-gate lifecycle GHG emissions
analysis (in 45VH2-GREET or the PER
process). Metering requirements for all
relevant inputs into 45VH2-GREET,
including purity, are addressed in §1.45V-
5(g)(5), and no special metering require-
ments for purity, apart from those speci-
fied in §1.45V-5(g)(5), are needed.
9. For Sale or Use
For purposes of section 45V(c)(2)(B)
(i)(III) and proposed §1.45V-1(a)(9)(i)
(C), proposed §1.45V-1(a)(9)(ii) would
have provided that, the term “for sale or
use” means for the primary purpose of
making hydrogen ready and available for
sale or use. Following production, storage
of hydrogen before its sale or use would
not disqualify such hydrogen from being
considered produced for sale or use. No
comments were received on proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(9)(ii), and this provision is
adopted without change as renumbered
§1.45V-1(a)(13)(ii).
B. Amount of Credit
1. In General
Under section 45V(a), the clean hydro-
gen production credit is based on the
amount of qualified clean hydrogen pro-
duced “during the 10-year period begin-
ning on the date such facility was origi-
nally placed in service” multiplied by the
applicable amount identified in section
45V(b). Proposed §1.45V-1(b)(1) would
have incorporated this calculation of the
amount of credit by providing that the
amount of the section 45V credit deter-
mined under section 45V(a) and the sec-
tion 45V regulations for any taxable year
is the product of the kilograms of qualified
clean hydrogen produced by the taxpayer
during such taxable year at a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility during
the 10-year period beginning on the date
such facility was originally placed in ser-
vice, multiplied by the applicable amount
with respect to such hydrogen.
Several comments requested changes
related to the 10-year credit period and
the placed in service date specified in
proposed §1.45V-1(b)(1). One comment
requested that the 10-year credit period
be tolled for circumstances beyond the
taxpayer’s control or during periods of
diminished capacity. Another comment
requested that the placed in service date
of a qualified clean hydrogen production
facility be delayed until operational test-
ing is complete and commercial quantities
of hydrogen are produced. Another com-
ment requested that the final regulations
provide that a qualified clean hydrogen

March 24, 2025 1276 Bulletin No. 2025–13
production facility cannot be placed in
service until after December 31, 2022.
This comment suggested that, prior to Jan-
uary 1, 2023, it was impossible to produce
qualified clean hydrogen because section
45V, which established what is qualified
clean hydrogen, did not become effective
until that date. Thus, this comment sug-
gested, no hydrogen production facility
could properly be treated as having been
placed in service as a “qualified clean
hydrogen production facility” until that
date.
Another comment requested clarifica-
tion of the requirements for pre-existing
facilities that were originally placed in
service prior to the enactment of section
45V and the extent to which such facili-
ties can claim the section 45V credit for
the years remaining in the 10-year period
beginning on the date such facilities were
originally placed in service.
These final regulations do not adopt
the changes to proposed §1.45V-1(b)(1)
recommended by these comments. Sec-
tion 45V(a) establishes that the credit is
based, in part, on the placed in service
date and the definition of “placed in ser-
vice” is sufficiently clear as an established
tax concept. Section 1.46-3(d)(1) provides
that, for purposes of the section 38 credit
(which includes the clean hydrogen pro-
duction credit determined under section
45V, see section 38(b)(36)), property is
considered placed in service in the earlier
of the taxable year in which, under the tax-
payer’s depreciation practice, the period
for depreciation with respect to such prop-
erty begins; or the taxable year in which
the property is placed in a condition or
state of readiness and availability for a
specifically assigned function, whether in
a trade or business, in the production of
income, in a tax-exempt activity, or in a
personal activity. Examples of property
that is considered in a condition or state
of readiness and availability for a specif-
ically assigned function are set forth in
§1.46-3(d)(2). Section 1.46-3(d)(2)(ii)
provides that operational farm equipment
that is acquired during the taxable year
and is not practicable to use until the fol-
lowing year is still considered ready and
available for its assigned function in the
taxable year. Section 1.46-3(d)(2)(iii) pro-
vides that equipment that is operational
but is still undergoing testing to eliminate
any defects is still considered ready and
available for its assigned function. These
examples clarify that property can be
ready and available for its assigned func-
tion regardless of the level of production
attained.
Various revenue rulings and case law
have established a five-factor test for
determining when a facility is placed in
service, including (1) whether the nec-
essary permits for operation have been
obtained; (2) whether critical preoper-
ational testing has been completed; (3)
whether the taxpayer has control of the
facility; (4) whether the unit has been
synchronized with the transmission grid;
and (5) whether daily or regular operation
has begun. See Ampersand Chowchilla
Biomass, LLC v. United States, 150 Fed.
Cl. 620 (2020) (citing Rev. Rul. 84-85,
1984-1 C.B. 10; Rev. Rul. 79-98, 1979-1
C.B. 103; Rev. Rul. 76-256, 1976-2 C.B.
46; and Rev. Rul. 76-428, 1976-2 C.B.
47), aff’d, 26 F.4th 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
No one factor is dispositive.
Determining the date on which a qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
was placed in service is inherently fact
intensive, and the existing case law and
revenue rulings are sufficient for taxpay-
ers to determine their facility’s placed in
service date. Relying upon existing stan-
dards provides sufficient clarity to taxpay-
ers and avoids the confusion of creating
multiple placed in service standards.
Regarding whether the final regu-
lations should provide that the 10-year
credit period is tolled to account for cir-
cumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control
or during periods of a facility’s dimin-
ished capacity, the 10-year credit period
is a statutory requirement under section
45V(a)(1), and there is no provision that
provides an exception to this statutory
rule.
Regarding whether the final regulations
should clarify that a qualified clean hydro-
gen production facility cannot be placed
in service until after December 31, 2022,
the Treasury Department and the IRS clar-
ify in this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions that a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility may
have been placed in service prior to Jan-
uary 1, 2023. First, section 45V does not
specify an earliest date on which a qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
must be placed in service to be eligible for
the section 45V credit, and as explained in
the Explanation of Provisions to the pro-
posed regulations, the owner of a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility orig-
inally placed in service after December
31, 2012, can claim the section 45V credit
for qualified clean hydrogen produced
during at least some portion of the 10-year
period described in section 45V(a)(1),
provided all other requirements are met.
Second, providing a rule that a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility can-
not be placed in service until January 1,
2023, would conflict with section 45V(d)
(4), which provides that a facility that did
not produce qualified clean hydrogen and
that was originally placed in service prior
to January 1, 2023, can receive a new,
deemed placed in service date as of the
date the facility is modified after Decem-
ber 31, 2022, to produce qualified clean
hydrogen. If, as the comment suggests, no
qualified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity could be placed in service until January
1, 2023, then existing hydrogen produc-
tion facilities would receive a new placed
in service date regardless of whether they
meet the requirements of section 45V(d)
(4), rendering section 45V(d)(4) superflu-
ous. Third, under the comment’s reading,
no qualified clean hydrogen production
facility could be placed in service until
the hydrogen production and its sale or
use is verified, as those are requirements
to have qualified clean hydrogen. Verifi-
cation might not occur until a taxable year
following the year in which the hydro-
gen was produced, which would prevent
the credit from being determined in the
first taxable year of production. Fifth, the
comment’s reading conflicts with section
6417(b)(5), which makes clear that a qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
can be originally placed in service prior
to January 1, 2023. See section 6417(b)
(5) (an applicable credit includes “[s]
o much of the credit for production of
clean hydrogen determined under section
45V(a) as is attributable to qualified clean
hydrogen production facilities which are
originally placed in service after Decem-
ber 31, 2012.”).
Finally, regarding the requirements
and extent to which pre-existing facili-
ties that were originally placed in service
prior to the enactment of section 45V can

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1277 March 24, 2025
claim the section 45V credit, for the rea-
sons explained herein, this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions
clarifies that the owner of a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility originally
placed in service prior to the enactment
of section 45V but after December 31,
2012, can claim the section 45V credit
for the qualified clean hydrogen produced
during at least some portion of the 10-year
period described in section 45V(a)(1),
provided all other requirements are met.
Thus, owners of pre-existing facilities can
potentially claim the section 45V credit
for the remaining portion of the 10-year
credit period. Alternatively, a pre-existing
facility can receive a new date on which it
is considered originally placed in service
if it satisfies the requirements of §1.45V-
6(a) (regarding the modification of an
existing facility to produce qualified clean
hydrogen) or (b) (regarding the retrofitting
of an existing hydrogen production facil-
ity).
2. Producer of Qualified Clean Hydrogen
For purposes of section 45V(a)(1)
and proposed §1.45V-1(b)(1), proposed
§1.45V-1(b)(2) would have provided that
the term “taxpayer” means the taxpayer
that owns the qualified clean hydrogen
production facility at the time of the facil-
ity’s production of qualified clean hydro-
gen with respect to which the section 45V
credit is claimed, regardless of whether
such taxpayer is treated as a producer
under section 263A of the Code or under
any other provision of law with respect to
such hydrogen.
One comment asked whether the
phrase “treated as a producer under sec-
tion 263A” in proposed §1.45V-1(b)(2)
has the same meaning as “produced by
the taxpayer” under section 45X(a)(1)
(A). To clarify, the term “produced by
the taxpayer” as used in section 45X(a)
(1)(A) is defined in §1.45X-1(c) and
that definition does not apply for pur-
poses of section 45V. Section 45X and
§1.45X-1(c) address the production of
eligible components as that term is used
in section 45X, and not the production
of hydrogen for purposes of section 45V.
Therefore, taxpayers must determine
whether they are considered the producer
of the qualified clean hydrogen for pur-
poses of determining the credit under
section 45V using the definition provided
in §1.45V-1(b)(2), and not by reference
to the definition of “produced by the tax-
payer” under §1.45X-1(c).
Under section 45V(a)(1) and (c)(3)(A),
the taxpayer must be both the owner of
the qualified clean hydrogen production
facility and the producer of qualified clean
hydrogen at the facility to be eligible for
the section 45V credit, respectively. The
intent of proposed §1.45V-1(b)(2) was to
clarify that, for purposes of section 45V(a)
(1) and §1.45V-1(b)(1), the “taxpayer” for
these purposes is the owner of the quali-
fied clean hydrogen production facility at
the time the hydrogen is produced, regard-
less of whether the owner is required to
capitalize costs under section 263A and
§1.263A-2(a), which provide rules relat-
ing to property produced by the taxpayer.
As explained in the Explanation of Pro-
visions to the proposed regulations, the
definition of “taxpayer” in §1.45V-1(b)(2)
is intended, among other things, to avoid
unintended consequences that could arise
under §1.263A-2(a)(1)(ii)(A) and (B)
(1) with respect to contract manufactur-
ing and tolling arrangements in the con-
text of the section 45V credit. For exam-
ple, under §1.45V-1(b)(1), an owner of a
hydrogen production facility that enters
into an arrangement with a third party ser-
vice recipient to produce qualified clean
hydrogen using the service recipient’s raw
materials and inputs in exchange for a fee
(a toller) is considered the producer of
the qualified clean hydrogen for purposes
of section 45V regardless of whether the
toller is required to capitalize costs of pro-
ducing the qualified clean hydrogen under
section 263A. The final regulations pro-
vide the intended clarification described
previously in this paragraph to §1.45V-
1(b)(2).
3. Increased Credit Amount for Qualified
Clean Hydrogen
Proposed §1.45V-1(b)(3) contained a
cross-reference to §1.45V-3, which pro-
vides rules under section 45V(e) that per-
mit the amount of the section 45V credit
determined under section 45V(a) and
§1.45V-1(b)(1) to be multiplied by five if
certain requirements related to prevailing
wages and apprenticeships are met.
Several comments were received relat-
ing to the prevailing wage and appren-
ticeship requirements of section 45V(e).
Rules addressing the prevailing wage and
apprenticeship requirements of section
45V(e) are provided in §1.45V-3, which
is not included in this rulemaking. See
TD 9998, Increased Amounts of Credit or
Deduction for Satisfying Certain Prevail-
ing Wage and Registered Apprenticeship
Requirements (89 FR 53184). Accord-
ingly, comments addressing the prevailing
wage and apprenticeship requirements
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
These final regulations adopt the lan-
guage in proposed §1.45V-1(b)(3) without
change.
C. Determination of Credit
Proposed §1.45V-1(c) would have
provided that, subject to any applicable
Code sections that may limit the section
45V credit amount, the section 45V credit
for any taxable year is determined with
respect to the qualified clean hydrogen
produced by the taxpayer during that tax-
able year, although the verification of the
production and sale or use of such hydro-
gen may occur in a later taxable year. The
taxpayer would not be eligible to claim
the section 45V credit with respect to that
hydrogen until all relevant verification
requirements, and the verification itself,
have been completed. Therefore, despite
such verification occurring in a later tax-
able year, the section 45V credit would be
properly claimed with respect to the tax-
able year of hydrogen production and sub-
ject to the general period of limitations for
filing a claim for credit or refund. Thus,
if verification occurred after the extended
return filing due date for the taxable year
in which the hydrogen was produced, the
taxpayer would need to file an amended
return or administrative adjustment
request (AAR), as applicable, to claim
the section 45V credit for such produced
hydrogen.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
requested comments on proposed §1.45V-
1(c), and whether taxpayers anticipated
that they would be able to complete all
the requirements for claiming the section
45V credit, including the requirements for
verification specified in proposed §1.45V-
5, by the extended return filing deadline

March 24, 2025 1278 Bulletin No. 2025–13
for the taxable year of hydrogen produc-
tion. Comments were also requested on
whether alternatives existed.
Several comments suggested alterna-
tives to the requirement in §1.45V-1(c)
that the credit is determined in the tax-
able year of hydrogen production. Some
comments expressed concern that a late
verification report, filed after the extended
return filing deadline for the taxable year
of hydrogen production, would preclude
taxpayers from making an elective pay-
ment under section 6417 or transfer elec-
tion under section 6418, as the necessary
elections under those statutes cannot be
made on an amended return or AAR. See
sections 6417(d)(3) and 6418(e)(1).
One comment recommended that tax-
payers be allowed to claim the section
45V credit initially without a verification
report, then once the verification report
for the relevant taxable year is eventually
submitted, the credit amount is “trued
up,” with either the government or the
taxpayer remitting funds to reflect the
verified emissions rate and amount of pro-
duction. Some comments requested tax-
payers be allowed to make or change an
election under section 6417 or 6418 on an
amended return or AAR if they are claim-
ing a section 45V credit on such amended
return or AAR. Another comment pro-
posed only requiring verification when
there has been a change in the operation
of a taxpayer’s hydrogen production facil-
ity since the last verification, claiming that
this would reduce the risk of late verifi-
cations precluding monetization elections.
Finally, one comment asked that taxpayers
be allowed to claim the section 45V credit
and make an elective payment election or
transfer election prior to the formal com-
pletion of the verification report to avoid
missing the extended return filing dead-
line due to a late verification report.
These final regulations do not adopt
these comments suggesting revisions to
the requirements of proposed §1.45V-
1(c). First, based on the comments
received on the timing of verification, the
Treasury Department and the IRS antici-
pate that qualified verifiers will be able to
verify a taxpayer’s production and sale or
use of hydrogen by the deadline for filing
the taxpayer’s Federal income tax return,
including extensions, so there should be
no issue with making a timely elective
payment or transfer election under section
6417 or 6418, respectively. Second, the
requirement that the credit is determined
in the taxable year of hydrogen produc-
tion adheres to the requirement in section
45V(a)(1) that the section 45V credit for
any taxable year is determined based on
the kilograms of qualified clean hydrogen
produced by the taxpayer during such tax-
able year. Providing a rule that the credit is
determined in a year other than the taxable
year of hydrogen production—such as the
year of verification—would potentially
create a timing mismatch between the
taxable year in which the hydrogen is pro-
duced and creditable under section 45V(a)
(1) and the taxable year in which the sec-
tion 45V credit for such production can
be claimed. Third, comments suggesting
modifications to the rules regarding elec-
tive payment elections or transferability
elections under sections 6417 and 6418,
respectively, are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking under section 45V.
Regarding the comments recommend-
ing exceptions to the verification require-
ments or allowing taxpayers to file verifi-
cation reports after the section 45V credit
has been claimed, the requirement that the
production and sale or use of the hydrogen
be verified is statutorily prescribed in sec-
tion 45V(c)(2)(B)(ii), so these final reg-
ulations adopt the language in proposed
§1.45V-1(c) without change.
II. Special Rules
A. Coordination with Credit for Carbon
Oxide Sequestration
Section 45V(d)(2) provides that no
section 45V credit is allowed for any qual-
ified clean hydrogen produced at a facility
which includes carbon capture equipment
for which a section 45Q credit is allowed
to any taxpayer for the taxable year or any
prior taxable year.
Proposed §1.45V-2(a) would have fol-
lowed that statutory provision and addi-
tionally provided that if the so-called
“80/20 Rule” provided in §1.45Q-2(g)
(5) is satisfied with respect to such carbon
capture equipment, and no new section
45Q credit has been allowed to any tax-
payer for such carbon capture equipment,
then the unit of carbon capture equipment
(as defined in §1.45Q-2(c)(3)) for which
the 80/20 Rule is satisfied will not be
treated as carbon capture equipment for
which a section 45Q credit was allowed
to any taxpayer for any prior taxable year
for purposes of section 45V(d)(2) and pro-
posed §1.45V-2(a).
Further, proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)
(i) would have clarified that equipment
(which includes carbon capture equip-
ment) that functions interdependently
with other components of property to pro-
duce qualified clean hydrogen is part of
the qualified clean hydrogen production
facility, and proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(ii)
(B) would have clarified that electricity
production equipment used to power the
hydrogen production process, including
any carbon capture equipment associated
with the electricity production process, is
not part of the qualified clean hydrogen
production facility.
Several comments requested clar-
ification that a separate, independent
production line containing carbon cap-
ture equipment for which a section 45Q
credit is allowed and that is co-located
with a hydrogen production facility at a
single industrial site does not disqualify
the hydrogen production facility from
the section 45V credit. For example, one
comment requested clarification that an
electricity generation facility that is co-lo-
cated and interconnected with the hydro-
gen production facility, and for which the
section 45Q credit is allowed, will not dis-
qualify the hydrogen production facility
from the section 45V credit. Conversely,
some comments recommended that the
final regulations modify proposed §1.45V-
1(a)(7)(ii)(B) to disallow the section 45V
credit for hydrogen produced using elec-
tricity that was generated by an electricity
generation facility for which the section
45Q credit is allowed.
One comment appeared to seek clar-
ification that “allowed,” with respect to
section 45V(d)(2), means the taxpayer has
claimed the section 45Q credit on their tax
return, not merely that they are eligible for
claiming the section 45Q credit. The same
comment requested confirmation that a
taxpayer can claim the section 45V credit
and then claim the section 45Q credit in a
later taxable year on the same facility.
Finally, one comment requested an
exception to section 45V(d)(2) to allow
a taxpayer to claim both the section 45Q

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1279 March 24, 2025
and section 45V credits on the same facil-
ity if the facility combines hydrogen and
CO2 for the purpose of creating synthetic
molecules.
These final regulations are not modi-
fied in response to these comments. The
final regulations are sufficiently clear that
the section 45V(d)(2) rules coordinating
the section 45V credit with the section
45Q credit for carbon oxide sequestration
only apply to the qualified clean hydro-
gen production facility. The definition of
“facility” in §1.45V-1(a)(7), as clarified
in these final regulations and described
in greater detail in part I.A.4 of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, means all the components
that function interdependently to produce
clean hydrogen through a process that
results in the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
used to determine the credit, but does not
include electricity production equipment
used to power the hydrogen production
process. Further, disallowing the section
45V credit for hydrogen produced using
electricity generated at a facility contain-
ing carbon capture equipment for which
a section 45Q credit has been allowed
would require modifying the definition
of “facility” at §1.45V-1(a)(7) to include
electricity production equipment. It would
also present serious horizontal equity con-
cerns for hydrogen producers who co-lo-
cate with electricity generators and those
who do not. Therefore, electricity produc-
tion equipment that powers the hydrogen
production process and contains carbon
capture equipment for which a section
45Q credit is allowed will not disqualify
the hydrogen production facility from the
section 45V credit. Further, these final
regulations do not modify the definition
of facility in §1.45V-1(a)(7) to address
specific co-located equipment used for
other industrial processes because cre-
ating a rule to specifically address such
co-located equipment is not necessary nor
possible, given that the determination will
depend on the facts and circumstances of
such equipment.
Regarding the meaning of the term
“allowed,” such term generally means that
the item was claimed on the return and not
challenged by the IRS. See generally Vir-
ginian Hotel Corp. of Lynchburg v. Hel-
vering, 319 U.S. 523, 526-27 (1943); Lenz
v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 260, 264-65
(1993). The meaning of “allowed” is suffi-
ciently clear as an established tax concept,
as its definition derives from case law and
general tax principles, and because the
term “allowed” appears so frequently in
the Code and its accompanying regula-
tions.
Regarding whether a taxpayer can
claim a section 45Q credit in a subse-
quent taxable year, section 45V(d)(2) con-
tains no such prohibition, so the statute
is already sufficiently clear and does not
need further clarification.
Finally, regarding the comment’s
request for an exception to section 45V(d)
(2) for the creation of synthetic molecules,
the prohibition on claiming the section
45V credit on a facility for which a sec-
tion 45Q credit has already been allowed
is statutory, and the statute provides no
such exception.
Accordingly, these final regulations
adopt §1.45V-2(a) as proposed.
B. Anti-Abuse Rule
Section 45V(c)(2)(B)(i) provides,
among other things, that hydrogen is not
qualified clean hydrogen unless it is pro-
duced in the ordinary course of a trade or
business of the taxpayer, and for sale or
use.
Section 45V(f) empowers the Secre-
tary to issue regulations or other guidance
to carry out the purposes of section 45V.
Proposed §1.45V-2(b)(1) would have
disallowed the section 45V credit where
the primary purpose of the production
and sale or use of qualified clean hydro-
gen was to obtain the section 45V credit
in a manner that is wasteful. Proposed
§1.45V-2(b)(1) would have provided as an
example the production of qualified clean
hydrogen that the taxpayer knows or has
reason to know will be vented, flared, or
used to produce hydrogen. This proposed
rule is referred to as the “anti-abuse rule.”
Proposed §1.45V-5(d)(1) would have
provided, among other things, that the
qualified verifier must attest that a person
has sold or made a verifiable use of such
hydrogen. Proposed §1.45V-5(d)(2) would
have provided that a person’s verifiable
use of hydrogen undergoing verification
“does not include—(i) Use of hydrogen to
generate electricity that is then directly or
indirectly used in the production of more
hydrogen; or (ii) venting or flaring of
hydrogen.” This proposed rule is referred
to as the “verifiable use rule.”
Many comments in response to the
proposed regulations made suggestions or
asked for clarification regarding the prohi-
bition in proposed §1.45V-2(b)(1) against
the sale or use of hydrogen for the pri-
mary purpose of obtaining the section 45V
credit in a wasteful manner, often asking
that the prohibition not apply to a particu-
lar scenario or set of circumstances.
Some comments recommended rules
or asked for clarification regarding the
prohibition in proposed §1.45V-2(b)(1)
against hydrogen production that the tax-
payer knows or has reason to know will
be vented or flared. These comments
noted that venting and flaring are often
required for routine safety or maintenance
purposes and contended that such use of
venting and flaring should not disqualify
facilities from credit eligibility. However,
in order to align with the purpose of sec-
tion 45V and safeguard against abuse, one
of these comments asked that the Treasury
Department and the IRS more clearly state
that it is the amount of clean hydrogen
sold or used, not produced, that ultimately
determines the credit amount.
One comment asked for explicit assur-
ance that hydrogen produced and sold for
use in energy storage would not run afoul
of the anti-abuse rule when the stored
energy is later used to produce hydrogen.
Some comments suggested disallow-
ing the section 45V credit for hydrogen
that is produced at the same time electric-
ity is generated from hydrogen-to-power
equipment that is physically connected via
pipeline.
Some comments expressed concern
that the anti-abuse rule would apply to
certain non-abusive scenarios where
hydrogen production facilities and hydro-
gen-based electricity generators operate
concurrently but are connected to the
same electric grid.
Another comment asked for clarifi-
cation that capturing excess heat from
hydrogen production, converting that heat
to electricity, and using that electricity to
power the production process does not run
afoul of the anti-abuse rule.
Some comments asked for clarification
that the anti-abuse rule does not apply to
instances where produced hydrogen, in

March 24, 2025 1280 Bulletin No. 2025–13
some cases from process waste streams,
is used to power the production facility,
resulting in lower emissions than would
otherwise be achieved.
One comment suggested that the anti-
abuse rule should not consider the cost
of producing qualified clean hydrogen
in relation to the amount of the section
45V credit because doing so would dis-
incentivize development of cost-efficient
hydrogen production technologies.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree that clarification of the anti-abuse
rule is appropriate. The DOE has advised
that venting of hydrogen downstream of
a hydrogen production facility is a stan-
dard industry practice where necessary for
safety or maintenance reasons. The DOE
has also advised that, in the future, flaring
of hydrogen that would otherwise have
been vented could become standard indus-
try practice to mitigate the environmen-
tal impacts of venting. Further, the DOE
has advised that concurrent operation of
hydrogen production and power genera-
tion within the same energy storage sys-
tem and at the same time may be wasteful
if no measures are taken to mitigate or
reduce the production and consumption
of the hydrogen at the same time; for
example, if an electrolytic hydrogen pro-
duction facility as standard practice is pro-
ducing hydrogen at the same time as the
produced hydrogen is being used to pro-
duce electricity. However, the Treasury
Department and the IRS clarify here that
the anti-abuse rule is not meant to apply
to the use of hydrogen to store energy for
later conversion to electricity and sale to
a regional electricity grid, when a buyer
from the grid uses such electricity to pro-
duce hydrogen.
Accordingly, these final regulations
clarify that the section 45V credit is not
allowable if the primary purpose of the
sale or use (rather than the production
and sale or use) of qualified clean hydro-
gen is to obtain the benefit of the section
45V credit in a manner that is wasteful.
Additionally, these final regulations clar-
ify that the taxpayer obtains the section
45V credit in a wasteful manner if the tax-
payer sells qualified clean hydrogen that
the taxpayer knows or has reason to know
will be vented, flared, used to produce
heat or power that is then directly used to
produce hydrogen, or otherwise used to
produce hydrogen, in excess of standard
commercial practices. Hydrogen is used to
produce power that is then directly used to
produce hydrogen if the hydrogen produc-
tion facility exclusively uses such power
to produce hydrogen or is treated as using
the power produced by the electricity gen-
erating facility using the hydrogen and
such use is verified by the acquisition and
retirement of qualifying EACs. Hydrogen
is not used to produce power that is then
directly used to produce hydrogen if the
power produced using hydrogen is merely
supplied to the same electricity grid from
which the hydrogen production facility
draws power. Proposed §1.45V-2(b)(1) is
further modified to provide that venting
or flaring for safety or maintenance rea-
sons in the ordinary course of business is
a non-abusive commercial industry prac-
tice. Consistent with the comment asking
for clarity that it is the amount of clean
hydrogen sold or used, not produced, that
ultimately determines the credit amount,
§1.45V-2(b) of the final regulations adds
that, while not abusive, such venting or
flaring is also not a verifiable use under
§1.45V-5(d)(2), and therefore any such
hydrogen that is vented or flared for safety
reasons is not eligible for the section 45V
credit. Finally, these final regulations mod-
ify the example in §1.45V-2(b)(2) (where
qualified clean hydrogen is sold to obtain
the benefit of the section 45V credit in a
manner that is wasteful and thus not eli-
gible for the section 45V credit) to reflect
that the hydrogen in that example will
be vented or flared in excess of standard
commercial practices and add an example
in §1.45V-5(d) to illustrate the verifiable
use rule in the context of a facility’s use
of its own hydrogen within its hydrogen
production process, flaring of hydrogen
for testing and maintenance, and waste
heat recovery.
Finally, the Treasury Department and
the IRS disagree with the comment’s
request that the anti-abuse rule be revised
to not consider the cost of producing
qualified clean hydrogen relative to the
amount of the section 45V credit. The cost
of hydrogen production relative to the
amount of the section 45V credit is just one
of many factors considered in the example
provided in §1.45V-2(b)(2). Whether a
particular taxpayer’s hydrogen production
activities violate the anti-abuse rule will
depend on all relevant facts and circum-
stances, and no one factor is controlling.
Because the cost of hydrogen production
relative to the value of the credit is not the
only relevant factor, the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS do not anticipate that
including it within the example will deter
investment in cost-efficient technologies.
A few comments asked that the anti-
abuse rule be significantly pared back or
removed altogether. One comment argued
that the anti-abuse rule’s prohibition of a
wasteful primary purpose has no basis in
the statute and is too broad to be autho-
rized by the “ordinary course of a trade
or business of the taxpayer” requirement
of section 45V(c)(2)(B)(i)(II). The same
comment proposed revising the anti-abuse
rule to disallow the section 45V credit
only where the taxpayer’s sole purpose is
to obtain the credit in a wasteful manner.
The same comment asserted that the
anti-abuse rule exacerbates uncertainty by
requiring that the rules of section 45V and
the section 45V regulations be applied in
a manner consistent with the purposes of
section 45V and the section 45V regula-
tions, while section 45V only authorizes
regulations that carry out the purposes of
the statute. The comment further argued
that the primary purpose examples of
wasteful “production of qualified clean
hydrogen that the taxpayer knows or has
reason to know will be vented, flared, or
used to produce hydrogen” have no foun-
dation in the statute. The comment asked
for clarification whether a producer hav-
ing a disqualifying purpose at the time of
production or sale is sufficient to disallow
the credit under proposed §1.45V-2(b)(1),
or if a disqualifying purpose at produc-
tion and sale is required. The comment
suggested that the example at proposed
§1.45V-2(b)(2) seems to indicate that a
disqualifying purpose at the time of sale
is sufficient to disallow the credit, while
proposed §1.45V-2(b)(1) seems to indi-
cate that a producer must have a disqual-
ifying purpose at production and sale for
the credit to be disallowed.
First, the argument that section 45V
provides no basis to support the prohibi-
tion of a wasteful primary purpose through
an anti-abuse rule is mistaken because (1)
the “for sale or use” requirement is plainly
a purpose requirement, and the anti-abuse
rule implements that purpose requirement;

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1281 March 24, 2025
in other words, Congress did not intend
that a nominal sale or use for purposes
of generating credit claims would entitle
taxpayers to the credit, but rather intended
that only a sale or use possessing some
degree of business purpose or economic
effect would suffice; (2) likewise, the “in
the ordinary course of a trade or business
of the taxpayer” requirement justifies an
anti-abuse rule since any activity with a
primary purpose of wastefully obtaining a
tax credit is not within the ordinary course
of a trade or business; and (3) section
45V(f) authorizes the promulgation of
regulations “to carry out the purposes of
this section” and the obvious purpose of
Congress to increase the supply of clean
hydrogen in the United States would be
undermined if credit claimants were not
required to make their hydrogen reason-
ably available to legitimate hydrogen con-
sumers. Hydrogen that is not so available
cannot affect hydrogen supply.
Second, regarding the comment’s
objection to the proposed anti-abuse rule’s
requirement that the rules of section 45V
and its regulations must be applied consis-
tently with the purposes of the regulations,
these final regulations do not modify the
language in the proposed regulations. The
section 45V regulations implement the
section 45V statute. Therefore, taxpayers
must apply the regulations consistently
with the purposes of both the statute and
its implementing regulations.
Third, the request that the proposed
anti-abuse rule be modified to only dis-
allow the section 45V credit where the
taxpayer’s “sole purpose” is to obtain the
credit in a wasteful manner is problematic.
The “primary purpose” requirement is the
appropriate standard, because a sole pur-
pose requirement could allow hydrogen
producers to argue entitlement to claim
the credit when nearly all their output is
knowingly wasted while asserting there is
some legitimate use for the small remain-
der thereof.
Fourth, the Treasury Department and
the IRS agree that a discrepancy exists
between the text of the proposed regu-
lations and the example that would have
followed regarding whether a wasteful
primary purpose at the time of production
or sale or use is sufficient to disallow the
credit under proposed §1.45V-2(b)(1), or
if a disqualifying purpose at production
and sale or use is required. Accordingly,
these final regulations adopt proposed
§1.45V-2(b) with modifications to the rule
and the example in order to clarify that
only a sale or use with the primary pur-
pose of obtaining the benefit of the section
45V credit in a wasteful manner is suffi-
cient to disallow the credit under §1.45V-
2(b)(1). Note, the requirements of §1.45V-
2(b)(1) are independent of the excessive
payment rules provided in §1.6417-6 and
the excessive credit transfer rules pro-
vided in §1.6418-5. Taxpayers making the
election under section 6417 or 6418 must
separately meet the requirements provided
in §§1.6417-6 and 1.6418-5.
C. Recordkeeping
Section 6001 provides, among other
things, that (1) every person liable for tax
under the Code shall keep such records
as the Secretary may from time to time
prescribe; and (2) whenever the Secre-
tary deems it necessary, she may require
any person, by regulations, to keep such
records as she deems sufficient to show
whether or not such person is liable for tax
under the Code.
Section 45V(e)(5) provides that the
Secretary shall issue such regulations or
other guidance as she determines neces-
sary to carry out the purposes of section
45V(e), including regulations or other
guidance which provides recordkeeping
or information reporting requirements for
purposes of administering the require-
ments of section 45V(e).
Proposed §1.45V-2(c) would have pro-
vided recordkeeping requirements for all
taxpayers claiming the section 45V credit,
including requirements related to the sec-
tion 45V(e) increased credit amount. No
comments addressed this provision. Pro-
posed §1.45V-2(c) is therefore adopted as
proposed.
III. Procedures for Determining Lifecycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rates for
Qualified Clean Hydrogen
A. In General
Proposed §1.45V-4(a) would have pro-
vided that the amount of the section 45V
credit is determined under section 45V(a)
and proposed §1.45V-1(b) based upon
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of all
hydrogen produced at a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility (as defined
in proposed §1.45V-1(a)(10)) during the
taxable year. This determination would be
required to be made following the close
of such taxable year and must include all
hydrogen production from the year. See
proposed §1.45V-4(b). Further, proposed
§1.45V-4(a) would have provided that
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate for pur-
poses of section 45V is determined under
the most recent GREET model (as defined
in proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii)). Finally,
proposed §1.45V-4(a) would have pro-
vided that in the case of any hydrogen for
which a lifecycle GHG emissions rate has
not been determined under the most recent
GREET model for purposes of section
45V, a taxpayer producing such hydrogen
would be permitted to file a petition for a
provisional emissions rate (PER) with the
Secretary for a determination of the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate with respect to
such hydrogen.
Some comments supported the pro-
posed requirement that taxpayers calcu-
late the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of
hydrogen produced at a hydrogen pro-
duction facility based on the aggregate
amount of hydrogen produced at the facil-
ity over the taxable year (that is, annual
emissions averaging). These comments
claimed that annual emissions averaging
is more straightforward and less admin-
istratively burdensome than alternative
methods. The comments also claimed that
annual emissions averaging is less prone
to being manipulated because it takes
into consideration all hydrogen produced
by the taxpayer over the taxable year.
The comments appeared to suggest that
sub-annual emissions averaging, where
taxpayers could potentially select certain
sub-annual periods of clean hydrogen pro-
duction to offset other sub-annual periods
of hydrogen production that would not
otherwise meet the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions levels required by section 45V, is
inconsistent with section 45V. Finally,
some comments argued that annual emis-
sions averaging is more aligned with the
capabilities of 45VH2-GREET and there-
fore would help to facilitate compliance.
In contrast, other comments requested
that hydrogen producers be permitted to
calculate the lifecycle GHG emissions

March 24, 2025 1282 Bulletin No. 2025–13
rate of hydrogen produced at their facil-
ity on a more granular basis, suggesting
changes to the definition of “emissions
through the point of production (well-to-
gate)” in proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(iii).
Comments maintained that determining
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate for all
hydrogen produced at a given hydrogen
production facility during a taxable year
is burdensome for taxpayers and creates
uncertainty and risk. Some comments
requested that lifecycle GHG emis-
sions be permitted to be calculated on
an hourly basis, including in the case of
hydrogen produced using electricity, and
in particular once the qualifying EAC
requirements require temporal matching
on an hourly basis (see part III.D.3.c of
this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions). Without calcula-
tion of lifecycle GHG emissions on an
hourly basis, according to these com-
ments, hours of hydrogen production that
do not have corresponding hourly EACs
could increase the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of all hydrogen produced for
the year—even hydrogen produced using
electricity represented by a corresponding
hourly EAC—which would be contrary
to the hourly matching principle. These
comments note the variability of cer-
tain renewable or zero-emissions energy
sources and the limited ability of hydrogen
production facilities to quickly ramp up
and down due to technical and economic
reasons. Still, other comments requested
that lifecycle GHG emissions be permit-
ted to be calculated on a kilogram-by-ki-
logram basis, or by batching kilograms of
hydrogen into distinct groups, to ensure
a more precise determination of a facil-
ity’s lifecycle GHG emissions rate. One
comment requested that, for facilities
placed in service before 2028, the credit
be determined with respect to the spe-
cific volumes of hydrogen that meet the
temporal matching EAC requirements of
proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(ii) rather than
according to the average lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of all hydrogen produced
at a qualified clean hydrogen production
facility on an annual basis.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
disagree with eliminating the require-
ment that, in general, the lifecycle GHG
emissions of a hydrogen production pro-
cess be calculated on an annual basis.
Section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air
Act defines “lifecycle GHG emissions”
as the aggregate quantity of GHG emis-
sions (including direct emissions and sig-
nificant indirect emissions such as signif-
icant emissions from land use changes),
as determined by the EPA. Determining
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of a
hydrogen production process, therefore,
requires taking the “aggregate” quantity
of emissions from a hydrogen production
process over the course of the taxable
year to derive a single emissions rate.
This is consistent with the determination
of the section 45V credit on an annual
basis. Section 45V(a)(1) provides that
“the clean hydrogen production credit for
any taxable year is an amount equal to
the product of the kilograms of qualified
clean hydrogen produced by the taxpayer
during such taxable year” (emphasis
added). Calculating lifecycle GHG emis-
sions for a hydrogen production process
on an annual basis, therefore, aligns with
the manner in which the section 45V
credit is determined.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
clarify that such annual determination is
made separately for each hydrogen pro-
duction process conducted at a hydrogen
production facility during the taxable
year. As a result, hydrogen producers will
be able to claim higher credit amounts for
producing qualified clean hydrogen using
lower-emitting hydrogen production pro-
cesses during the year, such as by using
feedstocks with lower carbon intensities.
For further discussion on process, see part
I.A.7 of this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions (explaining that
production using each type of primary
feedstock is considered a separate produc-
tion process).
However, once hourly matching is
required for qualifying EACs, hydrogen
produced through a process that uses elec-
tricity may be at risk of not qualifying
for the section 45V credit at an expected
amount if a small number of hours are not
covered by the acquisition and retirement
of qualifying EACs, which could occur as
a result of unforeseeable circumstances
beyond a taxpayer’s control.
Further, if a taxpayer believes it is
infeasible to secure EACs from renew-
able or zero-emissions sources for every
hour or a significant share of hours in a
taxable year, then calculating lifecycle
GHG emissions on an annual basis may
cause such taxpayer to have no incen-
tive to produce qualified clean hydrogen
or qualified clean hydrogen in the low-
est lifecycle GHG emissions tier. This is
inconsistent with the purposes of section
45V, which includes encouraging the pro-
duction of qualified clean hydrogen (with
a higher credit amount for hydrogen with
lower lifecycle GHG emissions rates) and
investments in hydrogen production facil-
ities and processes that produce qualified
clean hydrogen.
Section 1.45V-4(a)(2) of these final
regulations provides a method to mitigate
the risk associated with potential limita-
tions in the supply of qualifying EACs,
coupled with a guardrail to limit availabil-
ity of this election to processes in which
the taxpayer is producing qualified clean
hydrogen, calculated on an annual basis.
Specifically, proposed §1.45V-4(a) is
modified to provide that, solely for pur-
poses of determining the lifecycle GHG
emissions associated with a hydrogen
production facility’s use of electricity
generated on or after January 1, 2030, to
produce hydrogen, such emissions may
be determined on an hourly basis. If a tax-
payer utilizes this method, it must deter-
mine all emissions from the facility’s
use of electricity for the taxable year on
an hourly basis. On or after January 1,
2030, when hourly matching is required,
a facility’s lifecycle GHG emissions from
electricity for that hour will reflect the
attributes of the qualifying EAC acquired
and retired for that hour. In the case of
electricity use as part of the hydrogen
production process for which the taxpayer
does not acquire and retire a qualifying
EAC that reflects a specific hour in which
such electricity was generated on or after
January 1, 2030, the electricity emissions
for that hour is determined by assuming
that the facility is sourcing power with
emissions equal to the default electricity
emissions intensity within the regional
electricity grid. The January 2025 ver-
sion of the 45VH2-GREET User Manual
provides further information on how such
hourly accounting may be conducted in
45VH2-GREET. These final regulations
add §1.45V-4(a)(3)(i) and (ii) to provide
examples illustrating the calculation of the
lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the pro-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1283 March 24, 2025
cess used to produce hydrogen at a qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility,
determined on an annual and an hourly
basis, respectively.
This method is provided pursuant to
the authority in section 45V(f) to “issue
regulations or other guidance to carry
out the purposes of [section 45V].” With
respect to a facility’s use of electricity in
a hydrogen production process (including
a facility that produces hydrogen through
electrolysis, which is a single hydrogen
production process), these final regula-
tions modify the proposed rules to fur-
ther incentivize the production of clean
hydrogen in light of the temporal match-
ing requirement provided in §1.45V-4(d)
(3)(ii). In particular, once the qualify-
ing EAC requirements require temporal
matching on an hourly basis, in the case of
hydrogen produced using electricity that
is represented by a qualifying EAC, a tax-
payer who owns a facility that produces
hydrogen through a process that results in
annual emissions not greater than 4 kilo-
grams of CO2e per kilogram of hydro-
gen can elect to determine the emissions
associated with the electricity used in that
process on an hourly basis. This method
would enable hydrogen producers to mit-
igate the risk that limited availability of
qualifying EACs could adversely affect
eligibility for the section 45V credit for all
hydrogen from a single process.
This method is available only if the
process for which an election is made
achieves an annual lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of not greater than 4 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen for all
hydrogen produced pursuant to that pro-
cess during the taxable year. This guard-
rail advances the purposes of section 45V
because it provides added flexibility and
risk mitigation only in circumstances
where the hydrogen production process
produces hydrogen that, over the course
of the year, meets the definition of quali-
fied clean hydrogen on an annual basis. In
the absence of this condition, allowing the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
electricity used in a hydrogen production
process to be determined on an hourly
basis could encourage the production of
hydrogen through processes that do not
meet the emissions requirements of sec-
tion 45V, contrary to the statute and the
purpose of section 45V.
B. Use of 45VH2-GREET
Proposed §1.45V-4(b) would have
provided procedures to calculate the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of hydrogen
produced at a hydrogen production facil-
ity using the most recent GREET model
as defined in proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)
(ii) (referring to 45VH2-GREET). Pro-
posed §1.45V-4(b) would have further
provided that for each taxable year during
the period described in section 45V(a)(1),
a taxpayer claiming the section 45V credit
determines the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of hydrogen produced at a hydrogen
production facility within the interface of
45VH2-GREET.
The 45VH2-GREET User Manual
released in conjunction with the proposed
regulations provided that 45VH2-GREET
is expected to be updated on at least a
yearly basis. Moreover, it mentioned that
these updates are expected to include
representations of additional hydrogen
production processes and updates to back-
ground data (as supporting analysis is
completed by the Argonne National Lab-
oratory). This means that, under proposed
§1.45V-4(b), use of 45VH2-GREET
would result in taxpayers using an updated
version of 45VH2-GREET each taxable
year (insofar as such an update arises).
Multiple comments raised concern
about the requirement for taxpayers to use
a potentially updated version of 45VH2-
GREET each taxable year during the
10-year credit period due to uncertainty
about whether changes to 45VH2-GREET
may unexpectedly alter annual emissions
assessments, which would directly impact
the amount of the section 45V credit.
Several comments requested that taxpay-
ers be allowed to “lock in” the version of
45VH2-GREET that was available on the
date the “final investment decision” was
made. Similarly, several other comments
requested that taxpayers be allowed to use
the latest version of 45VH2-GREET that
was available on the date the hydrogen
production facility was placed in service
or the date when construction of the facil-
ity began (beginning of construction or
BOC). Some of these comments further
requested that taxpayers be allowed to use
subsequent updated versions of 45VH2-
GREET at their discretion. Finally, some
comments requested that taxpayers be
permitted to rely upon a single version of
45VH2-GREET unless and until there is a
material change to the facility’s hydrogen
production process.
In considering these comments, the
Treasury Department and the IRS note that
the statute envisions use of updated mod-
els, referencing use of “the most recent”
version of GREET or a successor model.
However, the Treasury Department and
the IRS understand that taxpayers would
benefit from having more certainty about
a hydrogen production facility’s lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate throughout the
credit period for that facility, and there-
fore have determined that a beginning of
construction safe harbor provision would
help mitigate taxpayers’ reasonable con-
cern. Accordingly, the final regulations
modify proposed §1.45V-4(b) by adding a
second paragraph (§1.45V-4(b)(2)) giving
taxpayers the option to make an election
to use the version of 45VH2-GREET that
was in effect on the date when construc-
tion of their hydrogen production facility
began for the remaining taxable years
within the 10-year credit period.
In the case of a facility owned by the
taxpayer that began construction prior to
December 26, 2023, §1.45V-4(b)(2) pro-
vides taxpayers with the option to make
an election to use the first publicly avail-
able version of 45VH2-GREET (that is,
the version of 45VH2-GREET released
in December 2023) for the remaining
taxable years within the 10-year credit
period. This election is irrevocable, mean-
ing taxpayers may not subsequently opt to
use an updated version of 45VH2-GREET
once they have opted to lock-in the appli-
cable version of 45VH2-GREET. Section
1.45V-4(b)(2)(i) of the final regulations
further provides that, in the case of a facil-
ity that is modified to produce qualified
clean hydrogen under section 45V(d)(4)
and §1.45V-6(a), or a facility that is ret-
rofitted in a manner that entitles the facil-
ity to a new placed in service date under
§1.45V-6(b), the date the facility began
construction is the date construction of
the modification or retrofit began. Finally,
§1.45V-4(b)(2)(ii) is added to provide that
a taxpayer makes the election with respect
to a qualified clean hydrogen production
facility’s hydrogen production process on
Form 7210 by no later than the due date
(including extensions) for filing the tax-

March 24, 2025 1284 Bulletin No. 2025–13
payer’s Federal income tax return for a
taxable year ending no later than Decem-
ber 31, 2025, or for the taxable year in
which such facility is placed in service,
whichever taxable year is later. The elec-
tion is made separately for each hydrogen
production process (but on the same Form
7210). For purposes of determining BOC,
taxpayers may rely upon the guidance
provided in Notice 2022-61,
13
as well as
the guidance issued under sections 45,
14

45Q,
15
and 48.
16
Changes have also been
made to proposed §1.48-15(d) to provide
a corresponding BOC safe harbor with
respect to a specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility.
It is appropriate to provide this safe
harbor based on a facility’s beginning of
construction date because it better sup-
ports the purpose of taxpayer certainty
than a placed in service date, and because,
unlike a “final investment decision” date,
the beginning of construction date is an
established, defined concept in tax law.
For taxpayers that elect to lock-in a ver-
sion of 45VH2-GREET, these final regu-
lations do not adopt the comments’ sug-
gestions that taxpayers also be given the
option to use subsequent updated versions
of 45VH2-GREET at their discretion.
Such an option would enable taxpayers to
lock-in a version of 45VH2-GREET while
retaining the option to elect a future ver-
sion of 45VH2-GREET that would reflect
lower lifecycle GHG emissions, which
would fail to further the purpose of this
safe harbor to provide additional taxpayer
certainty.
In all other cases, taxpayers must use
the latest version of 45VH2-GREET that
is publicly available on the first day of the
taxable year during which the qualified
clean hydrogen for which the taxpayer is
claiming the section 45V credit was pro-
duced; or, if a version of 45VH2-GREET
becomes publicly available after the first
day of the taxable year of production (but
still within such taxable year), then the
taxpayer may, in its discretion, treat such
later version of 45VH2-GREET as the
45VH2-GREET Model.
C. Provisional Emissions Rate (PER)
1. In General
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(1) would have
provided that, for purposes of section
45V(c)(2)(C) and proposed §1.45V-4(a),
the term “provisional emissions rate” or
“PER” means the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of the process by which qual-
ified clean hydrogen is produced by the
taxpayer at a qualified clean hydrogen
production facility as determined by the
Secretary under proposed §1.45V-4(c).
No comments addressed this definition, so
it is adopted as proposed with one change
made to clarify that the term “provisional
emissions rate” or “PER” means the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of the hydrogen
produced through a process at a hydrogen
production facility as determined by the
Secretary under §1.45V-4(c).
2. Restriction on Filing a Provisional
Emissions Rate Petition
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(2)(i) would
have provided that a taxpayer may not file
a petition with the Secretary for a PER
unless a lifecycle GHG emissions rate has
not been determined under the most recent
GREET model (as defined in proposed
§1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii) as 45VH2-GREET)
for hydrogen produced by the taxpayer at
a hydrogen production facility. Further,
proposed §1.45V-4(c)(2)(i) would have
provided that a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate has not been determined under the
most recent GREET model with respect
to hydrogen produced by the taxpayer at
a hydrogen production facility if it uses
a hydrogen production pathway that is
not included in the most recent GREET
model—that is, if either the feedstock used
by such facility or the facility’s hydrogen
production technology is not included in
the most recent GREET model. Proposed
§1.45V-4(c)(2)(i) also would have pro-
vided that, if a taxpayer’s request for an
emissions value from the DOE under pro-
posed §1.45V-4(c)(5) with respect to the
hydrogen produced by the taxpayer at a
hydrogen production facility is pending at
the time such hydrogen production facil-
ity’s pathway is included in an updated
version of 45VH2-GREET, then the tax-
payer’s request for an emissions value will
automatically be denied.
Some comments, despite proposed
§1.45V-4(c)(2)(i), and in disagreement
with its restriction on filing a PER peti-
tion, sought to clarify that a taxpayer
using a hydrogen production pathway
included in 45VH2-GREET may never-
theless file a PER petition because they
have independently verifiable data that
differs from the background data used by
45VH2-GREET. Many of these comments
challenged the appropriateness of the
background data used by 45VH2-GREET,
claiming that they do not reflect the actual
values of such parameters and that more
accurate measurements of such parame-
ters can be reliably obtained by taxpayers.
These comments therefore requested that
taxpayers be allowed to file a PER peti-
tion after challenging these assumptions
through the EVRP, because using actual
values would likely result in a lower and
more accurate emissions rate.
The parameters in 45VH2-GREET
have been deemed background data if
independent verification of bespoke val-
ues for individual facilities is expected to
be infeasible with reasonable fidelity. The
Treasury Department and the IRS recog-
nize that the capabilities of verification
resources are evolving, and the DOE is
continuously monitoring the availabil-
ity of robust data and verification meth-
ods for both background and foreground
data parameters in 45VH2-GREET. For
example, as described in part III.E of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions, an upcoming release of
13
2022-52 I.R.B. 560.
14
See Notice 2013-29, 2013-20 I.R.B. 1085, clarified by Notice 2013-60, 2013-44 I.R.B. 431, then clarified and modified by Notice 2014-46, 2014-36 I.R.B. 520, then updated by Notice 2015-
25, 2015-13 I.R.B. 814, then clarified and modified by Notice 2016-31, 2016-23 I.R.B. 1025, and then updated, clarified, and modified by Notice 2017-04, 2017-4 I.R.B. 541; Notice 2018-59,
2018-28 I.R.B. 196, modified by Notice 2019-43, 2019-31 I.R.B. 487, then modified by Notice 2020-41, 2020-25 I.R.B. 954, and then clarified and modified by Notice 2021-5, 2021-3 I.R.B.
479, and then clarified and modified by Notice 2021-41, 2021-29 I.R.B. 17.
15
See Notice 2020-12, 2020-11 I.R.B. 495.
16
See Notice 2018-59, modified by Notice 2019-43 and by Notice 2020-41, and then clarified and modified by Notice 2024-41.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1285 March 24, 2025
45VH2-GREET will include upstream
methane loss rates as foreground data
once enhanced GHG reporting to the EPA
is available and other program integrity
measures are fully implemented. Once
a parameter becomes foreground data in
45VH2-GREET, taxpayers may treat that
parameter as foreground data in their emis-
sions value request application (through
an EVRP in support of the PER process).
Allowing taxpayers to provide their own
values for background data would run
counter to the rationale for determining
that a given parameter is background data.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that allowing taxpayers to challenge
background data through the EVRP likely
would significantly increase the number
of emissions value request applications,
resulting in substantial administrative bur-
den and administrability concerns for the
DOE, and potentially far slower reviews
for all interested taxpayers. Therefore,
these final regulations do not allow tax-
payers to avail themselves of the PER
petition process if their hydrogen produc-
tion pathway (which consists of the com-
bination of production technology and
input feedstock materials and sources) is
included in 45VH2-GREET regardless
of any disagreement with the background
assumptions.
Several comments also raised concerns
about the treatment of novel variations of
hydrogen production pathways that cur-
rently are represented in 45VH2-GREET,
claiming that the model does not provide
the correct emissions value for their varia-
tion. These comments asked that the final
regulations modify proposed §1.45V-4(c)
(2)(i) to state explicitly that taxpayers may
use the PER process for novel variations
of existing pathways. These final regula-
tions do not adopt these comments. Since
the original version of 45VH2-GREET
and supporting documentation were pub-
lished, the DOE has updated the model
and the 45VH2-GREET User Manual to
include specific definitions of the feed-
stocks and technologies represented in the
model. Taxpayers who have developed a
novel variation of a hydrogen production
pathway may use the PER process if their
pathway does not meet the definitions of
the feedstocks and technologies repre-
sented in the 45VH2-GREET Model. The
text of §1.45V-4(c)(2)(i) and the defini-
tions in the 45VH2-GREET User Manual
provide sufficient information to taxpay-
ers to determine whether their pathway
qualifies for the PER process.
Several comments asked to streamline
the process for petitioning for a PER for
RNG feedstocks derived from non-landfill
sources (for example, food waste, animal
waste, and biogas derived from renewable
diesel or sustainable aviation fuel produc-
tion), claiming that these sources make up
30 percent of North American RNG pro-
duction. It is not clear whether these com-
ments, in requesting to streamline the pro-
cess for petitioning for a PER, are asking
the Treasury Department and the IRS to
allow these taxpayers to participate in the
PER process altogether or whether they
are requesting the Treasury Department
and the IRS create a separate, streamlined
PER petition process for taxpayers who
plan to produce hydrogen using non-land-
fill RNG. To the extent that the comments
ask for the former, as stated above, tax-
payers may petition the Secretary for a
PER if either the feedstock used by their
facility or the facility’s hydrogen produc-
tion technology is not included in 45VH2-
GREET. Moreover, it is anticipated that
some non-landfill RNG hydrogen pro-
duction processes (such as from livestock
manure) will be added to 45VH2-GREET
in 2025, in a manner that is consistent with
these final regulations. To the extent that
the comments ask for a separate, stream-
lined PER process, these final regulations
do not adopt this request as it is not consis-
tent with the statutory purposes of section
45V to offer preferential treatment to any
group of feedstocks.
Lastly, one comment asked that the
Treasury Department and the IRS decline
to issue a PER for taxpayers using geo-
logic hydrogen until more robust climate
and environmental data is available. The
Treasury Department and the IRS are
aware that emissions analysis of newer
methods of hydrogen production, such as
geologic hydrogen, is subject to technical
uncertainty. The DOE intends to address
these uncertainties by engaging with
applicants during the EVRP and through
independent research. The DOE intends
to issue emissions values only when an
analysis has been completed robustly
addressing these uncertainties, and to an
extent comparable to other uncertainties
within 45VH2-GREET. Applicants to the
PER process will additionally be subject
to the independent verification require-
ments of proposed §1.45V-5, which will
help ensure the key sources of greenhouse
gases are reflected in the lifecycle analysis
of a given facility. Given these safeguards,
the Treasury Department and the IRS clar-
ify in this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions to these final
regulations that PERs may be used for any
hydrogen production pathway (meaning
a specific technology and input feedstock
materials and sources) not included in the
45VH2-GREET Model, including geo-
logic hydrogen. No further clarification
in the regulatory text is needed; there-
fore, these final regulations adopt pro-
posed §1.45V-4(c)(2)(i) with conforming
changes made to confirm that the Secre-
tary has designated 45VH2-GREET as a
successor model.
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(2)(ii) would
have specified that, notwithstanding pro-
posed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii), for the taxable
year in which the hydrogen production
pathway the taxpayer uses to produce
hydrogen at a qualified clean hydrogen
production facility is first included in an
updated version of 45VH2-GREET, the
updated version of 45VH2-GREET will be
considered the most recent GREET model
with respect to the hydrogen produced
by the taxpayer at the hydrogen produc-
tion facility. No comments addressed this
provision. It is adopted as proposed with
changes made to confirm that the Secre-
tary has designated 45VH2-GREET as a
successor model and to clarify that, for
purposes of the PER process, the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of the hydrogen pro-
duced at a hydrogen production facility is
made with respect to hydrogen produced
through a process.
3. Process for Filing a Provisional
Emissions Rate Petition
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(3) would have
provided that a taxpayer petitions the
Secretary for a PER by attaching a PER
petition to its Federal income tax return
for the first taxable year of hydrogen pro-
duction ending within the 10-year period
described in section 45V(a)(1) for which
the taxpayer claims the section 45V credit
for hydrogen to which the PER petition

March 24, 2025 1286 Bulletin No. 2025–13
relates and for which a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate has not been determined,
as defined under proposed §1.45V-4(c)(2)
(i). Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(3) would have
provided that a PER petition must contain
(i) an emissions value obtained from the
DOE setting forth the DOE’s analytical
assessment of the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions associated with the facility’s hydro-
gen production pathway, and (ii) a copy of
the taxpayer’s request to the DOE for an
emissions value, including any informa-
tion that the taxpayer provided to the DOE
pursuant to the emissions value request
process specified in proposed §1.45V-4(c)
(5).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
understand that this filing requirement
may mean that a taxpayer must attach
voluminous documents to its return, which
may cause tax administration issues. For
effective tax administration, the Treasury
Department and the IRS have modified
this provision to state that a PER petition
must contain (i) the letter received from
the DOE stating the emissions value the
DOE determined with respect to the facili-
ty’s hydrogen production pathway, and (ii)
the DOE control number assigned to the
emissions value request of the taxpayer.
This information will be sufficient for
the Treasury Department and the IRS to
be able to request additional information
from the taxpayer, as necessary.
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(3) would have
further provided that, if the taxpayer
obtained more than one emissions value
from the DOE, then the PER petition must
contain the emissions value setting forth
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the
hydrogen for which the section 45V credit
is claimed on the Form 7210 to which the
PER petition is attached. No comments
were received on this provision and it is
adopted as proposed with amendments to
reflect the new requirements for what a
PER petition must contain and to clarify
that the taxpayer attaches the PER petition
to its Federal income tax return or infor-
mation return.
4. Provisional Emissions Rate
Determination
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(4) would have
provided that upon the IRS’s acceptance
of the taxpayer’s Federal income tax
return or information return containing a
PER petition, the emissions value speci-
fied on such PER petition will be deemed
accepted. Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(4) would
have provided that a taxpayer would be
able to rely upon an emissions value pro-
vided by the DOE for purposes of calcu-
lating and claiming a section 45V credit,
provided that any information, representa-
tions, or other data provided to the DOE
in support of the request for an emissions
value are accurate. Proposed §1.45V-4(c)
(4) also would have provided that the
IRS’s deemed acceptance of such emis-
sions value is the Secretary’s determina-
tion of the PER. Proposed §1.45V-4(c)
(4) would have stated, however, that the
production and sale or use of such hydro-
gen must be verified by an unrelated party
under section 45V(c)(2)(B)(ii) and in
compliance with the procedures provided
in proposed §1.45V-5. Proposed §1.45V-
4(c)(4) would have stated that such veri-
fication and any information, representa-
tions, or other data provided to the DOE
in support of the request for an emissions
value are subject to later examination by
the IRS. No comments were received on
this provision. This provision is adopted
as proposed with a clarification to §1.45V-
4(c)(4) to clarify that the emissions value
is deemed accepted upon the taxpayer’s
filing of its Federal income tax return (or
information return), and to clarify that the
production, including the data the tax-
payer submitted in the PER petition and
the data provided to the DOE in support of
the taxpayer’s EVRP application, and sale
or use of the hydrogen must be verified
under §1.45V-5.
5. Department of Energy Emissions Value
Request Process
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(5) would have
provided that, in order to obtain an emis-
sions value, an applicant must submit a
request for an emissions value following
procedures specified by the DOE. The
DOE opened the EVRP to the public on
September 30, 2024.
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(5) also would
have provided that emissions values will
be evaluated using the same well-to-gate
system boundary that is employed in
45VH2-GREET, as proposed in §1.45V-
1(a)(8)(iii). Additionally, proposed
§1.45V-4(c)(5) would have provided that,
if applicable, background data parameters
in 45VH2-GREET would be treated as
background data (with fixed values that
an applicant cannot change) in the EVRP.
The EVRP would be subject to any guid-
ance issued under section 45V, including
any guidance related to the use of EACs.
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(5) would have
further provided that an applicant may
request an emissions value from the DOE
only after a front-end engineering and
design (FEED) study or similar indication
of project maturity, such as project spec-
ification and cost estimation sufficient to
inform a final investment decision, has
been completed for the hydrogen pro-
duction facility. Additionally, proposed
§1.45V-4(c)(5) would have provided that
the DOE may decline to review applica-
tions that are not responsive, including
those applications that use a hydrogen
production technology and feedstock
already in 45VH2-GREET or applications
that are incomplete. Guidance and proce-
dures for applicants to request and obtain
an emissions value from the DOE are pub-
lished by the DOE on its 45V Emissions
Value Request application page, which
may be found at https://www.energy.gov/
eere/45v-emissions-value-request.
In the Explanation of Provisions to
the proposed regulations, the Treasury
Department and the IRS requested com-
ments on the appropriate indicators of
project readiness that should be in place
before an applicant requests an emissions
value to ensure that requests correspond to
hydrogen production facilities with signif-
icant commercial interest, and standards
against which these indicators could be
measured.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received many comments in response to
that request for comments. The comments
questioned the FEED study requirement,
claiming that these studies are costly and
create uncertainty in investment deci-
sions. The comments claimed that a key
economic factor in justifying the cost of a
FEED study is the amount of section 45V
credit a project can claim, and estimating
the credit without the emissions value
is not feasible. The comments further
claimed that the level of project maturity
required for a FEED study necessitates a
substantial amount of capital investment,

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1287 March 24, 2025
which creates uncertainty because taxpay-
ers would be taking a risk that their sub-
stantial investment may be frustrated by a
higher-than-expected emissions value and
thus a lower section 45V credit. Instead
of requiring a FEED study, the comments
suggested a variety of alternatives: (i) a
front-end loading (FEL-2) level feasibil-
ity study, coupled with a detailed financial
model and a lifecycle GHG emissions
analysis prepared by a qualified party; (ii)
sufficient engineering definition to pro-
duce a Class 4 cost estimate, as defined by
the Association for the Advancement of
Cost Engineering (AACE) International
Recommended Practice No. 18R-97; and
(iii) exemption from this requirement for
certain pathways.
At this nascent stage of the EVRP and
after consultation with the DOE, these
final regulations retain the requirement
for a FEED study but clarify that a tax-
payer only needs a Class 3 FEED study
or similar indication of project maturity,
as determined by the DOE, to apply for
an emissions value. Class 3 FEED studies
reflect more mature projects than FEED
studies of Class 4 or 5, making them more
likely to be robust and therefore likely to
facilitate faster reviews. Class 3 FEED
studies can be conducted sooner in a
project and are generally less detailed or
time-consuming than a Class 1 or 2 FEED
study, addressing the comments’ con-
cerns on cost. Further, the DOE advised
that Class 3 FEED studies are likely to
be conducted by a majority of developers
of hydrogen production facilities across
pathways, given how complex and cap-
ital intensive these facilities are. How-
ever, the DOE will continue to explore
the feasibility of alternatives to a Class 3
FEED study (for example, a FEED study
of a different class) and may identify such
alternatives in the future. To the extent the
DOE determines that a similar indicator of
project maturity would satisfy the require-
ments of §1.45V-4(c)(5), such determina-
tion will be published by the DOE on its
45V Emissions Value Request application
page. Thus, the provision is adopted as
proposed with changes made to clarify
that a taxpayer may apply for an emissions
value only after it has completed a Class
3 FEED study or other indication of proj-
ect maturity, as determined by the DOE.
The receipt of an emissions value, how-
ever, does not constitute a determination
that all other requirements for claiming
the section 45V credit, including compli-
ance with the anti-abuse and verifiable use
rules, are met.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
also received many comments on the
EVRP generally. Some of these comments
requested that the Treasury Department
and the IRS (in conjunction with the DOE)
create an appeals process through which
an applicant can challenge their emissions
value. A few comments requested that
applicants be allowed to revise or supple-
ment their emissions value request appli-
cation at various stages of the application
process. Some comments requested that
the DOE allow applicants with multiple
facilities to apply for one emissions value.
And other comments asked that applicants
be able to submit various documents in
support of their applications (for exam-
ple, submitting documents obtained using
modeling software or the R&D GREET
model).
The DOE has not developed an appeals
process or a method for an applicant to uni-
laterally revise or supplement their appli-
cation. However, an applicant may submit
additional information to the DOE before
the DOE has completed its analysis or after
it has determined the facility’s emissions
value. These final regulations provide that
applicants seeking a new emissions value
after the DOE has completed its analysis
may reapply only if they wish to resubmit
their application with new or revised tech-
nical information or clarifications related
to the information previously submitted.
If the applicant’s resubmissions result in
the applicant receiving multiple emissions
values from the DOE for a given hydrogen
production pathway, the applicant should
use the value that aligns with the infor-
mation the applicant provided to the DOE
with respect to the facility’s operations in
support of the application that resulted in
the emissions value used The DOE will
evaluate emissions value request appli-
cations using information provided by
applicants coupled with background data
in 45VH2-GREET (for example, grid
emissions, upstream methane emissions).
If background data in 45VH2-GREET
evolve, information in the latest version
of 45VH2-GREET will be used. As new
background data parameters are added to
45VH2-GREET or existing parameters
become disaggregated (for example, if
regionalized upstream methane parame-
ters are incorporated in lieu of a national
average), the DOE may revise the infor-
mation requested through the EVRP to be
consistent with the information required
to run 45VH2-GREET. For example, if
45VH2-GREET is modified to include
regional upstream methane background
assumptions, and to require users to select
the region that their natural gas is sourced
from, applicants to the EVRP will also be
expected to provide information about the
region their natural gas is sourced from
and will be evaluated using the same
regional upstream methane background
assumptions.
Some comments expressed concern
about the timing and transparency of the
EVRP. Regarding timing, the comments
expressed concern that submitted requests
would have long processing times and that
could affect project funding and create
delays. These comments suggested that
the DOE impose on itself a time limit to
process applications, after which time an
applicant’s emissions value is deemed to
be the value determined by the lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis attached to their
tax return.
The DOE has advised that it endeav-
ors to review requests as quickly as pos-
sible. A provision to impose a time limit
on the DOE’s consideration of emissions
value requests could impede an accurate
and rigorous review of the requests and
would require additional administrative
processes. Additionally, because the IRS
deems as accepted the emissions value
provided by the DOE upon filing, and
such deemed acceptance is the Secretary’s
determination of the PER as provided in
proposed §1.45V-4(c)(4), an accurate
and rigorous review is necessary to such
a determination. Regarding transparency,
the DOE has stated publicly in the Emis-
sions Value Request Application Instruc-
tions the variables that drive the timeline
for application review, which include the
volume of applications around a given
pathway, complexity/ease of evaluating
the hydrogen production pathway, and
the commercial readiness of the pathway.
The DOE has advised that it expects to be
able to provide additional transparency
regarding the timeline required for appli-

March 24, 2025 1288 Bulletin No. 2025–13
cation review. Any additional information
will be published by the DOE on its 45V
Emissions Value Request page.
6. Effect of Provisional Emissions Rate
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(6) would have
provided that a taxpayer may use a PER
determined by the Secretary to calcu-
late the amount of the clean hydrogen
production credit under section 45V(a)
and proposed §1.45V-1(b) with respect
to qualified clean hydrogen produced by
the taxpayer at a qualified clean hydrogen
production facility beginning with the first
taxable year in which a PER determined
by the Secretary has been obtained and
for any subsequent taxable year during the
10-year period beginning on the date such
facility was originally placed in service,
provided all other requirements of sec-
tion 45V are met, and until the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of such hydrogen has
been determined (for purposes of section
45V(c)(2)(C)) under the most recent ver-
sion of 45VH2-GREET (as defined in pro-
posed §1.45V-1(a)(8)(ii)).
Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(6) would have
further provided that the Secretary’s PER
determination is not an examination or an
inspection of books of account for pur-
poses of section 7605(b) of the Code, and
would not preclude or impede the IRS
(under section 7605(b) or any administra-
tive provisions adopted by the IRS) from
later examining a return or inspecting
books or records with respect to any tax-
able year for which the section 45V credit
is claimed. Proposed §1.45V-4(c)(6)
would have provided that a verification
report submitted under section 45V(c)(2)
(B)(ii) and §1.45V-5 and any information,
representations, or other data provided
to the DOE in support of an emissions
value request would still be subject to IRS
examination. Further, proposed §1.45V-
4(c)(6) would have stated that a PER
determination would not mean that the
IRS has determined that all the require-
ments of section 45V have been satisfied
for any taxable year, nor would it create an
inference that such a presumption exists.
Some comments asked the Treasury
Department and the IRS to allow option-
ality between using the PER process or
45VH2-GREET, claiming that the option-
ality would provide more flexibility and
certainty for hydrogen producers. Other
comments asked for the creation of a
“safe harbor” rule, allowing taxpayers to
continue using their PERs in cases where
their pathway was incorporated into
45VH2-GREET and the model calculated
a higher emissions rate than the taxpayers’
respective PERs. These comments also
claimed that a “safe harbor” rule would
provide certainty and alleviate any unfair-
ness that may come from having a higher
emissions rate with 45VH2-GREET than
with a PER.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
recognize that a taxpayer’s inability to
estimate with a high degree of certainty
the amount of section 45V credit—due
to the possibility that their hydrogen pro-
duction pathway will be subsequently
included in 45VH2-GREET, which might
reflect a higher lifecycle GHG emissions
rate than their PER—could affect a tax-
payer’s efforts to obtain financing for
a hydrogen production facility. Allow-
ing taxpayers to lock-in a PER in all
instances, however, would be inconsistent
with the statute. Section 45V(c)(1)(B)
provides that lifecycle GHG emissions
shall be determined using the most recent
version of the GREET model or a succes-
sor model, as determined by the Secretary.
Section 45V(c)(2)(C) provides: “In the
case of any hydrogen for which a life-
cycle greenhouse gas emissions rate has
not been determined for purposes of this
section, a taxpayer producing such hydro-
gen may file a petition with the Secretary
for determination of the lifecycle green-
house gas emissions rate with respect to
such hydrogen.” Section 45V(c)(2)(C) is
a conditional sentence. For a taxpayer to
be eligible to petition the Secretary for
a PER, the taxpayer must meet the con-
dition of producing hydrogen for which
a lifecycle GHG emissions rate has not
been determined (that is, hydrogen whose
technology or feedstock is not in 45VH2-
GREET). Likewise, for a taxpayer to be
eligible to continue using a PER, the tax-
payer’s technology or feedstock must not
be in 45VH2-GREET. Allowing option-
ality or creating a safe harbor rule in this
case would mean ignoring the condition
set by Congress. Therefore, these final
regulations do not adopt these comments.
Following the confines of the statute,
these final regulations clarify in §1.45V-
4(c)(6)(i) that taxpayers may continue
to use the PER determined by the Sec-
retary under §1.45V-4(c)(4) to calculate
the amount of the section 45V credit
with respect to qualified clean hydrogen
produced at a qualified clean hydrogen
production facility, provided that (1) the
lifecycle GHG emissions rate of such
hydrogen has not been determined (for
purposes of section 45V(c)(2)(C)) under
the 45VH2-GREET Model (as described
in §1.45V-4(c)(2)(ii)) (subject to the
exception in §1.45V-4(c)(6)(iv)); (2) there
are no material changes to the information
about the taxpayer’s hydrogen production
process from the information provided
to the DOE to obtain an emissions value
pursuant to §1.45V-4(c)(2)(i), and (3) all
other requirements of section 45V are
met. These final regulations further clar-
ify in §1.45V-4(c)(6)(ii) that a “material
change” means any change that would
cause a qualified verifier (as defined in
§1.45V-5(h)) to be unable to complete
a production attestation under section
45V(c)(2)(B)(ii) and §1.45V-5(c).
Further, §1.45V-4(c)(6)(iii)(A) is
added to provide that the taxpayer may,
in its discretion, make an irrevocable
election effective for the remaining tax-
able years within the period described in
section 45V(a)(1), to treat the version of
45VH2-GREET in which the taxpayer’s
qualified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity’s hydrogen production pathway is first
included as the 45VH2-GREET Model.
The final regulations also add §1.45V-4(c)
(6)(iii)(B) to provide that the taxpayer
makes the election with respect to a quali-
fied clean hydrogen production facility on
Form 7210 for the taxable year in which
the taxpayer’s qualified clean hydrogen
production facility’s hydrogen produc-
tion pathway is first included in 45VH2-
GREET. Changes have also been made to
§1.48-15(d) to provide a corresponding
subsequent inclusion safe harbor election
with respect to a specified clean hydrogen
production facility.
Finally, §1.45V-4(c)(6)(iv) is added to
provide a special rule for taxpayers who
received an emissions value from the
DOE prior to beginning construction of
their respective facility. This rule allows
a taxpayer to continue relying on its PER,
despite the rate having been determined
under the 45VH2-GREET Model. Sec-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1289 March 24, 2025
tion 1.45V-4(c)(6)(iv) provides that, not-
withstanding the requirement of §1.45V-
4(c)(6)(i)(A), a taxpayer who received
an emissions value from the DOE with
respect to a qualified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility pursuant to §1.45V-4(c)
(2)(i) before the date when construction of
the facility began, may, in its discretion,
continue to use the PER determined by
the Secretary and the associated emissions
value to calculate the amount of the sec-
tion 45V credit with respect to qualified
clean hydrogen produced at the qualified
clean hydrogen production facility for
the remainder of the period described in
section 45V(a)(1), provided that the tax-
payer continues to satisfy the require-
ments of §1.45V-4(c)(6)(i)(B) and (C).
This special rule is limited to taxpayers
who obtained an emissions value before
the date when construction of their facil-
ity began because these taxpayers began
construction in reliance on their PERs.
Taxpayers who began construction before
obtaining an emissions value did not do so
in reliance on their PERs and therefore, as
a temporal matter, did not need to lock-in
their PERs in order to secure financing to
begin construction. This special rule pro-
vides parallel treatment to the beginning
of construction safe harbor for 45VH2-
GREET in §1.45V-4(b)(2)(i).
D. Use of Energy Attribute Certificates
(EACs)
1. In General
Proposed §1.45V-4(d) would have pro-
vided a framework for the use of EACs
as the sole means of documenting pur-
chased electricity inputs from specific
sources and reflecting emissions impacts
of that electricity used in the production of
hydrogen for purposes of the section 45V
credit. Under this framework, a taxpayer
must acquire and retire qualifying EACs
to establish, for purposes of section 45V,
that it acquired for use electricity from a
specific electricity generation facility (and
therefore did not rely on the electricity
generally sourced via the regional elec-
tricity grid). The framework would have
required taxpayers to acquire and retire
EACs that meet requirements for incre-
mentality, temporal matching, and deliv-
erability (qualifying EAC requirements),
as provided in proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3).
These final regulations generally adopt
the qualifying EAC framework of the pro-
posed regulations, with the modifications
noted in this part III.D of this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions.
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(1) would have
provided that for purposes of section 45V,
if a taxpayer determines a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate for hydrogen produced at
a hydrogen production facility using the
most recent version of 45VH2-GREET
(as defined in proposed §1.45V-1(a)(8)
(ii)) or a PER (as defined in proposed
§1.45V-4(c)(1)), then the taxpayer may
reflect in 45VH2-GREET or include in a
PER such hydrogen production facility’s
use of electricity as being from a specific
electricity generating facility rather than
being from the regional electricity grid (as
represented in 45VH2-GREET) only if
the taxpayer acquires and retires a qualify-
ing EAC (as defined in proposed §1.45V-
4(d)(2)(iv)) for each unit of electricity that
the taxpayer claims from such source. For
example, one megawatt-hour of electric-
ity used to produce hydrogen would need
to be matched with one megawatt-hour
of qualifying EACs. Further, proposed
§1.45V-4(d)(1) would have provided that
in order to satisfy this requirement, a tax-
payer’s acquisition and retirement of qual-
ifying EACs must also be recorded in a
qualified EAC registry or accounting sys-
tem (as defined in proposed §1.45V-4(d)
(2)(iv)) so that the acquisition and retire-
ment of such EACs may be verified by a
qualified verifier (as defined in proposed
§1.45V-5(h)).
With respect to the requirement that
each unit of electricity used to produce
hydrogen needs to be matched with the
electricity represented by the qualify-
ing EACs, in the proposed regulations
the Treasury Department and the IRS
specifically requested comment as to
whether a different treatment would be
more appropriate to account for trans-
mission and distribution line losses. For
example, taxpayers could be required to
adjust the electricity represented by the
qualifying EAC downward to account for
such losses, which would necessitate buy-
ing additional qualifying EACs to make
up for the adjustment. Some comments
supported the approach of the proposed
regulations to not impose a downward
adjustment of EACs because granular
geographic matching would already mit-
igate transmission and distribution line
losses. Other comments agreed there
should be no downward adjustment to
EACs, expressing administrability con-
cerns that an adjustment to an EAC to
account for losses would vary depend-
ing on the taxpayer’s location. In con-
trast, other comments countered that an
adjustment should be made to account for
transmission and distribution line losses,
to accurately determine electricity usage
and GHG emissions, unless the hydro-
gen production facility can provide suf-
ficient documentation that shows that no
losses have occurred. These comments
posit that not requiring an adjustment
could cause a mismeasurement of GHG
emissions, by failing to take into account
the electricity used to make up for such
losses. In response to these comments, the
Treasury Department and the IRS, after
consultation with the DOE and the EPA,
note that existing EAC markets—includ-
ing markets where purchasers buy EACs
to comply with Clean Energy Standards
(CES) or Renewable Portfolio Standards
(RPS) as well as those where purchasers
voluntarily choose to buy EACs—use
EACs to enable end-use claims on a one-
to-one basis. As noted by the comments,
accounting for transmission and distribu-
tion line losses also would pose adminis-
trability challenges for taxpayers and for
verification given uncertainty regarding
appropriate assumptions to account for
such losses. For these reasons, these final
regulations maintain standard practice and
therefore retain the one-to-one rule of the
proposed regulations. Given the increased
accuracy that accounting for such losses
would provide, the Treasury Department
and the IRS may revisit this requirement if
the administrability and verification chal-
lenges abate.
Several comments asked that the final
regulations state that distributed energy
resources may generate qualifying EACs.
One of these comments proposed clar-
ifying that all resources that qualify for
wholesale bidding under Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order
No. 2222, Participation of Distributed
Energy Resource Aggregations in Mar-
kets Operated by Regional Transmission
Organizations and Independent System

March 24, 2025 1290 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Operators (85 FR 67094), may generate
EACs. In response, the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS confirm that distributed
energy resources that are grid connected
or are directly connected to a hydrogen
production facility may generate qualify-
ing EACs, provided that the requirements
of §1.45V-4(d) are met.
Several comments asked for excep-
tions to the EAC framework, under which
a taxpayer could establish the use of elec-
tricity from a specific electricity genera-
tion source without the acquisition and
retirement of qualifying EACs. Another
comment proposed allowing the use of
power purchase agreements as an alter-
native to the EAC framework. Similarly,
several comments suggested exempting
any hydrogen production facility with
its own behind-the-meter source of clean
electricity (for example, a directly con-
nected hydrogen production facility) from
the EAC framework.
In response to these comments, the
Treasury Department and the IRS note
that the EAC framework is necessary to
prevent double counting of the energy and
emissions attributes represented by EACs
and to mitigate the risk of significant indi-
rect emissions. As explained in part V.C
of the Explanation of Provisions to the
proposed regulations, the double counting
of EACs and their underlying energy and
emissions attributes would undermine the
integrity of lifecycle GHG emissions rate
determinations that incorporate EACs.
Double counting occurs if two different
parties claim the energy and emissions
attributes and associated environmental
benefits from generated energy.
17
Uni-
formly requiring claims of using elec-
tricity generated from specific sources
to be evidenced by EACs that meet the
requirements of §1.45V-4(d)(1) would
mitigate the risk of double counting. Thus,
the requirements of the EAC framework
must be met regardless of whether the
electricity generating facility giving rise
to the qualifying EAC is grid connected,
directly connected, or co-located with
the hydrogen production facility (that
is, regardless of whether the underlying
source of the qualifying EAC physically
supplies electricity through a direct con-
nection to the hydrogen production facil-
ity). With respect to behind-the-meter
sources of clean electricity, the Treasury
Department and the IRS note that many
such sources already participate in EAC
registries and sell EACs. Even in cases in
which the electricity source does not par-
ticipate in a formal EAC registry, because
every unit of electricity generated has
tradeable attributes, and because the use
of such electricity for hydrogen produc-
tion can still result in increased emissions,
EACs must still be generated and retired.
In addition, behind-the-meter sources still
pose a risk of induced emissions if such
sources involve pre-existing generation
that was grid-connected or was used for
a purpose other than hydrogen produc-
tion; such sources would result in induced
emissions if they were diverted to hydro-
gen production. Similarly, making the
EAC framework optional or allowing an
exception for power purchase agreements
raises the possibility of double counting of
energy and emissions attributes. While it
is possible this concern could potentially
be reduced through alternative measures
such as a “no double sale” attestation
made by the electricity source with respect
to the attributes, such alternatives would
create administrability and coordination
problems for sales made outside the EAC
framework. In contrast, the required use
of the EAC framework described in the
proposed regulations provides for a con-
sistent and effective anti-double counting
system that is uniform for all taxpayers,
regardless of their sources of electricity,
and represents standard industry practice
across regulatory and voluntary markets.
Because of these many reasons, no alter-
native measures are necessary or appro-
priate.
Several comments suggested that the
Treasury Department and the IRS should
explicitly forbid double counting of EACs
in the final regulations. One comment was
concerned that given the number of EAC
registries on the market there would be a
high risk of double counting when multi-
ple registries substantiate an EAC for the
same unit of electricity. While the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS concur that
double counting is a risk absent an EAC
framework that prevents double counting,
the EAC framework of these final regula-
tions is intended to mitigate that risk by
requiring qualifying EACs to be tracked
in EAC registries and establishing min-
imum requirements for such registries.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are
confident that EAC registries can continue
to mitigate the risks of double counting
in part by working together to ensure that
each issued EAC is distinct and unique.
In addition, these final regulations mod-
ify the requirements for third-party ver-
ification to require verifiers to confirm
and attest either that electricity generators
tied to EACs applied to a particular sec-
tion 45V credit claim are not registered
on multiple qualifying EAC registries, or
that, if such generators are registered on
multiple qualifying EAC registries, each
EAC undergoing verification from each
such generator is being issued by only one
qualifying EAC registry. This will further
reduce double counting risks. See §1.45V-
5(c)(2). The final regulations also modify
the definition of eligible EAC in §1.45V-
4(d)(2)(iii) to clarify that the EAC must
be registered on only one qualified EAC
registry or accounting system.
One comment stated that the EAC
framework in the proposed regulations
does not align with similar frameworks
adopted by States through RPS and CES.
The comment suggested that the misalign-
ment could lead to double counting and
other accounting issues and recommended
that the Treasury Department and the IRS
align its EAC framework with that of the
States. However, the Treasury Department
and the IRS do not agree that the EAC
framework of the proposed regulations
is misaligned with similar frameworks
adopted by States through RPS and CES.
Under section 45V, hydrogen producers
are likely to be able to use the same EAC
registries as are employed by the States for
purposes of RPS compliance, voluntary
markets, and other needs. It is true that the
statutory basis of section 45V requires the
Treasury Department and the IRS to estab-
lish EAC qualifying criteria that are dif-
ferent from State RPS programs. Some of
these criteria will require EAC registries
to augment their capabilities to ensure that
clean hydrogen producers have access to
qualifying EACs. However, the Treasury
Department and the IRS are confident that
17
Double Counting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/double-counting (last updated Jan. 15, 2024).

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1291 March 24, 2025
if market demand for qualifying EACs
exist, EAC registries will develop the nec-
essary functional requirements for EAC
tracking to meet that demand. Such devel-
opment is already occurring. For example,
a variety of comments have stated that
hourly tracking by 2030 or earlier would
be feasible, and several EAC registries
have begun to introduce such tracking.
Several comments requested clarifica-
tion of the extent to which taxpayers can
claim the section 45V credit while availing
themselves of other incentive programs
that also require the acquisition and retire-
ment of EACs. For example, one comment
requested clarification that an EAC can be
used to satisfy both section 45V require-
ments and the California Low Carbon
Fuel Standard (CA LCFS). In response to
these comments, the Treasury Department
and the IRS re-affirm that double count-
ing of EACs is disallowed. EACs may
not be acquired and retired for purposes
of the EAC framework of section 45V if
they are separately acquired and retired
for any other purpose. However, taxpayers
may take advantage of section 45V con-
currently with State incentive and other
programs in other ways, at the discre-
tion of State policymakers. For instance,
hydrogen credited by section 45V may be
an eligible fuel in CA LCFS (to the extent
this is allowed by California’s rules). In
addition, the treatment within State pro-
grams of clean electricity, the EACs of
which have been acquired and retired for
hydrogen production under section 45V, is
a matter of State policy.
One comment asked that the final reg-
ulations allow for relief from filing dead-
lines if a taxpayer is unable to comply
with the EAC framework due to a delay,
such as with third-party verification. The
comment suggested that because the veri-
fication process is new and untested, there
should be an accommodation process for
producers that are unable to file or amend
their returns prior to the close of the sec-
tion 6511(a) statute of limitations on filing
a claim for credit or refund. The Treasury
Department and the IRS are aware that
taxpayers may encounter unforeseeable
compliance issues. The section 45V credit
may be claimed on an amended return
or AAR, as with other credits, subject to
the section 6511(a) statute of limitations
noted by the comment. Part IV.K of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions explains further clarifica-
tions to the third-party verification rules
of proposed §1.45V-5(k)(2), that such ver-
ification, so long as it is made prior to the
date the amended return or AAR is filed, is
considered timely. Accordingly, these final
regulations do not provide the requested
filing relief at this time, but the Treasury
Department and the IRS will continue to
monitor the compliance concerns raised
by the comment.
The same comment requested that
hydrogen producers that acquire EACs
from a qualified EAC registry or account-
ing system in good faith be permitted to
rely on the EACs and not be held account-
able for errors or inaccuracies in such
information after the fact. In response, the
Treasury Department and the IRS again
note that the EAC framework is intended
to mitigate double counting and other
errors. To the extent the comment requests
a safe harbor for the information contained
in any acquired EAC, these final regula-
tions do not adopt the comment, as the cre-
ation of such a safe harbor would require
the Treasury Department and the IRS to
determine what constitutes good faith. In
response to the comment’s concern about
errors with respect to EACs, §1.45V-4(d)
(2)(viii) of the final regulations provides
standards that a qualified EAC registry
or accounting system must meet, and the
Treasury Department and the IRS expect
that registries meeting these standards will
help ensure a high degree of accuracy with
respect to their qualifying EACs.
Finally, a number of comments raised
questions with respect to how the EAC
framework and qualifying EAC require-
ments relate to hydrogen produced using
renewable natural gas or fugitive meth-
ane. These comments are addressed in the
general discussion of hydrogen produced
using RNG or fugitive methane, in part
III.H of this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions.
2. Definitions
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(2) included
definitions for the terms (i) “commercial
operations date;” (ii) “energy attribute cer-
tificate;” (iii) “eligible EAC;” (iv) “quali-
fying EAC;” (v) “qualified EAC registry
or accounting system;” and (vi) “region.”
These terms are retained in these final reg-
ulations. The final regulations also add the
new definitions of (i) “qualifying electric-
ity decarbonization standard;” (ii) “quali-
fying GHG cap program;” (iii) “merchant
nuclear reactor”; (iv) “qualifying nuclear
reactor;” (v) “written binding contract;”
and (vi) “qualifying State,” which are dis-
cussed in part III.D.3.b of this Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Revi-
sions. The paragraphs of §1.45V-4(d)(2)
are renumbered in these final regulations
to account for these additional terms.
These final regulations amend the defi-
nition of eligible EACs and provide addi-
tional requirements for electricity sources
that use carbon capture technology (dis-
cussed in part III.D.3.b.ii of the Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Provi-
sions).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received several comments concerning the
proposed definitions. Proposed §1.45V-
4(d)(2)(iii)(C) would have required an
EAC (as defined in proposed §1.45V-4(d)
(2)(i)) to provide a “commercial opera-
tions date” or “COD” to be an “eligible
EAC.” Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(2)(i) would
have defined COD as the date on which
a facility that generates electricity begins
commercial operations. The COD, as
defined here, would be the first date of the
operation of the relevant electricity gener-
ating facility. The general rules for deter-
mining an electricity generating facility’s
placed in service date for Federal income
tax purposes would not have applied in
determining its COD.
One comment noted that the Western
Renewable Energy Generation Informa-
tion System (WREGIS)
18
database does
not currently track the COD of electricity
generation facilities and asked the require-
ment to provide a COD be removed from
the definition of eligible EAC. The com-
ment suggested that the final regulations
instead rely on qualified verifiers to deter-
mine the COD. The Treasury Department
and the IRS disagree that COD is not
tracked in WREGIS. The COD of each
generator is available in the WREGIS
18
WREGIS was identified as a qualified EAC registry in the Explanation of Provisions to the proposed regulations. See Proposed §1.45V-4, 88 Fed. Reg. 89220, 89228 (Dec. 26, 2023)

March 24, 2025 1292 Bulletin No. 2025–13
database and linked to a project identifi-
cation. Therefore, the final regulations do
not adopt this comment.
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(2)(v) would
have defined “qualified EAC registry or
accounting system” to mean a tracking
system that (i) assigns a unique identifica-
tion number to each EAC tracked by such
system, (ii) enables verification that only
one EAC is associated with each unit of
electricity, (iii) verifies that the underly-
ing attributes of each EAC is claimed and
retired only once, (iv) identifies the owner
of each EAC, and (v) provides a publicly
accessible view (for example, through an
application programming interface) of all
currently registered electricity genera-
tors in the tracking system to prevent the
duplicative registration of such genera-
tors. Many comments called for the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS to develop
standardized rules for EAC registries.
Several comments suggested adoption of
the “EnergyTag” standard would prevent
fraud, enhance auditability, facilitate reg-
istry interoperability, and provide appli-
cation programming interface access fea-
tures as well as cybersecurity standards.
In response to these comments, the
Treasury Department and the IRS note
that rules of proposed §1.45V-4(d)(2)
(v), finalized herein under §1.45V-4(d)
(2)(viii), provide a set of standardized
requirements that EAC registries must
satisfy. These final regulations do not pro-
vide specific rules prescribing the stan-
dards that EAC registries must follow to
satisfy these requirements. A single stan-
dard, while desirable, is not adopted due
to lack of sufficient consensus among
EAC registries and their participants.
Further, adopting a single standard could
have unintended consequences and unnec-
essarily burden or exclude certain EAC
registries. The Treasury Department and
the IRS, however, encourage EAC reg-
istries and external stakeholders to work
together to develop such standards. The
proposed regulations noted that qualified
EAC registries currently include, but are
not necessarily limited to, the follow-
ing: Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT); Michigan Renewable Energy
Certification System (MIRECS); Mid-
west Renewable Energy Tracking Sys-
tem, Inc. (M-RETS); North American
Registry (NAR); New England Power
Pool Generation Information System
(NEPOOL-GIS); New York Generation
Attribute Tracking System (NYGATS);
North Carolina Renewable Energy Track-
ing System (NC-RETS); PJM Generation
Attribute Tracking System (PJM-GATS);
and WREGIS. The Treasury Department
and the IRS continue to expect that these
registries will be qualified EAC registries
as defined in §1.45V-4(d)(2)(viii) of the
final regulations but note that these reg-
istries currently do not generally issue or
track EACs that meet the hourly tracking
requirements of §1.45V-4(d)(3)(ii)(A) of
the final regulations.
One comment emphasized that EAC
registries are currently not fully devel-
oped for use with respect to section 45V
and noted that many of the identified qual-
ified EAC registries do not track all elec-
tricity sources. In response, the Treasury
Department and the IRS recognize that the
section 45V final regulations will require
EAC registries to develop new capabil-
ities. For instance, some EAC registries
do not track all forms of electricity, and
hourly tracking capabilities are just being
developed. However, the EAC registry
rules established in these final regula-
tions ensure consistency with the section
45V statutory requirements, including its
requirement to determine lifecycle GHG
emissions rates, which includes address-
ing significant indirect emissions such as
potential induced emissions. In addition,
the Treasury Department and the IRS
anticipate that EAC registry rules in these
final regulations, and industry interest in
complying with requirements for securing
the tax credit, will provide a significant
market incentive for registries to enhance
their capabilities to meet the needs of the
clean hydrogen industry. The Treasury
Department and the IRS also note that
there is substantial interest from a broad
cross-section of electricity consumers,
including but not limited to hydrogen
production facilities, in the development
of these same capabilities to enable vol-
untary market claims related to hourly
matching of clean electricity. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS encourage
EAC registries to work together and with
stakeholders to develop appropriate, com-
mon approaches to enhancing the ability
of EAC registries to provide additional,
reliable tracking information, and are
confident that the new capabilities can be
developed by the EAC registries to facil-
itate compliance with section 45V and
accelerate the growth of clean hydrogen
production.
Finally, the Treasury Department and
the IRS received comments with respect
to the definition of “region”, which are
addressed in response to comments
received regarding deliverability in pro-
posed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(iii) in part III.D.3.d
of this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions.
3. Qualifying EAC Requirements
a. In General
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3) would have
provided that an EAC meets the require-
ments to be a qualifying EAC if it meets
the qualifying EAC requirements for
incrementality, temporal matching, and
deliverability. A taxpayer is not required
to acquire and retire qualifying EACs.
However, the taxpayer may only reflect in
45VH2-GREET or include in a PER the
taxpayer’s use of electricity as being from
a specific electricity generating facility
(rather than being from the regional elec-
tricity grid) if the taxpayer acquires and
retires qualifying EACs. See proposed
§1.45V-4(d)(1).
Many comments supported these
requirements. Generally, these com-
ments agreed that the qualifying EAC
requirements are necessary to ensure that
electricity consumption associated with
hydrogen production, and particularly
with electrolytic hydrogen production
and other electricity-intensive hydrogen
production pathways, do not result in sig-
nificant induced grid emissions that would
disqualify the hydrogen production from
the tax credit under the statute. Com-
ments also stated that the qualifying EAC
requirements are the best way to adhere
to the statutory requirements of section
45V(c)(1). One comment stated that the
proposed regulations’ interpretation of
section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act
aligned with both section 45V and the
EPA’s interpretation. Another comment
suggested that the proposed regulations’
accounting of induced grid emissions is
consistent with longstanding interpreta-
tion by the EPA with respect to the Clean

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1293 March 24, 2025
Air Act, about which Congress was aware
when section 45V was enacted.
On the other hand, many comments
criticized the qualifying EAC require-
ments. Several comments contended that
the qualifying EAC requirements lack
legal support in section 45V and fail to
align with congressional intent. These
comments questioned the underlying pol-
icy rationale. Comments also criticized
the concept of “induced grid emissions.”
One comment argued that neither section
45V, the Clean Air Act, nor any other Fed-
eral statute identifies the risk of “induced
grid emissions” as a basis for imposing the
qualifying EAC requirements.
After consideration of these comments,
these final regulations retain the qualifying
EAC requirements. The consideration of
significant indirect emissions, which in this
context includes induced grid emissions,
is required by section 45V. Section 45V(c)
(1) defines the term “lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions” to have the same mean-
ing as that under section 211(o)(1)(H) of
the Clean Air Act, limited to include only
emissions through the point of production
(well-to-gate). Section 211(o)(1)(H) of the
Clean Air Act provides, in relevant part,
that “[t]he term ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions’ means the aggregate quantity
of greenhouse gas emissions (including
direct emissions and significant indirect
emissions such as significant emissions
from land use changes), as determined
by the [EPA] Administrator, related to
the full fuel lifecycle” (emphasis added).
Thus, not considering significant indirect
emissions related to the full lifecycle of
the fuel (including the electricity used to
produce the hydrogen) in the determina-
tion of a lifecycle GHG emissions rate for
a hydrogen process would be contrary to
the statute.
As noted in the Explanation of Pro-
visions of the proposed regulations, the
Treasury Department and the IRS con-
sulted with the EPA and the DOE to
develop the qualifying EAC framework.
The EPA advised that, based on its prior
implementation of section 211(o)(1)(H)
of the Clean Air Act in the context of the
RFS, it would be reasonable for the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS to deter-
mine that induced grid emissions are an
anticipated real-world result of electro-
lytic hydrogen production that constitute
significant indirect emissions and must
therefore be considered in lifecycle GHG
analyses for purposes of the section 45V
credit.
19
As the EPA December 2023 Letter
explained, “[e]lectricity users, including
hydrogen producers, can cause or induce
emissions by adding new load and con-
suming electricity. Because the grid must
always balance electricity demand with
supply, this increased electricity demand
results in increased electricity supply and,
if the new electricity is not zero-emitting,
additional emissions from the grid.” As
induced grid emissions are not currently
included in the emissions calculations
provided by any version of GREET, the
use of qualifying EACs as a means to
consider induced GHG emissions is a rea-
sonable methodological proxy in lieu of
calculating these emissions as part of the
LCA assessment.
The EPA also noted that EACs are an
established means for documentation and
verification of the generation and purchase
of zero-GHG-emitting electricity. More-
over, the EPA advised that, in the context
of electrolytic hydrogen, EACs that pos-
sess specific attributes that meet certain
criteria are an appropriate way in the con-
text of section 45V of verifying the gener-
ation and delivery of zero GHG-emitting
electricity and can serve as a reasonable
methodological proxy for quantifying
induced grid emissions associated with
new load from electrolytic hydrogen pro-
duction being added to an existing grid.
Such requirements would mitigate the
risk of inappropriately crediting hydrogen
production that does not meet the lifecycle
GHG levels required by section 45V.
The development of the qualifying
EAC requirements and framework was
also informed by a 2023 DOE technical
paper (DOE Technical Paper).
20
As dis-
cussed therein, incrementality, temporal
matching, and deliverability requirements
are important guardrails to ensure that
hydrogen producers’ electricity use can
be reasonably deemed to reflect the emis-
sions associated with the specific genera-
tors from which the EACs were purchased
and retired. If hydrogen producers rely
on EACs without attributes that meet
these three criteria there is a significant
risk that hydrogen production would sig-
nificantly increase direct and significant
indirect GHG emissions—and, in partic-
ular, induced grid emissions—beyond the
levels required to qualify for the section
45V credit.
Based on advice of the DOE and the
EPA, the proposed regulations included
the qualifying EAC requirements. Upon
consideration of the comments received,
these final regulations retain the require-
ments. The qualifying EAC requirements
are indeed necessary to address the risk of
significant indirect emissions associated
with electricity use for purposes of the
section 45V credit. Electricity from a spe-
cific generator will have a GHG emissions
profile that results from both its direct and
indirect emissions. Requiring EACs with
attributes that meet the three criteria is
necessary to address and prevent, to the
extent reasonably practicable, indirect
GHG emissions resulting from the dynam-
ics of the electricity market and the elec-
tric grid and fulfill the statute’s directive
to only award the section 45V credit to
hydrogen production with lifecycle GHG
emissions within specified levels.
Section 45V(c)(1) and section 211(o)
(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act require the
consideration of significant indirect emis-
sions. A few comments questioned how
the induced indirect emissions from the
use of electricity to produce hydrogen are
significant. Some stated that modeling
should be done to determine if indirect
emissions are significant. Other comments
included analysis and modeling, finding
that induced grid emissions will often be
large enough to affect whether a project
qualifies for the section 45V credit or what
tier of the credit it qualifies for, indicating
that these emissions are significant.
In response, the Treasury Department
and the IRS note that whether emissions
19
See Letter from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Lily Batchelder, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury (Dec.
20, 2023), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/45V-NPRM-EPA-letter.pdf (EPA December 2023 Letter).
20
See U.S. Department of Energy, Assessing Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Electricity Use for the Section 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit (Dec. 19, 2023),
available at https://www.energy.gov/45vresources (scroll to “45V White Paper;” then click “Read and download the 45V White Paper”).

March 24, 2025 1294 Bulletin No. 2025–13
are significant must be understood within
the structure of section 45V. For purposes
of section 45V, the specific amount of
emissions determine whether hydrogen
produced is qualified clean hydrogen
(with a lifecycle GHG emissions rate of
not greater than 4 kilograms of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen) and what applica-
ble percentage, and therefore amount of
credit, the taxpayer may qualify for. See
Section 45V(b) and (c)(2). In this statutory
context, any indirect emissions may be
significant, because such emissions could
affect the qualification for, and amount
of, the section 45V credit. In addition, the
Treasury Department and the IRS note that
the DOE advised that “electrolysis projects
that use grid electricity have the potential
to be several times more GHG intensive
than the threshold for the lowest value
§ 45V tax credit tier (i.e., 4 kg of CO2e/
kg H2), and could be more GHG inten-
sive than existing forms of conventional
hydrogen production.”
21
Further, the EPA
advised in the EPA December 2023 Letter
that “publications have noted that electrol-
ysis projects that use large amounts of grid
electricity to produce hydrogen have the
potential to be several times more green-
house-gas intensive than the threshold for
even the lowest value IRC section 45V
tax credit tier, and could in fact be more
greenhouse-gas intensive than existing
forms of conventional hydrogen produc-
tion.”
22
For example, one study found that
subsidized grid-connected hydrogen pro-
duction has the potential to induce addi-
tional emissions at effective rates worse
than those of conventional, fossil-based
hydrogen production pathways and that
hydrogen electrolysis with no incremen-
tality requirement would cause GHG
emissions rates at nearly 20 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen in an
82 percent carbon-free California power
grid in 2030.
23
Another study found that
electrolysis using non-additional clean
energy would incur 22 to 40 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen across
all 14 modeled regions comprising the 48
contiguous U.S. states and the District of
Columbia.
24
Another study assessed the
impact on GHG emissions of electrolytic
hydrogen production without an incre-
mentality requirement and found that this
could increase emissions by 73 million
metric tons in 2030.
25
Further, the level
of induced grid emissions is expected to
often be large enough to disqualify hydro-
gen production from credit eligibility or,
at minimum, affect which level of credit
the production is eligible for. Based on the
evidence, the Treasury Department and
the IRS are statutorily required under sec-
tion 45V to consider induced grid emis-
sions as “significant indirect emissions,”
consistent with the EPA’s previous inter-
pretation of that term in section 211(o)(1)
(H) of the Clean Air Act.
26
Many of the comments that criticized
the qualifying EAC requirements and
framework also raised concerns about
the effect that the requirements may have
on industry. For example, some com-
ments opposed the requirements on the
grounds that they exacerbate challenges
that already exist in getting hydrogen pro-
duction projects underway, such as higher
costs related to debt, materials, and labor,
as well as competition to electrolytic
hydrogen from other types of fuel produc-
tion processes. Similarly, one comment
claimed that the proposed qualifying EAC
requirement framework would signifi-
cantly increase the production cost of the
lowest carbon-intensity hydrogen. Other
comments claimed that the regulatory
costs outweigh the emissions benefits.
Comments also stated that implementing
the qualifying EAC requirements could
cause a significant expansion of renew-
able energy generation sources without
regard to existing generation sources and
therefore artificially accelerate the devel-
opment of such sources; this may cause
problems if the development does not also
address reliability concerns of a particular
region’s infrastructure.
In contrast, several other comments
stressed the importance of maintaining
the rigor of the qualifying EAC require-
ments and cautioned that any flexibility
should be done with care and consider-
ation to ensure that the intended purpose
of the qualifying EAC requirements is not
undermined. One comment urged that the
final regulations maintain the strictness of
the qualifying EAC requirements for pur-
poses of determining section 45V credit
eligibility to ensure that hydrogen pro-
ducers are properly incentivized and con-
strained to utilize the section 45V credit
for the generation of qualified clean hydro-
gen. Some supportive comments, despite
acknowledging the challenges of meeting
the requirements of the qualifying EAC
requirements in the near term, claimed
that electricity meeting the qualifying
EAC requirements is likely to be available
in vast quantities. These comments gen-
erally contended that the qualifying EAC
framework will make electrolytic hydro-
gen production economically beneficial
and environmentally sustainable.
As noted previously in this part of the
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions, the qualifying EAC require-
ments address the risk of significant indi-
rect emissions associated with electricity
used in the production of hydrogen for
purposes of the section 45V credit. The
comments outlined in this part reflect dif-
ferent views on how the consideration of
significant indirect emissions may affect
the hydrogen industry. The section 45V
credit incentivizes certain hydrogen pro-
duction, but subject to limitations regard-
ing the level of lifecycle GHG emissions.
One of those limitations is the statutory
requirement to take into account signif-
icant indirect emissions. Therefore, the
21
DOE Technical Paper supra note 20.
22
EPA December 2023 Letter supra note 19 (citing U.S. Department of Energy, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen (2023), at 10-12, available at https://liftoff.energy.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-Hydrogen.pdf).
23
Wilson Ricks et al., Minimizing Emissions from Grid-Based Hydrogen Production in the United States, 18 Environmental Research Letters, no. 1, Jan. 2023, available at https://iopscience.
iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acacb5/pdf.
24
Dan Esposito et al., Smart Design of 45V Hydrogen Production Tax Credit Will Reduce Emissions and Grow the Industry, at 19 (Apr. 2023), available at https://energyinnovation.org/
wp-content/uploads/Smart-Design-Of-45V-Hydrogen-Production-Tax-Credit-Will-Reduce-Emissions-And-Grow-The-Industry.pdf.
25
The study notes this figure assumes no improvement in grid carbon intensity over time. Ben King et al., Scaling Green Hydrogen in a Post-IRA World, Rhodium Group (Blog) (Mar. 16,
2023), available at https://rhg.com/research/scaling-clean-hydrogen-ira/.
26
See EPA December 2023 Letter supra note 19.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1295 March 24, 2025
recommendation to eliminate the qualify-
ing EAC requirements is not adopted by
these final regulations because it would
fail to address such emissions.
While some comments advocated for
abandoning the qualifying EAC require-
ments in their entirety, other comments
suggested modifications, such as by giving
hydrogen producers more time to adjust
or allowing greater flexibility in sourcing
the electricity used. They also emphasized
the need for such modifications to ensure
that the qualifying EAC requirements do
not create an uneven playing field across
regions, disadvantage existing clean elec-
tricity generators, or have the effect of
incentivizing only non-electrolytic, fos-
sil-fuel-based hydrogen production.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
have considered these comments, and
these final regulations make adjustments
to each of the qualifying EAC require-
ments to provide additional flexibility,
while continuing to adhere to the statutory
requirements of section 45V. These final
regulations adopt certain alternative rules
under the incrementality requirement of
proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i) that reflect sit-
uations that do not pose the same risk of
induced grid emissions that the incremen-
tality requirement is otherwise needed to
address. These alternatives are discussed
in more detail in part III.D.3.b.ii through v
of the Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions. In addition, these
final regulations, in response to the com-
ments, delay until 2030 the requirement
that temporal matching be hourly (from
2028 in the proposed regulations). This
change is discussed in more detail in part
III.D.3.c.ii of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions. These final
regulations, however, do not delay the
imposition of the qualifying EAC require-
ments or provide rules that would exempt
certain hydrogen producers from those
requirements. As previously noted, the
qualifying EAC requirements are needed
to address the risk that induced grid
emissions will otherwise lead to lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rates that are beyond
the statutory thresholds. Consideration
of significant induced grid emissions and
disqualifying hydrogen production above
the statutory thresholds is required under
section 45V. In addition to addressing
induced grid emissions risk, the quali-
fying EAC framework also is needed to
prevent double counting of energy attri-
butes. Furthermore, EACs play a second-
ary role to inform and verify the feedstock
assumptions applied in 45VH2-GREET
in estimating the lifecycle emissions of
hydrogen production.
One comment recommended an alter-
native to the qualifying EAC requirements
that follows European Union (EU) rules
allowing hydrogen production to qualify
as green where hydrogen is produced in
a region with an average renewable elec-
tricity share exceeding 90 percent in the
previous calendar year, if the hydrogen
production does not exceed the propor-
tion of renewable electricity in the region.
Another comment noted that while the EU
has exemptions to incrementality, the EU
also has an Emissions Trading System that
caps consequential emissions that may
result from the exemption. In consultation
with the DOE, the Treasury Department
and the IRS note that the approach taken
by the first comment cannot ensure con-
sistency with the 4 kilograms of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen emissions intensity
threshold based on a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions analysis that conforms with section
45V because diverted zero emission elec-
tricity generation could still be backfilled
with GHG emitting generation. However,
these final regulations adopt an incremen-
tality pathway consistent with statutory
requirements that looks to features of
State law, as discussed in part III.D.3.b.iv
of this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions.
Another comment suggested that
EACs be required only corresponding to
the percentage of electricity purchased
by the hydrogen producer that equals the
percentage of the total electricity demand
of production in the region that is not cur-
rently renewable. In response, the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS note that the
most reliable way to validate electricity
use claims is through the retirement of
EACs. Doing otherwise risks the pos-
sibility of double sale and counting of
energy attributes. Further, as described in
the Explanation of Provisions to the pro-
posed regulations, the three qualifying
EAC requirements combine to mitigate
the risk that induced grid emissions will
lead to lifecycle GHG emission rates that
are above what is permitted for eligibility
for the section 45V credit. If the hydro-
gen facility’s increased electricity load
is only partly matched with incremental
clean generation, then there can be no
assurance that the remaining portion of
that increased load has no induced grid
emissions (in fact, induced grid emissions
would be expected). Such emissions must
be considered in estimating the lifecycle
GHG emission rate under section 45V.
A number of comments suggested that
the regulations allow the use of carbon
or emissions matching in lieu of, or as
an alternative to, the current EAC frame-
work. One of these comments explained
that such an approach would identify the
annual emissions induced by the energy
consumption of a hydrogen electrolyzer
and offset them by at least an equivalent
amount of avoided emissions attributable
to the procurement of onsite or offsite
sources of renewable energy generation.
Similarly, several comments proposed
that carbon matching or carbon account-
ing could be used as substitute for certain
qualifying EACs. For instance, comments
suggested allowing the use of marginal
carbon accounting, paired with incremen-
tality, to replace temporal matching and
deliverability. In response to these com-
ments, the Treasury Department and the
IRS note that the three qualifying EAC
requirements are intended to mitigate
the risk of significant indirect emissions,
including induced grid emissions. As
described in the DOE Technical Paper,
and supported in multiple comments, the
requirements address both operational
(short-term) and structural (long-term)
effects that can affect lifecycle emissions
outcomes. The Treasury Department and
the IRS are concerned about the ability to
develop a rigorous, fully standardized, and
carbon-based accounting system, whereas
the EAC qualifying criteria have already
been established, is consistent with stan-
dard industry practice for the voluntary
market and most State regulatory pro-
grams, and will be readily administrable
on a nationwide basis.
Several comments were not convinced
of the viability of EACs and the qualifying
EAC requirements, and questioned mod-
els and scenarios that are used to justify
the viability of the requirements. Whereas
some comments requested exemptions
from the qualifying EAC requirements,

March 24, 2025 1296 Bulletin No. 2025–13
other comments requested delays in
implementation. Requests for exemptions
addressed specific technologies or feed-
stocks, specific electricity generators, cer-
tain types of hydrogen production facili-
ties, certain reliance periods, and certain
jurisdictions or regions. Some comments
requested a specific exception from the
qualifying EAC requirements where the
hydrogen production facility uses elec-
tricity to produce hydrogen and such
electricity generating facility is directly
connected with the hydrogen production
facility (that is, behind-the-meter). One
comment suggested that the qualifying
EAC requirements should not apply in
their entirety if a hydrogen production
facility uses electricity generated by a
facility that qualifies for either the sec-
tion 45Y credit or the section 48E credit.
Many comments requested reliance rules
(sometimes referred to in comments as
“grandfathering”) with respect to some or
all of the qualifying EAC requirements,
for hydrogen production facilities with a
beginning-of-construction date, placed in
service date, or commercial-operations
date before a certain point.
Comments that recommended that the
regulations delay implementing the qual-
ifying EAC requirements due to viability
concerns varied considerably. One com-
ment recommended that implementation
be based upon meeting defined require-
ments that establish viability of imposing
qualifying EAC requirements. Other com-
ments suggested a variety of proposed
timelines for implementation.
In contrast, other comments urged that
the final regulations should not provide
any exemptions from or delays in imple-
mentation. Some comments advocated for
an accelerated timeline for implement-
ing the qualifying EAC requirements to
reduce the risk of induced grid emissions,
and urged that delays be avoided.
In response to these comments, these
final regulations do not provide exemp-
tions from the qualifying EAC require-
ments or delay their application, as
such exemptions or delays would lead
to induced grid emissions. Section 45V
requires that the determination of lifecy-
cle GHG emissions consider significant
indirect emissions, and as described ear-
lier, the qualifying EAC requirements are
the best available approach for address-
ing induced grid emissions that could
constitute significant indirect emissions
given the statutory requirement to use the
most recent GREET model or a succes-
sor model. Delaying the qualifying EAC
requirements would delay the entire regu-
latory framework that addresses the risk of
significant indirect emissions and ensures
that the credit is only awarded to hydrogen
produced through a process that results in
qualifying lifecycle GHG emission rates,
which would be in a manner that is con-
trary to the statute.
With respect to comments’ requests for
an exception for behind-the-meter gener-
ation, these final regulations do not create
such an exception. As explained in part
III.D.1 of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions regarding
the discussion of the EAC framework,
uniformly requiring claims of electricity
usage generated from specific sources
to be evidenced by EACs that meet the
requirements of §1.45V-4(d)(1) is neces-
sary to mitigate the risks of double count-
ing of electricity attributes and of induced
grid emissions that would make the hydro-
gen production ineligible for the credit or
a specific credit level. Because behind-
the-meter electricity generating facilities
have tradeable attributes that may be sold
and because diversion of electricity from
these facilities can result in induced emis-
sions, imposing a uniform set of require-
ments that does not exempt these facilities
is the most administrable way to mitigate
the risk of double counting and ensure
that any induced grid emissions relating to
such facilities are addressed.
With respect to requests for a reli-
ance rule, such a rule would function as
a limited or complete exemption to the
qualifying EAC requirements, and thus
would not appropriately address the risk
of induced grid emissions for the facili-
ties under such rule. For this reason and
because such a reliance rule is contrary to
the statute, these final regulations do not
to adopt such a rule.
However, as described in this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, the final regulations provide
additional flexibilities within the frame-
work established by the qualifying EAC
requirements, consistent with statutory
requirements. For example, as described in
part III.D.3.c.ii of this Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions, these
final regulations extend the transition rule
regarding the temporal matching require-
ment to address administrative challenges
raised by the comments, while still requir-
ing annual matching during the transition
period. Other additional flexibilities are
described in parts III.D.3.b.ii through v,
III.D.3.c.ii and v, and III.D.3.d.iii.
Finally, comments requested clarifi-
cation as to whether the qualifying EAC
requirements are applicable only to elec-
trolytic hydrogen production or if they
also extend to processes that use electric-
ity indirectly in the production of hydro-
gen, such as, for example, biogenic hydro-
gen production. In response, the Treasury
Department and the IRS clarify that the
acquisition and retirement of qualifying
EACs is required whenever a taxpayer
seeks to treat a hydrogen production facil-
ity’s use of electricity as being from a spe-
cific electricity generating facility rather
than being from the regional electricity
grid, regardless of the specific production
process.
b. Incrementality
i. In General
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(A) would
have provided that an EAC meets the
incrementality requirement if the elec-
tricity generating facility that produced
the unit of electricity to which the EAC
relates has a COD (as defined in proposed
§1.45V-4(d)(2)(i)) that is no more than 36
months before the hydrogen production
facility for which the EAC is retired was
placed in service. Proposed §1.45V-4(d)
(3)(i)(B) would have provided an alter-
native test for establishing incrementality
for electricity generating facilities that
undergo an uprate. Proposed §1.45V-4(d)
(3)(i)(C) would have provided an example
to illustrate the application of the alterna-
tive test for establishing incrementality
due to uprates.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received numerous comments with respect
to the incrementality requirement. To the
extent that these comments concern the
qualifying EAC requirements in general,
they are addressed in part III.D.3.a of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1297 March 24, 2025
A number of comments addressed the
36-month lookback period for incremen-
tality. Several comments requested that
the period be lengthened, to take into
account supply chain delays, or otherwise
be more flexible. These final regulations
do not adopt such changes, which could
significantly extend the lookback period.
The lookback period rule was meant to
balance the need for flexibility, recogniz-
ing that it may be hard to perfectly align
the placed in service date of the hydrogen
producer with the COD of the clean power
generator, with the requirement that the
lifecycle GHG emissions account for
direct and significant indirect emissions,
including induced grid emissions. Further
extending that lookback period beyond
36 months risks induced grid emissions,
as such clean power facilities may not
be truly incremental. Furthermore, the
Treasury Department and the IRS note
that significant new clean power gener-
ation is being deployed each year, some
of which may be available to hydrogen
producers. While permitting and inter-
connection is time consuming, substantial
amounts of new clean power have com-
pleted interconnection agreements, so a
significant portion of such generation has
largely already gone through that process.
On balance, the 36-month lookback pro-
vides sufficient flexibility while providing
a meaningful check against the risk of
induced grid emissions and lifecycle GHG
emission rates that would be in excess of
those allowed by section 45V.
Similarly, other comments stated that
the lookback period should begin at the
hydrogen production facility’s beginning
of construction date instead of the facili-
ty’s placed in service date. The final reg-
ulations do not adopt these comments,
as they would significantly lengthen the
lookback period relative to the point at
which the hydrogen production facil-
ity actually begins producing hydrogen.
Other comments raised issues relating to
the retrofitting or repowering of facilities
or the 80/20 Rule. These comments are
discussed part V.B of the of this Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Revi-
sions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received several comments that stated that
the incrementality requirement is against
the Congressional purpose of jumpstart-
ing the clean hydrogen industry and is not
supported by the statute. These comments
also suggested that hydrogen produced
using nuclear energy from a nuclear facil-
ity that might otherwise retire would mit-
igate the risk of induced grid emissions.
The comments make several statutory
arguments. First, they point to the section
45U credit, which was established by the
IRA and applies only to nuclear facilities
placed in service prior to the enactment of
the IRA. Section 45U(c)(2) incorporates
rules set forth in section 45(e)(13) that
allow nuclear facilities receiving credits
under section 45U to treat the electricity
such facilities generate as sold to an unre-
lated person during the taxable year if
such electricity is used by the taxpayer or
a person related to the taxpayer at a qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
to produce qualified clean hydrogen. The
comments contend that the incremental-
ity requirement renders section 45U(c)
(2) superfluous, as it would prevent the
electricity produced by a facility that is
eligible for the section 45U credit from
being treated as zero-emissions electricity
in the production of qualified clean hydro-
gen. Second, the comments state that an
incrementality requirement is inconsistent
with the definition of lifecycle GHG emis-
sions in section 45V(c)(1)(A) and section
211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act, and
specifically assert that well-to-gate GHG
emissions from nuclear-based hydrogen
production are minimal. Third, the com-
ments point out that section 45V contains
two provisions that are explicitly limited
to facilities of a particular age (section
45V(c)(3)(C) and (e)(2)(A)) and submit
that the lack of such an explicit rule with
respect to induced grid emissions sug-
gests that the incrementality requirement
violates Congressional intent. Fourth, the
comments assert that the incrementality
requirement violates the major questions
doctrine. Finally, these comments state
that the incrementality requirement dis-
criminates against electricity produced
from nuclear power and that it may jeop-
ardize the viability of the Regional Clean
Hydrogen Hubs initiative of the Infra-
structure Investment and Jobs Act (Public
Law 117-58).
In response to these comments, the
Treasury Department and the IRS note
that the incrementality requirement and
qualifying EAC requirements are not
mandatory under these final regulations.
A taxpayer is not required to acquire and
retire qualifying EACs. However, the tax-
payer may only reflect in 45VH2-GREET
or include in a PER the taxpayer’s use of
electricity as being from a specific elec-
tricity generating facility (rather than
being from the regional electricity grid) if
the taxpayer acquires and retires qualify-
ing EACs that satisfy the qualifying EAC
requirements. The Treasury Department
and the IRS disagree with the arguments
that the incrementality requirement is
inconsistent with the statute. Instead, as
explained in part III.D.3.a of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, the qualifying EAC require-
ments, including incrementality, are a rea-
sonable methodological proxy for quanti-
fying induced grid emissions associated
with new load from electrolytic hydrogen
production being added to an existing grid.
The lack of such requirements would fail
to provide a method for addressing sig-
nificant indirect emissions, as required by
section 45V(c)(1)(A) and section 211(o)
(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act, and so would
be inconsistent with section 45V. Fur-
thermore, the incrementality requirement
as modified under these final regulations
does not render sections 45U(c)(2) and
45(e)(13) superfluous, both because the
qualifying EAC requirements are not man-
datory, and because, under these final reg-
ulations, electricity from certain existing
nuclear reactors provides an alternative
pathway to incrementality, as discussed in
part III.D.3.b.v of this Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions. The
Treasury Department and the IRS likewise
disagree that the incrementality require-
ment discriminates against nuclear power.
As with other facilities, redirecting elec-
tricity produced by existing nuclear facil-
ities to hydrogen production can result in
induced emissions. For the reasons pre-
viously explained, electricity that meets
the incrementality requirement does not
pose the same risk of induced emissions.
In addition, the two provisions in section
45V cited by the comments, which are
limited to facilities of a particular age, are
unrelated to determining lifecycle GHG
emissions and therefore are irrelevant to
Congressional intent on this issue. Finally,
with respect to comments suggesting the

March 24, 2025 1298 Bulletin No. 2025–13
incrementality requirement is incompati-
ble with the major questions doctrine, the
Treasury Department and the IRS note that
section 45V, consistent with other parts of
the IRA, contains several express grants
of authority to the Secretary, including
under section 45V(f), to issue regulations
or other guidance to carry out the purposes
of section 45V, including regulations or
other guidance for determining lifecycle
GHG emissions. As explained previously,
the qualifying EAC requirements are inte-
gral to the assessment of lifecycle GHG
emissions as mandated by section 45V(c)
(1) and are thus clearly within the Secre-
tary’s authority, as several comments have
noted.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree with the comments that suggest
that the use of electricity generated by an
existing nuclear facility may, in certain
cases, have a limited risk of induced grid
emissions. Accordingly, the final regula-
tions adopt an additional incrementality
pathway for electricity that is produced
by an electricity generation facility that
is a qualifying nuclear reactor, which is
discussed in part III.D.3.b.v of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions. The Treasury Department and
the IRS also note that a qualifying nuclear
reactor that produces electricity used by
a hydrogen production facility under this
pathway may qualify for the section 45U
credit if the requirements for the section
45U credit are otherwise met. One com-
ment raised the issue of “test” energy—
electricity produced prior to COD. The
comment asked that such electricity pro-
duction be deemed incremental, noting
that some EAC registries already issue
certificates for test energy. The Treasury
Department and the IRS affirm that EACs
associated with test energy are allowed
and may be considered incremental if the
other requirements are met.
In consideration of additional com-
ments received and as discussed in the
following parts III.D.3.b.ii through v of
this Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions, these final regulations
modify the general incrementality rule in
proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(A) to allow
for electricity represented by an EAC that
is produced by an electricity generating
facility that has placed in service carbon
capture and sequestration technology
within a certain timeframe. In addition,
the final regulations adopt the following
additional ways to satisfy the incremen-
tality requirement: (i) an alternative for
electricity represented by an EAC that
is produced by an electricity generation
facility in a qualifying State; and (ii) an
alternative for electricity represented by
an EAC that is produced by an electric-
ity generation facility that is a qualifying
nuclear reactor.
ii. Carbon Capture and Sequestration
The final regulations modify proposed
§1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(A) and provide that
an EAC also meets the incrementality
requirement if the electricity represented
by the EAC is produced by an electricity
generating facility that uses carbon cap-
ture and sequestration (CCS) technology
and the carbon capture equipment has a
placed in service date that is no more than
36 months before the hydrogen produc-
tion facility for which the EAC is retired
was placed in service (CCS retrofit rule).
The definition of “eligible EAC” in pro-
posed §1.45V-4(d)(2)(iii) is amended to
require that the EAC include the placed in
service date of the carbon capture equip-
ment used in the production of electricity.
In addition, as further discussed in part
III.G of this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions, these final reg-
ulations add §1.45V-4(e), which provides
that CCS may be taken into account only
if the carbon is captured and disposed of in
secure geological storage, pursuant to sec-
tion 45Q(f)(2) and any regulations estab-
lished thereunder, or utilized in a manner
described in section 45Q(f)(5) and any
regulations established thereunder. The
Treasury Department and the IRS note
that an electricity generating facility pro-
ducing electricity that is represented by an
EAC that utilizes the CCS retrofit rule to
satisfy the incrementality requirement is
subject to this requirement. The Treasury
Department and the IRS received several
comments on CCS generally, which are
discussed in part III.G of this Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Revi-
sions. With respect to the incrementality
requirement, the Treasury Department and
the IRS noted in the proposed regulations
that there are circumstances in which an
existing higher-emitting electricity gener-
ating facility may make upgrades to sub-
sequently deliver electricity with lower
emissions. For example, an existing fos-
sil-fuel electricity generating facility may
add CCS capability, thereby reducing its
emissions. The Treasury Department and
the IRS requested comments on whether
the electricity generated by such a facility
should be considered incremental under
circumstances such as if an existing fos-
sil fuel electricity-generating facility after
the addition of carbon capture equipment
(after upgrade) had a COD that is no more
than 36 months before the relevant hydro-
gen production facility was placed in ser-
vice. Comment also was requested on the
related question whether, depending on its
carbon dioxide capture rate, it would be
appropriate to treat such a facility as a new
source of minimal-emitting generation
on the grid that would not be associated
with induced grid emissions. Relevant to
these questions, the Treasury Department
and the IRS requested comments on what
information would be needed to allow for
qualifying EACs representing existing
fossil fuel-powered electricity from facili-
ties that have added carbon capture equip-
ment, and whether there are safeguards
that can ensure that a hydrogen producer’s
purchase and use of electricity from an
existing fossil fuel-fired electricity gener-
ating facility that installs carbon capture
equipment does not result in emissions
due to the dynamics of the electricity mar-
ket and electric grid. Finally, the Treasury
Department and the IRS requested com-
ments on the direct and indirect emissions
impacts of making such a facility eligi-
ble, and whether and under what circum-
stances it would be appropriate to do so.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received numerous comments in response
to these requests. After consideration of
these comments and in consultation with
the DOE, these final regulations incor-
porate the CCS retrofit rule under the
incrementality requirement. A number
of comments supported the adoption of
such a rule, many providing qualitative
or quantitative arguments for why the
induced grid emissions resulting from
an existing generating facility retrofitted
with CCS would be minimal. In contrast,
comments opposed to a CCS retrofit rule
stated that the emissions effect of such a
rule was uncertain. One comment stated

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1299 March 24, 2025
that hydrogen produced by an electric-
ity source using a CCS retrofit would
still need to be met by new generation.
Another comment noted specifically that
any CCS that is legally required should
not be deemed incremental.
These final regulations adopt the CCS
retrofit rule because an electricity-gen-
erating facility retrofit with carbon cap-
ture equipment may be considered a new
source of lower-carbon supply. Such a
plant produces lower emissions by virtue
of the addition of CCS, compared to one
without CCS, and its EACs will reflect
its relevant attributes, as discussed more
in part III.D.3.a of this Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
recognize that section 45V may create
incentives for existing fossil fuel elec-
tricity generation to place in service car-
bon capture equipment. New CCS retro-
fits will generally reduce emissions even
in the presence of increased load due to
hydrogen production, in part because
any increased grid electricity for such
increased load is likely to be met by new
sources of electricity generation with an
equivalent or lower emissions profile than
the existing electricity source prior to its
retrofit with carbon capture technology.
For simplicity and administrability, the
CCS retrofit rule ties incrementality to
the date the new carbon capture equip-
ment is placed in service. Additionally,
these final regulations do not adopt a rule
that CCS retrofits mandated by law are
not incremental. To do otherwise would
be inconsistent with the requirements for
other clean generation, which are treated
as incremental based on the generating
facility’s COD regardless of whether
that new generation is mandated by law.
Determining what is mandated by law is
not straightforward, which raises adminis-
trability concerns.
Consistent with the comments’ rec-
ommendations regarding the treatment of
new power plants that are equipped with
carbon capture equipment (new build
CCS), EACs from plants retrofitted with
new carbon capture equipment will not
have a zero emissions rate, and this infor-
mation would need to be reflected accord-
ingly in 45VH2-GREET as part of the
GHG emissions rate calculation. Rules for
such EACs are discussed in part III.D.3.a
of this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions.
iii. Uprates
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B) would
have provided rules for determining upra-
ted production. Specifically, proposed
§1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B) would have pro-
vided that an uprated electricity generat-
ing facility’s production must be prorated
to each hour or year, consistent with the
requirements in proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)
(ii), of such facility’s generation by mul-
tiplying each hour’s production by the
uprated production rate to determine the
electricity to which the uprate relates. Pro-
posed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B) would have
defined key terms, including: (i) ‘‘uprate,’’
which means an increase in an electric-
ity generating facility’s rated nameplate
capacity (in nameplate megawatts); (ii)
‘‘pre-uprate capacity,’’ which means the
nameplate capacity of an electricity gen-
erating facility immediately before an
uprate; (iii) ‘‘post-uprate capacity,’’ which
means the nameplate capacity of an elec-
tricity-generating facility immediately
after an uprate; (iv) ‘‘incremental gener-
ation capacity,’’ which means the increase
in an electricity generating facility’s rated
nameplate capacity from the pre-uprate
capacity to the post-uprate capacity; (v)
‘‘uprated production rate,’’ which means
the incremental generation capacity (in
nameplate megawatts) divided by the
post-uprate capacity (in nameplate mega-
watts); and (vi) ‘‘uprated production,’’
which means the uprated production rate
of an electricity generating facility mul-
tiplied by its total generation output in a
given hour (in megawatt hours). Thus, the
uprated production gets pro-rated over the
course of the year during each hour elec-
tricity is generated. Proposed §1.45V-4(d)
(3)(i)(C) would have provided an example
to illustrate the application of the alterna-
tive test for establishing incrementality
due to uprates.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received comments with respect to upra-
tes. Some comments suggested that any
uprate used to satisfy the incrementality
requirement must be established through
approval of an amended or modified oper-
ating license or similar approval by a gov-
ernmental or quasi-governmental agency,
such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion (NRC), FERC, or a regional grid
operator. These final regulations do not
adopt this as a standalone measurement
standard. A sole, general rule requiring
modified or amended licenses, or for elec-
tricity generating facilities to obtain other
forms of governmental approval, is not
needed to reasonably capture additions
to capacity. Because the uprated produc-
tion represents new production capacity, it
should satisfy the incrementality require-
ment. In addition, some uprates come
from facilities that do not require approval
from the NRC, the FERC, or a regional
operator.
One comment requested that guid-
ance clarify that uprates or upgrades
with respect to a nuclear facility or other
zero-emission-generating facility, such
as hydropower, satisfy the incrementality
requirement provided that the uprate or
upgrade results in an incremental increase
in the electricity generation output based
on the actual productive capability of such
facility, after considering degradation and
other limitations on its original nameplate,
licensed, or rated capacity. The Treasury
Department and the IRS acknowledge
that measuring capacity using nameplate
capacity would, in some cases, not reflect
age-based degradation in capacity or cer-
tain types of capacity increases.
In response to these comments, these
final regulations modify the uprate rules in
§1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B) to account for poten-
tial differences in the nameplate capac-
ity and the actual productive capacity of
the facility. The final regulations provide
that the term uprate means the increase in
either an electricity generating facility’s
nameplate capacity (in nameplate mega-
watts) or its capacity measured by a stan-
dard other than nameplate capacity, which
the final regulations define as specified
capacity. Measurement of specified capac-
ity may be determined using one of three
standards: (1) a modified or amended facil-
ity license from FERC or NRC, or related
reports prepared by FERC or NRC as part
of the licensing process; (2) the ISO con-
ditions to measure the nameplate capacity
of the facility consistent with the defini-
tion of “nameplate capacity” provided
in 40 CFR 96.202; or (3) a measurement
standard as determined by the Secretary in
guidance published in the Internal Reve-

March 24, 2025 1300 Bulletin No. 2025–13
nue Bulletin. See §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B)(3).
The final regulations provide that if a tax-
payer is able to determine a measurement
standard based on a modified or amended
license from FERC or the NRC as part of
the licensing process, they may not use the
standard based on ISO conditions. Such a
rule should provide sufficient flexibility to
taxpayers in determining uprated produc-
tion. Similarly, the definitions of “pre-up-
rate capacity” and “post-uprate capacity”
are modified to include specified capacity.
Another comment recommended that
uprated production not be subject to a
36-month lookback period. However, as
the absence of a lookback period would
result in induced grid emissions that would
need to be reflected in the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate, these final regulations do
not adopt this comment.
The final regulations renumber the
general rule as §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B)(1),
include a new rule for restarts as §1.45V-
4(d)(3)(i)(B)(2), and retain the example as
§1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B)(4).
The final regulations also delete the
word “immediately” from the definitions
of “pre-uprate capacity” and “post-up-
rate capacity,” in order to provide clarity.
A time-period limitation is not necessary,
and the word “immediately” might other-
wise create uncertainty as to what capacity
should be taken into account. Thus, under
the final regulations, the term “pre-uprate
capacity” means the nameplate capacity or
specified capacity of an electricity generat-
ing facility before an uprate, and the term
“post-uprate capacity” means the nameplate
capacity or specified capacity of an electric-
ity generating facility after an uprate.
Some comments stated that an EAC
should satisfy the incrementality require-
ment if it is produced from an electricity
generation facility that has shut down and
then restarted. Several of these comments
gave the specific example of decommis-
sioned and restarted nuclear facilities. In
response to this, the Treasury Department
and the IRS note that, unless the restarted
electricity generation facility has a new
COD, the incrementality requirement
would generally not be satisfied, as the
electricity generation facility that pro-
duced the unit of electricity to which the
EAC relates would have a COD more than
36 months before the hydrogen produc-
tion facility for which the EAC is retired
was placed in service. However, the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS agree with
comments asserting that the electricity
generated from a restarted facility should
be considered incremental production.
To provide for this, the final regulations
add §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(B)(2), which clari-
fies that a facility that is decommissioned
or in the process of decommissioning
and restarts can be considered to have
increased nameplate or specified capacity
from a base of zero if the existing facil-
ity has ceased operations. Additionally,
the facility must have a shutdown period
of at least one calendar year during which
it was not authorized to operate by its
respective Federal regulatory authority
(either the FERC or the NRC), and the
increased capacity of the restarted facil-
ity must be eligible to restart based on
an operating license issued by the reg-
ulatory authority. The existing facility
must also not have ceased operations for
the purpose of qualifying for the special
rule for restarted facilities. This special
rule for restarted facilities relies, in part,
on operating authorizations provided by
governmental or quasi-governmental
agencies to provide an administrable and
verifiable means of distinguishing a restart
that should be treated like an addition of
incremental electricity-generating capac-
ity from temporary cessations or interrup-
tions in an electricity-generating facility’s
operations.
Finally, the Treasury Department and
the IRS remind taxpayers that a qualified
hydrogen production facility is only able
to claim incremental production associ-
ated with an uprate if the relevant EAC
registry tracks it via EACs. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS expect that
EAC registries will identify a propor-
tional amount of EACs generated in every
month—or, beginning in 2030—every
hour as “incremental” for purposes of
45V, based on the proportional increase in
capacity due to the uprate.
iv. Qualifying States
In the Explanation of Provisions to
the proposed regulations, the Treasury
Department and the IRS noted that, in cer-
tain circumstances, the diversion of exist-
ing minimal (that is, zero or near-zero)
emissions power generation to hydrogen
production may be unlikely to result in
significant induced GHG emissions and
noted as one such circumstance the gener-
ation from minimal-emitting power plants
in locations where grid-electricity is 100
percent generated by minimal-emitting
generators or where increases in load do
not increase grid emissions, for example,
due to State policy capping total GHG
emissions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received numerous comments in support
of a rule that accounts for such circum-
stances. In response to comments and after
consultation with the DOE and the EPA,
the final regulations provide an alternative
pathway for establishing incrementality,
under which an EAC meets the incremen-
tality requirement if the electricity repre-
sented by the EAC is produced by an elec-
tricity generating facility that is physically
located in a qualifying state (as defined
in §1.45V-4(d)(2)(xii)), and the hydro-
gen production facility is also located in
a qualifying state.
27
The final regulations
define qualifying State as a State which,
as determined by the Secretary, has under
its State law or regulations, a qualifying
electricity decarbonization standard and a
qualifying GHG cap program.
A qualifying electricity decarboniza-
tion standard is defined as a standard that
(i) contains a target that 100 percent of
the State’s retail sales of electricity from
obligated entities be supplied by renew-
able, non-emitting, zero-emitting, or min-
imal-emitting sources, where obligated
entities and eligible sources are defined
by State policy, or a target for GHG emis-
sions from the State’s electricity sector
that reflects an equivalent of such a retail
sales target, by 2050 or earlier; (ii) applies
to the large majority of eligible electric-
ity supplied to the State, as determined by
the State; and (iii) includes policies that
would achieve that target, a requirement
that the State develop a plan to achieve
the standard, or a requirement that enti-
ties subject to the standard are required to
develop such a plan. A State RPS or CES
that meets these requirements would be
27
Because this is an alternative pathway only to the incrementality requirement, the deliverability and temporal matching requirements still apply.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1301 March 24, 2025
a qualifying electricity decarbonization
standard.
A qualifying GHG cap program is
defined as a legally binding program that
(i) creates a limitation (cap) on the quan-
tity of GHG emissions from the electricity
sector (either alone or along with other
sectors) in the State through issuance of
a limited number of allowances or other
compliance instruments to covered entities
for each compliance period; (ii) includes
annual obligations under which an entity
subject to the cap must provide informa-
tion about such entity’s GHG emissions
and for which an entity must submit at
least some compliance instruments to the
State’s regulatory authority; (iii) includes
a cap on GHG emissions from covered
entities that generally declines over time
from the cap on GHG emissions in effect
in calendar year 2025 (or the first calen-
dar year in which the cap is in effect, if
later), with adjustments as appropriate for
expansions in the scope of the cap; (iv)
applies to the large majority of in-state
power-sector sources of emissions that
emit greater than 25,000 metric tons of
CO2e in a calendar year; (v) applies to
the large majority of out-of-state electric-
ity supplied to the State and to emissions
associated with those imports, including
emissions that arise from entities that emit
greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e in
a calendar year; (vi) generally ensures that
the prices of allowances sold in a state-run
auction cannot fall below $25 per metric
ton of CO2e, adjusted for inflation from
2025 dollars using at a minimum the most
recently available twelve month value of
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), as published by the
United States Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics (BLS); and (vii) generally ensures
that the cap on GHG emissions cannot
be exceeded for less than $90 per metric
ton of CO2e, adjusted for inflation from
2025 dollars using at a minimum the most
recently available twelve-month value of
the CPI-U, as published by the BLS.
The definition of qualifying State pro-
vides conditions under which State law
is sufficiently effective and stringent to
conclude with a reasonable degree of
certainty that new load is highly unlikely
to cause induced grid emissions. As fur-
ther described in this part III.D.3.b.iv, a
robust, legally binding State GHG emis-
sions cap that satisfies the qualifying
GHG cap requirements is the primary
criterion, because it ensures that overall
GHG emissions are effectively capped
regardless of electricity demand growth.
The qualifying electricity decarbonization
standard provides a further protection to
ensure that significant induced power grid
emissions are avoided, even in the context
of a multi-sector GHG emissions cap, by
requiring a State to also maintain a statu-
tory commitment to decarbonize its own
power supply, such as a CES or RPS.
Hydrogen production facilities located
in qualifying States can therefore satisfy
the incrementality requirement by using
qualifying EACs from existing clean
electricity sources located in qualifying
States. Temporal matching and deliv-
erability requirements will continue to
apply for qualified EACs, as will the need
to retire those EACs to ensure EACs and
their energy and emissions attributes are
not double counted or claimed by other
electricity consumers.
The requirement that a qualifying
State have a qualifying GHG cap program
and qualifying electricity decarboniza-
tion standard, and the requirements for
such program and standard, are meant to
identify circumstances under which new
electricity load is highly unlikely to cause
induced grid emissions. In consultation
with the DOE, the Secretary has deter-
mined that, as of the date of publication
of these final regulations, California and
Washington are qualifying States under
these final regulations. The requirements
in these regulations to be a qualifying
GHG cap program and meet the qualify-
ing electricity decarbonization standard
are based in part on those programs, which
the DOE has advised have functioned in
practice as robust caps.
With respect to the definition of a qual-
ifying GHG cap program, the Treasury
Department and the IRS note that whether
a State GHG cap is binding is influenced
by many features, including but not lim-
ited to, the magnitude of the emissions cap
relative to historical and projected emis-
sions; definitions of and use limitations
regarding carbon offsets; and the status of
and procedures governing the withholding
of and release of allowance reserves. As
a check on the combined effect of these
features on the stringency of the GHG pol-
icy and to ensure that they are not under-
mining the cap to the point where it is not
sufficiently ensuring that new electricity
load, such as from hydrogen production,
will not result in induced grid emissions,
requirements for a qualifying GHG cap
program generally ensures a minimum
allowance price set through statute or
regulation. To determine the appropriate
allowance price, the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS, in consultation with the
DOE, took into consideration observed
allowance prices over the past several
years in the existing State systems that the
DOE has advised were robust over that
period. Upon conclusion of that exercise,
the minimum required allowance price of
$25 per metric ton in 2025, and increasing
with inflation each year after 2025, was
determined to be high enough such that a
GHG cap policy provides sufficient incen-
tive to reduce emissions beyond what
might occur without the program. In other
words, the level is high enough to ensure
the cap provides a meaningful constraint
on emissions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
are aware that GHG cap systems are often
designed with ceiling prices, such as, for
example, an alternative compliance path-
way wherein obligated entities are allowed
emissions in excess of the stated GHG cap
in the event that allowance prices reach
the ceiling. If diversion of existing clean
electricity to hydrogen production caused
the ceiling price to be reached, that would
effectively cause emissions to exceed the
cap. Therefore, if a State system has a
ceiling price set through statute or regula-
tion, requiring that ceiling price to be set
well above the maximum allowance price
observed in existing systems is necessary
to help ensure that a State is, in practice,
unlikely to reach the ceiling price as a
result of increased electricity demand for
hydrogen production. These final reg-
ulations require this ceiling price to be
established by statute or regulation at $90
per metric ton of CO2e or more in 2025,
increasing with inflation each year after
2025. This level is more than two times
higher than the average prices observed
over the last several years in the two exist-
ing State systems the DOE advises were
robust over that period.
Collectively, these requirements help
ensure that, in the context of this alterna-

March 24, 2025 1302 Bulletin No. 2025–13
tive incrementality pathway, any increased
electricity load is highly unlikely to cause
induced grid emissions. With the require-
ments specified here, qualified GHG
cap policies will be enforceable by legal
means, feature emissions targets and car-
bon allowance prices that provide a suf-
ficient incentive to reduce emissions to
meet those targets and achieve emissions
reductions beyond what might occur with-
out the program, enable carbon allowance
prices to rise to ensure the cap is main-
tained, and minimize the risk of emissions
leakage to other geographies and entities
not obligated to comply with the program.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that a robust but a multi-sectoral
GHG cap program alone cannot, with suf-
ficient certainty, ensure that induced grid
emissions in States with such a program
are insignificant. A multi-sectoral cap may
allow emissions to rise in the power sec-
tor as a result of induced demand from
hydrogen production while offsetting
those emissions increases with reductions
in other sectors.
There are several reasons the Trea-
sury Department, the IRS, the DOE, and
the EPA have confidence that the risk of
induced grid emissions will be limited
in States with a qualifying GHG cap, as
required by these final regulations. First,
in the State with the longest experience
with a robust multi-sector GHG cap, Cal-
ifornia, the electricity sector has been a
leading source of emissions reductions
over the last decade.
28
Second, numer-
ous studies have shown that in the con-
text of effective GHG emission policies,
the electricity sector is likely to remain a
leading sector for decarbonization, in part
given the availability of multiple low-cost
clean electricity technologies.
29
Third, as a
result, it is unlikely in practice that a State
could remain in compliance with its cap
while experiencing a significant absolute
increase in grid emissions due to new
hydrogen production. Finally, as noted,
States are also required to meet certain
minimum requirements for an electricity
decarbonization standard, providing addi-
tional assurance that the State is commit-
ted to ongoing reductions in power sector
emissions.
With respect to the qualifying elec-
tricity decarbonization standard, some
comments suggested that a CES or RPS
requirement, on its own, should be suffi-
cient to ensure incrementality. However,
a clean electricity target, absent a legally
binding emissions cap, does not protect
against induced grid emissions and ensure
a lifecycle GHG emissions rate that is eli-
gible for the section 45V credit; a State
with such a target could still experience
a significant increase in GHG emissions
due to diverted grid electricity from out-
of-state or increased electricity demand
for hydrogen production, with no reliable
mechanism to prevent these increases.
Critically, unless a State policy requires
100 percent clean electricity in any year,
including from imports, even a legally
binding decarbonization standard would
permit diverted clean electricity to be par-
tially replaced with non-clean sources,
increasing grid emissions that would need
to be captured in the facility’s lifecycle
GHG emissions rate. Currently, no State
has adopted a policy that requires 100 per-
cent clean electricity in 2024 or 2025.
Hydrogen production facilities located
in qualifying States can satisfy the incre-
mentality requirement by using qualify-
ing EACs from existing clean electric-
ity generators located in those same or
other qualifying States. Some comments
requesting an exception based on State
policies on qualifying GHG emissions
caps and qualifying electricity decarbon-
ization standards recommended expand-
ing the exception to include all three
qualifying EAC requirements. These final
regulations do not adopt a broader rule,
instead limiting the rule as an alternative
way to satisfy the incrementality require-
ment only. The qualifying States pathway
provides reasonable assurance that any
existing clean electricity generation that
is diverted from another end use will not
result in an increase in grid emissions and
will instead be replaced by more clean
electricity. Notably, the fact that meeting
these requirements adequately addresses
the incrementality requirement does not
obviate the temporal matching or geo-
graphic matching requirements, which
must also be met to provide assurances
that the electricity was available and
deliverable to the hydrogen producer.
Therefore, temporal matching and deliv-
erability requirements will continue to
apply, and producers will need to obtain
and retire qualifying EACs to demonstrate
that they meet these requirements and to
thereby avoid the possible double credit-
ing of energy and emissions attributes.
v. Qualifying Nuclear Reactors
In the Explanation of Provisions to
the proposed regulations, the Treasury
Department and the IRS sought comments
on whether to treat EACs from an exist-
ing electricity generating facility as sat-
isfying the incrementality requirement if
the facility is likely to mitigate its risk of
retirement because of its relationship with
a hydrogen production facility. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS also noted
that the available data indicates there is an
ongoing risk of certain clean power plants
retiring. Some clean power plants, primar-
ily nuclear plants, have retired in recent
years. Based on data from the EIA, from
2013 through 2022, 10,800 megawatts
(MW) of nuclear have retired.
30
Studies
have shown that there is risk of continued
retirement in the years ahead.
31
Plant own-
ers may decide whether to retire based
on the finances of continuing to operate.
28
California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2022: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators (Sept. 20, 2024), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
sites/default/files/2024-09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.
29
See Morgan Browning, et al., Net-Zero CO
2
by 2050 Scenarios for the United States in the Energy Modeling Forum 37 Study, 4 Energy and Climate Change, Dec. 2023; John Bistline et al.,
Emissions and Energy Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, 380 Science, no. 6652, Jun. 29, 2023, at 1324–27; James Williams, et al., Carbon-Neutral Pathways for the United States, 2 AGU
Advances, no. 1, Mar. 2021, available at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2020AV000284; James R. McFarland, et al., Overview of the EMF 32 Study on U.S. Carbon
Tax Scenarios, 9 Climate Change Economics, no. 1, Feb. 2018, available at https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X; Leon E. Clarke, et al., Technology and
U.S. Emissions Reductions Goals: Results of the EMF 24 Modeling Exercise, 35 The Energy Journal, no. 1, Jun. 2014.
30
Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory (based on Form EIA-860M as a Supplement to Form EIA-860), U.S. Energy Information Administration, available at https://www.eia.
gov/electricity/data/eia860m/.
31
See John Bistline et al., Emissions and Energy Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, 380 Science, no. 6652, Jun. 29, 2023, at 1324–27; Annual Energy Outlook 2023, U.S. Energy Infor-
mation Administration, available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/tables_ref.php (last updated Mar. 16, 2023).

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1303 March 24, 2025
Additional revenue from selling EACs
and electricity to hydrogen producers may
improve the financial outlook of some
plants enough to help avert retirement,
thereby keeping the plant in operation and
substantially reducing induced grid emis-
sions compared to a scenario in which the
plant retires.
Several comments urged the Treasury
Department and the IRS to consider an
exception to the qualifying EAC require-
ments for hydrogen production facilities
using electricity from existing nuclear
facilities. After considering these com-
ments, the final regulations adopt a rule
under which an EAC may meet the incre-
mentality requirement if the electricity
represented by the EAC is produced by
an electricity generating facility that is
a qualifying nuclear reactor, as defined
in §1.45V-4(d)(2)(x). For purposes of
this rule, only up to 200 megawatt hours
(MWh) of electricity per operating hour
per qualifying nuclear reactor may be
considered incremental, subject to an inte-
grated operations rule described in this
part III.D.3.b.v of the Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions.
The term qualifying nuclear reactor
is defined as, with respect to an EAC, a
nuclear reactor that: (i) is a merchant
nuclear reactor, as defined in §1.45V-
4(d)(2)(vi), or is a nuclear reactor that is
not co-located with any other operating
nuclear reactor (that is, the nuclear reactor
is a single unit plant); (ii) meets a finan-
cial test related to that used for purposes
of the section 45U credit for any two of
the calendar years 2017 through 2021,
as determined with respect to any one
owner of the reactor; and (iii) either (A)
has a behind-the-meter physical electric
connection with the hydrogen production
facility that acquires and retires the EAC
or (B) is the subject of a written binding
contract, for a fixed term of at least 10
years beginning on the first date on which
qualified EAC are acquired, under which
the owner of the hydrogen production
facility agrees to acquire and retire EACs
from the nuclear reactor, and which man-
ages the qualifying nuclear reactor’s risk
of price changes with respect to EACs or
electricity. “Merchant nuclear reactors”
are nuclear reactors that compete in a com-
petitive electricity market through the sale
of energy and, in some cases, other ser-
vices, and for which over 50 percent of the
reactor and its electricity production does
not receive cost recovery through rate reg-
ulation or public ownership with related
retail rate recovery. However, as provided
in §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(D)(5), to the extent
the nuclear reactor satisfies the definition
of a qualifying nuclear reactor because it
is the subject of a written binding contract
as provided in paragraph §1.45V-4(d)(2)
(x)(C)(2), only the megawatt hours of
electricity for which the taxpayer acquires
EACs from the nuclear reactor pursuant
to the written binding contract—subject
to the 200 MWh per hour per qualifying
nuclear reactor limit—may be considered
incremental.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that, among existing clean electricity
generating facilities, nuclear plants have
the most demonstrably significant risk of
retirement based on historical trends and
future projections. Nuclear generators
are also the largest sources of clean elec-
tricity on an individual reactor basis, and
therefore closure of any reactor represents
significant potential emissions increases.
While the total capacity of operational
nuclear power has declined in the past
decade, the capacity of most other clean
energy sources has increased. Future
retirement risk is also concentrated on
nuclear power plants.
32

The requirements defining a qualify-
ing nuclear reactor identify those plants
that are most at risk of retirement. First,
the rule limits qualifying nuclear reactors
to nuclear reactors that bear substantial
wholesale electricity market price risk
through merchant power sales, rather than
cost-of-service (COS)-based guaranteed
revenue, and to single-unit COS plants.
Not all nuclear plants are at equal risk of
retirement; plants with greatest risk are
those with lower or more uncertain reve-
nue and/or with higher operational costs,
namely merchant plants and single-unit
plants. Merchant plants are exposed to
volatile and sometimes low wholesale
market prices. Although such plants may
have some power purchase agreements
(PPAs) and hedges, those tend to be lim-
ited, and such plants are very exposed to
changes in wholesale power markets. By
contrast, COS plants are less exposed, as
their ability to remain economic depends
on periodic rate-cases and resultant cost-
based rates. Competitive pressures remain
but are mediated with more long-term
planning considerations by plant owners
as well as regulators and other stakehold-
ers. Based on responses collected through
its Form EIA-860, Annual Electric Gener-
ator Report, EIA reports the “Regulatory
Status” of power plants in its Form EIA-
860 data. Following consultation with the
DOE, the Treasury Department and the
IRS understand that those nuclear reactors
that are part of nuclear power plants listed
as “NR” (non-regulated) in the 2023 Final
Form EIA-860 data are generally likely to
meet the merchant plant definition in these
final regulations.
Single-unit COS plants are also at risk
because they tend to have higher operating
costs per MWh of production than multi-
unit plants.
33
The DOE has also surveyed
past retirement patterns to identify the
plant characteristics associated with the
highest retirement rates, and its findings
are consistent with the above proposed
restrictions.
As part of identifying nuclear reactors
most at risk of retirement, these final reg-
ulations provide a financial test. A nuclear
reactor meets the financial test if the
average annual gross receipts (as defined
under section 45U) of the reactor were
less than 4.375 cents per kilowatt hour for
any two of the calendar years from 2017
through 2021. This financial test reflects
the framework adopted by Congress in
the IRA in section 45U, which provides
support for existing nuclear plants during
periods in which their receipts are below a
threshold level. The Treasury Department
and the IRS anticipate releasing guidance
under section 45U in the future, including
on the definition of gross receipts. Rules
32
For example, a 2023 article in the journal Science highlights findings across nine different models, showing uncertainty but significant nuclear retirement risk across many assessments over
the longer term. See John Bistline et al., Emissions and Energy Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, 380 Science, no. 6652, Jun. 29, 2023, at 1324-27.
33
For example, the Nuclear Energy Institute has estimated that single-unit plants’ costs averaged $41/MWh in 2022, whereas multi-unit plants’ costs average $29/MWh. See Nuclear Energy
Institute, Nuclear Costs in Context (Dec. 2023), available at https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/2023-Costs-in-Context_r1.pdf.

March 24, 2025 1304 Bulletin No. 2025–13
under such guidance for calculating gross
receipts would also apply for purposes of
the financial test provided in §1.45V-4(d)
(2)(x)(B). The threshold of 4.375 cents
is the gross receipts amount per kilowatt
hour at which the section 45U credit falls
to zero in its first year. Calendar years
2017 through 2021 were chosen to make
the test a retrospective one, spanning the
five calendar years prior to the year of
enactment of the IRA, allowing the finan-
cial test to serve as one of multiple indi-
cators of retirement risk while enabling
owners of nuclear reactors to determine
in advance whether their reactors meet
it. If a single nuclear reactor has multi-
ple owners, any co-owner of the reactor
may qualify the reactor for the financial
test. This would provide a simplified
calculation that does not require aver-
aging across different owners that may
have different gross receipts calculations.
Although the co-owner used to satisfy
the financial test does not have to be the
same co-owner from whom the hydrogen
producer acquires the relevant EACs and
electricity generated by the reactor, the
same co-owner must be used for both of
the two relevant years from 2017 to 2021
to satisfy the financial test with respect to
the reactor.
The rule includes two alternatives for
demonstrating that the hydrogen produc-
tion facility is materially contributing
to the continued operation of the at-risk
nuclear reactor over the long term. Under
the first approach, a physical, behind-
the-meter, connection and investment
between hydrogen production facility
and plant demonstrates a long-term com-
mitment to operation of both, thereby
enabling the hydrogen producer to reduce
the risk of retirement for the nuclear reac-
tor. The DOE has advised that hydrogen
production facilities are capital-intensive,
long-lived assets, so that a behind-the-me-
ter arrangement of this type is expected to
reduce retirement risk. Under the second
approach, the long-term commitment is
demonstrated by a written binding con-
tract between the owner of the hydrogen
production facility and the owner of the
nuclear reactor, under which the owner of
the hydrogen production facility agrees to
acquire and retire EACs from the nuclear
reactor. The written binding contract
must be for at least 10 years beginning
on the first date on which qualified EAC
are acquired and in effect during the time
the EACs for which the incrementality
requirement is being satisfied is being
acquired. Further, only the megawatt
hours of electricity for which the taxpayer
acquires EACs from the nuclear reactor
pursuant to the written binding contract
may be considered incremental.
The contract must also provide a means
of managing the qualifying nuclear reac-
tor’s revenue risk. This could be satis-
fied by either a PPA or virtual PPA with
respect to the electricity generated by the
nuclear reactor, or by another provision
in the contract that fixes the price of the
electricity or allows the price of EACs to
vary in a manner that hedges the seller’s
exposure to market price risk. EAC sales
that lack a long-term binding contract do
not reflect the same long-term investment
and planning, so would not qualify for this
allowance.
For purposes of the written binding
contract definition under §1.45V-4(d)(2)
(xi), a contract is a “binding contract” if
it is enforceable under State law against
the taxpayer or a predecessor and does not
limit damages to a specified amount (for
example, by use of a liquidated damages
provision). For this purpose, a contrac-
tual provision that limits damages to an
amount equal to at least five percent of the
total contract price will not be treated as
limiting damages to a specified amount.
For additional guidance regarding the
definition of a written binding contract,
see §1.168(k)-2(b)(5)(iii). In addition, in
the case of a nuclear reactor that satisfies
the definition of a qualifying nuclear reac-
tor because it is the subject of a written
binding contract, the MWh of electricity
per hour per qualifying nuclear reactor
that may be considered incremental are
further limited to those megawatt hours of
electricity for which the taxpayer acquires
EACs from the nuclear reactor pursuant to
the written binding contract.
Finally, the final regulations cap the
amount of electricity that is deemed incre-
mental at 200 MWh per operating hour per
nuclear reactor. See §1.45V-4(d)(3)(i)(D)
(2). The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that reducing retirement risk does
not require the electrolyzer to be sized at
the full capacity of the co-located nuclear
plant, and sizing at full capacity signifi-
cantly increases the risk of induced grid
emissions. A hydrogen producer’s pur-
chases of electricity beyond the amounts
needed to substantially reduce the retire-
ment risk of the nuclear reactor would
divert that electricity from other uses on
the grid, requiring additional electricity
generation with the substantial risk that it
will be generated by emitting sources. A
200 MWh per operating hour per nuclear
reactor limit is consistent with the size
of commercial scale electrolyzers, the
deployment of which would demonstrate
a significant long-term commitment,
investment, and revenue stream, reducing
the risk of the nuclear plant’s retirement.
In contrast, as advised by the DOE, a
hydrogen producer’s additional purchases
of electricity beyond these amounts would
not meaningfully provide for an addi-
tional reduction in the retirement risk of
the nuclear reactor. Therefore, permitting
the diversion of this electricity from other
uses is likely to increase emissions.
The 200 MWh per operating hour per
reactor limit is subject to an integrated
operations rule, which offers additional
flexibility by providing an aggregate limit
of 200 MWh per hour multiplied by the
number of integrated nuclear reactors that
have not permanently ceased operations.
For example, two qualifying nuclear
reactors treated as having integrated
operations with each other would have
an aggregate 400 MWh per operating
hour that may be considered incremen-
tal, which can be allocated across both
reactors. A qualifying nuclear reactor is
treated as having “integrated operations”
with any other qualifying nuclear reac-
tor if the reactors are: (i) owned by the
same or related taxpayers and (ii) trans-
mit electricity generated by the reactors
through the same point of interconnection
or, if the reactors are not grid-connected,
or are delivering electricity directly to an
end user behind a utility meter, are able
to support the same end user, or, if the
reactors have multiple points of intercon-
nection, are co-located with each another.
The term related taxpayers means mem-
bers of a group of trades or businesses that
are under common control (as defined in
§1.52-1(b)). Related taxpayers are treated
as one taxpayer in determining whether a
qualifying nuclear reactor has integrated
operations.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1305 March 24, 2025
Applying the 200 MWh per operating
hour limit at the reactor level (rather than
the plant level) is appropriate because
project owners can vary across reac-
tors at multi-reactor plants; so too can
revenues and costs and therefore retire-
ment decisions. Historically, there have
been instances when a single reactor at a
multi-reactor site has retired, indicating
that decisions of whether to retire individ-
ual reactors could be made independent of
other reactors in a facility. The Treasury
Department and the IRS note that EAC
registries would need to develop methods
to identify incremental EACs consistent
with the cap of 200 MWh of electricity per
operating hour per nuclear reactor.
Some comments supported allowing
the entire capacity of any nuclear power
plant that undergoes relicensing to qual-
ify as incremental, with no other limita-
tions on co-location or other qualifying
criteria. These comments characterized
the decision to undergo relicensing as a
significant business decision that often
requires significant capital and operational
expenditures. Some comments suggest
that both nuclear and hydropower plants
should qualify on this basis. In response
to these comments, the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS note that, unlike the cri-
teria for qualified nuclear plants provided
in these final regulations, a rule that were
to treat the full capacity of any nuclear
plant that undergoes relicensing as incre-
mental would not be reasonably tailored
to identify reactors with high retirement
risk or to circumstances in which a hydro-
gen producer will meaningfully forestall
retirement. It would fail to account for the
likelihood that facilities in strong financial
condition are just as, if not more, likely to
seek relicensing as those at financial risk
because, as the DOE has advised, nuclear
plants have been consistently relicensed
when they reach the end of a licensing
period. Whether a plant is relicensed is
primarily a function of the plant’s age,
not its retirement risk. While relicensing
an older plant involves a significant busi-
ness decision, and continued operation
of a nuclear plant after relicensing will
often require additional capital and oper-
ational expense, these expenses, alone, do
not demonstrate that the plant is at risk of
retirement. Such costs would be required
and expended for facilities that are at little
risk of retirement for economic reasons,
such as those whose gross revenues from
customers other than hydrogen producers
significantly exceed these costs, or those
who can rely on cost-of-service rate recov-
ery. The DOE has further advised that past
retirement decisions for nuclear reactors
have often been tied to unfavorable eco-
nomic conditions, but have not obviously
been triggered by license renewal time-
lines. Many historic retirements have
occurred after a plant sought, and in many
cases received, a license renewal. This
evidence further shows that relicensing
is related to plant age but is not a strong
indicator of retirement risk. Including all
nuclear facilities that undergo relicens-
ing under this rule, despite the fact that
not all such plants are at significant risk
of retirement and many would continue
serving existing non-hydrogen customers
after relicensing, would incorrectly result
in a large amount of energy to be deemed
incremental. Such a scenario presents a
high risk of significant unaccounted for
induced grid emissions, and so would be
inconsistent with statutory requirements.
Comments addressing hydropower elec-
tricity are addressed in part III.D.3.b.vi of
this Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions.
In response to comments, the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS also con-
sidered whether to add relicensing as an
additional requirement of the qualifying
nuclear facility rule. However, adding
such a requirement could unduly limit the
ability of plants that have recently been
relicensed or whose relicensing date is
many years in the future, but that are none-
theless at risk of retirement and for which
hydrogen production could significantly
reduce that risk, from benefiting from the
rule. These final regulations, therefore, do
not adopt criteria related to nuclear plant
relicensing recommended by comments.
vi. Other Proposed Alternatives
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received comments suggesting other,
incrementality pathways. One comment
recommended the use of locational mar-
ginal prices as a proxy for incrementality
and temporal matching under certain price
conditions. Locational marginal prices
are not available on a nationwide basis
and vary considerably from one year to
the next—and even one hour to the next.
Use of locational marginal prices would
not provide a comprehensive or consis-
tent measure for incrementality, and it is
unclear how hydrogen production facili-
ties could use such a proxy.
In the Explanation of Provisions to the
proposed regulations, the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS sought specific comment
with respect to formulaic approaches to
incrementality. As described therein, one
such approach deems five percent of the
hourly generation from minimal-emitting
electricity generators (for example, wind,
solar, nuclear, and hydropower facilities)
placed in service before January 1, 2023,
as satisfying the incrementality require-
ment. The Treasury Department and the
IRS noted that this pathway may be appro-
priate because some circumstances during
which incremental generation would be
unlikely to result in significant indirect
grid emissions (including periods of cur-
tailment or times when generation from
minimal-emitting electricity generation is
on the margin) may be difficult to antic-
ipate or identify, or because the process
for identifying the circumstances (such
as avoided retirement risk or modeling of
minimal emissions) may be overly bur-
densome to evaluate for specific electric-
ity generators or require data that is not
available.
In response to this, several comments
recommended that the final regulations
adopt an alternative incrementality path-
way based on a proxy for curtailment. As
one comment explained, if both demand
and clean supply are in the same trans-
mission region or pocket during a period
when the marginal producer is a clean
energy resource (such as during periods
of curtailment), then incremental power
demand for clean hydrogen production is
met by existing clean electricity genera-
tors without increasing overall grid emis-
sions. Following consultation with the
DOE and the EPA, these final regulations
do not adopt such an approach at this time,
as identifying specific cases where incre-
mental power demand is met with existing
clean electricity would require determin-
ing the marginal source of electricity pro-
duction for each time period and region,
the data for which does not currently exist
nationally. However, the Treasury Depart-

March 24, 2025 1306 Bulletin No. 2025–13
ment and the IRS will continue to study
the issue, in consultation with the DOE
and the EPA.
Other comments expressed support for
a formulaic approach that deemed a cer-
tain percent of the hourly generation from
minimal-emitting electricity generators as
satisfying the incrementality requirement.
Some expressed support for a five-percent
threshold, while others suggested that the
threshold should be ten percent or higher.
Others disagreed with a specific percent-
age and suggested instead that a deemed
amount of incrementality be determined
based on market factors or average curtail-
ment. Comments in support of a formu-
laic approach justified the approach as an
appropriate proxy for curtailment, retire-
ment risk, or other cases where additional
use is likely to be met with clean electric-
ity. On the other hand, many comments
opposed a formulaic approach, asserting
that it is an inadequate proxy for incre-
mentality and would lead to induced grid
emissions. Comments provided estimates
indicating that the large majority of the
generation exempt from incrementality
requirements under a formulaic approach
would not be generated during periods
of curtailment and would be expected to
result in induced emissions, even under
an approach where proxy amounts var-
ied based on regional curtailment rates.
Comments also provided estimates of the
impact of a five-percent formulaic proxy
on induced emissions, contending that the
result of this approach would be to provide
the section 45V credit to substantial gener-
ation for which actual emissions exceeded
statutory thresholds. In consideration of
these comments and in consultation with
the EPA, the Treasury Department and
the IRS agree with those comments that
oppose the formulaic approach for the
reason that it is an inadequate proxy. The
Treasury Department and the IRS under-
stand that curtailment is very region and
time dependent, and the precise timing of
curtailment is hard to predict. A broad-
based formulaic approach would not
likely align in time or geography with
generation that would otherwise have
been curtailed, which happens in tem-
porally and geographically concentrated
windows. These factors make the formu-
laic approach inadequate in mitigating
induced grid emissions, while an approach
that is based on real-time market factors
would be difficult to administer and use.
As a result, most generation exempt from
incrementality requirements under the
formulaic approach would be expected
to result in significant indirect emissions.
Therefore, the formulaic approach is in
conflict with the statutory requirements
regarding lifecycle GHG emissions. In
contrast, these final regulations contain
two additional alternative pathways, the
qualifying States pathway and the qualify-
ing nuclear reactor pathway, that are better
tailored to circumstances in which the use
of existing clean generation to produce
hydrogen is unlikely to result in induced
grid emissions. The addition of these more
specific, alternative incrementality path-
ways casts further doubt on the need for
and appropriateness of a percentage-based
proxy that is not tailored to any specific
conditions or circumstances that relate to
the likelihood of induced grid emissions.
Finally, several comments noted the
prevalence and importance of hydropower
as a clean electricity source in certain parts
of the country and advocated for an across-
the-board exception to the incrementality
requirement for electricity derived from
clean hydropower. Other comments, not-
ing the long time period for the permitting
and construction of a hydropower facility,
stated that the 36-month lookback period
is too short. On the other hand, one com-
ment noted the possibility that the section
45V credit could incentivize hydropower
projects that are societally and ecologi-
cally detrimental and advocated that an
additional requirement be placed on such
projects, requiring them to obtain low-im-
pact certification using science-based cri-
teria. In response, these final regulations
do not adopt a rule exempting hydro-
power from the incrementality require-
ment, as such a rule would fail to take into
account significant indirect emissions,
as required by section 45V(c)(1)(A) and
section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the DOE has advised that the
risk of retirement for hydropower is com-
paratively lower than the risk of retire-
ment for nuclear power. Finally, certain
hydropower plants may be able to utilize
the qualifying State pathway or the upra-
tes pathway to satisfy the incrementality
requirement. These regulations also do
not impose an additional requirement on
hydropower, such as a low-impact certifi-
cation requirement, as this is not required
by the statute and would disadvantage
incremental hydropower relative to other
incremental sources of clean energy.
c. Temporal Matching
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(ii) would
provide that an EAC meets the temporal
matching requirement if the electricity
represented by the EAC is generated in
the same hour that the taxpayer’s hydro-
gen production facility uses electricity to
produce hydrogen. It also would provide a
transition rule for EACs representing elec-
tricity generated before January 1, 2028,
stating that an EAC meets the temporal
matching requirement if the electricity
represented by the EAC is generated in
the same calendar year that the taxpayer’s
hydrogen production facility uses electric-
ity to produce hydrogen.
i. Hourly Matching
Many comments expressed support
for the proposed temporal matching rule,
referred to as “hourly matching.” One
comment noted that requiring hourly
matching will lead EAC registries to
quickly create hourly tracking mecha-
nisms. Several comments suggested that
delaying the implementation of hourly
matching until 2028 was unnecessary,
offering a variety of suggestions to move
up the timeline.
Other comments opposed the hourly
matching rule for various reasons. Some
comments opposed hourly matching
because it does not account for the vari-
ability of wind and solar, which are prev-
alent sources of clean energy. Some com-
ments noted that hourly matching leads to
increased capital costs that decrease the
viability of electricity-intensive hydrogen
production. One comment expressed con-
cern that hourly matching increases costs
more than the credit will reduce them.
One comment noted that the increased
costs would push the industry to shift to
lower cost solutions, like purchasing for-
eign equipment that may be less expen-
sive than higher cost domestic equipment.
Another comment noted that these higher
costs will specifically hinder investment
in smaller regional facilities. Several com-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1307 March 24, 2025
ments expressed concern about the hourly
matching rule as applied to the Regional
Clean Hydrogen Hubs because hourly
EAC requirements were not contemplated
by hydrogen hub participants at the time
they applied for funding from the DOE to
be a hydrogen hub participant or because
the requirement does not align with antic-
ipated construction schedules. One com-
ment contended that hourly matching is
too difficult to administer because of poor
infrastructure, software limitations, and
regulatory hurdles.
Several comments recommended
alternative periods for matching, such as
daily, monthly, quarterly, or annual. Com-
ments advocating for monthly matching
suggested that monthly matching would
be more beneficial than hourly match-
ing for electrolytic hydrogen producers
because it would likely decrease the oper-
ational impact on electrolyzers by reduc-
ing the number of stoppages, which can
lower costs and prolong the durability of
the equipment. Other comments recom-
mended monthly matching as a reasonable
compromise between annual and hourly
matching. One comment stated that the
required timeline for matching should
align with the battery electric vehicle
standards. One comment maintained that
hourly matching is unworkable based on
current tracking practices.
Temporal matching at an hourly level
best mitigates the risk of induced grid
emissions by requiring that the genera-
tion that created the EACs must occur at
the same time as the EAC buyer’s load.
As noted in the DOE Technical Paper and
studies cited by comments, the three qual-
ifying EAC requirements address both
operational (short-term) and structural
(long-term) effects that can affect lifecy-
cle emissions outcomes.
34

The DOE Technical Paper noted that
hourly matching is necessary to properly
address induced grid emissions. Hourly
matching of EACs will provide signifi-
cantly greater certainty about mitigat-
ing the risk of induced grid emissions
by ensuring actual alignment between
load and generation. However, as noted
in the preamble to the proposed regula-
tions, the Treasury Department and the
IRS acknowledge that hourly tracking
of EACs is not yet widely available on a
standardized basis. The DOE has advised
the Treasury Department and the IRS that
tracking systems and related contractual
structures for hourly matching will take
some time to develop to an appropriate
level of maturity. Accordingly, a tran-
sition rule that allows annual matching
remains appropriate. The transition rule
is intended to provide time for the EAC
market to develop the hourly tracking
capability necessary to verify compliance
with this requirement, and for associated
hourly EAC markets to develop. The
transition rule, and associated comments,
are discussed in part III.D.3.c.ii of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions.
Several comments suggested the adop-
tion of a provisional approach to hourly
matching before hourly matching is inte-
grated into EAC registries. One comment
suggested that this proposed approach
could use hourly generation and hydro-
gen production meter data merged with
annual or monthly EACs to demonstrate
hourly matching where hourly EACs are
not available.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that nothing in this final regulation
prohibits hydrogen producers from volun-
tarily implementing hourly matching prior
to the phase-in date for hourly matching.
Hence, no specific guidance is required
on the allowed use of a provisional hourly
matching approach prior to the end of the
transition period. Allowing the provisional
approach after the transition to hourly
matching would place additional adminis-
trative burden on hydrogen producers and
third-party verifiers and would complicate
IRS administration. Moreover, allowing
the provisional approach after the tran-
sition date may diminish the incentive
for EAC registries to develop full hourly
EAC tracking capability. Given these con-
siderations, these final regulations neither
explicitly allow nor require the provi-
sional approach.
Multiple comments suggested that
the Treasury Department and the IRS
should consider providing a degree of
flexibility in meeting the hourly temporal
requirement, such as through allowing a
limited percentage of annual electricity
supply to be exempt from hourly tempo-
rality requirements. As one example, a
comment recommended flexibility with
respect to temporal matching for hydro-
gen producers located in States where the
production of certain renewable energy is
highly seasonal. However, as previously
described, hourly matching is necessary
to properly address induced grid emis-
sions and to ensure that a hydrogen pro-
ducer can properly attribute its load to a
specific electricity source. The DOE has
advised that exceptions that would allow
some fraction of EACs to not be matched
hourly increase the risk of induced grid
emissions that would undermine one of
the purposes of section 45V. In addition,
any such fractional exception would
require detailed and granular regional
analysis. Allowing such fractional excep-
tions is therefore inconsistent with the
statutory requirements and is not readily
administrable. These final regulations,
therefore, do not provide for fractional
exceptions.
Along with the transition rule, these
final regulations allow electricity storage
to be used to shift the temporal profile of
clean electricity supply as described in
part III.D.3.c.v of this Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions. The
Treasury Department and the IRS antici-
pate that these allowances may partially
alleviate concerns with hourly temporal
matching.
One comment requested clarification
regarding the applicability of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Regional
Energy Deployment System (NREL-
ReEDS), a capacity planning model, to
tracking hourly matching. The comment
was submitted by a stakeholder that
belongs to multiple power regions and
expressed a need to acquire capacity in the
next few years. The comment indicated
that NREL-ReEDS is a potentially helpful
34
See DOE Technical Paper supra note 20; see also Michael A. Giovanniello, et al., The Influence of Additionality and Time-Matching Requirements on the Emissions from Grid-Connected
Hydrogen Production, 9 Nature Energy, Feb. 2024, at 197–207; Electric Power Research Institute, et al., Impacts of IRA’s 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit (2023), available at
https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002028407; Evolved Energy Research, 45V Hydrogen Production Tax Credits: Three-Pillars Accounting Impact Analysis (2023), avail-
able at https://www.evolved.energy/post/45v-three-pillars-impact-analysis.

March 24, 2025 1308 Bulletin No. 2025–13
tool in this regard because it covers 134
balancing areas.
The DOE has advised that NREL-
ReEDS would not be an applicable tool
for the purposes of compliance with
hourly matching requirements or for pro-
viding detailed hourly grid carbon-inten-
sity estimates. Hourly matching systems
and hourly grid carbon-intensity estimates
require detailed data of real-life plant-
level generation patterns, whereas NREL-
ReEDS is a forward-looking simulation
tool that does not fully capture actual
operations. Furthermore, NREL-ReEDs
does not have the temporal resolution to
characterize detailed operating behav-
iors of individual units,
35
which would be
required of an hourly matching system
used for compliance with these final reg-
ulations.
ii. Transition Period
Comments expressed divergent views
on the appropriate timing of the transi-
tion rule. Many comments supported the
proposed rule to allow annual accounting
until 2028 and did not want it extended.
Some comments supported hourly match-
ing sooner than 2028. Several comments
noted that a transition date of January
1, 2028, would provide enough time for
registries to test and scale hourly EAC
tracking systems nationwide. These com-
ments urged the Treasury Department
and the IRS not to unnecessarily delay or
extend the transition date. According to
one comment, the implementation date
of January 1, 2028, would align with EU
member states that decide to transition to
hourly matching by mid-2027. However,
the rest of the EU is required to transi-
tion to hourly matching in 2030 without
a reliance rule. According to this com-
ment, such alignment would help ensure
that clean hydrogen and hydrogen-derived
products such as ammonia, steel, and fer-
tilizer will be available in the European
market without confused, disjointed, or
weak claims of low-carbon status. One
comment expressed support for the cur-
rent length of the transition rule but has
suggested that, if the Treasury Department
and the IRS decide to extend the duration
of the pre-transition period, it should not
go beyond December 31, 2029, to match
EU regulations. Some comments stated
that the Treasury Department and the IRS
could implement hourly matching at pres-
ent, even if hourly EACs are not yet avail-
able, by allowing taxpayers to use hourly
meter data and annual or monthly EACs.
One comment further recommended that
the Treasury Department and the IRS
review tracking registries’ progress in
developing the needed software by 2026
or 2027 and, if necessary, delay the tran-
sition by one year at a time (rather than to
preemptively assume systems will not be
ready).
Many other comments asked for a more
extended timeframe before hourly match-
ing is required. Generally, most comments
supported extending the pre-transition
period several years beyond 2027. Some
comments recommended that the pre-tran-
sition period align with the EU’s imple-
mentation of hourly matching in 2030.
Additionally, while some comments did not
specify a preferred duration of the pre-tran-
sition period, they did emphasize that
hourly matching should be implemented
only after the hourly EAC market is fully
developed and ready for use, in particular
for the relevant geographic region. Some
of these comments expressed concerns
about EAC registry and market readiness
as well as the possible cost and operational
burdens for clean hydrogen producers.
Separate from the precise timing of the
transition, other comments suggested pre-
conditions or triggers for the transition, for
example, a future study assessing readiness
before proceeding.
Some comments recommending exten-
sion of the pre-transition period suggested
allowing annual matching to continue for
a longer duration before requiring hourly
matching. Other comments recommended
introducing quarterly or monthly match-
ing, or some combination of annual and
hourly matching, during an extended
pre-transition period. Some comments
also recommended extending the pre-tran-
sition period beyond the current end date,
but on a facility-by-facility basis.
Comments also expressed that the
Treasury Department and the IRS have
focused on the wrong metric—whether
the technology and systems exist for
tracking hourly EACs—for evaluating
when hourly matching should be required.
According to these comments, a better
metric for evaluating whether to proceed
with the implementation of hourly match-
ing is whether there is a consistent need
for and supply of electricity from renew-
able sources. Other comments argued that
the phase-in of hourly matching is not
feasible until the grid’s infrastructure can
support 24-hour clean energy production.
These comments argued that while clean
energy technologies continue to grow,
the infrastructures are not developing fast
enough to support hourly matching. One
such comment suggested that if hourly
matching is mandated, there should be a
monthly netting of the hourly mismatch
between the actual energy provided and
the energy that was scheduled. This com-
ment claimed that errors in clean energy
scheduling would significantly harm
hydrogen producers using hourly match-
ing.
Balancing these various comments and
concerns, and as advised by the DOE and
the EPA, the final regulations extend the
transition period by two additional years,
to 2030. Annual matching will be required
through 2029, and hourly matching will be
required thereafter. This requirement will
apply to all production of qualified clean
hydrogen represented by EACs starting in
2030, regardless of when the facility was
placed in service.
These additional two years are war-
ranted to ensure tracking systems can
achieve the necessary functionality for
an hourly matching requirement, and to
allow the market to develop for hour-
ly-matched EACs. In a survey of nine
existing tracking systems, two respon-
dents indicated that their systems are
tracking on an hourly basis, although soft-
ware functionality remains limited.
36
Fully
developing the functionality of these sys-
tems will take time, as will creating and
developing the functionality of hourly
tracking infrastructure in other regions of
35
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation (2021), available at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/78195.pdf.
36
Rachael Terada, Director, Technical Products, Center for Resource Solutions, Readiness for Hourly: U.S. Renewable Energy Tracking Systems (Jun. 15, 2023), available at https://
resource-solutions.org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2023/ 06/ Readiness-for-Hourly-U.S.-Renewable-Energy-Tracking-Systems.pdf.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1309 March 24, 2025
the country. Of the other tracking systems,
assuming that challenges are overcome,
four respondents indicated that their sys-
tems will be able to adopt hourly match-
ing in less than two years. One respondent
indicated that their system will take from
three to five years, noting that the timeline
could be closer to three years if there is
full State agency buy-in, clear instructions
are received from Federal or State agen-
cies, and funding for stakeholder partici-
pation is made available. Two respondents
declined to give a timeline for how long
it would take for their systems to develop
this functionality. In the same survey,
the respondents identified several chal-
lenges to hourly tracking that will need to
be overcome, including cost, regulatory
approval, interactions with state policy,
sufficient stakeholder engagement, data
availability and management, and user
confusion. Among the issues that require
resolution as EAC tracking systems move
to hourly resolution is the treatment of
electricity storage,
37
which this final reg-
ulation will allow as a means of shifting
the temporal profile of clean generation.
Some comments expressed confidence in
the rapid scaling of hourly EAC tracking,
markets, and matching, and others were
skeptical. The survey of EAC registries is
particularly informative, and it indicates
that the registries themselves are gener-
ally confident that they can achieve the
required functionality comfortably within
the transition period provided in these
final regulations.
In response to concerns raised by com-
ments that the 2028 transition timeline
proposed in §1.45V-4(d)(3)(ii)(B) offers
relatively little flexibility should techno-
logical or institutional implementation
issues or delays arise, these final regula-
tions add an additional two years to the
transition so as to provide more flexibility
and high confidence that implementation
deadlines will be met. With this additional
time, EAC registries should have ample
time to develop hourly tracking mecha-
nisms, and associated trading markets and
contractual mechanisms will have suffi-
cient time to mature. Given this extension,
it is not necessary to establish a future
trigger-based approach wherein the tim-
ing of the transition would be based on
a future study because such an approach
would diminish the incentives to create
hourly matching functionality, potentially
further delaying the transition with the
risk of induced grid emissions that would
result in tax credit claims that are contrary
to the statute.
iii. Reliance Rule
Many comments requested a reliance
rule or legacy allowance wherein facili-
ties that have met a certain milestone by
a certain date would be permitted to con-
tinue to satisfy the temporal matching
rule by using annually-matched, instead
of hourly-matched, EACs, for hydrogen
produced after December 31, 2027. Rec-
ommended milestones include (1) begin-
ning of construction; (2) placed in service;
or (3) commencement of commercial
operations. While most comments rec-
ommended requiring that the milestone
be reached before January 1, 2028, some
comments recommended that the Treasury
Department and the IRS consider using
later milestone dates.
Additionally, there are differing views
on the scope of the reliance rule. While
many comments supported it for the entire
duration of the 10-year credit period, one
comment suggested that the rule should
only apply to the first five years. Other
comments suggested that the first 10 giga-
watts of project capacity should be repre-
sented by annual EACs, and hourly EACs
thereafter. Similarly, some comments
suggested allowing annual EACs to be
used after December 31, 2027, for either
a percentage of hydrogen production or a
percentage of the total electricity used to
produce hydrogen. Finally, the comments
included both individual recommenda-
tions and combinations of multiple rec-
ommendations.
The comments provided various ratio-
nales for a reliance rule. One comment
said that a reliance rule would enable
the U.S. to become the global leader in
green hydrogen, create jobs and a domes-
tic supply chain, and ensure a reduction
in GHG emissions in the industrial sec-
tor long term. Several comments indi-
cated that a reliance rule would allevi-
ate investment uncertainty during the
10-year credit period for certain projects
(for example, early movers). Similarly,
another comment claimed that a reliance
rule would create consistent, ratable, and
lower-cost volumes of hydrogen produc-
tion. Another comment said that, without
a reliance rule, taxpayers will have to use
hourly EACs for financial projection pur-
poses beginning in year one, even though
hourly EACs are not necessary until 2028.
Another comment indicated that there is
great uncertainty whether the industry
can rely on hourly EACs and noted that
the change from annual EACs to hourly
EACs is too aggressive. For example, one
comment said that hourly EACs effec-
tively will restrict the operation of elec-
trolyzers to times when renewable gener-
ation sources are available, which could
increase the levelized cost of hydrogen for
initial projects.
Several comments specifically advo-
cated against any reliance rule that would
allow producers to avoid the phasing-in of
hourly matching. Another comment rec-
ommended a temporary approach prior
to the 2028 phase-in that would utilize
annual/monthly EACs so tracking systems
like M-RETS will have an easier time tran-
sitioning to hourly matching. According
to the comment, this temporary approach
would also act as a provisional pathway
if hourly matching were not feasible by
2028. Finally, one comment supported
requiring a simulation of hourly matching
in the years prior to 2028, beginning in
2026, which would facilitate a smoother
transition to hourly matching. This would
be in addition to the annual matching of
EACs to actual hydrogen production for
the purpose of calculating the section 45V
credit.
These final regulations do not adopt a
reliance rule or legacy allowance whereby
projects that reach a certain milestone
prior to a certain date are allowed to
maintain something more permissive than
hourly matching for a specified period or
for the duration of the credit period. The
qualifying EAC requirements are essential
to fulfill the statutory mandate in section
45V(c)(1)(A) and section 211(o)(1)(H)
of the Clean Air Act to address signifi-
cant indirect emissions, which includes
induced grid emissions, in assessing
37
See DOE Technical Paper supra note 20.

March 24, 2025 1310 Bulletin No. 2025–13
lifecycle GHG emissions for purposes
of section 45V. A reliance rule or legacy
allowance would increase the risk of such
significant indirect emissions that must,
under the statute, be considered in assess-
ing the lifecycle GHG emissions rate. It
is imperative to apply each of the qualify-
ing EAC requirements to qualifying clean
hydrogen production as soon as practi-
cable to implement the statutory require-
ments.
iv. Other Approaches
Several comments recommended
broader changes, alternatives, or excep-
tions to the proposed hourly matching
framework. One comment suggested that,
in the case of distributed renewable energy
that is not connected to the grid, the final
regulations should exempt such electric-
ity from the hourly matching requirement
and consider doing the same in the case of
distributed renewable energy that is con-
nected to the grid. Similarly, another com-
ment requested that the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS reconsider the hourly
matching requirement and recommended
alternative compliance methods, such as
co-location with clean energy facilities
or contractual pairing. Alternatively, one
comment recommended that the final
regulations employ a CO2 accounting
approach to address significant indirect
emissions. Another comment asserted
that temporal matching makes hydrogen
production during certain periods of the
day or year uneconomical, which leads to
a decrease in hydrogen, and so the final
regulations should employ a net energy
monitoring approach. Another comment
requested that the final regulations allow
projects to use “low price” market signals
as a proxy for temporal matching because
such an approach would create a transpar-
ent market signal for hydrogen production
resources to efficiently capture surplus
energy by locating and designing facilities
to capture and store this excess renewable
energy.
Finally, one comment recommended
an exception to the temporal matching
requirement based on capacity where the
final investment decision is made before
2028 with respect to a hydrogen production
facility. Specifically, the comment recom-
mended a 15 percent capacity exemption
for all regions except California Indepen-
dent System Operator (CAISO) and a 30
percent capacity exemption in solar inten-
sive regions.
As indicated in the proposed regula-
tions, the three qualifying EAC require-
ments work together to mitigate the risk
of induced grid emissions, as they con-
stitute significant indirect emissions,
consideration of which is required by
section 45V(c)(1)(A) and section 211(o)
(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act. As noted in
the DOE Technical Paper, and supported
by multiple comments, the three require-
ments address both operational (short-
term) and structural (long-term) effects
that can cause induced grid emissions and
thus affect lifecycle emissions outcomes.
Further discussion as to why an exception
to the qualifying EAC requirements for
energy generation that is co-located or not
connected to the grid is not viable is dis-
cussed in part III.D.1 in this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions.
Given these findings and upon the advice
of the DOE and the EPA, these final reg-
ulations do not add any additional excep-
tions to the hourly matching requirement,
with the exception for clarifying the use
of energy storage, as explained in part
III.D.3.c.v of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions. Any such
exceptions increase the risk of significant
indirect emissions in the form of induced
grid emissions that must be taken into
account under the statute in determining
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate.
Many comments stated that, if the
Treasury Department and the IRS impose
a temporal matching requirement, then
hydrogen production facilities located in
States with statutorily mandated clean
energy policies should be deemed to
have already met those Federal require-
ments. One comment recommended that
hydrogen production facilities located
in such States or regions should receive
a waiver of the requirement for hourly
matching. Other comments stated that,
because hourly matching imposes a signif-
icant cost, section 45V accounting should
instead require clean hydrogen production
facilities in California and other similarly
situated States to apply the same temporal
matching system that those States apply to
other carbon-free technologies, like bat-
teries.
As described in part III.D.3.b.iv of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions, the Treasury Department
and the IRS agree with these comments
that certain States have enacted poli-
cies that effectively address the risk of
induced grid emissions. However, these
State policies only address the incre-
mentality requirement; temporal match-
ing and deliverability requirements must
still be met. Temporal matching on an
hourly basis ensures that there is actual
alignment between the timing of gener-
ation and the additional load created by
the production of hydrogen. Put another
way, the temporal matching and deliver-
ability requirements together ensure that
the hydrogen producer could consume
the incremental generation it is claiming
by virtue of such generation being deliv-
erable to the producer at the same time
the electricity is being consumed. These
requirements enable the hydrogen pro-
ducer to assert that its hydrogen produc-
tion is utilizing electricity generation with
no (or minimal) direct emissions, and to
reduce the risk of induced grid emissions.
The incrementality requirement is addi-
tionally necessary to ensure that use of
zero- or minimal-emitting generation does
not indirectly lead to significant increases
in emissions elsewhere on the grid. State
policies that meet certain requirements
can obviate the need for the incremental-
ity requirement by providing certainty that
use of any clean power generation will not
indirectly lead to an increase in emitting
generation. But to qualify for the sec-
tion 45V credit, the facility still needs to
demonstrate availability of the use of such
generation to produce the qualified clean
hydrogen in the first place, necessitating
the purchase and retirement of EACs that
meet the temporal matching and deliver-
ability requirements. Accordingly, these
final regulations do not adopt these com-
ments.
Another comment noted that there
should be a Scope 2 attribute approach
with a small amount of operational flexi-
bility. The Scope 2 approach, specifically
referencing the Greenhouse Gas Proto-
col’s market-based methodology, is based
on the attributes of the electricity supply,
accounting for the conveyance of those
attributes via market-based mechanisms
such as EACs. The market-based meth-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1311 March 24, 2025
odology for calculation of Scope 2 emis-
sions calculates hourly grid carbon inten-
sity by deliverability region rather than
the current location-based methodology.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are
unsure of the nature of this request. How-
ever, the DOE has advised that the lack
of consistent, comprehensive, real-time,
national data on hourly marginal emissions
prevents implementing hourly marginal
emissions as the regional default rates
employed in 45VH2-GREET. The DOE
Technical Paper also notes the limits to
solely relying on short-run marginal emis-
sions rates that exclude structural effects.
Additionally, it is difficult to envision how
a clean hydrogen producer would utilize
those data in real time were they available
and implemented in 45VH2-GREET. As
such, the Treasury Department and the
IRS understand that 45VH2-GREET will
retain the regional, annual average grid
emissions rate as the default emissions
rate. The Treasury Department and the
IRS reiterate, however, that a clean hydro-
gen producer may purchase qualifying
EACs as a means to select an alternative
to using 45VH2-GREET’s default emis-
sions rate for the regional grid and may
select the electricity source technology
(for example, solar and wind) of the spe-
cific electricity generator(s) from which it
has purchased qualifying EACs as part of
the calculation determining its lifecycle
GHG emissions.
v. Treatment of Energy Storage
Several comments requested clari-
fication on how the temporal matching
requirement applies to energy storage.
Some comments suggested a provision
setting the temporal matching time stamp
for stored green energy to the time of dis-
patch from the storage unit, not to the time
of generation of the energy or the time
of storage. Comments explained that this
incentivizes renewable energy storage
and will lead to greater levels of temporal
matching.
Some comments requested implement-
ing a “portfolio” method to allow tempo-
ral matching from a “portfolio” of clean
energy assets. Such comments advocated
allowing temporal matching from both
behind-the-meter and front-of-the-meter
energy storage. However, one comment
expressed concern with implementing a
“portfolio” method. This comment noted
that tracking EACs of stored electricity
over time is complicated by issues such
as carbon-free energy content, round-trip
efficiency loss, and nuances of energy
storage operations including ancillary ser-
vices.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
acknowledge the growth of electricity
storage and the ability of such storage
to shift the hourly temporal profile of
clean generation. Similarly, storage sited
at a clean hydrogen production facility
may shift the hourly load of that facility.
Therefore, these final regulations will
allow temporal shifting of clean genera-
tion, but the ability of entities to claim and
verify the use of energy storage is contin-
gent on whether and when EAC registries
can substantiate the effective tracking of
electricity through that storage. Specif-
ically, §1.45V-4(d)(3)(ii)(C) will allow
hydrogen producers and their electricity
suppliers to use electricity storage to shift
the temporal profile of EACs based on the
period of time in which the correspond-
ing electricity is discharged from storage.
However, such allowance is predicated
on certain requirements. An EAC meets
the requirements of §1.45V-4(d)(3)(ii)(A)
if the electricity represented by the EAC
is discharged from a storage system in
the same hour that the taxpayer’s hydro-
gen production facility uses electricity to
produce hydrogen. The storage system
must also be located in the same region
as both the hydrogen production facility
and the facility generating the electric-
ity to be stored. Storage systems need
not themselves meet the incrementality
requirement, but the EACs that represent
electricity stored in such storage systems
must meet the incrementality requirement
based on the attributes of the generator of
such electricity. EACs that represent the
attributes of stored electricity for purposes
of section 45V must be retired in EAC reg-
istries that ensure that such EACs support
energy use claims without double count-
ing; ensure that the volume of energy use
substantiated by such EACs accounts for
storage-related efficiency losses; develop
frameworks that comprehensively address
storage, that is, do not allow selective
reporting of EACs of stored electricity;
and develop frameworks for estimating
the temporal profile of stored and dis-
charged electricity represented by EACs,
including when storage is charged with
multiple electricity generators, not all of
which produce sufficiently minimal emis-
sions to produce hydrogen that qualifies
for the section 45V credit. If an EAC sat-
isfies these basic conditions and its acqui-
sition and retirement can be substantiated
by an EAC registry, then such EACs may
meet the temporal matching requirement
based on the time the stored electricity is
discharged.
Some comments asked that hydrogen
producers also be allowed to contract
with off-site electricity storage to shift
their load profile. These final regulations
do not offer this option as it adds an addi-
tional layer of administrative complexity.
The previously described allowances for
on-site energy storage to shift load (veri-
fiable through meter readings) and off-site
energy storage to shift clean power pro-
duction profiles (verifiable via EAC regis-
tries that develop that capability) provide
adequate flexibility for clean hydrogen
producers without adding another admin-
istratively complex option.
Another comment suggested that the
Treasury Department and the IRS require
EAC fractionalization to the nearest kilo-
watt hour (kWh) (0.001 MWh) so credit
calculations can be accurate and because,
in some regions, a difference of a single
kWh is enough to move a taxpayer from
one section 45V credit tier to another tier.
Concerning fractionalization of EACs, the
technical details for tracking qualifying
hourly EACs are best left to EAC regis-
tries. As described in part III.D.3.c.ii of
this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions, hourly matching of
EACs is required by 2030. Other rules
in these final regulations similarly will
require EAC registries to develop new
capabilities. The Treasury Department
and the IRS encourage EAC registries to
work together and with external stake-
holders to develop appropriate, common
approaches to tackling these new issues.
More broadly, some comments asked the
Treasury Department and the IRS to estab-
lish a specific standard for hourly EACs,
such as EnergyTag. While the Treasury
Department and the IRS acknowledge
that standardizing the approach to hourly
matching across EAC registries would be

March 24, 2025 1312 Bulletin No. 2025–13
valuable, these final regulations do not
require such a comprehensive standard at
this time given potential risks in doing so
and the limited comment record.
vi. Temporal Matching and Interaction
with Annual Emissions Averaging
Several comments noted that 45VH2-
GREET does not facilitate hourly data or
calculations. One comment recommended
that, if the Treasury Department and the
IRS implement hourly matching on Janu-
ary 1, 2028, then 45VH2-GREET should
be updated to reflect grid emissions on
an hourly basis (rather than on an annual
basis) to ensure the highest level of accu-
racy, incentivize the use of electrolysis
during periods of low grid emissions, and
better tie hydrogen production to periods
of operations. Alternatively, one comment
requested additional guidance on how
data from hourly EACs should be aggre-
gated and applied to create the required
annual average grid mix for purposes of
45VH2-GREET. As support, the comment
contended that aggregating data on a more
granular basis to support the higher-level
input into 45VH2-GREET would reduce
administrative burden and achieve the
same intended outcome. The same com-
ment also asserted that 45VH2-GREET
should not be performing hourly lifecycle
calculations because doing so would be
too tedious and provide little value.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
acknowledge that the current version
of 45VH2-GREET does not represent
grid emissions on an hourly basis. Car-
bon intensities of regional grids in the
model are currently based on estimates
of average generation mixes in a given
year, as described in the 45VH2-GREET
User Manual. The current model there-
fore reflects GHG emissions associated
with regional grid electricity production
and transmission on the basis of annual
averages. The DOE has advised that rep-
resentation of regional grid emissions
on an hourly basis is not technically fea-
sible within the current model and is
not expected to be feasible in the near
future, given lack of high-fidelity data and
streamlined modeling capabilities avail-
able at this granularity. This is especially
true given the need to account for both
operational and structural effects in emis-
sions modeling.
Separately, as described in §1.45V-4(a)
(2), qualified clean hydrogen production
facilities will be permitted to perform
sub-annual (hourly) accounting of their
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
electricity used in a hydrogen production
process for section 45V credit tier eligibil-
ity determinations, subject to certain con-
ditions, once the hourly matching require-
ment begins in 2030. This sub-annual
accounting approach will allow facilities
to reflect emissions from electricity con-
sumption on an hourly basis if the electric-
ity is procured from a specific generator
and the consumption of that electricity is
verified via the purchase and retirement
of qualifying EACs. 45VH2-GREET may
require updates to enable this method.
More information on methods to estimate
emissions on a sub-annual basis will be
available in future 45VH2-GREET sup-
porting documentation.
d. Deliverability
Proposed §1.45V-4(d)(3)(iii) would
provide that an EAC meets the deliver-
ability requirement if the electricity repre-
sented by the EAC is generated by a facil-
ity that is in the same grid region as the
hydrogen production facility. “Region”
would be defined in proposed §1.45V-
4(d)(2)(vi) as a region derived from the
National Transmission Needs Study that
was released by the DOE on October
30, 2023 (DOE Needs Study).
38
Alaska,
Hawaii, and each U.S. territory would be
treated as separate regions.
i. Alternative Deliverability Regions
While many comments supported the
proposed rule’s definition of geographic
regions, some variously suggested larger,
smaller, or different regions. Many com-
ments requested that something other
than the DOE Needs Study be used as
the basis for the deliverability regions,
such as the six North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions,
the FERC power markets, the Balancing
Authority Areas, the existing tradeable
REC markets, the three large intercon-
nection regions (that is, Eastern, West-
ern, and ERCOT), and the power pool
boundaries and interregional transmis-
sion. There were several unique proposals
made by individual comments. One com-
ment argued that deliverability regions
should reflect transmission links between
NERC regional reliability councils and
market alignment such as the Western
Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) with
the Western Energy Imbalance Service
Market (WEIS). Other comments asked
for Independent System Operator (ISO)
areas to be used as the deliverability
regions, or that regions should accord
with existing regional tracking systems
(for example, the Western Electric-
ity Coordinating Council (WECC) and
WREGIS). Another comment proposed
that Regional Transmission Organization
(RTO)- or ISO-defined local areas be used
to establish deliverability for EACs, offer-
ing Midcontinent Independent System
Operator (MISO) Local Resource Zones
as an example. One comment requested
that co-location within the same RTO be
treated as establishing deliverability. One
comment stated that the final regulations
should provide a correct and consistent
definition of the MISO and Southwest
Power Pool (SPP) grids where a facility is
located in an area served by both. Another
comment asked that the final regulations
explicitly state that each U.S. balancing
authority is linked to a DOE Needs Study
region, claiming that this is already in the
45VH2-GREET User Manual. Finally,
one comment argued that the location of
an electricity generator and of a hydrogen
production facility should be determined
by the balancing authority with which the
facility is interconnected, not strictly its
geographic location.
Regarding specific regions, some com-
ments asked that the SPP region be con-
sidered its own deliverability region; that
MISO be treated as one deliverability
region, rather than as two; that the entire
WECC be used as a deliverability region
in the Western U.S.; and that WECC be
38
U.S. Department of Energy, National Transmission Needs Study, (Oct. 2023) available at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/national-transmission-needs-study (click “Read the Full Report”).

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1313 March 24, 2025
treated as two regions based on the WEIM
and the WEIS.
The final regulations retain the pro-
posed regulations’ general framework for
drawing the regional boundaries, which
were derived from the DOE Needs Study.
To clarify the regions, the final regula-
tions add a table of balancing authori-
ties and their corresponding regions. The
table published in these final regulations
is the definitive source for identifying
the regions. A copy of this table is also
reprinted in the forthcoming 45VH2-
GREET User Manual (January 2025).
In response to comments seeking clari-
fication regarding how to determine the
appropriate region, the final regulations
provide in §1.45V-4(d)(3)(iii)(A) that
the electricity generating source and the
hydrogen production facility are located
in the same region if they are both elec-
trically interconnected to a balancing
authority (or balancing authorities) that is
located in the same region, as identified in
the table provided in §1.45V-4(d)(2)(ix).
For example, a hydrogen production facil-
ity that is electrically interconnected to the
East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc. Balanc-
ing Authority and an electricity generating
source that is electrically interconnected
to the Ohio Valley Electric Corp. Balanc-
ing Authority are both in the Mid-Atlantic
Region as reflected in the table. Accord-
ingly, the hydrogen production facility and
the electricity generating facility are in
the same region for purposes of proposed
§1.45V-4(d)(2)(vi) (now renumbered as
§1.45V-4(d)(2)(ix) and (3)(iii)(A).
While the map shown in the 45VH2-
GREET User Manual may be a useful
visual guide, it is the table and the bal-
ancing authority (or authorities) to which
the hydrogen production facility and elec-
tricity generating source are electrically
interconnected that defines the section
45V region. The MISO balancing author-
ity is split between MISO North/Central
and MISO South, as described in the
table published in these final regulations
and as shown in the map in the 45VH2-
GREET User Manual. Alaska, Hawaii,
and each U.S. territory are treated as sep-
arate regions. To the extent modifications
to the balancing authorities and their cor-
responding regions are made in the future
based on additional analysis by the DOE,
taxpayers may continue to use the table
published in these final regulations. In
addition, the Treasury Department and
the IRS intend to issue a safe harbor that
would be published in the Internal Reve-
nue Bulletin that would allow taxpayers to
use a modified table of balancing author-
ities and their corresponding regions
instead of the table published in these final
regulations.
As described in the proposed regu-
lations, the DOE has advised that these
regions provide reasonable assurances of
deliverability of electricity because they
were developed by the DOE in consider-
ation of transmission constraints and con-
gestion and, in many cases, match pow-
er-systems operational regions. The DOE
has also advised that they reasonably
match market and transmission planning
regional boundaries (for example, South-
eastern Regional Transmission Plan-
ning, and PJM Interconnection), in line
with many suggestions from comments.
Because of this, these regions remain the
best geographic representation of deliver-
ability for purposes of the qualifying EAC
requirements.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
recognize that transmission limitations
also exist within these specified regions
but are not aware of readily administrable
options to reflect those grid constraints
in a consistent fashion. The DOE Needs
Study found that interregional transmis-
sion constraints tend to be greater than
within-region constraints. With respect to
establishing larger regions, whether based
on the six NERC regions or otherwise,
the DOE has advised that such regions
would not reflect important transmission
constraints and also do not reflect the pri-
mary geographic scope of current regional
transmission planning processes. The
DOE Needs Study regions more accu-
rately reflect both considerations.
Regarding the comments to treat MISO
as one region, the DOE has advised that
there are significant transmission con-
straints between the southern part of the
MISO footprint and the central and north-
ern parts; the DOE Needs Study regions
track that reality. Accordingly, were a
hydrogen producer located in the south-
ern part of MISO to rely on EACs sourced
from an electricity generating facility
located in the northern part of MISO, for
example, there is a significant risk that
the hydrogen production would signifi-
cantly increase induced grid emissions in
the southern part of MISO that may not
be offset by emissions reductions to the
northern part of MISO.
Regarding the comments on trans-
mission planning and availability in the
western U.S., the DOE has advised that
the DOE Needs Study better reflects
regions than do other stakeholder pro-
posals. Use of market structures like
the WEIS/WEIM are not currently rec-
ommended by the DOE because these
boundaries are based on market oper-
ations—such as setting the wholesale
price of energy production—that do not
necessarily reflect transmission planning
and availability. Furthermore, current
WEIS/WEIM boundaries change year-to-
year, with substantial changes also antic-
ipated in the coming years based on vol-
untary utility participation decisions that
are not centered on transmission avail-
ability. Although these comments are
not adopted, the final regulations allow
interregional delivery in certain circum-
stances, as described in §1.45V-4(d)(3)
(iii)(B) and part III.D.3.d.iii of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, which should address some of
the concerns expressed in the comments.
At least one comment noted possible
inaccuracies in the 45VH2-GREET User
Manual map, for example, a portion of
Florida is shown as being in the Southeast
region and not the Florida region. While
the map contained in the 45VH2-GREET
User Manual may be a useful visual guide,
the table published in these final regula-
tions is the authoritative source regarding
the geographic regions used to determine
satisfaction of the deliverability require-
ment. Further, the Treasury Department
and the IRS emphasize that the location
of an electricity generating source and the
location of a hydrogen production facil-
ity is based on the balancing authority to
which each is electrically interconnected
(not the geographic location), with all but
one balancing authority linked to a single
region. In addition, the regions in the DOE
Needs Study were used to derive the deliv-
erability regions, but are not precisely
those employed by these final regulations;
the DOE Needs Study should therefore
not be referenced for determining compli-
ance with the deliverability requirement.

March 24, 2025 1314 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Finally, some comments noted the
discrepancy between the regions used in
45VH2-GREET for the default grid emis-
sion factors and those proposed for the
deliverability requirement. The Treasury
Department and the IRS acknowledge
that discrepancy and understand that the
DOE is planning to update the default grid
emissions values in 45VH2-GREET in
the near future to align with the regions
required for deliverability.
ii. Dynamic Deliverability Regions
Several comments offered ideas about
dynamic deliverability rules. A few com-
ments proposed using up-to-date locational
marginal prices to infer deliverability and
modify the deliverability region boundaries
over time accordingly. One of these com-
ments asked that market price differentials
and coordination with ISOs and RTOs be
used to create and administer smaller deliv-
erability regions that can be adjusted over
time. One comment requested that utili-
ties be allowed to use utility-specific GHG
emissions information as an alternative to
the balancing authority region approach.
One comment proposed using contempo-
raneous balancing authorities as the deliv-
erability regions. Another comment asked
for locational marginal emissions to be
used to establish deliverability. Another
comment requested that deliverability
regions be continually updated using the
ongoing DOE Needs Study. One comment
wrote that deliverability region boundar-
ies should account for market expansion.
Finally, one comment requested that deliv-
erability regions be regularly adjusted to
reflect changes in transmission capacity
and to resolve conceptual differences with
EU deliverability rules.
The deliverability regions are defined
in these final regulations based on the bal-
ancing authorities they include and were
derived from the DOE Needs Study. The
Treasury Department and the IRS recog-
nize that it may be appropriate to revise
these regions in the future. For example,
the geographic reach of a balancing area
may change, or transmission expansion
may lead to fewer constraints between
the current regions. Comments to the
proposed regulations expressed a desire
to understand how regional boundaries
might change in the future.
To allow for reasonable changes to geo-
graphic regions, the Treasury Department
and the IRS, in consultation with the DOE,
intend to revise the regions in future safe
harbor administrative guidance published
in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Updates
to geographic regions would occur at most
once each year, and likely less frequently.
The types of changes that could occur
through future updates include, for exam-
ple, movements of individual balancing
authorities that might modestly increase or
decrease the footprint of affected deliver-
ability regions. Taxpayers could continue
to utilize the table published in these final
regulations, or, alternatively, taxpayers
potentially could utilize an updated table
provided in guidance published in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin, subject to any
requirements contained in such guidance.
In the event of more fundamental changes
to the deliverability regions, the Treasury
Department and the IRS would propose
amendments to these final regulations.
Regarding comments to use locational
marginal prices, the Treasury Department
and the IRS note that locational marginal
prices are not available on a nationwide
basis and vary considerably from one year
to the next—and even one hour to the next.
Use of locational marginal prices would
likely lead to incomplete and unstable
region definitions. It is therefore unclear
how the Treasury Department and the
IRS could administer such a process, and
how hydrogen producers could then use
the resulting regions. Regarding the com-
ment to use utility-specific GHG emis-
sions information, a consistent method
for how to map generator facilities’ emis-
sions to the transmission system would
be needed to implement this solution.
While there are examples of this mapping
in both industry research and practice,
those methods are nascent and not widely
applied across all transmission regions.
Furthermore, the use of these techniques
in establishing geographic boundaries for
transmission deliverability have not been
tested. Other comments suggesting vari-
ous dynamic deliverability region bench-
marks raise similar administrability con-
cerns, for example, to automatically revise
regions in certain circumstances (such as
ISO expansion or publication of a new
DOE Needs Study). For these reasons, the
final regulations do not adopt these com-
ments. To the extent needed, the Treasury
Department and the IRS will announce
revisions only after careful consideration
and as informed by the DOE’s technical
expertise, to ensure that such revisions are
appropriately measuring deliverability.
iii. Interregional Connections
Many comments asked for means of
satisfying the deliverability requirement
so that certain cases where the electricity
generator and the hydrogen production
facility are located in separate deliver-
ability regions would still be deemed
deliverable. Some of these comments
proposed instituting a process allowing
individual hydrogen producers to make
a showing of actual deliverability across
regions, such as through a direct, interre-
gional connection between generator and
hydrogen production facility, generation
that has secured “firm or non-firm trans-
mission” or “firm transmission rights,” or
that a “direct contract” between genera-
tor and hydrogen producer should suffice
for deliverability. Along similar lines,
several comments requested loosening
the deliverability requirement such that
EACs from electricity generators located
in regions adjacent to the hydrogen pro-
ducer’s region should also satisfy deliv-
erability or that deliverability exemptions
should be granted for projects located on
the boundaries of deliverability regions.
One comment wrote that deliverability
rules should accommodate interregional
transfers by allowing transfer of EACs
between the deliverability regions in pro-
portion to the annual, quarterly, or monthly
capacity available on those interregional
lines. Another comment said that a gen-
erator-producer pairing spanning multiple
regions should satisfy deliverability when
the project’s location reduces transmission
need. Finally, a few comments requested
that deliverability rules permit the use of
EACs from outside the United States, with
a few comments mentioning Canada and
Mexico.
As noted by comments, transmission
often exists across regional boundaries.
The DOE has advised that electricity trade
across regions (and from Canada and
Mexico to the United States) is common,
with the level of trade varying regionally.
The DOE has also advised that if such

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1315 March 24, 2025
delivery of electricity and related EACs
can be verified on a granular basis, there
is no substantive reason to limit such
transactions of qualified EACs. The DOE
and the EPA have also advised that sev-
eral EAC registries already have mecha-
nisms to track near-real-time electricity
and related EACs that cross regions and
are using those methods to reliably track
imports. The fact that several EAC regis-
tries already validate cross-border trans-
actions for electricity and related EACs
on an hourly basis demonstrates admin-
istrability. Other EAC registries may also
develop the capabilities to validate such
cross-region electricity and EAC transac-
tions, in concert with relevant grid system
operators. Finally, the EPA has advised
that there may be heightened risk of dou-
ble sale or use of otherwise qualifying
EACs in cases of international imports
from Canada and Mexico.
Based on these considerations, these
final regulations adopt the suggestions of
many comments by amending proposed
§1.45V-4(d)(3)(iii) to allow an eligible
EAC to meet the deliverability requirement
in certain instances of actual cross-region
delivery where the deliverability of such
generation can be tracked and verified.
See §1.45V-4(d)(3)(iii)(B). First, such
EACs will only qualify if the underlying
electricity generation has transmission
rights from the generator location to the
region of the clean hydrogen producer
and that generation is delivered to (that is,
scheduled and then dispatched and settled
in) such producer’s region. Such electric-
ity delivery must be demonstrated on an
hour-to-hour or more frequent basis, with
no direct counterbalancing reverse trans-
actions, and must be verified with NERC
E-tags or the equivalent. Second, track-
ing of transmission rights and electricity
delivery must occur via the relevant EAC
registry; if the relevant EAC registry lacks
this capability, such cross-region transac-
tions are not allowed. Third, and finally,
imports from Canada and Mexico must
additionally include an attestation from
the generator that the attributes included
in the eligible EACs are not being used
for any other purpose, with that attestation
included as an attachment to the verifica-
tion report submitted with the taxpayer’s
return. These requirements collectively
ensure delivery of qualifying EACs and
electricity to the importing region, thus
ensuring local displacement of other gen-
eration consistent with the producer’s
load, accurate verification of delivery
through EAC registries, and low risk of
double counting or multiple use of EACs
and their generation attributes.
Some comments sought an individual-
ized process that would allow hydrogen
producers to make showings of deliv-
erability on a case-by-case basis, to use
transmission rights or direct contracts
as an alternative basis for establishing
deliverability, to use locational pricing
differentials to demonstrate deliverabil-
ity, or to demonstrate deliverability in
other ways. Another comment suggested
allowing delivery across regions based
on available transmission capacity. Given
administrability concerns, these final reg-
ulations do not include an individualized
process to make a showing of deliverabil-
ity. Additionally, the Treasury Department
and the IRS note that the multiple crite-
ria in §1.45V-4(d)(3)(iii)(B) to determine
interregional deliverability are necessary
to ensure that cross-region transactions
involve the delivery of actual electric-
ity and related EACs, and several EAC
registries already employ such criteria to
validate cross-region transactions. These
final regulations, therefore, adopt the stan-
dardized process and interregional deliv-
erability criteria in §1.45V-4(d)(3)(iii)(B),
which ensure delivery of electricity and
EACs as validated by EAC registries.
Another comment asked for clarifi-
cation as to how electricity generators
located in one balancing authority area but
treated operationally and financially as if
in a different balancing authority area, are
treated under the deliverability rules. As
described in the Explanation of Provisions
of the proposed regulations, the location
of an electricity generating source and the
location of a hydrogen production facility
are based on the balancing authority to
which each is electrically interconnected
(not its geographic location), with each
balancing authority (except MISO) linked
to a single region. If the electricity gener-
ator is electrically connected to the receiv-
ing region, then such a project would be
assigned to that region. If not electrically
connected, it would need to meet the
interregional deliverability requirements.
As such, if there is a direct, single-use
connection (for example, a high-voltage
direct current transmission line) between
an electricity generator and a hydrogen
producer’s region (or the hydrogen pro-
ducer itself) such that the generator is
electrically connected to the receiving
region, then EACs reflecting the hydrogen
production facility’s use of this electricity
would meet the deliverability require-
ment.
Finally, one comment opined that the
deliverability requirement is counterpro-
ductive to the interregional transmission
goals of the DOE Needs Study. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS disagree
with this comment but note that the allow-
ance for cross-region delivery in these
final regulations addresses this comment.
iv. Phase-In and Legacy Rules
Several comments requested phase-in
or legacy rules. Some comments sug-
gested that projects beginning construc-
tion before 2030 should only be required
to source EACs from within the same
NERC region. Another comment proposed
exempting the first 10 gigawatts placed in
service before 2031 from the deliverabil-
ity requirement. Another comment advo-
cated for exempting all hydrogen facilities
beginning construction before 2033 from
the deliverability requirement. A comment
that had proposed the use of tracking sys-
tems like WECC in setting deliverabil-
ity region boundaries requested that, if
tracking systems will not be used, then a
transition rule should allow projects that
have commercial agreements in place to
acquire electricity from outside the proj-
ect’s region to meet deliverability until
2032. As described in part III.D.3.a of this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions, the three qualifying EAC
requirements, inclusive of deliverability,
are necessary to reduce the risk of induced
grid emissions in line with the statutory
lifecycle emissions requirement, and
phase-in or legacy rules would increase
the risk of such emissions.
Several comments expressed concern
that regional boundaries might change
in the future and asked for rules allow-
ing reliance on the deliverability region
boundaries as they are provided at the
time a hydrogen production facility is
either placed in service or its construction

March 24, 2025 1316 Bulletin No. 2025–13
begins. The Treasury Department and the
IRS agree with the comments that cer-
tainty regarding deliverability regions is
important. Therefore, these final regula-
tions adopt the table of regions in §1.45V-
4(d)(2)(ix) for the duration of the section
45V credit. If, in the future the Treasury
Department and the IRS publish a revised
table as a safe harbor in the Internal Rev-
enue Bulletin, a clean hydrogen producer
would be able to instead employ such
regions prospectively, subject to require-
ments that may be contained in such guid-
ance.
Some comments sought various
phase-in rules, whereby regions are, in
effect, larger in the near term but become
narrower over time. Multiple variants on
this concept were proposed. These final
regulations do not provide such a phase in.
As previously discussed, the three quali-
fying EAC requirements, inclusive of
deliverability, are necessary to reduce the
risk of induced grid emissions in line with
the statutory lifecycle emissions require-
ment. Accepting a phased-in approach
with respect to deliverability would
undermine this objective. By contrast to
the temporal matching requirement, com-
ments have not identified any technical or
administrative reason why the deliverabil-
ity requirement must be phased in. The
Treasury Department and the IRS note,
however, that several additional flexibili-
ties are allowed in this final regulation that
were not included in the proposed regula-
tions, including allowance of interregional
delivery and the ability to utilize the table
of regions published in these final reg-
ulations over the life of the credit. Such
additional flexibilities may partially ame-
liorate the concerns of some stakeholders.
v. Other Deliverability Comments
Finally, comments described certain
overarching concerns with the deliverabil-
ity requirement. One comment expressed
concern that, since deliverability regions
do not align with EAC registry boundar-
ies, deliverability could be incompatible
in some way with temporality. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS do not agree
with this comment. EAC registries will
need to develop new capabilities to fully
meet the qualifying EAC requirements,
but overlapping or imperfect geographic
coverage of the EAC registries should not
be an issue. Two EAC registries will oper-
ate outside of their native regions, so even
if a specific EAC registry is not able to
meet all the qualifying EAC requirements,
these other EAC registries are available to
taxpayers.
One comment asked that projects draw-
ing power from zero- or near-zero emis-
sions grids be exempted from the deliv-
erability requirements. Projects drawing
power from zero- or near-zero emissions
grids may use the grid average lifecycle
GHG emissions rate in determining their
section 45V credit eligibility and amount;
the deliverability requirement only applies
in the event the taxpayer is using EACs
instead of the grid average emissions rate.
If a taxpayer is using EACs, as described
in part III.D.1 of this Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions, the
Treasury Department and the IRS agree
with comments that certain states have
enacted policies that may address the risk
of induced grid emissions. However, these
state policies will only satisfy the incre-
mentality requirement; temporal match-
ing and deliverability requirements must
still be met. Deliverability requirements
ensure that the electricity generation that
creates the EACs occurs in the same grid
region or is otherwise physically deliver-
able to the EAC buyer’s load, even where
that generation is incremental or other-
wise will not lead to induced grid emis-
sions. Accordingly, these final regulations
do not adopt this comment.
E. Underlying Substance of 45VH2-
GREET
1. In General
As described in the preamble to the
proposed regulations, certain parameters
in 45VH2-GREET are fixed assump-
tions, referred to as “background data” in
this document. Background data, such as
upstream methane loss rates, emissions
associated with power generation from
specific generator types, and emissions
associated with regional electricity grids,
may not be changed by users of 45VH2-
GREET. Many comments either requested
or recommended changes to certain back-
ground data and requested clarification
with respect to certain background data
parameters. Additionally, many comments
recommended the inclusion of more back-
ground data parameters not currently
in 45VH2-GREET. Some comments
requested or recommended that certain
background data parameters become fore-
ground data (that is, parameters that must
be input by the user), or alternatively, that
all background data parameters become
foreground data.
The Treasury Department and the IRS,
in consultation with the DOE, reaffirm the
importance of maintaining parameters as
background data in cases where idiosyn-
cratic values are difficult to estimate or
verify. Examples of such scenarios include
the carbon intensity of specific types
of electricity generation, such as solar,
wind, or nuclear generation. The 45VH2-
GREET supporting documentation clearly
defines each type of generator currently
represented in the model and allows for
user inputs in scenarios where indepen-
dent verification of such inputs is realisti-
cally feasible. Certain types of electricity
generation like solar and wind do not have
emissions within the well-to-gate sys-
tem boundary, regardless of how they are
operated. Such types of generation have
been assigned a carbon intensity of zero
within 45VH2-GREET. Other types of
generation have non-zero emissions, but
such emissions will not be transparent to
a third-party verifier. For example, well-
to-gate emissions from light-water nuclear
reactors are largely due to the manner in
which uranium is enriched and the coun-
tries from which it is sourced. Beyond the
sector-wide trends already used to inform
45VH2-GREET, differentiation of such
information at a facility-level and asso-
ciated verification is likely to be infeasi-
ble. In other cases, traits of certain types
of generation are likely to be verifiable
and have therefore been incorporated as
foreground data in 45VH2-GREET. One
example is the rate of CCS integrated
with a natural gas combined cycle turbine
used for power generation. Supporting
documentation for 45VH2-GREET pro-
vides information on how this rate must
be calculated, and all aspects of the cal-
culation (for example, the amount of CO2
sequestration reported to the EPA’s Green-
house Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP),
and the amount of CO2 generated by the
facility) are expected to be verifiable. If

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1317 March 24, 2025
a taxpayer utilizes a method of electric-
ity generation that is not yet represented
in 45VH2-GREET, then such taxpayer’s
pathway is not considered to be repre-
sented in the model, and the taxpayer may
be eligible to petition the DOE for a PER
(subject to the requirements of the PER
petition process).
Other than background data, aspects
of 45VH2-GREET that users may not
change include the calculation methods
embedded within the model, for exam-
ple, co-product accounting techniques,
and assumptions of global warming
potential that are used to calculate life-
cycle emissions. The approaches for
accounting used in 45VH2-GREET are
essential features that define the model
itself; if these methods were subject to
modifications by a user, different tax-
payers with identical hydrogen produc-
tion pathways could achieve different
lifecycle GHG rates. Such inconsis-
tency would violate fair administration
of section 45V. Consistent with advice
received from the DOE, the method-
ologies and assumptions embedded
in 45VH2-GREET are necessary and
appropriate for the accurate and fair
administration of the section 45V credit.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
had solicited feedback on conditions, if
any, under which the methane loss rate
may in future releases become foreground
data (such as certificates that verifiably
demonstrate different methane loss rates
for natural gas feedstocks). In response,
one comment recommended the use of
MiQ certificates, which evidence the
emissions intensity of gas production,
including methane loss rates. Further,
the comment noted that the EPA also has
methods available to assess methane loss
rates. The DOE had previously indicated
in the 45VH2-GREET User Manual that
methane emissions monitoring and mit-
igation is quickly changing. The DOE
also had acknowledged certain relevant
EPA reporting requirements that could
be helpful in mitigating methane emis-
sions, alongside DOE-funded research
on mitigation approaches, and together,
had indicated that it expected the quality
of upstream data to improve and methane
emissions rates to change in future ver-
sions of 45VH2-GREET.
Methane emissions that occur upstream
of the hydrogen production facility can
materially affect the well-to-gate emis-
sions associated with hydrogen produc-
tion. Comments have noted that rates of
upstream methane emissions within dis-
tinct supply chains vary widely, depend-
ing on parameters such as mitigation mea-
sures within the basin that natural gas is
sourced from, length of pipeline transmis-
sion, number of leak sources, and leak-
age rates from individual point sources.
Comments also noted that because of this
variation, the default national average
leakage rate for natural gas contained as
background data in 45VH2-GREET in
many cases likely underestimates actual
methane emissions associated with pro-
ducing hydrogen and that the default rate
should be updated based on improved sci-
ence and empirical data. Additionally, the
DOE has advised that supply chains and
contractual agreements for natural gas are
complex and varied, such that some tax-
payers may be capable of identifying all
upstream suppliers while others may not.
The DOE has also advised that measure-
ment, monitoring, reporting, and verifi-
cation (MMRV) capabilities of upstream
methane losses are rapidly advancing.
The EPA’s recently updated GHGRP
rule in 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart W (89 FR
42062, May 14, 2024) prescribes meth-
ods that facilities in the natural gas sup-
ply chain must use to account for their
methane emissions for reporting under the
GHGRP and ensures that the reporting of
methane emissions to the GHGRP is based
on empirical data and accurately reflects
total methane emissions from applicable
facilities, as required by section 136(h)
of the Clean Air Act. Among these recent
updates to the GHGRP are updates to cal-
culation methodologies and the addition
of several new emissions sources, includ-
ing one referred to as “other large release
events,” to capture emission events that
had not been accounted for under the prior
version of the program. The GHGRP also
collects data related to GHG emissions
from combustion of natural gas under
Subpart C and production of hydrogen
under Subpart P of 40 CFR Part 98. The
EPA’s recently finalized regulations for
methane emissions from the oil and gas
sector under section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, including the creation of the Super
Emitter Program and its corresponding
publication and notification requirements,
expanded leak detection and repair require-
ments, and flare efficiency measurement
and monitoring requirements, will directly
inform methane emissions reported to the
GHGRP under Subpart W and provide for
improved assessments of supply chain
methane emissions associated with hydro-
gen production. See Standards of Perfor-
mance for New, Reconstructed, and Mod-
ified Sources and Emissions Guidelines
for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural
Gas Sector Climate Review, 89 FR 16820
(March 8, 2024).
Applicable natural gas supply chain
facilities are required to report to the
GHGRP under the revised Subpart W rules
beginning in 2026 for emissions occurring
in calendar year 2025. As advised by the
DOE and the EPA, the accuracy of lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rates for purposes of
section 45V will improve once data from
the updated GHGRP Subpart W reporting
are available from and have been verified
by the EPA and incorporated into the deter-
mination of such rates for methane. Once
these data are available, the DOE will
update 45VH2-GREET to allow differen-
tiated methane emissions rate reporting,
subject to the requirements described in
the following paragraphs.
39
Until 45VH2-
GREET is updated to include user-defined
emissions based on Subpart W reporting,
the DOE has advised the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS that it anticipates keep-
ing the national average upstream meth-
ane emissions rate in 45VH2-GREET
consistent with the value used in the initial
2023 release of the model.
Giving taxpayers discretion to selec-
tively use either the default national
average estimate or a differentiated rate
depending on which is more taxpayer
favorable would systematically understate
the actual upstream production and trans-
portation emissions from methane used
to produce hydrogen. Therefore, when
45VH2-GREET is updated to enable input
39
The DOE also expects to update 45VH2-GREET to similarly allow differentiated reporting of other upstream emissions associated with the natural gas supply chain to the extent these are
similarly reported in the GHGRP and verified by EPA.

March 24, 2025 1318 Bulletin No. 2025–13
of differentiated upstream methane rates,
it will require taxpayers to use data from
all relevant subparts of GHGRP for all
facilities in the taxpayer’s natural gas sup-
ply chain that are required to report under
Subpart W, while prescribing the use of
default segment-specific emissions rates
for petroleum and natural gas systems
not otherwise reporting their GHG emis-
sions under the revised rules under the
GHGRP to more accurately reflect leak-
age rates of these facilities. These default
segment-specific emissions rates will be
developed by the DOE and the EPA based
on data for each segment reported to the
GHGRP, as well as peer-reviewed scien-
tific literature.
To ensure the accuracy and integrity
of the information used to claim the sec-
tion 45V credit, taxpayers must meet the
requirements of section 45V and these
final regulations, including the require-
ment to obtain verification from an accred-
ited third-party verifier. In particular, con-
sistent with §1.45V-5(c), verification is
required for the data the taxpayer enters
into the 45VH2-GREET Model to deter-
mine the lifecycle GHG emissions rate,
which in the case of differentiated meth-
ane rates must include identification of all
facilities in the natural gas supply chain,
identification of the facilities in the natu-
ral gas supply chain that are required to
report to the GHGRP, accurate reporting
of verified GHGRP data for these facili-
ties, accurate throughput data, and appro-
priate application of any segment-specific
default rates.
The EPA’s revised Subpart W and
Clean Air Act section 111 rules, together,
are essential to the determination that
differentiated upstream methane rates
are appropriate and robust because they
provide accurate, detailed, and particular-
ized data on a facility’s natural gas sup-
ply chain methane emissions. To maintain
accuracy in determining the section 45V
credit, upstream methane emissions rates
must be maintained as background data in
45VH2-GREET until the verified GHGRP
data collected under the revised GHGRP
rules are available. Additionally, if those
rules are rescinded, or revised in a manner
that reduces the scope, stringency, accu-
racy, or reliability of emissions reporting
under Subpart W, Subpart C, or Subpart
P, if the EPA does not maintain the current
requirements of the Super Emitter Pro-
gram or does not take necessary imple-
mentation steps—including continuing
to receive data on super emitters from
third party notifiers, publishing that data
on the web, and sending notifications of
super emitter events to responsible owners
and operators
40
—then upstream methane
emissions rates would need to be main-
tained as background data in 45VH2-
GREET to maintain accuracy in determin-
ing the section 45V credit.
As stated in the Explanation of Provi-
sions to the proposed regulations, future
versions of 45VH2-GREET may include
additional hydrogen production pathways,
such as geologic hydrogen, as sufficient
technical information becomes avail-
able to provide consistent treatment in
45VH2-GREET. Numerous comments
either requested or recommended that
certain hydrogen production pathways be
included in or excluded from future ver-
sions of 45VH2-GREET. Similarly, many
comments also either requested or recom-
mended that future versions of 45VH2-
GREET modify existing feedstocks and
include additional feedstocks and power
sources for hydrogen production.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
understand, based on feedback received
from the DOE, that some technologies
and feedstocks were not included in the
initial version of 45VH2-GREET because
they required further analyses. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS anticipate
45VH2-GREET will be updated on at
least an annual basis and that such updates
are expected to include additional tech-
nologies and feedstocks. Finally, sev-
eral comments expressed a desire for
more transparency with respect to the
initial development and implementa-
tion of 45VH2-GREET, as well as future
updates to the model, including requests
that future updates to 45VH2-GREET be
submitted for notice and comment. For
purposes of determining lifecycle GHG
emissions as generally defined in section
45V(c)(1)(A), the Treasury Department
and the IRS have relied extensively on
the DOE, which has the scientific exper-
tise necessary to develop GREET models,
and through the Argonne National Lab-
oratory developed 45VH2-GREET pur-
suant to section 45V(c)(1)(B). The com-
ments’ request that all future updates to
45VH2-GREET be put through notice and
comment is not applicable to these final
regulations, which are limited to focus-
ing on the Treasury Department’s desig-
nation of 45VH2-GREET as the operative
model for the purposes of the section 45V
credit. The Treasury Department and the
IRS have shared these comments with the
DOE to determine the best way to address
comments related to future updates to
45VH2-GREET.
2. Valorized Co-Products
As noted in the Explanation of Provi-
sions to the proposed regulations, 45VH2-
-GREET allows users to input the quantity
of valorized co-products (that is, co-prod-
ucts from the hydrogen production pro-
cess that are separately productively
utilized or sold) and allocate emissions
to those co-products (rather than to the
hydrogen production). The Explanation
of Provisions to the proposed regulations
also described that 45VH2-GREET uti-
lizes the “system expansion” approach for
all co-products, if possible, but restricts
the amount of steam co-products that pro-
ducers can claim based on the quantity of
steam that an optimally designed reformer
is expected to be capable of producing
according to modeling from the National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
had solicited feedback on this approach,
including whether alternative conventions
for co-product accounting, such as physi-
cal allocation or allocation based on other
characteristics, would better ensure that
well-to-gate carbon intensity of hydro-
gen production is robustly represented.
Comments received in response to this
40
The determination that the current Subpart W and section 111 rules are adequate to support facility-specific upstream methane leakage calculations is based on the following rules: Green-
house Gas Reporting Rule: Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems, 89 Fed. Reg. 42062 (May 14, 2024), as corrected by 89 Fed. Reg. 71838
(Sept. 4, 2024); Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review, 89 Fed.
Reg. 16820 (Mar. 8, 2024), as corrected by 89 Fed. Reg. 62872 (Aug. 1, 2024). Amendments to the Subpart W rule and Standards of Performance and Emissions Guideline rule made pursuant
to specific grants of reconsideration announced for Subpart W in December 2024 and for the section 111 rule in May 2024, will not be considered a rescission or revision as described herein.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1319 March 24, 2025
request were generally supportive of the
restriction on steam co-products described
above. Some comments, however,
expressed concern that 45VH2-GREET
fails to account for steam co-products if a
reformer is capturing and sequestering the
CO2 it produces.
The DOE has advised that steam
co-products were not represented for
reformers with CCS in the initial release
of 45VH2-GREET because the model
did not yet represent CCS technologies
wherein steam co-products were feasi-
ble. The DOE has advised that cryogenic
CCS technologies have been included in
the forthcoming January 2025 release of
45VH2-GREET, and that steam co-prod-
ucts can be represented from reformers
with cryogenic CCS. The DOE intends
to continue to expand 45VH2-GREET
with additional CCS technologies, and
to allow for steam co-products to be
represented if it is feasible with such
technologies. However, 45VH2-GREET
will not allow reformers (with or with-
out CCS) claiming steam co-products
to claim co-products in excess of 17.6
percent of the total energy content of all
steam and hydrogen produced (using the
lower heating value of hydrogen). This
limit of 17.6 percent is based on inde-
pendent modeling of optimally designed
reformers from the NETL and is
described further in the 45VH2-GREET
User Manual.
Additionally, the DOE has advised that
system expansion may not be an appropri-
ate accounting approach for all co-prod-
ucts that may be produced at hydrogen
production facilities, and that physical
allocation should be utilized where sys-
tem expansion is inappropriate. Specifi-
cally, system expansion may be inappro-
priate if it yields artificially low lifecycle
GHG emission values for hydrogen in
scenarios that include but are not limited
to scenarios where incumbent methods of
co-product generation have highly vari-
able or uncertain lifecycle GHG emission
values or scenarios where the market for
the co-product is sufficiently small that
the magnitude of the co-product gener-
ated by hydrogen producers is likely to
expand the market size of the co-product
rather than displacing an incumbent tech-
nology. Therefore, in scenarios wherein
system expansion may not be appropriate,
45VH2-GREET will utilize physical allo-
cation.
As previously noted, 45VH2-GREET
allows users to allocate emissions to
co-products, rather than to the hydrogen
production. The DOE has also advised
that a co-product under 45VH2-GREET
does not include a gas or output that is not
separate from (that is, is mixed in with)
the hydrogen gas stream, even if the mixed
gas is valorized as part of the stream. Nor
does it include an output that has been
separated from a hydrogen gas stream if
the taxpayer or a customer downstream
of the taxpayer will later mix such output
back into the hydrogen gas stream. In such
cases, the user must evaluate the emissions
of the hydrogen production process before
the output was separated out, and account
for the output as a mixed gas or impurity.
An example where output may not
be treated as a co-product is the sce-
nario where a taxpayer uses natural gas
to produce a hydrogen gas stream that
includes carbon monoxide, and separates
the carbon monoxide from the hydrogen
gas stream. The taxpayer sells the carbon
monoxide to Customer A, sells the hydro-
gen to Customer B, and intends to account
for the carbon monoxide in 45VH2-
GREET as a co-product. Later, Customer
A sells the carbon monoxide to Customer
B, and Customer B combines such carbon
monoxide with the hydrogen to produce
methanol. Because the carbon monoxide
will be reintroduced to the hydrogen after
it is separated, the carbon monoxide may
not be treated as a co-product.
F. Non-Zero-Emitting Sources of
Electricity
In the Explanation of Provisions to
the proposed regulations, the Treasury
Department and the IRS requested com-
ments with respect to sources of electric-
ity other than zero GHG-emitting elec-
tricity, including minimal-emitting and
non-minimal-emitting sources. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS received
comments in support of the use of such
sources, many of which proposed exten-
sive verification requirements. On the
other hand, one comment stated that the
final regulations should require that min-
imal-emitting electricity generating facili-
ties submit a full lifecycle analysis before
any EACs with respect to such facilities
are allowed to be issued to hydrogen
producers because the qualifying EAC
requirements generally are not reflected in
the attributes of the EACs of such facil-
ities. In consultation with the DOE, the
Treasury Department and the IRS intend
to allow the use of EACs with respect
to sources of electricity other than zero
GHG-emitting electricity. Hydrogen pro-
duced using minimal-emitting electricity
sources may qualify for the section 45V
credit if the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
of the process by which the hydrogen was
produced satisfies statutory requirements.
Moreover, the Treasury Department and
the IRS intend for the EAC framework
and the qualifying EAC requirements
that apply to these electricity sources to
provide one framework for the determi-
nation of when electricity from a specific
electricity generating facility can be taken
into account for purposes of 45VH2-
GREET or a PER. These final regulations
amend the definition of “eligible EAC” in
§1.45V-4(d)(2)(iii) to require attributes
that are required by 45VH2-GREET or in
the determination of a PER to accurately
reflect the emissions associated with the
source of electricity.
In addition, the Treasury Department
and the IRS, in consultation with the
DOE, note that 45VH2-GREET currently
includes certain minimal-emitting elec-
tricity source options, including allowing
hydrogen production facilities to account
for electricity generation using CCS, and
it may include additional minimal-gen-
erating options in the future. These final
regulations also include requirements lim-
iting when carbon capture may be taken
into account, which are discussed in part
III.G of this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions. Hydrogen pro-
duction facilities using types of electricity
generation not represented in 45VH2-
GREET will be eligible to submit peti-
tions for PERs. To the extent that a non-
zero, minimal-emitting electricity source
is used to power hydrogen production,
the direct and significant indirect emis-
sions from the minimal-emitting source
of electricity must be reflected in 45VH2-
GREET or as part of an Emissions Value
Request Application. Foreground data
parameters relevant to electricity sources
(for example, the amount of CCS) must

March 24, 2025 1320 Bulletin No. 2025–13
be verified by a third-party verifier. The
Treasury Department and the IRS expect
that verifiers will develop tools to verify
the feedstock sources and related energy
attributes represented by the EACs.
G. Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Hydrogen production facilities may
employ carbon capture equipment and
engage in CCS. Several comments
stressed the importance of verification of
carbon capture rates reported by hydrogen
producers claiming the section 45V credit.
One comment asked that requirements for
the verification of CO2 capture rates and
the permanence of CO2 sequestration be
as rigorous as those of the California Air
Resource Board’s (CARB) Carbon Cap-
ture and Sequestration Protocol for the
CA LCFS. Another comment requested
(1) that verification requirements for car-
bon oxide transport, permanent storage
or use, or monitoring under section 45V
be at least as stringent as those under sec-
tion 45Q; (2) that proof of at least three
years of injection site monitoring by an
independent geologist or petroleum engi-
neer should be required in the case of
CO2 sequestered or used for enhanced oil
recovery; and (3) that the final regulations
include provisions specifying proper ver-
ification of carbon management, includ-
ing sequestration and prevention of CO2
leaks, and also include a clawback mech-
anism in the case of CO2 leaks. In cases
where electricity, fuel, or a feedstock
is used to produce hydrogen, the issue
of carbon capture rate verification also
arises if the source of electricity, fuel, or
feedstock is engaged in CCS. Thus, in
response to these comments, the final reg-
ulations add §1.45V-4(e), which provides
that for purposes of the section 45V credit,
if a taxpayer determines a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate for hydrogen produced at
a hydrogen production facility using the
45VH2-GREET Model or the Secretary
determines a PER for hydrogen produced
at a hydrogen production facility sub-
ject to a PER petition, then CCS may be
taken into account only if the carbon cap-
ture occurs in the production of qualified
clean hydrogen (for subsequent sequestra-
tion) or occurs in the production of elec-
tricity, fuel, or feedstock that is used by
such facility to produce hydrogen and is
captured and, pursuant to section 45Q(f)
(2) and any regulations established there-
under, disposed of in secure geological
storage, or utilized in a manner described
in section 45Q(f)(5) and any regulations
established thereunder. Such CCS that
occurs in the production of qualified clean
hydrogen (rather than in the production
of electricity, fuel, or feedstock) may
only be taken into account if the carbon
capture equipment is part of the qualified
clean hydrogen production facility. Any
CCS that does not meet such section 45Q
requirements will appropriately be con-
sidered to be emissions from the produc-
tion of hydrogen within the well-to-gate
system boundary and be attributed to the
lifecycle GHG emissions of such hydro-
gen. Because CCS rates are reported and
verified on an annual basis for purposes of
section 45Q or reporting under the EPA’s
GHGRP program, the annual average
CCS rate at a given electricity generat-
ing plant can be applied to any EACs that
are sourced from that generating resource
when it is represented in 45VH2-GREET
or an Emissions Value Request Applica-
tion. Power sourced from facilities with
CCS must meet all other requirements for
qualifying EACs in these final regulations.
In addition, the Treasury Department
and the IRS note that the amount of CO2
sequestered by an electricity source gener-
ator or by a hydrogen production facility
using carbon capture equipment is fore-
ground data within 45VH2-GREET and
therefore also is subject to third-party ver-
ification.
H. Use of Natural Gas Alternatives
The Treasury Department and the IRS
announced in the preamble to the pro-
posed regulations an intent to provide
final regulations addressing hydrogen
production pathways that use biogas,
renewable natural gas (RNG), and fugi-
tive sources of methane (collectively,
natural gas alternatives), for purposes of
the section 45V credit. The assessment
of lifecycle GHG emissions with respect
to such natural gas alternatives presents
a complex set of technical questions.
Thus, the preamble to the proposed regu-
lations described various rules related to
the use of natural gas alternatives in the
production of hydrogen that the Treasury
Department and the IRS were consider-
ing for inclusion in these final regula-
tions. The preamble to the proposed reg-
ulations also included detailed comment
requests about various aspects of the use
of natural gas alternatives to inform the
development of these final regulations.
After careful consideration of the numer-
ous comments submitted in response to
these proposals and the proposed regula-
tions’ specific requests for comment, the
final regulations provide rules in §1.45V-
4(f) related to the use of natural gas alter-
natives in the production of hydrogen
and the assessment of lifecycle GHG
emissions with respect to natural gas
alternatives. As further described in part
III.H.2.c of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions, rather than
provide rules that would specify a single,
generic alternative fate for all natural gas
alternatives (for example, capture and
flaring), the Treasury Department and
the IRS have, in consultation with inter-
agency technical experts from the DOE
and the EPA, considered the technical
characteristics of types of sources of nat-
ural gas alternatives and sought to apply
the approach most appropriate for each
type of source to provide an administra-
ble and robust alternative fate for each
sector.
1. Definitions
a. Alternative Fate
The preamble to the proposed regula-
tions asked for comments on what coun-
terfactual assumptions and data should be
used to assess the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions of hydrogen production pathways
that rely on natural gas alternatives. The
preamble to the proposed regulations did
not offer a definition of the term “coun-
terfactual,” which is referred to in these
final regulations as an “alternative fate.”
In the interest of completeness and clar-
ity, §1.45V-4(f)(2)(i) clarifies that the term
“alternative fate” means a set of informed
assumptions (for example, production
processes, material outcomes, and mar-
ket-mediated effects) used to estimate the
emissions from the use or disposal of each
feedstock were it not for the feedstock’s
new use due to the implementation of pol-
icy (that is, to produce hydrogen).

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1321 March 24, 2025
b. Biogas
The preamble to the proposed regu-
lations noted that the term biogas means
“gas resulting from the decomposition
of organic matter under anaerobic con-
ditions, and the principal constituent is
methane (50-75 percent).” Some com-
ments noted that biogas may contain a
percentage of methane that is outside of
the range noted in the proposed regula-
tions. In order to be inclusive of all gases
that may be considered biogas, §1.45V-
4(f)(2)(ii) does not specify a range of
percentages of methane that a gas must
contain to be considered biogas. These
final regulations define biogas as gas
containing methane that results from the
decomposition of organic matter under
anaerobic conditions.
c. Coal Mine Methane
The preamble to the proposed regula-
tions did not offer a definition of the term
“coal mine methane,” but, in the interest
of completeness and clarity, §1.45V-4(f)
(2)(iii) clarifies that the term “coal mine
methane” means methane that is stored
within coal seams and is liberated as a
result of current or past mining activi-
ties. “Liberated” coal mine methane can
be released intentionally by the mine for
safety purposes, such as through mine
degasification boreholes or underground
mine ventilation systems, or it may leak
out of the mine through vents, fissures, or
boreholes. For the purpose of these regu-
lations, the term coal mine methane does
not include methane removed from virgin
coal seams (for example, coal bed meth-
ane).
d. Fugitive Methane
The preamble to the proposed regula-
tions would have defined the term “fugi-
tive methane” to mean the release of
methane through, for example, equipment
leaks, or venting during the extraction,
processing, transformation, and delivery
of fossil fuels to the point of final use,
such as coal mine methane. Comments
did not recommend alternatives to this
definition. The proposed definition is
adopted in these final regulations with-
out substantive change in §1.45V-4(f)
(2)(iv). One comment asserted that the
proposed definition creates a distorted
baseline assumption that methane would
have been leaked or vented, such that
the captured methane could improperly
be assessed as having negative lifecycle
GHG emissions. The Treasury Depart-
ment and IRS understand this concern
and note that the baseline and alternative
fates relevant to certain sources of fugi-
tive methane are further discussed at part
III.H.2.c of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions.
e. Renewable Natural Gas
The preamble to the proposed regula-
tions would have defined the term “renew-
able natural gas” (RNG) to mean “biogas
that has been upgraded to be equivalent
in nature to fossil natural gas.” One com-
ment asserted that the term “renewable
natural gas” is misleading and should be
replaced with the term “biomethane.”
This comment noted that referring to bio-
methane as a “renewable” resource falsely
implies that it is easily replaced although
biomethane is scarce and its supplies are
often depleted upon use. Although the
Treasury Department and the IRS recog-
nize these concerns, §1.45V-4(f)(2)(iv)
does not adopt the suggested change in
terminology because the term “renewable
natural gas” is sufficiently clear, is a com-
monly used term in other regulatory pro-
grams and in commerce, and is unlikely to
result in confusion. The term “renewable
natural gas” and its proposed definition
is therefore adopted without substantive
change.
2. Considerations Regarding the
Lifecycle GHG Emissions Associated
with the Production of Hydrogen Using
Methane from Natural Gas Alternatives
The preamble to the proposed regu-
lations explained that the rules provided
in the final regulations regarding natural
gas alternatives would apply to all natu-
ral gas alternatives used for purposes of
the section 45V credit and would provide
conditions that must be met before certif-
icates for natural gas alternatives (that is,
representations of the energy and emis-
sions attributes of the methane) and the
attributes they are meant to represent may
be taken into account in determining life-
cycle GHG emissions rates for purposes
of the section 45V credit. The preamble
to the proposed regulations indicated
that such conditions would be logically
consistent with, but not identical to, the
incrementality, temporal matching, and
deliverability requirements for electric-
ity-derived EACs, in that the conditions
would be designed to reflect the ways in
which additional demand for natural gas
alternatives can impact lifecycle GHG
emissions and also to address the differ-
ences between electricity and methane,
including, but not limited to, the different
sources of emissions, markets, infrastruc-
ture, available tracking and verification
methods, and potential for perverse incen-
tives.
The preamble to the proposed reg-
ulations described and requested com-
ment on several provisions the Treasury
Department and the IRS were considering
adopting in the final regulations to address
the risk of significant indirect emissions
and induced emissions from the use of
natural gas alternatives in the produc-
tion of hydrogen. This risk of significant
indirect emissions and induced emissions
can arise when natural gas alternatives
are diverted from another productive use.
In these situations, such productive uses
may be backfilled with a different source
that is not a natural gas alternative, such
as fossil natural gas, which could result
in associated emissions. For example,
a facility that previously used its biogas
for heat and power generation may opt to
import grid electricity and/or fossil natu-
ral gas to satisfy its on-site energy needs.
There is also a risk of significant indirect
emissions or induced emissions or inap-
propriate claims of the section 45V credit
with respect to hydrogen that does not
meet statutory emissions requirements,
if the incentives provided by the section
45V credit result in the creation of new or
expanded methane or other GHG sources
that would not have existed otherwise, or
additional methane that would not have
been created or would have remained
sequestered, which could increase lifecy-
cle GHG emissions. By reference to sec-
tion 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean Air Act,
section 45V(c)(1)(A) requires consid-
eration of direct and significant indirect
emissions.

March 24, 2025 1322 Bulletin No. 2025–13
a. Lifecycle GHG Emissions Associated
with the Use of Natural Gas Alternatives
The accurate assessment of lifecycle
GHG emissions is vital to determining
both eligibility for and the amount of the
section 45V credit. Lifecycle GHG emis-
sions assessments that underestimate the
emissions associated with different hydro-
gen production pathways would mean that
the section 45V credit could be claimed
even if lifecycle GHG emissions in fact
exceed the statutory eligibility threshold
or credit tier thresholds established by
Congress. In order to ensure that hydrogen
producers claiming the section 45V credit
are using processes with lifecycle GHG
emissions that do not exceed the statu-
torily prescribed eligibility threshold or
credit tier thresholds, the final regulations
necessarily include certain guardrails to
address the risk of such credit claims.
The preamble to the proposed regula-
tions requested comments on the lifecy-
cle analysis considerations for methane
derived from natural gas alternatives. To
account for direct and significant indirect
emissions, these considerations include,
among other things, appropriate alterna-
tive fate scenarios and the assessment of
current feedstock management practices.
The preamble to the proposed regulations
noted that the requested comments may
inform future versions of the 45VH2-
GREET model. After consideration of the
comments received, the final regulations
address certain aspects of the lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis for natural gas
alternatives used in the production of
hydrogen. Parts III.H.2.b. and c. of this
Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions address first productive
use and general alternative fate assump-
tions ranging from venting to responsible
avoidance of methane.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree with comments that assert that accu-
rately estimating lifecycle GHG emissions
rates for processes that rely on methane
from natural gas alternatives to produce
hydrogen requires taking a wide range
of factors into account in establishing the
alternative fate against which the use of
methane to produce hydrogen should be
assessed. Section 45V(c)(1)(A) requires
any lifecycle GHG emissions analysis
under section 45V to address direct and
significant indirect emissions associated
with the use of methane for the production
of hydrogen, including emissions result-
ing from the diversion of methane from
a prior alternative productive use or from
the expansion of existing sources or cre-
ation of new sources of natural gas alter-
natives.
b. First Productive Use
The preamble to the proposed reg-
ulations provided notice that the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS intended to
require that, for natural gas alternatives
to receive an emissions value consistent
with that gas (and not fossil natural gas),
the natural gas alternative used during the
hydrogen production process must origi-
nate from the first productive use of the
relevant methane. The preamble to the
proposed regulations further noted that for
any specific source, productive use would
generally be defined as any valuable appli-
cation of the relevant methane (for exam-
ple, providing heat or cooling, generating
electricity, or upgrading to RNG). In addi-
tion, the preamble noted that productive
use would specifically exclude venting to
the atmosphere or capture and flaring. The
preamble further proposed to define “first
productive use” as the time when a pro-
ducer of the relevant methane first begins
using or selling it for productive use in the
same taxable year as (or after) the relevant
hydrogen production facility was placed
in service. Under this proposal, RNG pro-
duced from any source of methane, where
the methane had been productively used
in a taxable year prior to the taxable year
in which the relevant hydrogen production
facility was placed in service, would not
have received an emission value consis-
tent with biogas-based RNG, for example,
but would instead have received a value
consistent with fossil natural gas. This
proposal was intended to address emis-
sions associated with the diversion of nat-
ural gas alternatives from other productive
uses and the risk of emissions associated
with creation of new or expansion of exist-
ing sources of natural gas alternatives.
The preamble to the proposed regu-
lations noted that, for existing biogas or
fugitive methane sources that typically
productively use or sell a portion of the
biogas and flare or vent the remainder, the
flared or vented portion may be eligible
for first productive use as described ear-
lier if the flaring or venting volume can
be adequately demonstrated and verified.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
requested comment on these and other
potential conditions on the use of natu-
ral gas alternatives in the production of
hydrogen.
After full consideration of the com-
ments and as further explained in this part
III.H.2.b. of the Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions, these final
regulations do not impose a first produc-
tive use requirement. Although a first pro-
ductive use requirement could effectively
address important considerations in the
determination of a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate, the Treasury Department and
the IRS acknowledge that the requirement
may be difficult for taxpayers to substan-
tiate and to verify independently. Estab-
lishing compliance with a first productive
use requirement could involve obtaining
detailed, often unavailable, historical doc-
umentation of the operations of the meth-
ane source, including historical production
levels, material changes in waste source
composition and volume, use of capture
equipment and capture rates, sales or uses
of captured methane, and waste manage-
ment practices. Moreover, challenges in
the administration of a first productive
use requirement raise questions about the
practical ability of a first productive use
requirement to address the risk of direct or
significant indirect emissions effectively.
Instead of a first productive use require-
ment, for determining emission rates
associated with the use of methane from
natural gas alternatives, the more appro-
priate approach is to take the likelihood of
alternative productive use into account in
assessing the alternative fate of such gas,
as discussed in part III.H.2.c. of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions.
The Treasury Department and the
IRS received many comments address-
ing the first productive use requirement.
Many comments questioned the legal and
technical basis of a first productive use
requirement. Several comments asserted
that a first productive use requirement is
not authorized by statute, overly restricts
otherwise eligible biogas and RNG feed-
stocks that could support clean hydrogen

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1323 March 24, 2025
production and ignores the fact that there
are numerous reasons an existing bio-
gas facility may switch productive uses,
including, but not limited to, the expiration
of existing contracts, like power purchase
agreements. Other comments asserted that
there is no evidence that RNG-to-hydro-
gen pathways will result in the induced
emissions that appear to underlie the first
productive use requirement and that such
emissions are not included in the 45VH2-
GREET model, which the comments
asserted is the only basis allowed for
assessing lifecycle GHG emissions.
One comment contended that indus-
try data suggests that domestic produc-
tion of biogas and RNG can support both
new hydrogen production and current end
uses like compressed natural gas (CNG)
transportation vehicles; thus, within the
timeframe that section 45V credit will be
available, there is ample capacity to serve
demand in many sectors, without caus-
ing induced emissions. Similarly, several
comments stated that much of the RNG
produced in the United States is used in
the transportation sector for compliance
with the RFS and/or State clean fuel pro-
grams like the CA LCFS. These com-
ments explain that since these programs
drive deployment of a specific amount of
compliant fuels, if an existing RNG sup-
plier leaves these transportation markets
to supply RNG as a feedstock to a new
hydrogen production facility, the prior end
use of such RNG will be backfilled with
other compliant fuels (for example, those
that meet the RFS’s GHG requirements).
In response to these comments,
the Treasury Department and the IRS
acknowledge that these existing transpor-
tation fuel programs, chiefly the RFS and
the CA LCFS, have been the primary driv-
ers for deployment of RNG domestically.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree that the existence of these programs
mitigates the risk that RNG currently
produced for such programs will be redi-
rected to hydrogen production, although
there could be incentives for such use if
any such hydrogen could itself qualify
to claim credits under these programs.
Despite this, there still remains a risk that
RNG (or biogas) could be redirected to
hydrogen production from other current
uses, such as heat and power generation.
Additionally, because RNG currently
comprises the vast majority of cellulosic
biofuel credits generated under the RFS
program, it is not necessarily the case
that RNG previously used in this program
would be backfilled with other compliant
fuels should insufficient RNG be avail-
able for use as U.S. transportation fuel.
As discussed previously, however, these
final regulations do not impose a first
productive use requirement at this time,
but instead take an alternate approach to
addressing these concerns.
One comment suggested that the Trea-
sury Department could adopt a mid-pro-
gram “check-in” to evaluate whether clean
hydrogen produced using RNG is leading
to unintended increases in emissions.
Facilities that have achieved commercial
operation during this period could qualify
as “additional” for purposes of tax credit
eligibility. Moreover, any biogas sources
that are newly converted from electricity
generation to RNG production should be
credit-eligible regardless of whether the
agency adopts the proposed “first produc-
tive use” requirement. Several comments
suggested that a robust assessment of any
induced emissions associated with redi-
recting RNG from its prior use to hydro-
gen production would demonstrate that
such consideration would not result in an
increase in the emissions rate and, there-
fore, such emissions need not be consid-
ered due to the speculative nature of the
initial premise. Some comments noted
that a potential alternative would be to add
an indirect emission charge equal to the
emissions associated with the extraction,
processing, and delivery of fossil nat-
ural gas to backfill the prior demand for
such gas. Another comment stated that
while the intent of the first productive use
requirement is logical, it would be more
efficient and cost effective to assign pro-
duction values to the RNG inputs used in
hydrogen production because this would
allow hydrogen producers to factor output
costs given the RNG feedstocks used to
create the hydrogen they offer to the mar-
ketplace. Several comments stated that
fugitive methane should not be considered
incremental if such methane comes from
the fossil fuel system, as this is already
accounted for under the current GREET
model.
In response to these comments,
the Treasury Department and the IRS
acknowledge that the first productive use
requirement, which is not required as part
of these final regulations due to the diffi-
culties in proving and verifying first pro-
ductive use, would address two aspects
of lifecycle GHG emissions assessments,
both of which must be considered under
section 45V(c)(1)(A). First, a first pro-
ductive use requirement would mitigate
the risk of emissions associated with the
diversion of natural gas alternatives from
a productive use other than the produc-
tion of hydrogen. Although methane from
natural gas alternatives could be used for
different productive uses, the potential
emissions associated with changes in use
are nonetheless relevant in the determina-
tion of a lifecycle GHG emissions rate.
Second, a first productive use requirement
aids in the determination of the appropri-
ate alternative fate of natural gas alterna-
tives used in the production of hydrogen.
Comments questioning a first productive
use requirement because of a lack of evi-
dence of induced emissions arising from
shifts in behavior due to the availabil-
ity of the section 45V credit are not dis-
positive. Section 45V(c)(1)(A) does not
require empirical evidence of direct and
significant indirect emissions associated
with a newly available incentive like the
section 45V credit before the likelihood
of such emissions may be considered, and
such a restriction would systematically
underestimate such emissions. As further
explained below, it is necessary for a life-
cycle GHG emissions assessment that is
consistent with the statutory definition
of lifecycle emissions in 45V(c)(1)(A) to
reflect the emissions effects that can be
reasonably expected to occur based on
current or future market trends and driv-
ers, inclusive of incentives and regulation.
Some comments suggested that a first
productive use requirement should not be
imposed for purposes of the section 45V
credit because there already exist estab-
lished frameworks for other incentive pro-
grams involving methane from natural gas
alternatives, which may be relied upon to
determine lifecycle GHG emissions. One
comment stated that producers should be
allowed to use the emissions data collec-
tion methods and book-and-claim frame-
work that have been established under the
RFS program to incorporate Renewable
Identification Numbers (RINs) in the natu-

March 24, 2025 1324 Bulletin No. 2025–13
ral gas supply chain and demonstrate CO2
reduction. Another comment asserted that
the first productive use rule must be elim-
inated because RNG is already regulated
under the RFS program, which should
continue to serve as the regulatory author-
ity for RNG. In response to these com-
ments, the Treasury Department and the
IRS note that the RFS program does not
regulate the use of RNG. Rather, the RFS
program allows RNG used as transporta-
tion fuel to generate RINs under certain
conditions. The Treasury Department and
the IRS acknowledge that programs such
as the RFS program have considered and
established frameworks for addressing
issues relevant to the implementation of
section 45V, but section 45V has its own
statutory requirements that diverge from
those of other programs.
Key distinguishing features include the
structures of these incentive programs,
which influence how lifecycle analysis is
conducted. The RFS program, for exam-
ple, determines credit values based on
whether a given renewable fuel achieves
a threshold reduction of GHG emissions
relative to petroleum, where the thresh-
old is defined by the statute that enacted
the RFS program. For this reason, the
RFS program is not designed to estimate
specific lifecycle GHG emissions values,
which is statutorily required to determine
eligibility for and the amount of the sec-
tion 45V credit. In addition, section 45V
requires that emissions be accounted for
on a well-to-gate basis (versus the well-
to-wheel basis for the RFS program), and
the statute does not permit accounting for
the emissions of the fuel being displaced
by hydrogen use. These final regula-
tions, therefore, do not adopt any of those
frameworks for other incentive programs
involving methane.
Many comments raised concerns
about the effect a first productive use
requirement would have on deployment
of hydrogen production technologies
that rely on natural gas alternatives and
suggested it could also have other unde-
sirable effects on the market for certain
methane sources. Several comments sug-
gested the first productive use rule limits
RNG pathways by creating a de facto
strict additionality requirement that is
even more onerous than that proposed for
electricity and EACs. Several comments
suggested the first productive use rule
should be eliminated to incentivize raw
biogas to be upgraded to RNG, which
ensures that harmful air pollutants are
not released into the atmosphere by burn-
ing raw biogas (as in electricity produc-
tion from biogas, for example). Another
comment argued a first productive use
requirement is not feasible because RNG
is delivered through national and inter-
state common carrier pipelines from
multiple sources. One comment stated
that the first productive use requirement
is overly burdensome and will unneces-
sarily restrict opportunities to decarbon-
ize hydrogen production as well as cur-
tail methane abatement at scale. Several
comments contended that the proposed
“first productive use” requirement would
cause a significant value discrepancy
for new projects creating a market dis-
tortion, greater risk of stranded gas for
existing projects, added complexity, and
higher prices for end-consumers. Sev-
eral comments cautioned that adding a
first productive use rule creates potential
unintended consequences of RNG plants
sitting idle if hydrogen production facil-
ities do not coincide with the RNG plant
completion dates. One comment noted
that one possible scenario is if a hydro-
gen production facility is initially con-
servatively sized and cannot use the full
amount of RNG being produced at a spe-
cific project until a later date, the excess
RNG would either sit idle so as to not trig-
ger a first productive use or would have to
enter less lucrative markets, which could
put the project in jeopardy. Another com-
ment stated that there are limited options
for large-scale RNG production in certain
areas and that requiring a hydrogen pro-
duction facility to be the first productive
use of a RNG facility, and have a pipeline
connection, presents a significant logisti-
cal barrier to the development of a clean
hydrogen project in certain areas. One
comment asserted that the proposed first
productive use requirement would effec-
tively prevent section 45V credit eligibil-
ity for hydrogen projects using RNG. The
comment noted that even if a project uses
RNG in a low- to no-carbon way, if that
RNG was previously used productively or
sold at any time, the proposed rules imply
that it could not be used in a project that
would result in a lower carbon intensity.
Assuming the implementation of the
first productive use requirement, many
comments requested modifications,
changes to, or transitional relief to the first
productive use requirement outlined in
the preamble to the proposed regulations.
One comment suggested that the first pro-
ductive use rule may be overly restrictive
and that it could be beneficial to relax the
first productive use requirement, so long
as the new use of the RNG delivers over-
all lower net emissions than its original
fate. Another comment suggested that if
the first productive use requirement is not
eliminated, then a legacy reliance rule and
a transitional period through 2032 should
be included in these final regulations. Sev-
eral comments suggested there should be
no restrictions on RNG; however, if the
first productive use rule is implemented,
then it should apply a look-back period
of 36 months, not by taxable year but by
when the hydrogen is produced. Another
comment argued that there should not
be a default fossil-based carbon intensity
score for RNG that had been productively
used before being used to produce hydro-
gen because doing so fails to recognize
the carbon intensity reduction benefit of
RNG compared to fossil natural gas that
is realized regardless of whether the meth-
ane was previously captured and used at
the project host. One comment requested
that “first productive use” be defined as
RNG that is produced based on an offtake
agreement signed within 48 months of
the beginning of hydrogen production,
rather than within the same or later tax-
able year as the relevant hydrogen pro-
duction facility’s placed in service date.
Several comments stated the first pro-
ductive use requirement should be elim-
inated as it relates to the production of
clean hydrogen with coal mine methane.
Several comments supported that each
individual borehole for coal mine meth-
ane be seen as additional and as a first
productive use of supply due to each of
them being a unique investment decision
requiring incremental capital expendi-
ture to mitigate leaking methane. Several
comments stated that the definition of first
productive use was unclear, and that the
definition should focus on ensuring that
RNG used for hydrogen is not displacing
a previous productive use. One comment
argued that “low-carbon” gas should also

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1325 March 24, 2025
qualify as first productive use if it is from
additional methane abatement, even if it
is conditioned at a pre-existing facility.
In other words, any gas from newly con-
structed capture infrastructure for fugitive
methane, a newly covered lagoon, newly
constructed digester, or newly contracted
feedstock source for RNG production
should count as first productive use, since
these are all individual investment deci-
sions that lead to incremental methane
abatement. One comment asserted that
the presence or use of flaring in appro-
priate circumstances (for example, safety
or compliance with State or local regula-
tions) should not disqualify a facility from
eligibility, especially in light of the fact
that commercial operations must comply
with mandatory but potentially conflict-
ing Federal, State, and local regulatory
requirements. Several comments recom-
mended that if the first productive use
requirement is adopted, the final regula-
tions should allow existing gas sources to
qualify through 2030 to ensure adequate
supply. These comments further noted
that after 2030 any induced emissions
that occurred could be quantified and, if
applicable, included in the lifecycle GHG
emissions assessment of existing low-car-
bon gas facilities, as opposed to being
grounds for disqualification from the sec-
tion 45V credit. A comment asserted that
if the first productive use requirement is
adopted, it must be applied to each meth-
ane source—that is, at the digester or
lagoon-level for RNG and borehole-level
for coal mine methane—so as to reflect
how investment decisions are made. Once
a low-carbon gas source is accepted as
meeting a first productive use requirement
(if adopted) under the program, it should
not be exclusively tied to a particular
hydrogen production facility, according to
the comments.
As explained in part III.H.2.c. of this
Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions, these final regula-
tions are taking into account the lack of
a first productive use requirement in the
development of alternative fates for cer-
tain sources of natural gas alternative, so
modifications, changes to, and transitional
relief are not necessary. The Treasury
Department and the IRS will continue to
consider these recommendations raised
by these comments in evaluating whether
imposing a first productive use require-
ment, with potential modifications, may
be appropriate in future guidance under
section 45V.
Many comments supported imposing a
first productive use requirement. One com-
ment stated that the proposed first produc-
tive use rule would help direct biometh-
ane that is otherwise vented (or, in some
cases, flared) to hydrogen production,
rather than creating an additional demand
for methane by taking from other sources
that may meet that demand through dirtier
sources of energy. According to the com-
ment, a first productive use requirement
is important to avoid significant indirect
emissions associated with hydrogen pro-
duced from biomethane. The comment
noted that avoiding significant indirect
emissions is especially important for agri-
cultural methane emissions, which have
risen over the last few decades despite
overall declines in national methane
emissions. Several comments supported
the proposed regulations and argued that
enforcing the first productive use rule and
narrowly tailoring the definition of first
productive use are critical to prevent the
significant amount of RNG production
today shifting to producing ostensibly
clean hydrogen. The comments posited
that diversion of currently produced and
used RNG to hydrogen production would
be backfilled with fossil natural gas and
contended this is especially true for exist-
ing RNG heat applications and CNG pow-
ered vehicles. Thus, any existing RNG
diverted to hydrogen production would
be filled on a one-for-one basis with fossil
natural gas. One comment stated that the
proposed rule requiring the first produc-
tive use be matched to the same taxable
year as (or after) the hydrogen production
facility is placed in service would help
to limit any diversion of biogas or RNG
from other pre-existing uses, which might
otherwise increase overall emissions.
One comment stated that the first produc-
tive use rule is logically consistent with
incrementality requirements imposed for
EACs representing electricity generation
to be considered qualifying. Several com-
ments supported prohibiting crediting of
biomethane or fugitive methane that has
previously been put to productive use and
stated that a first productive use require-
ment would ensure emissions reductions
claimed under section 45V are indeed
additional to the climate system overall.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree with many of the observations made
in these comments. While these final reg-
ulations do not adopt a first productive
use requirement for the reasons stated
earlier in this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions, the Treasury
Department and the IRS have considered
these observations regarding alternative
productive use of natural gas alternatives
when establishing the alternative fates.
c. Alternative Fates
These final regulations establish gen-
eral requirements for lifecycle GHG
emissions determinations for processes
that use methane derived from natural gas
alternatives to produce hydrogen, requir-
ing such determinations to consider the
alternative fates of that methane, includ-
ing avoided emissions and alternative
productive uses of that methane, the risk
that the availability of section 45V credits
creates incentives to produce additional
methane or otherwise induces additional
emissions, and observable trends and
anticipated changes in waste management
and disposal practices over time as they
are applicable to methane generation and
uses. The emissions risks that would have
been addressed by a first productive use
requirement are addressed in the develop-
ment of the appropriate alternative fates
for certain sources of natural gas alter-
natives, thereby reflecting an accurate
assessment of lifecycle GHG emissions
pursuant to section 45V(c)(1)(A). The fac-
tors considered in establishing the appro-
priate alternative fate are interrelated and
must account for other aspects of these
final regulations. For example, because
these final regulations do not impose a
first productive use requirement, there
may be a greater likelihood that the appro-
priate alternative fate for certain sources
of natural gas alternatives should be pro-
ductive use.
As discussed previously, analytical
decisions regarding the alternative fate
of natural gas alternatives are critical in
the assessment of their carbon intensity.
Comments suggested a range of broadly
applicable alternative fate assumptions
for methane from natural gas alternatives

March 24, 2025 1326 Bulletin No. 2025–13
used in hydrogen production. Recommen-
dations included venting, flaring, produc-
tive use, and responsible avoidance of
waste-stream-generated methane.
Rather than adopting a single alterna-
tive fate for all natural gas alternatives,
these final regulations instead address spe-
cific considerations for each major source
of natural gas alternatives. This part
III.H.2.c of this Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions addresses
comments recommending broadly appli-
cable alternative fates, while comments
addressing alternative fates for specific
sources of methane are discussed in parts
III.H.2.c.i through vi of this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions.
Comments supported and opposed a
venting alternative fate (that is, assuming
the methane in question would have been
released directly to the atmosphere rather
than flared or productively used) for a range
of reasons. One comment recommended
that avoided emissions crediting should
be allowable for fugitive methane feed-
stocks. The comment stated that, in most
instances, alternative fates are not neces-
sary as these are not hypothetical emis-
sions, but measurable real-world fugitives
and valuing abatement is straightforward.
The comment posited that if a base case
is needed, it should be venting or uncon-
trolled release of 100 percent of the meth-
ane potential of the feedstock to the atmo-
sphere. Several comments recommended
that biomethane should not receive a
negative carbon intensity score by claim-
ing a “business-as-usual case” of venting
methane. The comments suggested that,
at the most generous, this methane should
be considered to be captured and flared,
which would make the use of this methane
for hydrogen production—with the waste
stream of carbon dioxide—receive at best
a carbon intensity score of zero. One com-
ment stated that there is ample evidence
that pre-IRA policies already support the
capture of vented methane where possi-
ble, for both RNG and fossil gas, and that
remaining methane emissions are likely to
be mitigated even in the absence of hydro-
gen projects supported by the section 45V
credit. The comment further suggested
that allowance of venting as an alternative
fate for the purposes of calculating net
hydrogen carbon intensity would incen-
tivize hydrogen producers to claim offsets
based on an inaccurate assumed alterna-
tive fate against real emissions from pro-
duction and upstream methane leakage in
order to establish eligibility for the most
generous section 45V credit tier. As a
result, the comment recommended that
requiring flaring be used as the baseline
condition for all pathways including RNG
is a simple way to prevent crediting of
pathways with GHG reductions based on
unrealistic alternative fate scenarios. Sev-
eral comments stated that venting is not an
appropriate alternative fate assumption for
biomethane because it is an irresponsible
practice and would result in the greatest
credit value with respect to gas producers
who are investing the least in the environ-
mental quality and emissions reduction
technologies at their facilities. Several
comments stated that lifecycle analysis
should be used to compare the overall
environmental impacts of using biogas
and fugitive emissions for hydrogen pro-
duction versus current flaring practices;
alternative fates assumptions should be
updated to reflect the given tax year’s reg-
ulatory requirements so, for example, if
venting is prohibited, then it is no longer a
valid alternative fate scenario.
A number of comments recommended
that capture and flaring would be an
appropriate alternative fate for certain
sources of natural gas alternatives, such
as methane from landfills and wastewater
treatment plants.
Several comments suggested using
conservative assumptions, alternative
fates and formulas, and allowing taxpay-
ers to propose and prove alternatives.
Many comments requested the adoption
of conservative approaches to determining
alternative fates. Several comments rec-
ommended that any methane that can be
captured should, at minimum, be assigned
a baseline alternative fate of being cap-
tured and flared. One reason provided
by the comments was that flaring appro-
priately reflects a consistent treatment of
pollution sources, recognizing the cost of
methane pollution and thus the need for
methane abatement.
In response to these comments, the
Treasury Department and the IRS agree
that venting is not an appropriate alter-
native fate to apply across all sources of
natural gas alternatives, because it does
not account for the prevalence of flaring
and productive use, nor does it address
the risk of induced emissions due to the
incentives provided by the section 45V
credit. The Treasury Department and the
IRS also anticipate that a venting baseline
would become increasingly inappropriate
over time, due to anticipated changes in
regulations and operational practices. The
section 45V credit is in effect for facili-
ties beginning construction through 2032
and remains available for a 10-year period
after the hydrogen production facility is
originally placed in service. The final reg-
ulations also generally allow taxpayers to
rely for the duration of a hydrogen pro-
duction facility’s 10-year credit period on
the version of the 45VH2-GREET model
that is available on the date the facility
began construction, as is further discussed
in part III.B of the Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions. Therefore,
the final regulations provide that the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of a process
(as defined in §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that uses
methane derived from biogas, RNG, or
coal mine methane as a feedstock mole-
cule to produce hydrogen, must take into
account anticipated changes in waste dis-
posal practices or use of that methane over
the relevant timeframe.
In the case of venting, the Treasury
Department and the IRS expect venting
prohibitions to expand in future years, as
local, State, and Federal policy restric-
tions on venting are becoming increas-
ingly common.
While the policy landscape for spe-
cific methane sources is discussed in parts
III.H.2.c.i. through vi. of this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions,
a range of current and prospective State
policies limiting venting of different RNG
sources or encouraging more responsible
methane management practices indicates
the trajectory of State action in this area.
For example, California, Colorado, Mary-
land, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington
have all recently taken or imminently
plan to take action to restrict venting and
require more responsible methane man-
agement practices, in some cases beyond
the Federal standards currently in place.
As discussed in more detail regarding
the specific sources of natural gas alterna-
tives, there are also significant voluntary
Federal incentives to encourage respon-
sible methane management practices.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1327 March 24, 2025
There is also evidence of ongoing growth
in methane capture through prolifera-
tion of landfill gas capture and anaero-
bic digesters. For example, as shown in
updated project database files from EPA’s
Landfill Methane Outreach Program
(LMOP), as of September 2024 there
were 1,245 landfills with operational gas
collection and control systems, as com-
pared to 1,187 in 2014.
41
Additionally,
LMOP data shows growth in the number
of landfill gas energy projects upgrading
landfill gas to RNG. As of September
2024, there are 110 operational RNG
projects (as compared to 63 projects in
2019) and 102 planned or under construc-
tion.
42
In addition, as subsequently dis-
cussed in this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions, there has been
rapid growth in the construction of animal
waste digesters, largely as a result of pol-
icy incentives, with data from AgSTAR
showing an additional 172 operational
anaerobic digesters accepting livestock
manure in 2024 relative to 2019 (267
digesters).
43
AgSTAR data also demon-
strates rapid growth in RNG projects
(including pipeline injection and CNG
for vehicle fuel or other uses), with 191
RNG projects in 2024 compared to 32 in
2019, and only 8 in 2017.
44
As of 2023,
CNG has surpassed Combined Heat and
Power (CHP) as the most common end
use of biogas from manure-based anaer-
obic digestion systems in AgSTAR.
45
In
light of all these trends, a methane vent-
ing baseline across all natural gas alterna-
tives is inaccurate today, and, over time,
the assumptions and inputs will likely
become increasingly erroneous as regula-
tions, markets, and resource management
practices evolve during the period over
which the section 45V credit is available.
This supports the use of reasonably con-
servative alternative fates in the face of
uncertainty to provide greater assurance
that statutory emissions thresholds pro-
vided in section 45V(b)(2) will not be
exceeded, as described in more detail
subsequently in this Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
also agree that conservative approaches
to assessing alternative fates of natural
gas alternatives may be an appropriate
response to challenges in documenting
and verifying alternative fates applicable
to specific sources of natural gas alterna-
tives in order to better ensure compliance
with the statutory emissions thresholds
in section 45V. However, such conser-
vative approaches should consider the
distinct characteristics of each source or
type of source, to the extent reasonably
practicable. Thus, although a capturing
and flaring alternative fate may be gen-
erally appropriate for some categories of
sources of natural gas alternatives, it is
not appropriate for all sources of natural
gas alternatives.
Some comments suggested that the
alternative fate assumption for all meth-
ane derived from waste streams should be
alternative productive use. One comment
recommended that an alternative fate
approach should address the risk of indi-
rect emissions by taking into account the
alternative fate and the emissions associ-
ated with replacing this fate. The comment
further suggested that if the hydrogen pro-
ducer has data and evidence of the alter-
native fate, for example from the RNG
supplier, this should always be used in the
first instance, in preference to a market or
average assumption provided by the DOE.
In addition, the comment stated that vent-
ing may be the appropriate alternative fate
in some instances, but that it is unlikely
to be the appropriate primary alterna-
tive fate due to the adverse effects RNG
venting has on the climate. The Treasury
Department and the IRS note that the rec-
ommendations in these comments would
significantly increase the complexity in
estimating lifecycle GHG emissions asso-
ciated with the use of natural gas alter-
natives in the production of hydrogen.
Permitting taxpayers to apply bespoke
alternative fates for each source of natural
gas alternative would increase the burden
on taxpayers and on tax administration
because substantiation and verification of
such bespoke alternative fates would be
challenging. As further explained later in
this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions, the significant and
in some cases growing rates of produc-
tive use of methane from certain waste
streams is an important consideration in
establishing alternative fate assumptions
for estimating lifecycle GHG emissions
rates. Because not all methane from waste
streams is used productively, however, the
comment’s suggested assumption that the
alternative fate assumption for all meth-
ane derived from waste streams should be
alternative productive use would under-
state the potential emissions benefits of
using such gas in hydrogen production.
The final regulations, therefore, do not
adopt these comments.
Some comments suggested that the
alternative fate assumption for all waste
stream-generated methane should be
responsible avoidance of such methane
production by applying practices that
minimize its production. These comments
highlighted the risk that incentives created
by the section 45V credit would lead to
the production of more, new methane than
would have otherwise occurred. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS agree that
this is an important consideration.
For new methane that would not have
been produced in the absence of the sec-
tion 45V credit, use of such methane for
hydrogen production must not be reflected
as avoided methane emissions in the life-
cycle GHG emissions assessment. For
certain waste streams, the volumes of
waste-stream-generated methane pro-
duced by a certain practice can be affected
by operator actions, such as a change in
manure management practices from land
disposal to lagoon disposal, or heating an
anaerobic digester to increase the amount
of methane produced. Moreover, in some
cases, the cost of generating additional
methane may be small compared to the
value of the section 45V credit. Several
comments asserted that fugitive methane
and methane from animal lagoon-based
manure are both examples of avoidable
41
LMOP Landfill and Project Database, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at https://www.epa.gov/lmop/lmop-landfill-and-project-database (last updated Sept. 20, 2024).
42
Id.
43
AgSTAR Data and Trends, Biogas Data and Trends, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at https://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar-data-and-trends#biogasfacts (last updated Nov.
27, 2024).
44
Id.
45
Id.

March 24, 2025 1328 Bulletin No. 2025–13
waste streams that exist solely because
of discretionary industry practices; as
a result, these comments asserted that
methane streams are always GHG pos-
itive. Comments asserted that treating
this methane consistent with fossil nat-
ural gas is a generous approach because
biomethane production is associated
with higher methane leakage rates. One
comment stated that allowing previously
flared or vented biogas to be considered
as “incremental” as a first productive use
also brings significant emissions risks by
encouraging the expansion of facilities’
waste methane streams over prior years to
qualify that methane waste for hydrogen
production in the future. The comment
argued that for landfill gas, considering an
“above average” approach for incremen-
tality when considering a facility that has
no established energy project could be one
way of encouraging investment in greater
capture rates.
As these comments note, the availabil-
ity of the section 45V credit may lead to
generation of methane in the form of nat-
ural gas alternatives for the purpose of
producing qualified clean hydrogen that is
eligible for the section 45V credit. In those
instances, the appropriate alternative fate
is that the methane generated from waste
streams, or increments of it, would not
have been created in the first place or that
it would have remained sequestered. In
such scenarios, it would be inappropri-
ate to credit hydrogen production with
avoided emissions because the analysis
must address methane leakage and com-
bustion emissions that otherwise would
not have occurred, and crediting these
scenarios with avoided emissions would
likely result in providing a section 45V
credit for the production of hydrogen that
is ineligible for the credit based on the
statutory emissions requirements. This is
a particularly important consideration for
certain types of methane-producing prac-
tices and materials and for determining
the appropriateness of alternative fates
that can result in highly negative lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate estimates if emis-
sions from additional methane generation
are not accounted for, which would create
potentially large incentives for additional
waste production (potentially resulting
in highly inaccurate lifecycle emissions
assessments).
In light of the substantial venting and
flaring of methane that currently occurs,
an alternative fate of avoidance would in
many instances understate the emissions
benefits of capturing such gas and using
it to produce hydrogen. In order to meet
statutory requirements, however, incen-
tives for methane creation must be con-
sidered in the determination of a lifecycle
GHG emissions rate.
It is not possible for the Treasury
Department and the IRS to ascertain
which specific waste-stream-gener-
ated methane would not exist absent
the incentives provided by section 45V
credit, nor is it possible to precisely
estimate the market-mediated emissions
of such an incentive effect. In order
to ensure that these emissions are not
merely ignored, which would not be per-
missible under the statute, and also that
the approach is both administrable and
appropriate, after consultation with the
DOE, these final regulations take the
economic incentives for additional waste
production into account in establishing
the alternative fates that apply in general
to particular feedstocks. Specifically, in
settings where a significant but non-iden-
tifiable share of methane from some
sources could be produced in response to
incentives provided by the section 45V
credit or other programs, alternative fate
assumptions that result in highly nega-
tive emissions estimates are likely to be
inaccurate and understate the real-world
lifecycle GHG emissions. These final
regulations require that determinations
of alternative fates for methane derived
from biogas, RNG, or fugitive methane
consider the risk that the availability of
tax credits creates incentives to produce
additional methane.
i. Alternative Fate Considerations for
Methane from Certain Waste Streams
Informed by the considerations dis-
cussed earlier, §1.45V-4(f)(3)(ii) through
(vi) specifically addresses the alternative
fate considerations for methane from land-
fill sources, wastewater, coal mine meth-
ane, animal waste sources, and fugitive
methane other than coal mine methane.
The following parts of this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions
address these specific types of sources of
natural gas alternatives in further detail.
These final regulations have developed
alternative fates on a sector-by-sector
basis because determining and validat-
ing alternative fates on an entity-by-en-
tity basis would not be administrable. As
discussed earlier, identifying an appro-
priate alternative fate for specific sources
of natural gas alternatives would depend
not only on the specific facts and circum-
stances (for example, whether methane
from the source was already being pro-
ductively used), but would also require
an entity-by-entity assessment of the
applicability of alternative fate scenarios
with many complex factors potentially
relevant to that assessment (for example,
financial incentives absent the section
45V credit, regulatory considerations, or
trends in waste management or disposal
practices). It would be highly burden-
some for taxpayers to demonstrate, and
impractical to confirm as a matter of tax
administration, that a specific methane
source had certain historic practices and
whether in the future that source would
have had a certain disposition of relevant
materials other than the one that actually
occurred. Quantities of methane from
an individual source could even have
different alternative fates. For example,
assuming a situation where, absent tax
incentives, a source capturing and using
methane would have produced a lesser
amount of methane and vented it, the
alternative fate for that amount of meth-
ane (venting) would differ dramatically
from the alternative fate of the additional
methane produced due to the tax incentive
(no methane produced or emitted). More-
over, these administrative challenges are
even greater for situations where hydro-
gen producers are seeking to use a book-
and-claim system to assign attributes to
natural gas alternatives purchased from
an intermediary, such as a common car-
rier pipeline. In such situations, book-
and-claim registries would in theory need
to verify and track not only the type of
natural gas alternative source but also
any additional information relevant to
assessing the alternative fate of the meth-
ane from the specific source. Given these
significant administrative challenges, the
alternative fates are assessed and applied
on a sector-by-sector basis in these final
regulations.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1329 March 24, 2025
ii. Alternative Fate Considerations for
Methane from Landfill Gas
The preamble to the proposed reg-
ulations recognized a pathway within
45VH2-GREET for determining a lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate using an alterna-
tive fate of flaring for the production of
hydrogen using RNG derived from land-
fill gas. The final regulations continue to
recognize a hydrogen production pathway
in 45VH2-GREET that applies an alter-
native fate of flaring in assessing the use
of RNG produced from landfill gas in the
production of hydrogen.
A number of comments highlighted
competing considerations in determining
the appropriate alternative fate for meth-
ane from landfill gas. One comment stated
that venting is the correct alternative fate
for landfill gas in some instances, such as
jurisdictions without flaring regulations in
place. Several comments recommended
conservative default parameters paired
with alternative fate assumptions that
would reflect a high potential of leakage at
landfills, given that landfills can generate
super-emitting plumes and studies suggest
collection efficiency can be overestimated.
Several comments noted the 45VH2-
GREET model properly includes avoided
emissions with respect to landfill gas. The
comments state that the RNG industry
supports and agrees that any methodol-
ogy assessing RNG’s lifecycle emissions
must measure avoided emissions. Several
comments proposed that for purposes of
calculating the emissions rate for RNG
from municipal solid waste landfills, the
45VH2-GREET model must utilize the
correct and latest scientific data from the
EPA, which the comment asserted shows
the national average landfill methane cap-
ture rate is 39 percent. However, the EPA
data for 2022 shows significantly higher
methane recovery rates.
46
Moreover, reg-
ulations increasingly require flaring of
landfill gas, and, as discussed previously,
anticipated changes in regulatory require-
ments and operational practice are an
important consideration in determining
appropriate alternative fates.
The EPA currently regulates emissions
(in the form of landfill gas using non-meth-
ane organic compound (NMOC) emissions
as a surrogate) from landfills under sec-
tion 111 of the Clean Air Act. EPA regu-
lations under the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(commonly known as the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act, or RCRA)
mandate certain landfill management prac-
tices that also affect methane emissions
from landfills. As noted elsewhere in this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions, several States have adopted
additional more stringent requirements for
landfill methane emissions. The EPA has
also announced that it intends to update
and strengthen its existing landfill regu-
lations under section 111 of the Clean Air
Act in 2025.
47
The current rules for landfill
gas emissions were finalized in 2016. Pur-
suant to the EPA’s regulatory plan, the EPA
plans to revisit the rule to understand how
new technologies and approaches could
be incorporated into updated New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emis-
sions Guidelines to reduce emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills and to pro-
tect the environment and the health of peo-
ple that live nearby.
48

In particular, certain landfills are sub-
ject to NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
XXX) and Emissions Guidelines (40 CFR
Part 60, subpart Cf) under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act (collectively, NSPS/
EG Rules). The listed regulated pollutant
under these regulations is “landfill gas.”
The EPA has also promulgated National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63, subpart
AAAA) in 2020 that regulate the emis-
sions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)
from landfills. The NESHAP regulates
HAP emissions by requiring landfills
that exceed the size and NMOC emission
thresholds to install and operate a landfill
gas collection and control system (GCCS).
As in the NSPS/EG, the GCCS is required
to include a control device capable of
reducing NMOC emissions by 98 percent.
This system will also reduce emissions of
methane since methane makes up approxi-
mately 50 percent of the landfill gas.
The EPA’s current Clean Air Act sec-
tion 111 NSPS provide emissions control
requirements for new (since 2014) munic-
ipal solid waste landfills. See 40 CFR part
60 subpart WWW and subpart XXX. The
section 111 emissions guidelines (EG)
cover existing (pre-2014) municipal solid
waste landfills through requirements that
are adopted by States through State plans,
or by the EPA in the event a State does not
submit an approvable plan. See 40 CFR
part 60 subpart Cf. Both new and exist-
ing landfills that exceed specified size and
emissions thresholds must install landfill
gas GCCS and use, sell, or flare (com-
bust) the gas. The EPA estimated that 846
landfills would be required to collect and
control landfill gas under these regulations
by 2025.
49
In addition, landfills covered
by these regulations and that have GCCS
installed must conduct quarterly surface
monitoring for leaks. In the States with
more stringent State requirements, the
requirements commonly apply to smaller
landfills, landfills with lower emissions
levels, and/or apply more stringent emis-
sions control measures compared to the
Federal requirements. A number of other
landfills that are not subject to emissions
control regulations nevertheless have
installed landfill GCCS and are either flar-
ing, combusting the gas for energy gen-
eration, or upgrading it and injecting it in
the pipeline system for sale.
50
The LMOP
46
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2022 (2024), at 725, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/
us-ghg-inventory-2024-main-text_04-18-2024.pdf.
47
Non-regulatory Public Docket: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/non-regulato-
ry-public-docket-municipal-solid-waste-landfills (last updated Dec. 9, 2024); Press Release, The White House, Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Detect and
Reduce Climate Super Pollutants (Jul. 23, 2024), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/23/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announc-
es-new-actions-to-detect-and-reduce-climate-super-pollutants; Keaton Peters, Is the EPA About to get Serious About Methane Pollution from Landfills?, Canary Media (Jul. 10, 2024),
available at https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/methane/is-the-epa-about-to-get-serious-about-methane-pollution-from-landfills.
48
Reconsideration of Standards of Performance and Emissions Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (RIN 2060-AU24) available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgenda-
ViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2060-AU24.
49
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Updates to Performance Standards for New, Modified and Reconstructed Landfills, and Updated to Emission Guidelines for Existing Landfills:
Fact Sheet (Sept. 2016), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/landfills-final-nsps-eg-factsheet.pdf.
50
Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at https://www.epa.gov/lmop (last updated Dec. 5, 2024).

March 24, 2025 1330 Bulletin No. 2025–13
tracks voluntary GCCS installation based
on available data reported by program
partners. As of 2024, at least 450 landfills
operate a GCCS without being required
by regulation. Many of the landfills that
are not currently regulated or voluntarily
collecting gas may be required to collect
and control landfill gas emissions during
the timeframe in which the section 45V
credit is available, as additional regulation
is expected at both the Federal and State
level.
51
Given that landfill gas collection
and use or flaring is widespread, as it is
required by regulation for an increasing
number of landfills and often supported by
GHG credit programs when not required,
an assumption that absent the section
45V credit the typical practice would be
uncontrolled venting is not supportable.
Although landfill gas is increasingly put
to productive use, and there are some
landfills where capture and flaring or
productive use is not yet occurring, since
collection and flaring is required by law
for the largest sources of landfill gas and
is increasingly being required for smaller
sources as well, collection and flaring
is the most appropriate alternative fate
assumption for the sector as a whole given
its prevalence. Although a flaring alterna-
tive fate will result in an underestimate
of lifecycle GHG emissions for landfills
with current productive use, the fact that
there are some landfills where capture and
flaring or productive use is not yet occur-
ring, in combination with the prevalence
of flaring, makes a flaring alternative fate
the most robust approach for the sector as
a whole. Based on all the considerations
noted previously, §1.45V-4(f)(3)(ii) of the
final regulations provides that, for pur-
poses of determining the lifecycle green-
house gas emissions rate of a process (as
defined §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that uses meth-
ane derived from landfill sources, flaring
of such gas using an efficiency deter-
mined in 45VH2-GREET must be used
as the alternative fate. Flaring efficiency
is specified as background data in 45VH2-
GREET because bespoke values are likely
to be unavailable or inaccurate, since it is
not common practice to measure the flare
gas chemical composition or to have con-
tinuous monitoring of flares at landfills.
iii. Alternative Fate Considerations for
Methane from Wastewater
The proposed regulations did not rec-
ognize a pathway for determining a life-
cycle GHG emissions rate for the produc-
tion of hydrogen using methane produced
from wastewater, but the preamble to the
proposed regulations sought comment on
the treatment of various sources of RNG.
These final regulations support providing
a pathway in 45VH2-GREET to deter-
mine the lifecycle GHG emissions rate for
the production of hydrogen that applies
a flaring alternative fate for biogas and
related RNG from wastewater sources in
concert with default wastewater treatment
practices defined in the forthcoming, Jan-
uary 2025 version of 45VH2-GREET and
described in this part III.H.2.c.ii of these
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions.
Several comments stated that it would
be incorrect to presume that most waste-
water treatment plants have operational
biogas/anaerobic digester systems and that
operational biogas systems are flaring their
gas. At least one comment asserted that,
based on the American Biogas Council’s
database of wastewater facilities main-
tained under a memorandum of under-
standing with the Water Environment Fed-
eration, the vast majority of operational
digester systems at wastewater plants are
using such biogas to produce renewable
electricity, RNG, or heat, which, accord-
ing to the comment, offsets fossil fuel
use and its related emissions. Another
comment opposed a venting baseline for
instances like wastewater treatment on the
basis there is no administrable system that
credibly enables producers to distinguish
the gas that would be vented if not for the
existence of the section 45V credit.
National-level data on anaerobic diges-
tion at wastewater treatment plants and
the use of biogas produced is limited.
There are more than 16,000 wastewater
treatment plants in the U.S. While most
wastewater treatment plants in the U.S.
serve small populations and do not pro-
cess sufficiently large wastewater flows to
justify the installation of anaerobic digest-
ers, which are capital-intensive, anaero-
bic digesters are very prevalent among
the smaller number of large wastewater
treatment facilities that process the large
majority of wastewater: the largest 8 per-
cent of facilities (1,132 facilities that each
handle greater than 5 million gallons per
day) process 77 percent of total national
wastewater flow, according to Argonne
National Laboratory. Among the 1,100
generally large wastewater treatment
plants that have anaerobic digesters, 860
have the equipment to use their biogas on
site, according to the DOE’s Alternative
Fuels Data Center. Additionally, nearly all
biogas-producing wastewater treatment
plants surveyed in 2018 reported flaring
at least some of their biogas, based on the
Nationwide Survey of WRRF Biosolids
Programs released in 2022. Venting prac-
tices are not reported in any national data-
sets, although vents are required to pre-
vent overpressurization events in biogas
storage systems and local regulators may
require facilities to track and report vent-
ing events. Some facilities combust biogas
to heat their digesters and some also take
advantage of the additional heat availabil-
ity for use in on-site biosolids drying.
Given that use or flaring of methane
from wastewater is generally applied to
the majority of wastewater generated
domestically, an assumption that absent
the section 45V credit the typical prac-
tice would be uncontrolled venting is not
supportable. Section 1.45V-4(f)(3)(i) of
the final regulations therefore provides
that, for purposes of determining the life-
cycle greenhouse gas emissions rate of a
process (as defined §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that
uses methane derived from wastewater
sources, the alternative fate of such gas
must assume flaring and use the flaring
efficiency and other factors as determined
by 45VH2-GREET, including accounting
for the proportion of the gas typically used
to heat the anaerobic digester.
For the large majority of biogas from
wastewater treatment plants, this is either
consistent with current practice, or mod-
51
In addition to upcoming EPA regulations, additional states are also contemplating regulations. See, for example, Landfill Methane Reductions in Colorado, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, available at https://cdphe.colorado.gov/landfill-methane-reductions-in-colorado; New York Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Methane Reduction
Plan (May 2017), available at https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/mrpfinal.pdf.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1331 March 24, 2025
estly overestimates avoided emissions
in cases where the portion of biogas not
needed to satisfy on-site heat requirements
would otherwise have been productively
used. Although a flaring alternative fate
for this additional biogas will result in an
over-estimate of avoided lifecycle GHG
emissions for wastewater treatment plans
with current productive use beyond satis-
fying on-site heat demands, this potential
overestimation of GHG emissions avoid-
ance is counterbalanced by the existence
of wastewater treatment plants where cap-
ture and flaring or productive use is not
yet occurring, thus making default waste-
water treatment practices the most appro-
priate approach for the sector as a whole.
iv. Alternative Fate Considerations for
Coal Mine Methane
The proposed regulations did not rec-
ognize a pathway within 45VH2-GREET
for determining lifecycle GHG emissions
rates for the production of hydrogen using
coal mine methane (CMM), but the pre-
amble to the proposed regulations invited
comment on the treatment of various
sources of fugitive methane. The final reg-
ulations support providing a pathway in
45VH2-GREET to determine the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate for the production of
hydrogen that applies a flaring alternative
fate for CMM.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
recognize that fossil sources of fugitive
methane can be utilized for hydrogen
production. Many comments specifically
noted the feasibility of transforming CMM
into hydrogen and identified venting as a
common alternative fate. One comment
noted concerns associated with allow-
ing for the use of fugitive methane from
sources such as coal mines until robust
lifecycle analysis, verifiability, incremen-
tality, and other principles related to the
emissions impacts of this gas are demon-
strated.
The DOE has advised that drainage
gas is the subset of CMM that can be used
for hydrogen production, due to its high
methane content. Drainage systems are a
mechanism of recovering methane from
underground mines to maintain safe oper-
ating conditions.
52
These systems are typ-
ically installed when ventilation systems
are insufficient to maintain underground
methane concentrations within permissi-
ble limits. Unlike drainage gas, ventilation
gas is typically dilute in methane content
and therefore cannot be used for hydrogen
production.
Based on consultation with the DOE
and the EPA, the Treasury Department and
the IRS understand that the EPA’s GHGRP
is the only national public database with
historical information provided annu-
ally by large active underground mines
regarding their treatment of drainage gas.
Review of data submitted by coal mines
to GHGRP under section 98.326 of Sub-
part FF indicates that, while the majority
of ventilation gas liberated by coal mines
over the past decade has been vented, the
majority of drainage gas has been produc-
tively used or flared. Mine practices have
fluctuated, with some mines transitioning
from predominantly venting drainage gas
to predominantly using or destroying such
gas. Factors that can affect the extent to
which a mine vents, flares, and/or produc-
tively uses such gas in a given year include
the amount of methane required by onsite
equipment (for example, engines); prox-
imity to offsite infrastructure (for exam-
ple, pipelines); and the lucrativeness of
programs incentivizing the capture of
CMM. Incentives for CMM destruction
and utilization that are currently avail-
able include State offset programs, State
renewable portfolio standards, and volun-
tary offsets, some of which specifically do
not allow for pipeline injection.
The DOE and the EPA have advised
that there is considerable uncertainty asso-
ciated with establishing the appropriate
alternative fate scenarios for CMM for the
10-year duration over which a hydrogen
production facility may be able to claim
the section 45V credit. Coal mines that are
currently injecting CMM into pipelines
may transition to flaring if natural gas
prices fall or may exercise flaring at future
boreholes if those boreholes are distant
from existing pipeline infrastructure.
Mines that are currently predominantly
venting may transition to productive use
if pipeline infrastructure is built in their
vicinity. A flaring baseline is therefore
the most appropriate approach for CMM
given the uncertainty with respect to these
emissions and because it reduces the risk
of inappropriately attributing extremely
negative lifecycle emissions rates to
the capture of CMM which would have
already been captured and productively
used.
Accordingly, §1.45V-4(f)(3)(iv) of
these final regulations provides that
for purposes of determining the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate of a process (as
defined §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that uses coal
mine methane, flaring of such gas must
be used as the alternative fate. This alter-
native fate accounts for the uncertain-
ties associated with future practices, as
described above, while recognizing that
most drainage gas is destroyed today.
v. Alternative Fate Considerations for
Animal Waste
The proposed regulations did not rec-
ognize a pathway to determine lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rates for hydrogen
production processes that use RNG pro-
duced from biogas from animal waste
and invited comment on the treatment of
various sources of RNG. The final regu-
lations support providing a pathway in
45VH2-GREET to determine the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate for the production of
hydrogen that applies an alternative fate
derived from the national average of cur-
rent animal waste management practices.
Comments suggested a variety of alter-
native fate assumptions for purposes of
estimating lifecycle greenhouse gas emis-
sions for these sources of RNG, includ-
ing venting, alternative productive use,
and responsible waste management, with
some comments recommending a single
alternative fate for RNG produced from
these sources and others recommending
differentiated alternative fates. There is
no national database that tracks farm-level
methane emissions, capture, and usage
in the agricultural sector. Additionally,
there are no nationally applicable report-
ing requirements for animal waste man-
agement practices at livestock and poul-
try farms, which differ substantially on a
52
Active underground mines that liberate more than 36,500,000 actual cubic feet of methane per year report annually to GHGRP on whether their drainage gas is vented or destroyed.

March 24, 2025 1332 Bulletin No. 2025–13
farm-to-farm basis, and state-level report-
ing animal waste management reporting
requirements vary. Therefore, lack of data
and heterogeneity of animal waste man-
agement practices are limiting factors in
establishing a single specific alternative
fate for methane generated from animal
waste.
Many comments highlighted com-
peting considerations in determining the
appropriate alternative fate for methane
derived from animal waste. Several com-
ments recommended the 45VH2-GREET
model calculate the avoided emissions
from anerobic digestion and the asso-
ciated RNG project using site-specific
baseline manure management practices.
The comments suggested the model could
be modified to offer a menu that enables
the user to identify what fraction of the
manure was handled using each of these
pre-project practices. The comments
noted that each RNG project’s emissions
reduction benefit may vary significantly
based on the pre-existing manure manage-
ment practices, and therefore it is crucial
to have a drop-down selection in order to
accurately calculate the lifecycle GHG
emissions. Several comments suggested
that for biogas produced from livestock
manure, the alternative fate should be that
methane would continue venting from
manure handling facilities until such time
as that venting is no longer permissible
by law or regulation. The comments note
that this alternative fate is similar to what
the comments assert is appropriate for the
landfill gas industry, where once regula-
tions are in place that require landfill gas
to be captured and destroyed, then flaring
becomes the appropriate alternative fate.
One comment recommended that a min-
imum utilization or flare rate of 80 per-
cent of recoverable methane emissions be
adopted as the basis in the alternative fate
case for determining the carbon intensity
of RNG that is utilized in the production
of clean hydrogen. One comment noted
that although the primary precedent for
crediting avoided methane emissions is
the CA LCFS’s treatment of biometh-
ane from manure lagoons, this precedent
serves to illustrate the inappropriateness
of its adoption in section 45V. The com-
ment stated that it is widely understood
that the avoided methane calculation was
specifically incorporated within the LCFS
as a means of subsidizing investments in
anaerobic digesters to address pollution
from California’s dairies, not to reduce
emissions from transportation fuel. Sev-
eral comments noted that R&D GREET
recognizes avoided emissions benefits in
its lifecycle modeling for RNG where the
manure and other wastes would otherwise
release GHGs into the atmosphere. The
comments state that the RNG industry
agrees that any methodology assessing
RNG’s lifecycle emissions must measure
avoided emissions.
Determining the appropriate alternative
fate and emissions intensity for RNG pro-
duced from animal waste sources presents
several challenges. First, the emissions
intensity of biogas and ensuing RNG pro-
duced from animal waste can vary widely
based on the specific waste practices used
by individual producers. These practices
are not comprehensively tracked and, in
many cases, would be extremely diffi-
cult to effectively verify. Different waste
disposal practices produce very different
quantities of methane per unit of manure,
as methane generation is much higher in
wet anaerobic conditions. As one exam-
ple, EPA GHG Inventory data indicates
that uncovered anaerobic lagoons produce
roughly one hundred times the amount
of methane as daily spread. Even among
farms credited with methane venting coun-
terfactuals under the CA LCFS, the result-
ing RNG GHG emissions intensities vary
widely depending on specific practices.
Factors impacting the emissions intensity
calculations for that program include, but
are not limited to, the type of animals pro-
ducing waste for the digester, type(s) of
feed provided for the animals, the digester
technology, and ambient conditions at the
digester. As discussed further below, none
of these practices are comprehensively
tracked or reported at a national level.
Comments also noted the further uncer-
tainty and variation introduced by a range
of leakage rates from operations capturing
and upgrading manure-derived methane,
including the high likelihood that there are
“super emitter” sources (consistent with
the patterns seen in other fugitive methane
streams). This could introduce additional
uncertainty and risk of over crediting in
estimating a GHG emissions rate.
Second, there is substantial and grow-
ing alternative productive use of methane
from animal waste. There are 400 opera-
tional animal waste anaerobic digesters
in the U.S. and 73 additional digesters
under construction as of 2024, according
to the AgSTAR Digester Database. Based
on data from the AgSTAR Digester Data-
base on the number of livestock (by head)
feeding anaerobic digesters as of 2024, it
is estimated that the waste from roughly
8 percent of dairy cattle and 2 percent of
swine (by head) is currently sent to anaer-
obic digesters and these numbers increase
to 10 percent and 3 percent, respectively,
if digesters currently under construction
are included.
53
The percentage of waste
being sent to anaerobic digesters has been
rising rapidly since 2019, with 400 opera-
tional projects and 73 under construction,
and with the majority of new projects
upgrading their biogas to RNG, due, in
part, to incentives provided by the RFS,
LCFS, and a California grant program.
The digesters listed as newly operational
and under construction as of 2023-2024
in the AgSTAR database represent a 28
percent increase in the dairy cattle waste
and 50 percent increase in swine waste (by
head) sent to anaerobic digesters relative
to 2022 levels. While there has been some
variation in the profitability of installing
anaerobic digesters as credit values have
fluctuated,
54
the financial incentives pro-
vided by the RFS and LCFS programs
53
Values were calculated using data from the AgSTAR Digester Database. Livestock Anaerobic Digester Database, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at https://www.epa.
gov/agstar/livestock-anaerobic-digester-database (last updated Oct. 1, 2024). The sum of dairy cattle reported as feeding operational digesters in the AgSTAR database as of June 2024 was
calculated to be 1.55 million. The sum of swine reported as feeding operational digesters was calculated to be 1.68 million. The total values including digesters that are under construction
are 1.87 million dairy cattle and 2.08 million swine. Percentages are calculated by dividing these values by the most up-to-date data on dairy cattle and swine head: total dairy cattle head in
2022 (18.6 million) and swine head (73.4 million) as reported in the EPA GHG Inventory. See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks,” available at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (Last updated November 22, 2024).
54
Aaron Smith, How Much Should Dairy Farms Get Paid for Trapping Methane?, Energy Institute at Haas, Energy Institute Blog (Oct. 14, 2024), available at https://energyathaas.wordpress.
com/2024/10/14/how-much-should-dairy-farms-get-paid-for-trapping-methane/.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1333 March 24, 2025
appear to be sufficient to incentivize some
installations of anaerobic digesters at
existing lagoons, which reduces emissions
without any additional incentive from the
section 45V credit. There are also other
possible sources of revenue from anaero-
bic digester systems including net-meter-
ing in the case of electricity generation,
tipping fees from local food production,
or the sale of secondary products such as
digestate-based fertilizer or phosphorus
pellets.
Complementing these incentives are
a range of other voluntary programs that
encourage capture and productive use of
methane emissions from animal waste.
For example, the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) is leveraging
its authority under a variety of existing
programs to encourage farmers and ranch-
ers to install or upgrade equipment and
adopt new practices that improve manure
management and can substantially reduce
methane emissions. One such program,
AgSTAR, is a collaborative program spon-
sored by the EPA and USDA that promotes
the use of biogas recovery systems, such
as anaerobic digester systems, to reduce
methane emissions from animal waste.
Likewise, USDA Natural Resources Con-
servation Service programs—including
the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) and the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP)—provide
incentives for upgrading existing anaero-
bic lagoons, anaerobic digesters, and solid
separators and covers to collect methane
for use or destruction; installing solid
separators that reduce methane-produc-
ing slurries; and providing conservation
assistance for transitions to alternative
manure management systems, such as
deep pits, composting, transitions to pas-
ture, or other practices that have a lower
GHG emissions profile. The Rural Energy
for America Program (REAP) has offered
more than $160 million in grants and loans
to incentivize anaerobic digesters and bio-
gas projects to control methane and biogas
from dairy and other farms.
Given rapid recent and continuing
growth and multiple existing incentive
programs, it is reasonable to assume con-
tinued growth in the share of large dairies
and confined animal feeding operations
with anaerobic digesters, even absent an
additional incentive under the section
45V credit. Redirecting biogas and ensu-
ing RNG that comes from these sources
to hydrogen production will mean less
displacement of natural gas elsewhere in
the economy, and could therefore result
in significant indirect emissions that must
be taken into account under the section
45V(c)(1)(A) and (B).
Third, the magnitude of the incentive
provided by the section 45V credit itself
creates a significant risk of additional
waste production in response to the credit,
with emissions that must be accounted for
in the LCA. Additional waste production
could result in additional emissions; more-
over, even if emissions from additional
production are captured, crediting the
additional waste with avoided emissions
would result in inaccurate credit determi-
nations. For RNG produced from animal
waste, there are several potential routes
that may increase methane production:
• Shifting management practices for
existing quantities of manure from
land application to lagoon, thereby
significantly increasing methane gen-
eration;
• On the margin, making new or
expanded concentrated animal feed-
ing operations (CAFOs) more profit-
able (whether by increasing the over-
all numbers of animals raised, or by
consolidating smaller existing opera-
tions) and thereby inducing additional
manure and methane generation; and
• Using management practices at biodi-
gesters to produce more methane than
would have been produced otherwise
(for example, increasing the tempera-
ture at an anaerobic digester).
To the extent producers adopt these
practices in response to incentives created
by the section 45V credit, failure to take
this into account could lead to allocating
the section 45V credit to hydrogen that
does not meet statutory GHG emissions
requirements. This would be a particular
concern with a venting alternative fate
because it would result in a very nega-
tive estimated lifecycle GHG emissions
rate, creating strong incentives to produce
additional methane that is used by hydro-
gen producers to claim the section 45V
credit inappropriately.
In light of these challenges and in
consultation with the DOE regarding the
most appropriate approach to determining
the GHG intensity of biogas and ensuing
RNG derived from animal waste, these
final regulations use an alternative fate for
the sector as a whole that is derived from
the national average of all animal waste
management practices. The rule provided
in §1.45V-4(f)(3)(v) uses a best estimate
of the nationwide average methane emis-
sions from manure based on currently
available data. As detailed in a technical
analysis from the DOE, this results in a
carbon intensity score of -51g of CO2e per
megajoule (MJ), where the MJ basis refers
to the lower heating value of the methane
contained in the biogas prior to upgrading.
This emissions attribute for the methane
contained in biogas from animal waste
can be subsequently used to calculate the
carbon intensity of RNG by accounting
for the lifecycle GHG emissions associ-
ated with the biogas upgrading, transpor-
tation, and compressing process.
As further explained in the DOE’s anal-
ysis of animal waste sources, this carbon
intensity of RNG derived from methane
contained in biogas from animal waste has
been calculated using a weighted average
of U.S. manure management practices
across manure from all types of livestock
and poultry.
55
Averaging over the full set
of animal-waste management practices
nationwide is an administrable way to
take into account the range of existing
waste management practices and repre-
sent emissions reductions that result from
additional methane capture and use. It is a
reasonable and administrable representa-
tion of the carbon intensity of RNG from
manure-based sources in light of the sig-
nificant limitations of available data and
verification mechanisms, the uncertainties
associated with estimation of the GHG
emissions, the benefits of different manure
management systems, and the risks of
perverse incentives. At the same time, it
provides taxpayers certainty and clarity
regarding the carbon intensity of methane
from certain animal waste sources.
55
U.S. Department of Energy, A Generic Counterfactual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Factor for Life-Cycle Assessment of Manure-Derived Biogas and Renewable Natural Gas, Washington,
D.C. (2025), available at https://www.energy.gov/45vresources.

March 24, 2025 1334 Bulletin No. 2025–13
The Treasury Department and the IRS
considered alternative approaches, in par-
ticular whether to provide differentiated
alternative fates, for example based on a
producer’s prior waste management prac-
tices and methane production levels or the
mix of animal types used to generate bio-
gas. Differentiated alternative fates, how-
ever, is not feasible because it would not
be administrable or practicable to set up a
reporting and verification system to deter-
mine the prior practices and quantities
of manure and biogas at each individual
participating livestock and poultry opera-
tion that generates and sends biogas to an
RNG upgrader. Such an approach would
be infeasible given the large number of
such operations and the lack of nationally
applicable reporting requirements regard-
ing numbers of animals or manure man-
agement practices by livestock and poul-
try operation (and wide variation in State
reporting requirements). Additionally, 104
of the 473 digesters operational or under
construction in the AgSTAR database
report co-digesting their primary manure
type with one or more other wastes, includ-
ing other types of manure, food waste,
agricultural residues, and dairy/food pro-
cessor waste. These tracking and verifica-
tion challenges are of particular concern
because differences in waste disposal
practices or specific waste sources can
result in large differences in avoided emis-
sions, meaning that highly specific prior
waste management practices would need
to be consistently reported and verified to
support accurate differentiated alternative
fates. In addition, as discussed previously,
differentiated alternative fates that allow
for highly negative emissions values raise
concerns about incentives for additional
waste production that could result in inap-
propriate claims of the section 45V credit.
The Treasury Department and the IRS, in
consultation with the DOE, will continue
to monitor reporting and tracking systems
and study the feasibility of introducing
differentiated pathways in the future.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
also considered whether the emissions
values for RNG produced from animal
waste should be adjusted to reflect the risk
of additional waste production in response
to the incentives provided by the section
45V credit. While the emissions values
resulting from the DOE technical analy-
sis could provide incentives to generate
new waste, this concern is ameliorated
to a degree by the requirement in these
final regulations to assess each hydrogen
production process by grouping major
inputs with similar attributes, rather than
allowing blends of feedstocks with differ-
ent attributes to be evaluated as a single
production process. The Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS will continue to study
this issue to determine whether adjust-
ments are needed in the future.
vi. Alternative Fate Considerations for
Fugitive Methane from Fossil Fuel
Activities Other than Coal Mining
The proposed regulations did not rec-
ognize a pathway within 45VH2-GREET
for determining lifecycle GHG emissions
rates for the production of hydrogen using
fugitive methane, but the preamble to the
proposed regulations invited comment on
the treatment of various sources of fugi-
tive methane. In consultation with the
DOE and the EPA and considering that
fossil fuel activities other than coal min-
ing are overwhelmingly comprised of oil
and gas operations, these final regula-
tions use productive use as the applicable
alternative fate for fugitive methane from
these activities.
While some comments viewed the
alternative fate of fugitive emissions to
be venting, others noted the extensive
existing regulatory requirements and
additional incentives for avoiding fugitive
emissions from oil and gas operations and
argued that productive use is the appro-
priate alternative fate for this source of
methane. The Treasury Department and
the IRS note that the EPA’s regulations
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
seek to limit volatile organic compounds
and methane emissions from oil and gas
operations through a variety of require-
ments including performance standards
as well as operational practices and leak
detection and repair programs. See 40
CFR Part 60 (Subparts OOOO, OOOOa,
OOOOb, and OOOOc). For example, the
EPA’s latest rules for new sources require
use of zero emitting process controllers
in most scenarios. The EPA’s previous
rules allowed low bleed and intermittent
bleed controllers, which emit pollutants
to the atmosphere by discharging natural
gas. The EPA’s new rules keep that gas
in the system instead of allowing it to be
released. The EPA’s new rules also phase
out routine flaring of associated gas from
most new oil wells, establish strong per-
formance standards for emissions from
storage tanks, include requirements for
the efficiency of flares, and strengthen
requirements for regular leak monitoring
and deadline for repairs at well sites. The
EPA’s leak detection and repair program
at well sites requires frequent monitoring
of oil and gas equipment with approved
technology and methods to look for leaks.
If a leak is found, then it must be repaired
quickly so that the equipment stops leak-
ing fugitive emissions to the atmosphere.
This program will reduce the amount of
emissions coming from leaking compo-
nents. The EPA’s rules also require own-
ers and operators of new wells to use best
management practices to minimize or
eliminate venting of emissions from gas
well liquids unloading.
As discussed in part III.E.1, while
some of the compliance deadlines under
each of the updated regulations under sec-
tion 111 of the Clean Air Act and updated
reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part
98 Subpart W have not yet passed, oper-
ators must plan for timely compliance
with those requirements and must already
comply with other requirements such as
the new source requirements under sec-
tion 111. Thus, operators have significant
incentives to make certain compliance
investments now and are required to do so
well within the period of the section 45V
credit. In addition, the Bureau of Land
Management and most oil and gas produc-
ing States also regulate the waste of gas
through venting and flaring, and some,
such as New Mexico and Colorado, have
regulations equally or more stringent than
EPA requirements in many respects.
56
As
a consequence, the majority of the actions
that an oil or gas operator could take to
avoid fugitive emissions are already, or
56
See, for example, Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 89 Fed. Reg. 25378 (Apr. 10, 2024).

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1335 March 24, 2025
during the life of the section 45V credit
will be, required by law.
Given the extensive regulatory envi-
ronment already in place requiring oil and
gas operators to minimize GHG emissions
from oil and gas operations, and the strong
incentive and existing infrastructure to sell
gas that is not lost through venting or flar-
ing, the generally applicable alternative
fate for fugitive emissions from fossil fuel
activities other than coal mining is produc-
tive use. Accordingly, the final regulations
provide that for purposes of determining
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of a
process that uses fugitive methane other
than coal mine methane, such as fugitive
methane from oil and gas operations, pro-
ductive use of such gas must be used as
the alternative fate, which would result
in emissions equivalent to the carbon
intensity of using fossil natural gas. For
example, the production of methane from
virgin coal seams, which is commonly
referred to as “coalbed methane,” (CBM)
may be for the purpose of natural gas pro-
duction or may result from pre-mining
activities. Since it is typically of a com-
parable methane content as other natural
gas sources, it is commonly sold for use.
Nationwide, emissions that result from
CBM extraction are currently reported
to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Pro-
gram under Subpart W, which informs
background estimates of upstream meth-
ane emissions for the natural gas supply
chain in 45VH2-GREET. Accordingly,
lifecycle GHG emissions analyses con-
ducted for purposes of section 45V would
represent CBM with a carbon intensity
that is equivalent to that of other sources
of fossil natural gas.
d. Book and Claim
The Explanation of Provisions to the
proposed regulations noted that hydro-
gen producers using natural gas alterna-
tives would be required to acquire and
retire corresponding attribute certificates
through a book-and-claim system that
can verify in an electronic tracking sys-
tem that all applicable requirements are
met. Hydrogen producers would also be
required to have a pipeline interconnection
and measurement using a revenue grade
meter. These rules would apply to the use
of certificates with both direct and indirect
claims of use of natural gas alternatives.
Direct use would involve the production
of hydrogen with a direct exclusive pipe-
line connection to a facility that generates
RNG or from which fugitive methane is
being sourced, while non-direct use would
involve producing hydrogen using RNG
or fugitive methane sourced from a com-
mercial or common-carrier natural gas
pipeline. In all cases, attribute certificates
would need to document the RNG or fugi-
tive methane procurement for qualified
clean hydrogen production claims and
ensure that the environmental attributes
of the RNG or fugitive methane being
used are not sold to other parties or used
for compliance with other policies or pro-
grams.
The Explanation of Provisions to the
proposed regulations stated that before
final regulations addressing the section
45V credit are issued, taxpayers will use
45VH2-GREET or the PER process to
determine a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
for hydrogen production facilities that rely
on direct use of landfill gas or any fugi-
tive methane feedstock, provided they
meet the requirement that the gas being
used results from the first productive use
of methane from the landfill source or
fugitive methane source. The term “direct
use” means that there is a direct, exclusive
pipeline connection between the hydro-
gen production facility and the source of
the gas that is procured (for example, the
upgrading or processing facility that pro-
duces RNG from landfill gas). Relative
to a book-and-claim system, the direct
connection between a gas supplier and a
hydrogen production facility can reduce
the uncertainty of pipeline leakage, track-
ing, and verification.
The Explanation of Provisions to the
proposed regulations explained that the
Treasury Department and the IRS are
considering providing a rule that taxpay-
ers would need to provide and maintain
documentation to substantiate that (i) the
gas being used results from the first pro-
ductive use of the methane at the landfill
source and is not displacing a previous
productive use; and (ii) the environmental
attributes of the gas being used, includ-
ing those of the underlying biogas, are
not sold to other parties or used for com-
pliance with other policies or programs.
When additional conditions addressing
hydrogen production pathways that use
natural gas alternatives for purposes of the
section 45V credit are determined, tax-
payers would also be required to maintain
documentation that the natural gas alterna-
tive being used meets those requirements
and to acquire and retire any certificates
that are established. The proposed regula-
tions further explained that the Treasury
Department and IRS were also consider-
ing providing rules for using certificates
and documentation required in the event
additional conditions for use of natural
gas sources are later imposed.
The Explanation of Provisions to the
proposed regulations further noted that
tracking and verification mechanisms for
RNG or fugitive methane specific to the
needs of the section 45V credit are not yet
available, and existing systems have lim-
ited capabilities for tracking and verifying
pathways for natural gas alternatives, espe-
cially in the part of the production process
before the methane has been reformed to
RNG. The Explanation of Provisions to
the proposed regulations indicated that
existing tracking and verification sys-
tems do not clearly distinguish between
inputs, verify or require verification of
underlying practices claimed by RNG
production sources, require proof of gen-
erator interconnection or revenue-quality
metering, provide validation of generation
methodology, include exclusively United
States based-generation, verify generator
registration, and track the vintage of gen-
erator interconnection. In the proposed
regulations, the Treasury Department and
IRS indicated that they were considering
providing rules to address whether or how
book-and-claim systems with sufficient
tracking and verification mechanisms
may be used to attribute the environmen-
tal benefits of RNG or fugitive methane
to hydrogen producers in the final reg-
ulations. Additional certainty was also
needed to accurately account for emis-
sions from pathways that do not yet exist
in 45VH2-GREET and from gas from nat-
ural gas alternatives that is injected into a
commercial or common-carrier pipeline.
A range of comments advocating in
favor of or against allowing the use of
book-and-claim systems for natural gas
alternatives were received in response to
the proposed regulations. Several com-
ments discussed how book-and-claim sys-

March 24, 2025 1336 Bulletin No. 2025–13
tems were commonplace within the RNG
industry. In addition, several comments
expressed concern about the viability
of the RNG industry if the use of book-
and-claim were not permitted under sec-
tion 45V. Several comments stated that,
because sources of natural gas alterna-
tives are unevenly distributed throughout
the United States and may not be located
near prospective hydrogen projects, book-
and-claim allows entities that do not have
access to regional RNG sources to par-
ticipate in the clean hydrogen economy.
Several comments suggested there was
clear Congressional intent to allow book-
and-claim. One comment suggested that
a “mass balance” model or an “identity
preservation” model could be adopted if a
book-and-claim system were disallowed.
Some comments expressed concerns
about allowing book-and-claim. One
comment suggested that there would be
a mismatch between the support offered
by the section 45V credit and the clean
hydrogen-specific investment required of
producers using a book-and-claim system;
allowing section 45V credits for new or
recently constructed hydrogen production
facilities claiming production of qualify-
ing hydrogen solely on the basis of RNG
certificates, despite no meaningful change
in operations compared to current “busi-
ness as usual” practice, would not con-
tribute to the development of new clean
hydrogen technology and would therefore
be contrary to the intention of the IRA.
Several comments noted that any tracking
system would not ensure that biomethane
is not produced for the purpose of meeting
demand for the biomethane market.
In response to these comments, after
consultation with the DOE and the EPA,
the Treasury Department and the IRS agree
that, subject to certain conditions, safe-
guards, and requirements described later,
a book-and-claim system is an acceptable
mechanism for establishing claims to cer-
tain attributes of RNG or coal mine meth-
ane that is used in a hydrogen production
process. Similar systems have been used
in other programs for similar purposes.
Although certificates that are acquired and
retired in a book-and-claim system may
not necessarily reflect the feedstocks in
fact used by a hydrogen production facil-
ity, such systems can serve as an effective
proxy for the use of certain feedstocks if
certain conditions are required, and the
acquisition and retirement of certificates
would contribute to the development of
the hydrogen production market. Both
EPA’s RFS and the CA LCFS employ
a form of book-and-claim (sometimes
referred to as “mass balance”), and the
DOE has advised that both programs have
driven methane capture and productive
use. The DOE has also advised that EACs
used for electricity have demonstrably
supported new clean power plants. When
such systems meet the conditions and
requirements described later, book-and-
claim systems can be appropriate tools for
RNG and coal mine methane verification,
supporting the establishment of lifecycle
emissions as required under section 45V
and these final regulations. The acquisition
and retirement of certificates meeting cer-
tain requirements establishes claims to the
attributes represented by such certificates
that are considered part of the hydrogen
production process and the lifecycle GHG
emissions associated with the process.
Some comments highlighted design
challenges that should be addressed if the
use of a book-and-claim system is allowed
for purposes of section 45V. Several com-
ments recommended that if a book-and-
claim system were allowed, then such
system should take measures to avoid
double-counting of the same environmen-
tal attributes. Other comments suggested
that any tracking system should be able
to allocate emissions based on different
levels of gas blending from different feed-
stocks, enable the differentiation of car-
bon capture rates to those different feed-
stock production pathways, and determine
credit values based on these evaluations.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree with many of these comments and
have taken them into account in estab-
lishing the requirements for a book-and-
claim system that taxpayers may use for
purposes of section 45V. Before a track-
ing system is suitable for use for pur-
poses of section 45V, it must be capable
of robustly tracking claims to the use of
attributes and protecting against double
counting. In consultation with the DOE
and the EPA, the Treasury Department
and the IRS agree that book-and-claim
systems must enable users to distinguish
between feedstocks as relevant to deter-
mining lifecycle GHG emissions rates for
purposes of section 45V, but the Treasury
Department and the IRS do not view it as
appropriate to require tracking systems to
allocate emissions or otherwise calculate
emissions associated with the RNG or
coal mine methane represented by a certif-
icate. The carbon intensity associated with
the RNG or coal mine methane used to
produce hydrogen may be determined in
45VH2-GREET or a PER using the attri-
butes represented by certificates for such
feedstocks.
Following consultation with the DOE
and the EPA, and in consideration of the
comments received and the requirements
specified in these regulations regarding
RNG and coal mine methane, these final
regulations define in §1.45V-4(f)(2)(vi)
a “gas energy attribute certificate” (gas
EAC) to mean a tradeable contractual
instrument, issued through a qualified
gas EAC registry or accounting system
(as defined in in §1.45V-4(f)(2)(viii)),
that represents the attributes of a specific
unit of RNG or coal mine methane. A gas
EAC may be traded with or separately
from the underlying gas it represents. A
gas EAC can be retired by or on behalf
of its owner, which is the party that has
the right to claim the underlying attributes
represented by a gas EAC. These final reg-
ulations in §1.45V-4(f)(2)(vii) define the
term “eligible gas EAC” to mean a gas
EAC that represents the quantity of RNG
or coal mine methane that is produced by
a facility that is registered on only one
qualified gas EAC registry or account-
ing system (as defined in §1.45V-4(f)(2)
(viii)) and that, with respect to the RNG or
coal mine methane to which the gas EAC
relates, provides, at a minimum, the infor-
mation specified in §1.45V-4(f)(2)(vii)(A)
through (F). The information specified in
§1.45V-4(f)(2)(vii)(A) through (F) will
enable the attributes of the RNG or coal
mine methane represented by a gas EAC
to be appropriately evaluated in determin-
ing a lifecycle GHG emissions rate for
purposes of section 45V. For example, the
requirement in §1.45V-4(f)(2)(vii)(E) for
gas EACs to reflect the source or sources
of the gas that comprises the RNG or
coal mine methane associated with each
gas EAC and any attributes required by
45VH2-GREET, or in the determination
of a PER, to accurately determine the
emissions associated with such RNG or

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1337 March 24, 2025
coal mine methane is intended to require
gas EACs in a book-and-claim system to
form the basis for any material distinctions
that are relevant to the determination of a
lifecycle GHG emissions rate as those dis-
tinctions are reflected in 45VH2-GREET
and may evolve over time.
In consultation with the DOE and the
EPA, and in consideration of the com-
ments received and the requirements
specified in these regulations regarding
RNG and coal mine methane, these final
regulations provide that a qualified gas
EAC registry or accounting system for
RNG or coal mine methane is an elec-
tronic tracking system that (A) assigns
a unique identification number to each
certificate associated with RNG and coal
mine methane tracked by such system;
(B) requires independent verification
of the source or sources of the gas that
comprises the RNG or coal mine meth-
ane and any other factual considerations
relevant to the lifecycle GHG emissions
assessment for purposes of section 45V
for tracking and verification purposes
(self-reported data without independent
verification are not allowed); (C) requires
use of a revenue grade meter, with pro-
duction volumes reported to the registry
via an application programming interface
(API) or with independent reporting to
ensure accurate accounting for produc-
tion volumes (self-reported data are not
allowed); (D) enables verification that
only one certificate is associated with
each unit of RNG or coal mine methane;
(E) verifies that each certificate is claimed
and retired only once; (F) identifies the
owner of each certificate and provides for
documentation of the chain-of-custody of
any transfers of certificates; (G) requires
an attestation that a producer has not regis-
tered the RNG or coal mine methane with
other registries; (H) provides a publicly
accessible view (for example, through an
application programming interface) of all
currently registered RNG or coal mine
methane production facilities in the track-
ing system to prevent the duplicative reg-
istration of such production facilities; and
(I) requires verification of pipeline inter-
connection, if applicable. Such a qualified
book-and-claim system would need to be
accompanied by a robust third-party ver-
ification system or systems of the related
production processes.
e. Qualifying Gas EAC Requirements
The Explanation of Provisions to the
proposed regulations indicated that the
temporal matching and deliverability
requirements as applied to RNG and coal
mine methane would be logically consis-
tent with but not identical to the temporal
matching and deliverability requirements
for electricity-derived EACs. The Expla-
nation of Provisions to the proposed reg-
ulations further indicated that any such
requirements would be designed to reflect
the ways in which additional RNG or
demand for fugitive methane can impact
lifecycle GHG emissions and also to
address the differences between electric-
ity and methane, including but not limited
to the different sources of emissions, mar-
kets, available tracking and verification
methods, and potential for perverse incen-
tives.
A wide range of comments were
received on temporal matching and deliv-
erability requirements for natural gas
alternatives. As relates to temporal match-
ing, comments expressed differing views
on whether to include a temporal match-
ing requirement and, if so, over what time-
frame the matching should be required.
One comment argued against requiring
temporal matching because the natural gas
pipeline system operates on a displace-
ment basis, where all injections are bal-
anced with consumption and storage. The
comment noted that physical volumes do
not necessarily move but rather balance.
Several comments noted that, unlike elec-
tricity, RNG has more steady flow year-
round and has substantial storage avail-
able that can be used to address seasonal
differences in demand. One comment also
noted that, unlike electricity, natural gas
and RNG production does not instanta-
neously rise and fall with natural gas and
RNG demand. Therefore, the comment
asserted that increased demand for RNG
does not necessarily yield an immediate,
simultaneous increase in natural gas pro-
duction and related emissions.
Many comments discussed the appro-
priate timeframe for matching if a tempo-
ral matching requirement is included in
the final regulations. One comment argued
that biogas, RNG, and fugitive methane
production are not weather dependent on
a minute, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly,
or quarterly basis, and therefore should
be matched on an annual basis. Others
noted that hourly time matching would be
unworkable because the industry typically
balances supply and demand on at least a
monthly basis, and hydrogen production
is often tracked quarterly. One comment
stated that due to the large storage capac-
ity for gas in the United States, it would be
appropriate to allow use of any RNG pro-
duced in the same year or one year prior
to the year the clean hydrogen was pro-
duced. Another comment requested that
if an hourly matching requirement was
put in place to consider grandfathering in
facilities that begin construction prior to
December 31, 2029, allowing such facili-
ties to use annual temporal matching. One
comment noted that temporally matching
RNG production and RNG use does little
to improve the accuracy of carbon inten-
sity scores, that time matching with a
period shorter than monthly would create
an arbitrary burden with little benefit, and
that matching on a monthly basis would
make sense after a transition period. Other
comments also supported monthly match-
ing.
With respect to deliverability, the com-
ments included a range of opinions about
the size of the geographic regions under a
deliverability requirement. One comment
noted that the United States’ natural gas
pipeline network is sufficiently intercon-
nected and has the proper infrastructure to
permit inter-regional trade of natural gas,
thus justifying either not having a match-
ing requirement or having one equiva-
lent to the size of the contiguous United
States. Another comment noted that such
a requirement would be appropriate so as
not to disadvantage specific regions of the
country. One comment noted that book-
and-claim accounting combined with an
attestation requirement obviates the need
for strict geographic or deliverability
requirements. One comment noted that
the risk of undesirable indirect emissions
effects from geographic or temporal mis-
matches between sources and uses is very
low for RNG because the marginal source
of gas on the natural gas grid is the same
at all times of the day, in all seasons of the
year and in all regions of North America.
Other comments disagreed with treat-
ing the entire United States as a single,
interconnected system. Some comments

March 24, 2025 1338 Bulletin No. 2025–13
noted that any RNG claimed by a hydro-
gen producer should be required to be
delivered into the same natural gas trans-
mission network as the hydrogen producer
claiming the utilization of the RNG in
alignment with the deliverability require-
ment for electricity. One comment noted
that a national approach fails to reckon
with real-world system constraints that
result in differentiated pricing, uneven
emissions rates, and pipeline capacity
limits, all of which can shape investment
decisions in the broader energy system.
Another comment stated that any RNG
fed into the gas grid to be utilized by
hydrogen producers should be fed into the
same local gas distribution system where
the clean hydrogen facility operates to
fulfill the deliverability requirement. The
comment asserted that such a measure
could help ensure that GHG emissions
from transport of the RNG or fugitive
methane feedstock to the hydrogen pro-
duction facility can be accounted for with
some degree of certainty. Another com-
ment noted that any biomethane claimed
for hydrogen production for purposes of
section 45V compliance should be phys-
ically deliverable to the hydrogen pro-
duction plant to ensure a robust book and
claim system with climate integrity, and
that while much of the North American
gas system is considered connected, there
are key considerations to consider when
designing rules for qualifying gas path-
ways. Several other comments requested
that book-and-claim accounting include
deliverability constraints that are consis-
tent with accounting for the direct and
indirect emissions of producing hydrogen
with methane feedstocks. Likewise, some
comments noted that the Treasury Depart-
ment should further research the need for
geographic boundary requirements on
RNG book-and-claim to confirm whether
there would be different emissions impacts
across geographies.
Section 45V requires a determina-
tion of lifecycle GHG emissions rates
to address direct and significant indirect
emissions, and this requirement applies
to the use of RNG or coal mine methane
in a hydrogen production process. Other
requirements applied to RNG and coal
mine methane included in these final reg-
ulations address some of these emissions.
As relates to deliverability and temporal
matching, many comments indicate that,
unlike electricity EACs, temporal match-
ing and deliverability requirements for
RNG and coal mine methane have less
direct salience because of their different
nature and market characteristics. The
DOE has advised, for example, that while
electricity markets are highly regionalized
with marginal emissions varying substan-
tially over space and time, the same is
not as true for the delivery infrastructure
related to natural gas. Natural gas trav-
els over regional and inter-regional pipe-
lines and, while constraints exist on that
network, as does methane leakage, there
are fewer obvious regional boundaries to
those pipelines as compared to the elec-
tricity grid. Additionally, the DOE has
advised that the marginal emissions rate
of using natural gas from the interstate
pipeline network does not vary dramat-
ically over time, and certainly not on an
hourly basis. In part, this is because there
is considerable storage in the natural gas
delivery infrastructure, again unlike elec-
tricity networks.
In light of all these considerations,
the final regulations provide in §1.45V-
4(f)(4)(iii)(B) that deliverability requires
geographic matching within the pipeline
network in a region. For this purpose, the
pipeline network in the contiguous United
States is treated as a single region. Hydro-
gen producers located in and connected
to a natural gas pipeline in the contiguous
United States must purchase an eligible
gas EAC for RNG or coal mine methane
that was injected into the pipeline network
in the contiguous United States for such
eligible gas EAC to be considered a qual-
ifying gas EAC. Alaska, Hawaii, and each
U.S. territory will be treated as separate
regions for this purpose. A hydrogen pro-
ducer located in and connected to a natu-
ral gas pipeline in any of these regions is
required to purchase and retire gas EACs
from RNG or coal mine methane produc-
ers whose pipeline injection is located in
the same region to meet the requirement
provided in §1.45V-4(f)(4)(iii)(B). The
DOE has advised that delivery can occur
within the national natural gas pipeline
network. These final regulations further
confirm that the deliverability requirement
is met if the RNG or coal mine methane
represented by the eligible gas EAC was
delivered to the hydrogen production
facility from the RNG or coal mine meth-
ane producer through a direct pipeline
connection or other physical method of
exclusive delivery.
With respect to temporal matching,
in consultation with the DOE, these
final regulations in §1.45V-4(f)(4)(iii)
(A) require monthly matching. Eligi-
ble gas EACs used to document RNG
or coal mine methane inputs by a qual-
ified hydrogen producer need to be time-
stamped such that the calendar month of
the pipeline injection is the same calen-
dar month in which the qualified hydro-
gen producer uses the underlying gas.
As with electricity EACs, the third-party
verifier is required to validate the match-
ing requirement. A monthly matching
requirement is appropriate for at least
three reasons. First, the DOE has advised
that pipeline flow and embedded storage
in the natural gas delivery infrastructure
means that the flow of gas from source
to sink is variable but that one month is
a reasonable approximation. A monthly
matching requirement therefore ensures
that temporal matching approximates
the physics of actual delivery. Second,
the DOE has advised that there would be
little or no benefit in terms of mitigating
the risk of significant indirect emissions
if the temporal matching requirement
were to be more granular, for example
daily or hourly. Third, unlike renew-
able sources of electricity, the volume
of RNG or coal mine methane produced
by a specific source is unlikely to vary
substantially over the course of a day but
may vary seasonally over the course of
a year. A monthly matching requirement
will appropriately capture these potential
seasonal differences in the quantity of
RNG and coal mine methane production.
These final regulations further confirm
that the temporal matching requirement
is met if the RNG or coal mine methane
represented by the eligible gas EAC was
delivered to the hydrogen production
facility from the RNG or coal mine meth-
ane producer, through a direct pipeline
connection or other physical method of
exclusive delivery.
Section 1.45V-4(f)(4)(iii) requires both
temporal and deliverability requirements
to be met for an eligible gas EAC to be
considered a qualifying gas EAC that
establishes a claim to the attributes of the

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1339 March 24, 2025
eligible gas EAC for purposes of section
45V.
Several comments suggested that
existing systems, such as M-RETS, the
EPA’s RFS program, or the CA LCFS
program, might have sufficient capabili-
ties to enable book and claim accounting
for purposes of section 45V. The EPA has
advised that the tracking system used for
the RFS is purpose-built for that program
and would not be appropriate for use in
the implementation of section 45V. Fur-
ther, the EPA’s RFS tracking system is not
designed to differentiate among types of
RNG by carbon intensity score and would
not be usable for such a purpose even if it
were otherwise appropriate to do so. The
CA LCFS program uses what some stake-
holders call a “mass balance” approach
to tracking RNG, which is focused on
tracking chain of custody based on review
of contracts and related attestations, not
via an electronic registry. The Treasury
Department and the IRS, in consulta-
tion with the DOE, are concerned that a
mass balance approach similar to the one
employed by the CA LCFS program would
be difficult to administer and is therefore
not well suited for administration of the
section 45V credit. M-RETS were iden-
tified by a number of stakeholders as an
electronic registry that tracks RNG and
that has been approved by several States
in the administration of their programs.
In consultation with the DOE and the
EPA, the Treasury Department and the
IRS confirm that, under these final regu-
lations, hydrogen producers using RNG
or coal mine methane will be allowed to
acquire and retire corresponding attribute
certificates through a book-and-claim sys-
tem that can verify in an electronic track-
ing system that all applicable requirements
are met. As discussed further below, such
an electronic tracking system must be
robust, establish unique claims to the attri-
butes of RNG and coal mine methane, and
utilize a qualified third-party registry that
meets certain requirements after such reg-
istries become available.
These final regulations establish
requirements for certificates associated
with RNG and coal mine methane, as
well as qualification criteria for elec-
tronic book-and-claim registries. These
requirements will help ensure that reg-
istries understand and will be capable of
meeting the specific needs of these final
regulations in a comparable fashion as
qualified EACs, ensuring credible claims
and no double counting while enabling
assessments of certain emissions associ-
ated with RNG and coal mine methane.
The Treasury Department and the IRS rec-
ognize, however, that the final regulations
establish and announce specific require-
ments for gas EACs for the first time, and
it may take time for systems and practices
to adjust to meet these requirements. The
Treasury Department and the IRS further
note that experience with electronic reg-
istries for natural gas alternatives is less
extensive than with EACs for electricity.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are
particularly concerned with the ability of
systems to develop sufficient capability to
robustly verify the waste sources gener-
ating biogas from which RNG is derived
because such sources must be separately
evaluated within 45VH2-GREET or in the
determination of a PER. For example, use
of RNG derived from biogas generated by
animal waste and wastewater would be
treated as distinct processes under these
final regulations. Thus, tracking systems
must verify the distinct upstream sources
of biogas for RNG in a manner that allows
the attributes of each source to be assessed
in separate processes.
Based on the comments received and
in consultation with the DOE, the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS understand
that book-and-claim registries will, in the
future, be able to meet the requirements
provided in these final regulations. While
the Treasury Department and the IRS can-
not predict precisely when one or more
electronic registries will be able to fully
meet the requirements provided by these
regulations, upon consultation with the
DOE, the Treasury Department and the
IRS expect that two years after the date
the requirements for such systems have
been announced will allow time for an
entity or entities to modify existing sys-
tems, or design and build new systems,
sufficient to meet the requirements speci-
fied in these final regulations. If and when
systems that can meet the requirements of
these final regulations become available,
but no earlier than January 1, 2027, the
Secretary will determine whether an exist-
ing system meets the requirements estab-
lished in these final regulations, and that
such system may then be used to acquire
and retire qualifying gas EACs under
these final regulations. The use of book-
and-claim accounting for RNG and coal
mine methane will not be permitted until
the Secretary makes this determination.
Until the use of book-and-claim
accounting for RNG and coal mine meth-
ane is permitted, taxpayers will be required
to substantiate their use of RNG and coal
mine methane in the production of hydro-
gen through a direct pipeline connection
to a supplier of natural gas alternatives or
documentation of other physical meth-
ods of exclusive delivery. In such cases
of direct physical delivery, the attributes
of the RNG and coal mine methane must
be conveyed to the qualified hydrogen
producer in a way that ensures no double
counting of such attributes.
Once book-and-claim is allowed via
qualified tracking registries, electronic
certificates issued by such registries will
be required for both direct and indirect
claims of use of RNG and coal mine
methane. Direct use involves the pro-
duction of hydrogen with a direct exclu-
sive pipeline connection to a facility that
generates RNG or from which coal mine
methane is being sourced (or other phys-
ical method of exclusive delivery), while
non-direct use would involve producing
hydrogen using RNG and coal mine meth-
ane sourced from a natural gas pipeline. In
the latter case, hydrogen producers would
be required to have a pipeline intercon-
nection and would need to measure pipe-
line injections via a revenue grade meter.
In all cases, qualifying gas EACs would
need to be acquired and retired pursuant
to these final regulations to document the
RNG and coal mine methane procurement
for qualified clean hydrogen production
claims and that the attributes of the RNG
and coal mine methane being used are not
sold to other parties.
IV. Verification
Section 45V(c)(2)(B)(ii) provides that
no hydrogen is qualified clean hydrogen
unless its production and sale or use is
verified by an unrelated party.
Proposed §1.45V-5 would have pro-
vided the procedures necessary for section
45V credit claimants to fulfill the statutory
verification requirement of section 45V(c)

March 24, 2025 1340 Bulletin No. 2025–13
(2)(B)(ii). Comments addressed many
aspects of these proposed rules, which are
discussed in this part IV of the Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Revi-
sions. These final regulations adopt the
rules as proposed, with the modifications
described in this part IV.
A. In General
Proposed §1.45V-5(a) would have pro-
vided that a verification report must be
attached to a taxpayer’s Form 7210 for
each qualified clean hydrogen production
facility and for each taxable year in which
the taxpayer claims the section 45V credit.
One comment argued that qualified ver-
ifiers should be required to directly report
their verification findings to the IRS, say-
ing it is necessary for public confidence in
the administration of section 45V.
While drafting both the proposed reg-
ulations and these final regulations, the
Treasury Department and the IRS, in con-
sultation with the DOE and the EPA, con-
sidered adopting a verification regime that
would require such direct reporting. The
final regulations do not adopt this provi-
sion because direct reporting by verifiers
to the IRS is not reasonably administrable.
Another comment requested the cre-
ation of a “streamlined” verification pro-
cess that small businesses that engage in
self-use of produced hydrogen could elect
into. Section 45V does not make any dis-
tinction based on the size of the hydrogen
producer, and the importance of verifica-
tion is the same regardless of producer’s
size. Accordingly, no additional, “stream-
lined” verification process is needed or
appropriate.
A few comments requested that the
verification report requirement be sus-
pended for the 2023 tax year. Because the
verification requirement is statutory and
begins in 2023, these final regulations do
not adopt this comment.
Some comments recommended that
taxpayers be permitted to obtain verifi-
cation reports on a quarterly instead of
annual basis. While unclear, these com-
ments appear to be recommending that
the section 45V credit be determined on
a quarterly basis. The period of time for
which the credit is determined and for
which the taxpayer must obtain a veri-
fication report is established by statute.
Section 45V(a) provides that the section
45V credit is determined for “any taxable
year,” meaning that the credit is deter-
mined on an annual basis. Allowing tax-
payers to determine the credit on a quar-
terly basis would contravene the statute,
and therefore this recommendation is not
adopted.
The final regulations amend §1.45V-
5(a), however, to clarify that the taxpay-
er’s Form 7210, or any successor form(s),
are filed with the taxpayer’s Federal
income tax return or information return,
which is consistent with the instructions to
that form, and also make clarifying edits
to the text of the regulation to eliminate
redundant text.
B. Requirements for Verification Reports
Proposed §1.45V-5(b) would have pro-
vided the general rule that a verification
report specified in paragraph (a) of the
same section must be prepared by a qual-
ified verifier under penalties of perjury and
must contain a production attestation, a sale
or use attestation, a conflict attestation, a
qualified verifier statement, certain general
information about the taxpayer’s hydrogen
production facility, and any documentation
necessary to substantiate the verification
process given the standards and best prac-
tices of the qualified verifier’s accrediting
body and the taxpayer’s circumstances and
its hydrogen production facility.
Comments addressed many aspects
of the specific rules governing the con-
tents of the verification report, and these
are addressed in the succeeding para-
graphs of this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions. Comments did
not address the general rule of proposed
§1.45V-5(b), but these final regulations
include an additional requirement that a
verification report must include any other
information required by IRS forms or
instructions. This additional requirement
ensures that the IRS is able to effectively
administer the section 45V credit and
meet the statutory requirement of section
45V(c)(2)(B)(ii).
C. Requirements for the Production
Attestation
Proposed §1.45V-5(c) would have pro-
vided the rules dictating the content of
the production attestation within a veri-
fication report. Proposed §1.45V-5(c)(1)
would have provided that the production
attestation must be an attestation that the
qualified verifier performed a verification
sufficient to determine that the operation
of the taxpayer’s hydrogen production
facility and any EACs applied pursuant
to §1.45V-4(d) are accurately reflected
in the amount of qualified clean hydro-
gen claimed on the taxpayer’s Form 7210
and either the data the taxpayer entered
into the most recent GREET model to
determine the emissions rate claimed on
the taxpayer’s Form 7210, or the data the
taxpayer submitted in the PER petition
relating to the taxpayer’s hydrogen and
which was provided to the DOE to obtain
the emissions value provided in the PER
petition.
Some comments requested that the final
regulations provide specific rules for ver-
ification of facility-specific data, includ-
ing in the PER process, to ensure that
emissions data is independently collected
using objective quantification methods
and that the data trail is immutable, audit-
able, transparent, and accessible by third
parties.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree that clarification is needed regarding
verification of data specific to the facility.
Accordingly, §1.45V-5(c)(1) is modified
to reflect that a verification report must
reflect “reasonable assurance” in the oper-
ation of the hydrogen production facility
and any EACs applied. The “reasonable
assurance” standard is defined within the
ISO 14064-3, and is reflected in other
greenhouse gas regulations, such as the CA
LCFS. Additionally, as discussed in part
IV.H of this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions, §1.45V-5(h) is
modified to reflect that a qualified verifier
accredited under the American National
Standards Institute National Accredita-
tion Board must be accredited to conduct
validation and verification in accordance
with the requirements of ISO 14065:2020
and ISO 14064-3:2019. This clarifies that
the verification report must be performed
in accordance with those standards, or
similar standards in the case of a verifier
accredited under the CA LCFS program.
In addition, the production attestation
requirements are modified to include an
additional requirement in the case of any

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1341 March 24, 2025
EACs applied pursuant to §1.45V-4(d).
Under this modification, verifiers must
confirm that the electricity generator or
generators associated with such EACs are
not registered on multiple qualifying EAC
registries, or, in the event such generators
are registered on multiple qualifying EAC
registries, each EAC undergoing verifica-
tion from each such generator registered
on multiple qualifying EAC registries is
being issued by only one qualifying EAC
registry. See §1.45V-5(c)(2). Because
qualifying EAC registries must provide a
publicly accessible view of all currently
registered generators in the tracking sys-
tem to prevent the duplicative registration
of generators, this verification require-
ment provides further guardrails against
the risk of double counting EACs. The
final regulations also make corresponding
modifications to §1.45V-5(b)(1) and (c)(1)
regarding the accuracy of the inputs used
to determine the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of hydrogen production processes.
Proposed §1.45V-5(c)(2) and (3) would
have required production attestations to
specify the emissions rate and amount of
qualified clean hydrogen produced that are
claimed on the taxpayer’s Form 7210, as
well as the emissions value received from
the DOE during the EVRP, if applicable.
No comments addressed these provisions,
so these final regulations adopt them as
proposed, with renumbering.
D. Requirements for the Sale or Use
Attestation
Proposed §1.45V-5(d) would have
provided rules governing the content of
the sale or use attestation within a veri-
fication report. Proposed §1.45V-5(d)(1)
would have provided that the sale or use
attestation must be an attestation that the
qualified verifier performed a verification
sufficient to determine that the amount of
qualified clean hydrogen that is specified
in the production attestation and that is
claimed on the taxpayer’s Form 7210 has
been sold, or has been used by a person
who makes a verifiable use of such hydro-
gen.
Proposed §1.45V-5(d)(2) would have
provided a definition of verifiable use
indicating that a verifiable use can occur
within or outside the U.S., can be made by
the taxpayer or another person; includes
tolling arrangements; and does not include
the generation of electricity for subse-
quent rounds of hydrogen production,
venting, or flaring.
The proposed regulations requested
comments on whether the regulations
could adopt additional safeguards to
prevent the use of hydrogen to generate
electricity that is then directly or indi-
rectly used to produce more hydrogen, the
venting or flaring of hydrogen, and sim-
ilar types of abusive section 45V credit
claims, including claims from circular
arrangements coordinating among multi-
ple parties.
Comments construable as responding
to this request focused on the anti-abuse
rule of proposed §1.45V-2(b), so these
comments are addressed in part II.B of
this Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions.
One comment asked for the final reg-
ulations to include broadly applicable
examples of verifiable use, such as usage
that replaces natural gas in production
facilities or other industrial uses, or to
specify what constitutes a verifiable use.
Another comment recommended that the
verifiable use rule not address indirect use
of electricity generated from produced
hydrogen to produce further hydrogen,
citing the recycling of waste heat as a
benign example of such indirect use.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree that the operation of the verifiable
use rule should be clarified and should not
apply to the use to which byproducts of
hydrogen use are put. Accordingly, these
final regulations provide a clarifying mod-
ification to the text of the verifiable use
rule in §1.45V-5(d)(2)(i) and an example
in renumbered §1.45V-5(d)(3), which
illustrates the application of §1.45V-5(d)
(2).
One comment asked that binding
written offtake agreements be construed
as sales for purposes of the sale or use
attestation. However, in the absence of a
regulatory definition of sale for section
45V purposes alone, whether a particu-
lar agreement constitutes a sale would be
determined under general tax principles.
There is insufficient justification for an
exception to this result and thus these final
regulations do not adopt the proposal. To
the extent such an agreement is a sale for
Federal income tax purposes, the taxpayer
would not be eligible to claim the section
45V credit with respect to the hydrogen
it sold until all relevant requirements,
including the verification requirement,
have been satisfied.
With respect to the comment’s request
for examples, or a specific definition of,
verifiable use, these final regulations do
not provide specific examples or specify a
definition of verifiable use. The verifiable
use rule is intended to prohibit abusive
or wasteful uses of hydrogen that do not
further the purpose of section 45V while
providing flexibility in what constitutes a
verifiable use. It is not meant to limit the
universe of creditable uses of qualified
clean hydrogen, and defining verifiable
use could lead to that unintended result.
However, to clarify some verifiable uses
of qualified clean hydrogen, examples
could include using qualified clean hydro-
gen in a fuel cell to produce electricity, or
using qualified clean hydrogen to manu-
facture steel, among many other uses.
E. Requirements for the Conflict
Attestation
Proposed §1.45V-5(e) would have pro-
vided rules governing the content of the
conflict attestation within a verification
report. Proposed §1.45V-5(e)(1) would
have provided five representations the
verifier must make in the conflict attes-
tation, while proposed §1.45V-5(e)(2)
would have provided a special rule in the
elections made under section 6418(a) with
respect to the section 45V credit.
One comment expressed concern that
the verifier conflict attestation, specifically
the language at proposed §1.45V-5(e)(1)
(iii) reading, “[t]he qualified verifier is
not related, within the meaning of section
267(b) or 707(b)(1) of the Code, to, or
an employee of, the taxpayer[,]” appears
to require hydrogen producers to test for
conflict attribution with every employee
of the qualified verifier, given the defini-
tion of “related” in sections 267(b) and
707(b)(1).
These final regulations do not adopt
this comment. The language of proposed
§1.45V-5(e)(1)(iii) only requires testing
whether the qualified verifier is related,
within the meaning of section 267(b) or
707(b)(1), to the taxpayer, and whether
the qualified verifier is an employee of

March 24, 2025 1342 Bulletin No. 2025–13
the taxpayer. Proposed §1.45V-5(e)(1)(iii)
does not require application of any attri-
bution or constructive ownership rules.
Proposed §1.45V-5(e)(2) would have
provided a special rule in the case of tax-
payers making an election to transfer the
credit under section 6418 to require the
conflict attestation to attest that the ver-
ifier is independent of both the eligible
taxpayer and the transferee. Because the
identity of the transferee might not be
known in time for the verifier to com-
plete the conflict attestation, this special
rule could create issues with timely pre-
paring the conflict attestation. Proposed
§1.45V-5(e)(2) is therefore removed from
these final regulations, and accordingly,
§§1.45V-5(e)(1)(i) through (v) are renum-
bered as §1.45V-5(e)(1) through (5). Cor-
relative edits have also been made to pro-
posed §1.48-15(e)(2).
F. Requirements for the Qualified Verifier
Statement
Proposed §1.45V-5(f) would have pro-
vided rules governing the content of the
qualified verifier statement within a ver-
ification report. No comments addressed
this provision, so these final regulations
adopt it as proposed.
G. General Information on the Taxpayer’s
Hydrogen Production Facility
Proposed §1.45V-5(g) would have
required certain information regarding the
hydrogen production facility undergoing
verification to be included in the verifica-
tion report. No comments addressed this
provision, so these final regulations adopt
it as proposed.
H. Qualified Verifier
Proposed §1.45V-5(h) would have
defined a qualified verifier as any individ-
ual or organization with active accredita-
tion as a validation and verification body
from the American National Standards
Institute National Accreditation Board
(ANAB), or as a verifier, lead verifier, or
verification body under the CA LCFS.
Some comments, including one from
one of the accreditation bodies named in
the proposed regulations, suggested that
the final regulations specify the type of
accreditation needed from the two named
accreditation bodies to include Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization
(ISO) standard 14065 and 14064-3. One of
these comments noted that the CA LCFS
program, one of the two named accredi-
tation bodies, draws from ISO 14065 and
14064-3.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree that, in the case of ANAB-accredited
validation and verification bodies, the pro-
posed regulations lack needed specificity.
Accordingly, these final regulations adopt
the proposed regulations with a modifi-
cation to limit the pool of ANAB-accred-
ited qualified verifiers to those accredited
under the ANAB Accreditation Program
for Greenhouse Gas Validation and Veri-
fication Bodies.
I. Unrelated Party
Proposed §1.45V-5(i) would have
defined, for purposes of section 45V(c)(2)
(B)(ii), the term “unrelated party” to mean
a qualified verifier who meets the require-
ments of proposed §1.45V-5(e). No com-
ments addressed this provision, so these
final regulations adopt it as proposed.
J. Requirements for Taxpayers Claiming
both the Section 45V Credit and the
Section 45 Credit or the Section 45U
Credit
Section 45(e)(13) provides that elec-
tricity produced by the taxpayer shall be
treated as sold by such taxpayer to an
unrelated person during the taxable year
if such electricity is used during such
taxable year by the taxpayer or a person
related to the taxpayer at a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility to produce
qualified clean hydrogen, and such use
and production is verified (in such form or
manner as the Secretary may prescribe) by
an unrelated third party.
Section 45U(c)(2) provides, among
other things, that rules similar to the rules
of section 45(e)(13) shall apply for pur-
poses of section 45U.
Proposed §1.45V-5(j) would have pro-
vided requirements for taxpayers claiming
the section 45V credit concurrently with
either the section 45 credit or the section
45U credit. No comments addressed this
provision, so these final regulations adopt
it as proposed with a minor clarification to
§1.45V-5(j)(3) that electricity represented
by an EAC must be both acquired and
retired.
K. Timely Verification Report
Proposed §1.45V-5(k) would have
provided that a verification report must
be signed and dated by the qualified ver-
ifier no later than (i) the due date, includ-
ing extensions, of the Federal income tax
return or information return for the taxable
year during which the hydrogen undergo-
ing verification is produced; or (ii) in the
case of a section 45V credit first claimed
on an amended return or AAR, the date on
which the amended return or AAR is filed.
Some comments expressed concern
that a late verification report, filed with a
taxpayer’s return after the extended return
filing due date for the taxable year of
hydrogen production, would preclude tax-
payers from making an elective payment
election under section 6417 or a transfer-
ability election under section 6418. These
comments were addressed in part I.C of
this Summary of Comments and Explana-
tion of Revisions.
One comment said the final regula-
tions should allow for a late verification
report to be filed with an amended return,
reading the proposed regulations as allow-
ing this in the first year only. While not
entirely clear, the comment appeared to be
requesting clarification that, for purposes
of section 45V, a taxpayer may submit a
late verification report with an amended
return or AAR for any taxable year during
the 10-year credit period, and not just the
first year.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree that further clarification is needed.
As written, the proposed regulations could
be read to suggest that a taxpayer may
only file a late verification report on an
amended return in the first taxable year of
production. That result was not intended.
Accordingly, §1.45V-5(k)(2) is modified
to provide that, in the case of a credit
first claimed for the taxable year on an
amended return or AAR, the verification
report must be filed by the date on which
the amended return or AAR is filed. This
modification is intended to clarify that a
late-filed verification report may be filed
on an amended return for any taxable year

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1343 March 24, 2025
during the 10-year credit period and not
just the first taxable year of production.
V. Rules for Determining the Placed in
Service Date for an Existing Facility that
Is Modified to Produce Qualified Clean
Hydrogen
A. Modification of an Existing Facility
Under section 45V(d)(4), in the case
of any facility that was originally placed
in service before January 1, 2023, and,
prior to the modification (described in
section 45V(d)(4)(B)), did not produce
qualified clean hydrogen, and after the
date the facility was originally placed in
service (i) is modified to produce qualified
clean hydrogen, and (ii) amounts paid or
incurred with respect to the modification
are properly chargeable to the taxpay-
er’s capital account, the facility will be
deemed to have been originally placed in
service as of the date the property required
to complete the modification is placed in
service. The rule in section 45V(d)(4) for
modification of existing facilities applies
to modifications made after December 31,
2022. See §13204(a)(5)(C) of the IRA.
Proposed §1.45V-6(a)(1) would have
incorporated the statutory provisions of
section 45V(d)(4). Proposed §1.45V-6(a)
(2) would have provided that an existing
facility will not be deemed to have been
originally placed in service as of the date
the property required to complete the
modification is placed in service unless
the modification is made for the purpose
of enabling the facility to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen and the taxpayer pays
or incurs an amount with respect to such
modification that is properly chargeable
to the taxpayer’s capital account for the
facility. Proposed §1.45V-6(a)(2) would
also have provided that a modification is
made for the purpose of enabling the facil-
ity to produce qualified clean hydrogen
if the facility could not produce hydro-
gen with a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
that is less than or equal to 4 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram hydrogen but for
the modification. Changing inputs to the
hydrogen production facility, such as
switching from conventional natural gas
to renewable natural gas, would not qual-
ify as a facility modification for purposes
of proposed §1.45V-6(a)(2). Proposed
§1.45V-6(c) would have provided three
examples illustrating the application of
the rules provided by section 45V(d)(4)
and §1.45V-6(a).
Several comments were received on
proposed §1.45V-6(a)(1) and (2). Some
comments requested that the final reg-
ulations provide that changing the fuel
input in the hydrogen production pro-
cess, such as changing from natural gas
to renewable natural gas, qualifies as
a facility modification for purposes of
section 45V(d)(4). These comments fur-
ther suggested that acquiring new feed-
stocks for the purpose of enabling the
hydrogen production facility to produce
qualified clean hydrogen should con-
stitute a facility modification. Several
other comments suggested that the final
regulations should clarify that acquiring
new feedstocks and the associated com-
ponents needed to process such feed-
stocks, or constructing a new facility to
produce such feedstocks, for the purpose
of enabling the facility to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen, constitutes a facility
modification, provided the amounts paid
or incurred with respect to such modifi-
cation are properly chargeable to the cap-
ital account of the taxpayer.
It is not appropriate to provide a special
rule that changing fuel inputs or investing
in new feedstock production technology
is a modification under section 45V(d)
(4). Section 45V(d)(4)(B)(ii) specifically
requires that expenditures made with
respect to a modification must be prop-
erly chargeable to the taxpayer’s capital
account. Changing fuel inputs, without
more, would not satisfy this statutory
requirement. However, to the extent new
components are installed in the hydrogen
production facility in order to enable the
facility to consume a different type of
fuel that would enable the facility to pro-
duce qualified clean hydrogen, and to the
extent such components are chargeable to
the capital account of the taxpayer, then
the installation of such new components
would qualify as a modification under
section 45V(d)(4), assuming all other
requirements of §1.45V-6(a)(2) are met.
Regarding investing in new feedstock
production technology, such investment
would not constitute a modification under
section 45V(d)(4) because it is not a mod-
ification to the hydrogen production facil-
ity, but instead a modification to the feed-
stock production facility.
Accordingly, these regulations retain
the proposed approach and have clarified
in §1.45V-6(a)(2) that merely changing
fuel inputs does not constitute a modifi-
cation under section 45V(d)(4). Addition-
ally, §1.45V-1(a)(7)(ii)(B) is modified to
clarify that feedstock production equip-
ment is not part of the facility for purposes
of section 45V(c)(3).
Several other comments requested that
the final regulations clarify that there is
no monetary threshold required for any
capital expenditure paid or incurred with
respect to modifications made to an exist-
ing facility originally placed in service
before January 1, 2023, in order to enable
the facility to produce qualified clean
hydrogen, assuming all other require-
ments are met, for such facility to qualify
under section 45V(d)(4) for a new deemed
originally placed in service date.
These final regulations do not provide a
rule specifying a monetary threshold. The
relevant inquiry under section 45V(d)(4)
and §§1.45V-6(a)(1) and (2) is whether
the modification is made for the purpose
of enabling the facility to produce qual-
ified clean hydrogen and whether the
taxpayer pays or incurs an amount with
respect to such modification that is prop-
erly chargeable to the taxpayer’s capital
account. As set forth in §1.45V-6(a)(2),
the taxpayer must make a capital expen-
diture with respect to the modification, but
there is no requirement that such expendi-
ture satisfies a certain monetary threshold.
To the extent the capital expenditure is for
a modification that enables the facility to
produce qualified clean hydrogen and the
facility would not otherwise be able to
produce qualified clean hydrogen but for
the modification, such expenditure would
satisfy the requirements of §1.45V-6(a)
(2), regardless of amount. Because section
45V(d)(4) and §1.45V-6(a)(2) are suffi-
ciently clear to enable taxpayers to deter-
mine whether their expenditure satisfies
the requirements for the facility to receive
a new deemed originally placed in service
date, any further rules regarding a mon-
etary threshold beyond the statutory text
are unnecessary.
Finally, one comment requested that
the final regulations provide that an exist-
ing facility that is modified to capture

March 24, 2025 1344 Bulletin No. 2025–13
hydrogen that would have been flared
or released but that is instead put to pro-
ductive use is deemed to have been orig-
inally placed in service as of the date the
modifications were placed in service.
Although unclear, this comment appears
to be requesting that an existing facility
that previously produced qualified clean
hydrogen before it was modified to cap-
ture such hydrogen be entitled to a new
originally placed in service date under
section 45V(d)(4). It would be inappropri-
ate to provide such a rule. To the extent
a facility produced qualified clean hydro-
gen before it was modified to capture such
hydrogen, such modification would not
meet the requirements of §1.45V-6(a)(2)
because the modification was not for the
purpose of enabling the facility to produce
qualified clean hydrogen. If, on the other
hand, the facility did not produce qualified
clean hydrogen before it was modified to
capture hydrogen, then such modification
could meet the requirements of §1.45V-
6(a)(2), provided that the modification
enables the facility to produce qualified
clean hydrogen. Whether the facility pro-
duces qualified clean hydrogen would
depend on the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of the hydrogen production process.
Because such inquiry would depend on
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the
hydrogen production process and is fact
specific, these final regulations do not
include a special rule for this scenario in
the regulatory text.
B. Retrofit of an Existing Facility
Proposed §1.45V-6(b) would have pro-
vided that an existing facility may estab-
lish a new date on which it is considered
originally placed in service for purposes of
section 45V, even though the facility con-
tains some used property, provided the fair
market value of the used property is not
more than 20 percent of the facility’s total
value (the cost of the new property plus the
value of the used property) (80/20 Rule).
Proposed §1.45V-6(b) would have further
provided that for purposes of the 80/20
Rule, the cost of new property includes
all properly capitalized costs of the new
property included within the facility. Pro-
posed §1.45V-6(b) would have provided
that, if a facility satisfies the requirements
of the 80/20 Rule, then the date on which
such facility is considered originally
placed in service for purposes of section
45V(a)(1) is the date on which the new
property added to the facility is placed in
service. Proposed §1.45V-6(b) would also
have provided that the 80/20 Rule applies
to any existing facility, regardless of
whether the facility previously produced
qualified clean hydrogen and regardless
of when the facility was originally placed
in service (before application of proposed
§1.45V-6(b)). Examples 4 and 5 of pro-
posed §1.45V-6(c) would have provided
examples illustrating the application of
the 80/20 Rule.
Several comments were received on
the 80/20 Rule and proposed §1.45V-6(b).
Some comments requested clarification
on what is included in the definition of
an “existing facility” for purposes of the
80/20 Rule and whether the 80/20 Rule
applies only to existing hydrogen produc-
tion facilities, or whether it applies to all
existing facilities regardless of whether
they previously produced hydrogen. Simi-
larly, one comment suggested that the term
“existing facility” could mean a purchased
facility or an already existing facility
owned by the taxpayer. Other comments
requested clarification as to whether a
facility that otherwise meets the modifi-
cation rule of section 45V(d)(4) would
also be required to meet the 80/20 Rule in
order to receive a new originally placed
in service date. One comment requested
that the 80/20 Rule only be applied to
existing hydrogen production facilities.
This comment further suggested that the
final regulations should clarify that, for
purposes of the 80/20 Rule, the unit of
property to which the 80/20 Rule applies
is a single production line as defined in
proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)(i). For exam-
ple, with respect to a project with multi-
ple production lines that are capable of
independently producing qualified clean
hydrogen, this comment requested that
the final regulations clarify that the 80/20
Rule would apply separately to each such
production line.
One comment requested clarification
on the extent to which used components
of property owned by another person that
function interdependently with compo-
nents of property owned by the taxpayer
to produce qualified clean hydrogen must
be taken into consideration for purposes
of the 80/20 Rule. This comment provided
the example of transmission pipelines not
owned by the taxpayer but that are used to
import methane to the hydrogen produc-
tion facility, and asked whether such com-
ponents would need to be taken into con-
sideration for purposes of the 80/20 Rule.
One comment requested clarification
on the extent to which roads, fences,
buildings, land, and other ancillary prop-
erty may be considered part of a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility that
must be taken into account for purposes of
the 80/20 Rule.
Finally, one comment requested that
proposed §1.45V-6(b) be modified to
allow taxpayers to exclude the cost of any
maintenance, repairs, or upgrades when
determining the value of used property for
purposes of the 80/20 Rule.
The Treasury Department and the
IRS agree that further clarification of the
80/20 Rule is appropriate. The proposed
80/20 Rule could have been interpreted
to apply to all existing facilities, includ-
ing those that satisfy the modification
requirements of section 45V(d)(4) to
receive a new deemed originally placed
in service date. This was not the intent of
proposed §1.45V-6(b). Accordingly, the
final regulations clarify in §1.45V-6(a)
(3) that a facility that satisfies the require-
ments of section 45V(d)(4) does not also
need to meet the 80/20 Rule in order to be
deemed to be originally placed in service
as of the date that the property required
for the modification is placed in service.
Proposed §1.45V-6(b) is also modified to
clarify the scope of the 80/20 Rule. The
final regulations under §1.45V-6(b) now
provide that the 80/20 Rule applies to
retrofitted hydrogen production facilities
and that the 80/20 Rule applies separately
to each single production line containing
used property.
These final regulations do not provide
further rules addressing the extent to
which used property owned by another
person must be taken into consideration
for purposes of the 80/20 Rule because
existing Federal income tax concepts are
sufficient to address the question posed
in the comment. Likewise, these final
regulations do not clarify whether roads,
fences, buildings, land, or other ancillary
property are part of the qualified clean
hydrogen production facility for pur-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1345 March 24, 2025
poses of the 80/20 Rule. Existing Fed-
eral income tax concepts are sufficient
to address this question. In determining
the value of old or existing equipment
as compared to new equipment, the gen-
eral principles of Revenue Ruling 94-31
apply. Revenue Ruling 94-31 provides
that a facility would qualify as originally
placed in service even though it con-
tains some used property, provided the
fair market value of the used property is
not more than 20 percent of the facility’s
total value (the cost of the new property
plus the value of the used property).
Some changes to the definition of “facil-
ity” are needed to clarify that feedstock
transportation or feedstock transmission
equipment, such as electricity transmis-
sion equipment, is not part of the qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility.
Accordingly, proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7)
(ii)(B) is revised to exclude feedstock
transmission equipment from the defini-
tion of “facility.”
Finally, regarding whether proposed
§1.45V-6(b) should be modified to allow
taxpayers to exclude the cost of mainte-
nance, repairs, or upgrades from the value
of used equipment for purposes of the
80/20 Rule, the final regulations do not
adopt these suggestions because they are
inconsistent with Federal income tax prin-
ciples underlying the 80/20 Rule.
VI. Election to Treat Clean Hydrogen
Production Facility as Energy Property
A. Overview
Section 48(a)(15) allows a taxpayer
that owns and places in service a speci-
fied clean hydrogen production facility (as
defined in section 48(a)(15)(C)) to make
an irrevocable election to claim the section
48 credit in lieu of the section 45V credit
for any qualified property (as defined in
section 48(a)(5)(D)) that is part of the
facility. Section 13204(c)(3) of the IRA
provides that this provision is effective for
property placed in service after December
31, 2022. For any property that is placed
in service after December 31, 2022, and
the construction of which begins before
January 1, 2023, §13204(c)(3) of the IRA
provides that section 48(a)(15) applies
only to the extent of the basis of such
property that is attributable to construc-
tion, reconstruction, or erection occurring
after December 31, 2022.
Proposed §1.48-15(a) would have pro-
vided that a taxpayer that owns and places
in service a specified clean hydrogen
production facility (as defined in section
48(a)(15)(C) and proposed §1.48-15(b))
can make an irrevocable election under
section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II) to treat any
qualified property (as defined in section
48(a)(5)(D)) that is part of the facility as
energy property for purposes of section
48.
Proposed §1.48-15(b) would have
defined the term “specified clean hydro-
gen production facility” to mean any qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
(within the meaning of section 45V(c)
(3) and proposed §1.45V-1(a)(10)): (i)
that is placed in service after December
31, 2022; (ii) with respect to which no
section 45V credit or section 45Q credit
has been allowed, and for which the tax-
payer makes an irrevocable election to
have section 48(a)(15) apply; and (iii) for
which an unrelated party has verified in
the manner specified in proposed §1.48-
15(e) that such facility produces hydro-
gen through a process that results in life-
cycle GHG emissions that are consistent
with the hydrogen that such facility was
designed and expected to produce under
section 48(a)(15)(A)(ii) and proposed
§1.48-15(c).
Proposed §1.48-15(c)(1) would have
provided the energy percentage (used by
a taxpayer to calculate a section 48 credit)
for a specified clean hydrogen production
facility that is designed and reasonably
expected to produce qualified clean hydro-
gen through a process that results in a life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of not greater
than 4 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen. Proposed §1.48-15(c)(2) would
have further provided that “designed and
reasonably expected to produce” means
hydrogen produced through a process that
results in the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate specified in the annual verification
report for the taxable year in which the
section 48(a)(15) election is made.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
solicited feedback on the proposed defini-
tion of the term “designed and reasonably
expected to produce” and whether there
are any challenges to using the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate achieved in the tax-
able year in which the section 48(a)(15)
election is made to determine the facility’s
energy percentage for purposes of calcu-
lating the section 48 credit amount. No
comment addressed the definition of the
term “designed and reasonably expected
to produce” or the challenges of using the
lifecycle GHG emissions rate determined
in the year the election takes place. How-
ever, one comment recommended that the
final regulations allow for taxpayers that
make the section 48(a)(15) election to
determine their energy percentage by using
a lifecycle GHG emissions rate achieved
in a later taxable year. Section 48(a)(1)
generally provides that the energy credit
for any taxable year is the energy percent-
age of the basis of each energy property
placed in service during such taxable
year. This means that while a taxpayer is
required to determine the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of the hydrogen undergo-
ing verification each year of the recapture
period specified in proposed §1.48-15(f)
(3), the credit amount may only be deter-
mined based on the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of the hydrogen produced in the
year the specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility is placed in service. Allowing
the use of a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
achieved in a later taxable year is incon-
sistent with section 48(a)(1), since the sec-
tion 48 credit is claimed only in the taxable
year in which energy property is placed in
service. Therefore, these final regulations
adopt these proposed rules without change
on these issues.
The proposed regulations would have
required for each facility an annual assess-
ment of the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
for purposes of determining the rate at
which a facility is designed and reason-
ably expected to produce qualified clean
hydrogen, for verification purposes, and
in determining whether a recapture event
has occurred. In determining the amount
of the section 45V credit and whether
hydrogen is qualified clean hydrogen,
the final regulations require a determina-
tion of lifecycle GHG emissions for each
hydrogen production process conducted
by a facility during a taxable year. How-
ever, applying a process-by-process-based
approach to determining lifecycle GHG
emissions rates for hydrogen production
in the context of the section 48(a)(15)
election could lead to a facility producing

March 24, 2025 1346 Bulletin No. 2025–13
hydrogen in processes that result in multi-
ple different emissions rates within a tax-
able year, which is inconsistent with the
statutory scheme applicable to specified
clean hydrogen production facilities and
would be difficult to administer. Thus, the
final regulations retain the single annual
lifecycle GHG emissions rate assessment
requirement for specified clean hydro-
gen production facilities for purposes of
the section 48(a)(15) election by requir-
ing, in the case of a facility that produces
hydrogen through multiple processes,
that the lifecycle GHG emissions rate be
determined using the weighted average of
the lifecycle GHG emissions rates of all
hydrogen production processes. An annual
assessment for each qualified clean hydro-
gen production facility best implements
the statutory directive in section 48(a)
(15)(A)(ii)(I) through (IV) and (C)(iii) to
determine eligibility for and the amount
of the section 48 credit based on the “life-
cycle greenhouse gas emissions which are
consistent with the hydrogen that such
facility was designed and expected to pro-
duce.”
B. Election procedures
1. Time and Manner of Making Election
Proposed §1.48-15(d)(1) would have
provided rules for making an election
under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II). To
make such an election, a taxpayer must
claim the section 48 credit with respect
to a specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility on a Form 3468, Investment
Credit, or any successor form(s), and
file the form with the taxpayer’s Federal
income tax return or information return
for the taxable year in which the speci-
fied clean hydrogen production facility is
placed in service. The taxpayer must also
attach a statement to its Form 3468, or any
successor form(s), filed with its Federal
income tax return or information return
that includes all the information required
by the instructions to Form 3468, or any
successor form(s), for each specified clean
hydrogen production facility subject to an
election. Proposed §1.48-15(d)(1) would
have provided that a separate election
must be made for each specified clean
hydrogen production facility that meets
the requirements provided in section 48(a)
(15) to treat the qualified property that is
part of the facility as energy property.
Proposed §1.48-15(d)(1) would have
further provided that, if any taxpayer own-
ing an interest in a specified clean hydro-
gen production facility makes an election
with respect to the facility, then that elec-
tion would be binding on all taxpayers
that directly or indirectly own an interest
in the facility. Thus, consistent with sec-
tion 48(a)(15)(B), if a taxpayer owning an
interest in a specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility makes an election under
section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II), then no other
taxpayer owning an interest in the same
facility will be allowed a section 45V
credit or section 45Q credit with respect
to the facility or any carbon capture equip-
ment included at such facility.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
requested comments on whether, in the
context of a specified clean hydrogen
production facility that is directly owned
through an arrangement properly treated
as a tenancy-in-common for Federal
income tax purposes or through an organi-
zation that has made a valid election under
section 761(a) of the Code, each co-own-
er’s or member’s undivided ownership
share of the qualified property comprised
in the facility should be treated for pur-
poses of section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II) as a
separate facility owned by such co-owner
or member, with each such co-owner or
member eligible to make a separate elec-
tion under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II) to
claim the section 48 credit in lieu of the
section 45V credit with respect to its undi-
vided ownership interest in the facility or
share of the underlying qualified property.
No comments were received in response
to this request.
One comment requested that the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS clarify how
to allocate costs and benefits of a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility for pur-
poses of determining the section 45V and
section 48 credit amounts. To the extent the
comment sought clarification on how one
taxpayer can claim both credits on the same
facility, the election to claim the section 48
credit in lieu of the section 45V credit is
made on the entire specified clean hydro-
gen production facility. If a taxpayer makes
the election with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility, then no sec-
tion 45V credit is allowed to the taxpayer
with respect to such facility. Therefore, no
allocation between the two credits for the
same facility is allowed. Alternatively, to
the extent the comment sought clarification
on how to allocate the section 45V credit
amount to co-owners of the same quali-
fied clean hydrogen production facility,
sections 45V(d)(1) and 45(e)(3) provide
rules for how to allocate the section 45V
credit amount to co-owners. As set forth in
section 45(e)(3), in the case of a facility in
which more than one person has an own-
ership interest, production from the facility
is allocated among such persons in propor-
tion to their ownership interests in the gross
sales from such facility. No clarification is
needed under proposed §1.48-15(d)(1) and
thus, these final regulations adopt this pro-
vision without change.
2. Special Rule for Partnerships and S
Corporations
Proposed §1.48-15(d)(2) would have
provided that, in the case of a specified
clean hydrogen production facility owned
by a partnership or an S corporation, the
election under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)
(II) would be made by the partnership or
S corporation and would be binding on
all ultimate credit claimants (as defined
in §1.50-1(b)(3)(ii)). Proposed §1.48-
15(d)(2) further provided procedures for
a partnership or S corporation to make an
election with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility under sec-
tion 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II). No comments
were received on proposed §1.48-15(d)
(2), and the final regulations adopt this
provision without substantive change.
3. Election Revocability
Proposed §1.48-15(d)(3) would have
provided that the election to treat any
qualified property that is part of a speci-
fied clean hydrogen production facility
as energy property would be irrevoca-
ble. No comments were received on pro-
posed §1.48-15(d)(3), and this provision
is adopted without change in these final
regulations.
4. Election Availability Date
Proposed §1.48-15(d)(4) would have
provided that the election to treat any

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1347 March 24, 2025
qualified property that is part of a spec-
ified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity as energy property would be avail-
able for property placed in service after
December 31, 2022, and, for any prop-
erty that began construction before Jan-
uary 1, 2023, only to the extent of the
basis thereof attributable to the construc-
tion, reconstruction, or erection after
December 31, 2022. No comments were
received on proposed §1.48-15(d)(4),
and these final regulations adopt this pro-
vision without change.
5. Beginning of Construction Safe Harbor
These final regulations add §1.48-15(d)
(5), which provides that a taxpayer may, in
its discretion, make an irrevocable election
effective for the remaining taxable years
within the period described in §1.48-15(f)
(3), to treat the latest version of 45VH2-
GREET that was publicly available on the
date when construction of the specified
clean hydrogen production facility began
as the 45VH2-GREET Model. In the case
of a facility owned by the taxpayer that
began construction prior to December 26,
2023, §1.48-15(d)(5) provides that tax-
payers may make an irrevocable election
to treat the first publicly-available version
of 45VH2-GREET (that is, the version
of 45VH2-GREET released in Decem-
ber 2023) as the 45VH2-GREET Model
for the remaining taxable years within
the period described in §1.48-15(f)(3).
In the case of a facility that is modified
to produce qualified clean hydrogen under
section 45V(d)(4) or a facility that is ret-
rofitted in a manner that entitles the facil-
ity to a new placed in service date under
§1.45V-6(b), the date when construction
of the facility began is the date when con-
struction of such modification or retrofit
began. Under §1.48-15(d)(5)(ii), a tax-
payer makes this election by attaching a
statement to the Form 3468 or any succes-
sor form(s). The taxpayer must make this
election no later than the due date for fil-
ing its Federal income tax return or infor-
mation return (including extensions) for
the taxable period in which such facility is
placed in service. A taxpayer who placed
its facility in service before January 1,
2024, must make the election by no later
than the close of the period of limitation
on filing a claim for credit or refund under
section 6511(a) for the taxable period in
which such facility is placed in service.
6. Provisional Emissions Rate
Neither section 48 nor the proposed
regulations contain a specific provi-
sion addressing a PER for energy credit
purposes, leaving a procedural gap for
obtaining a PER should a taxpayer that
owns and places in service a specified
clean hydrogen production facility (as
defined in section 48(a)(15)(C) and
§1.48-15) make an irrevocable election
under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II) to
treat any qualified property (as defined
in section 48(a)(5)(D)) that is part of the
facility as energy property for purposes
of section 48. To address this procedural
gap, these final regulations add §1.48-
15(d)(6), which provides the procedures
for obtaining a PER for such taxpayers.
This provision largely tracks the PER
rules of §1.45V-4(c).
Section 1.48-15(d)(6)(i) provides that
a taxpayer files a petition with the Sec-
retary for a PER by following the proce-
dures stated in §1.45V-4(c)(3) through (5),
except, in lieu of attaching the PER peti-
tion to the Form 7210 in the first taxable
year of production as specified in §1.45V-
4(c)(3), the taxpayer must attach the PER
petition to the Form 3468, Investment
Credit, or a successor form, attached to
the taxpayer’s Federal income tax return
for the taxable year in which the speci-
fied clean hydrogen production facility
is placed in service. A taxpayer may use
such PER to calculate the amount of the
section 48 credit with respect to a spec-
ified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity, provided that (1) the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of the hydrogen produced
at the specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility has not been determined (for
purposes of section 45V(c)(2)(C)) under
the 45VH2-GREET Model, (2) there are
no material changes to the information
about the taxpayer’s hydrogen production
process from the information provided
to the DOE to obtain an emissions value
pursuant to §1.45V-4(c)(2)(i), and (3) all
other requirements of section 48(a)(15)
are met. These final regulations further
provide that a “material change” means
any change that would cause a qualified
verifier (as defined §1.45V-5(h)) to be
unable to complete a verification under
§1.48-15(e).
Further, §1.48-15(d)(6)(iii) is added to
provide that a taxpayer may, in its discre-
tion, make an irrevocable election, effec-
tive for the remaining taxable years within
the period described in §1.48-15(f)(3), to
treat the first version of 45VH2-GREET
that includes the taxpayer’s specified clean
hydrogen production facility’s hydro-
gen production pathway (as described in
§1.45V-4(c)(2)(i)) as the 45VH2-GREET
Model. A taxpayer makes this election by
attaching a statement to the Form 3468
or any successor form(s). The taxpayer
must make this election by no later than
the due date for filing its Federal income
tax return or information return (including
extensions) for the taxable period in which
the taxpayer’s facility is placed in service.
A taxpayer who placed its specified clean
hydrogen production facility in service
before January 1, 2024, must make this
election by no later than the close of the
period of limitation for filing a claim for
credit or refund under section 6511(a) for
the taxable period in which such facility is
placed in service.
Further, §1.48-15(d)(6)(iv) is added to
provide that, notwithstanding the require-
ment of §1.48-15(d)(6)(i)(A), a taxpayer
who received an emissions value from
the DOE with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility (pursuant to
§1.45V-4(c)(2)(i)) before the date when
construction of the facility began may,
in its discretion, continue to use the PER
determined by the Secretary and the asso-
ciated emissions value to calculate the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of the hydrogen
produced at the specified clean hydrogen
production facility for the remainder of
the period described in §1.48-15(f)(3),
provided that the taxpayer continues to
satisfy the requirements of §§1.48-15(d)
(6)(i)(B) and (C).
Finally, §1.48-15(d)(6)(v) is added to
provide that the Secretary’s PER determi-
nation is not an examination or inspection
of books of account for purposes of section
7605(b) of the Code and does not preclude
or impede the IRS (under section 7605(b)
or any administrative provisions adopted
by the IRS) from later examining a return
or inspecting books or records with
respect to any taxable year for which the
section 48 credit is claimed. For example,

March 24, 2025 1348 Bulletin No. 2025–13
the annual verification report submitted
under section 48(a)(15)(C)(iii) and §1.48-
15(e)(2) and any information, representa-
tions, or other data provided to the DOE
in support of the request for an emissions
value are still subject to examination. Fur-
ther, a PER determination does not sig-
nify that the IRS has determined that the
requirements of section 48, including the
cross-references to section 45V, have been
satisfied for any taxable year.
C. Third-Party Verification
Proposed §1.48-15(e)(1) would have
provided that, in the case of a taxpayer
that makes an election under section
48(a)(15)(c)(ii)(II) to treat any qualified
property that is part of a specified clean
hydrogen production facility as energy
property for purposes of the section 48
credit, the taxpayer must obtain an annual
verification report for the taxable year in
which the election is made and for each
taxable year thereafter of the recapture
period specified in proposed §1.48-15(f)
(3). Proposed §1.48-15(e)(1) would have
further provided that the taxpayer must
also submit the annual verification report
as an attachment to the Form 3468, or any
successor form(s), for the taxable year in
which the election is made.
Proposed §1.48-15(e)(2) would have
provided procedures for the annual ver-
ification report, including where a trans-
fer election has been made under section
6418(a) of the Code with respect to the
section 48 credit for a specified clean
hydrogen production facility.
No comments were received on pro-
posed §1.48-15(e). These final regulations
adopt this provision without substantive
change, other than conforming changes to
modifications previously noted.
D. Credit Recapture
Section 48(a)(15)(E) directs the Sec-
retary to issue such regulations or other
guidance as determined necessary to carry
out the purposes of section 48, including
regulations or other guidance addressing
recapture of so much of the credit allowed
under section 48 as exceeds the amount of
the credit that would have been allowed
if the expected production were consistent
with the actual verified production or all
of the credit so allowed in the absence of
such verification.
1. Emissions Tier Recapture Events
Under Section 48(a)(15)(E)
Proposed §1.48-15(f)(1) would have
provided that, for purposes of section
48(a)(15)(E), in any taxable year of the
recapture period specified in proposed
§1.48-15(f)(3) in which an emissions tier
recapture event (as defined in proposed
§1.48-15(f)(2)) occurs, the tax imposed on
the taxpayer under chapter 1 of the Code
for the taxable year of the emissions tier
recapture event is increased by the recap-
ture amount specified in proposed §1.48-
15(f)(4).
Proposed §1.48-15(f)(2) would have
provided that an emissions tier recapture
event under section 48(a)(15)(E) occurs
during any taxable year of the recapture
period specified in proposed §1.48-15(f)
(3) under the following circumstances: (i)
the taxpayer fails to obtain an annual ver-
ification report by the deadline for filing
its Federal income tax return or informa-
tion return (including extensions) for any
taxable year in which an annual verifica-
tion report was required under proposed
§1.48-15(e)(1); (ii) the specified clean
hydrogen production facility actually pro-
duced hydrogen through a process that
results in a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
that can only support a lower energy per-
centage than the energy percentage used
to calculate the amount of the section
48 credit for such facility for the year in
which the facility is placed in service; or
(iii) the specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility actually produced hydrogen
through a process that results in a lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of greater than 4 kilo-
grams of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen.
No comments were received on pro-
posed §1.48-15(f)(1) and (2). These final
regulations adopt these provisions without
substantive change.
2. Recapture Period Under Section 48(a)
(15)(E)
Proposed §1.48-15(f)(3) would have
provided that the recapture period begins
on the first day of the first taxable year
after the taxable year in which the facility
was placed in service and ends on the last
day of the fifth taxable year after the close
of the taxable year in which the facility
was placed in service. For example, if a
calendar-year taxpayer places in service a
specified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity on June 1, 2023, then the last day of the
fifth taxable year following the close of
the taxable year in which the facility was
placed in service is December 31, 2028.
Therefore, the recapture period is January
1, 2024, through December 31, 2028.
No comments were received on pro-
posed §1.48-15(f)(3). These final regula-
tions adopt this provision without change.
3. Recapture Amount
Proposed §1.48-15(f)(4) would have
provided rules for computing the amount
recaptured under section 48(a)(15)(E).
Proposed §1.48-15(f)(5) would have pro-
vided an example illustrating the applica-
tion of proposed §1.48-15(f)(1) through
(4).
The preamble to the proposed regu-
lations provided that, unless modified in
future guidance, any reporting of emis-
sions tier recapture under proposed §1.48-
15(f) is made on the taxpayer’s annual tax
return. The preamble further provided that,
the Secretary may issue future guidance
and/or prescribe tax forms and instruc-
tions to address the reporting of emissions
tier recapture under proposed §1.48-15(f)
and any additional annual reporting obli-
gations. The Treasury Department and the
IRS solicited feedback on the reporting
of recapture and any additional annual
reporting obligations. No comments were
received in response to this request, or on
proposed §1.48-15(f)(4) or (5) in general.
These provisions are adopted as proposed
with minor clarifications to the example in
§1.48-15(f)(5) to account for, among other
things, the passage of time. However, as a
clarification, the reporting of an emissions
tier recapture event is reported using Form
4255, Recapture of Investment Credit, or
any successor form(s), and the associated
tax liability reported on the taxpayer’s
annual return.
4. Coordination with Recapture Rules
under Sections 50 and 48(a)(10)(C)
Proposed §1.48-15(f)(6) would have
provided that, during any taxable year of

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1349 March 24, 2025
the recapture period for any credit allowed
under section 48(a) with respect to qual-
ified property that is part of a specified
clean hydrogen production facility, the
recapture rules would be applied, if appli-
cable, in the following order: (i) section
50(a) (recapture in case of dispositions,
etc.); (ii) section 48(a)(10)(C) (recapture
relating to the prevailing wage require-
ments); and (iii) section 48(a)(15)(E)
(emissions tier recapture).
There were no comments received on
proposed §1.48-15(f)(6). These final reg-
ulations adopt the provision without sub-
stantive change. The final regulations also
add two examples to illustrate the applica-
tion of §1.48-15(f)(6).
E. Recordkeeping
Proposed §1.48-15(g) would have pro-
vided that, consistent with section 6001
of the Code, a taxpayer making the elec-
tion under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II)
with respect to a specified clean hydro-
gen production facility must maintain and
preserve records sufficient to establish the
amount of the section 48 credit claimed
by the taxpayer. Further, proposed §1.48-
15(g) would have provided that, at a min-
imum, those records include records to
substantiate the information required to be
included in the annual verification report
under proposed §1.48-15(e)(2), records
establishing that the facility meets the
definition of a specified clean hydrogen
production facility under section 48(a)
(15)(C) and proposed §1.48-15(b), and
records establishing the date the speci-
fied clean hydrogen production facility
was placed in service. Finally, proposed
§1.48-15(g) would have provided that,
if the increased section 48 credit amount
was allowed under section 48(a)(9), then
the taxpayer must also maintain records in
accordance with §1.45-12.
No comments were received with
respect to proposed §1.48-15(g). How-
ever, the intent of proposed §1.48-15(g)
was to conform the recordkeeping require-
ments for making the election under sec-
tion 48(a)(15) with the recordkeeping
requirements for claiming the credit under
section 45V. Some of the recordkeep-
ing requirements provided in proposed
§1.45V-2(c) were not provided in pro-
posed §1.48-15(g). For example, records
of past credit claims under section 45Q by
any taxpayer with respect to carbon cap-
ture equipment included at the facility, and
the requirement that taxpayers retain all
raw data used for submission of a request
for an emissions value to the DOE for at
least six years after the due date (including
extensions) for filing the Federal income
tax return or information return to which
the PER is ultimately attached, were unin-
tentionally omitted from proposed §1.48-
15(g). Accordingly, conforming changes
have been made to §1.48-15(g) to include
these items in the list of recordkeeping
materials required to be maintained for
taxpayers making the election under sec-
tion 48(a)(15). Additionally, the final reg-
ulations add a requirement to retain the
annual verification report required under
§1.48-15(e)(2).
VII. Additional Comments
A. Interaction with Other Tax Credits
Some comments requested clarifica-
tion on the interaction of section 45V with
other tax credits. One comment requested
clarification that a renewable fuel facility
that relies on a hydrogen production facil-
ity to produce renewable fuel is not part
of the hydrogen production facility under
proposed §1.45V-1(a)(7).
These final regulations do not specify
the interaction of section 45V with other
tax credits except as it relates to section
45V(d)(2) and the prohibition on claim-
ing the section 45Q credit. The Code sec-
tions themselves specify the interaction
of section 45V with other tax credits. To
the extent the statutes do not specify the
interaction, imposing rules governing
or restricting the section 45V credit on
account of other tax credits whose statutes
contain no such restriction would also not
be applicable to this rulemaking.
Regarding the request for clarification
on whether a renewable fuel facility that
relies on a hydrogen production facility to
produce renewable fuel is not part of the
hydrogen production facility, this com-
ment appears to be requesting clarification
on the scope of the definition of facility
under section 45Z. The definition of facil-
ity under section 45Z is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking, and, therefore, is not
addressed further herein.
B. Additional Reporting and Disclosure
Requirements
Some comments requested that the
final regulations impose additional report-
ing requirements on section 45V credit
claimants, including to require claimants
to publicize that they claimed the sec-
tion 45V credit, the extent to which they
engaged with the community, the amount
of any emissions reductions associated
with their section 45V credit claim, and
various other hydrogen production activi-
ties such as water withdrawals, non-green-
house gas air pollution, hydrogen leaks,
and safety incidents. Similarly, some
comments requested that the IRS disclose
information about section 45V credit
claims and the effect of section 45V credit
claimants’ hydrogen production activities.
Additional reporting and disclosure
requirements are not incorporated into
these final regulations. Section 45V does
not impose any requirements on taxpay-
ers to publicly disclose information about
their section 45V credit claims or their
hydrogen production activities. Further,
section 6103 of the Code prohibits the IRS
from disclosing information about section
45V credit claims, except as expressly
authorized under another provision of the
Code. Accordingly, imposing such addi-
tional reporting requirements, or disclos-
ing information about section 45V credit
claims, would contravene the Code and is
not adopted in these final regulations.
Some comments requested that the
Treasury Department and the IRS engage
with environmental groups, industry par-
ticipants, and the public in the implemen-
tation of the section 45V credit. Other
comments requested that the Treasury
Department and the IRS engage certain
population groups, such as minorities,
women, or veterans, to ensure meaningful
participation by those groups. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS confirm that
members of the public have been engaged
on a broad basis through the notice and
comment process and that public com-
ments have been considered in issuing
these final regulations.
C. Additional Procedural Requirements
One comment suggested that the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS’s identifica-

March 24, 2025 1350 Bulletin No. 2025–13
tion of 45VH2-GREET as the most recent
GREET model under section 45V(c)(1)
(B) is an “incorporation by reference” and
that, as such, modifications to 45VH2-
GREET should be published in the Fed-
eral Register for notice and comment.
This same comment noted that incorpo-
ration by reference generally refers to
incorporating outside rules or sources
into government regulations but posited
that incorporation by reference can also
apply to 45VH2-GREET. On this point,
the comment did not request changes to
the regulatory text. Furthermore, future
events such as updates to 45VH2-GREET
will not affect the text of these final reg-
ulations.
Regarding incorporation by reference,
the Secretary’s designation of 45VH2-
GREET as a successor model under sec-
tion 45V(c)(1)(B) is not an incorporation
by reference. Incorporation by reference
derives from 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), which
requires regulatory rules to be published
in the Federal Register. Incorporation by
reference of matters published outside of
the Federal Register provides an excep-
tion to this requirement by deeming those
matters as published in the Federal Regis-
ter. See 5 U.S.C. 551(a)(1).
In this case, 45VH2-GREET is not
required to be published in the Federal
Register because it is a statutory require-
ment. Section 45V(c)(1)(B) provides
that lifecycle GHG emissions “shall only
include emissions through the point of
production (well-to-gate), as determined
under the most recent Greenhouse gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
Transportation model (commonly referred
to as the ‘GREET model’) developed by
Argonne National Laboratory, or a suc-
cessor model (as determined by the Sec-
retary).” As described in the Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions
to these final regulations, the Secretary
designated 45VH2-GREET as a succes-
sor model pursuant to that statutory direc-
tive, and 45VH2-GREET may also be
appropriately considered the most recent
GREET model. Because statutes may
refer to matters that are not published in
the Federal Register, the statutorily des-
ignated use of 45VH2-GREET as a suc-
cessor model by the Secretary (or as the
most recent GREET model) provides
authorization, if not a direct mandate,
to require the model’s use and there-
fore eliminates the need for incorporat-
ing it by reference. See United States v.
Jackson, No. 1:07-CR-108-ODE-GGB,
2007 WL 9735479, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Sept.
12, 2007), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 1:07-CR-108-ODE, 2007
WL 9735481 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2007)
(incorporation of consumer price index
as an inflation adjustor was not an APA
violation); Clarry v. United States, 891
F. Supp. 105, aff’d 85 F.3d 1041 (2d Cir.
1995) (“[T]he APA’s notice requirements
apply to rules formulated and adopted by
an agency, not the application [of] a stat-
ute created by Congress.”); Malkan FM
Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C.
Cir. 1991) (agency not required to publish
in the Federal Register notices that radio
tower height limit near Mexican border
was lower than that prescribed by Federal
Communication Commission’s (FCC’s)
general rules; limit on tower height near
border was set by international agreement
and not by “rule” of the FCC).
D. Comments Regarding Impacts on
Specific Communities
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received several comments on the poten-
tial impact of the proposed regulations
on specific communities, including Tribal
communities, low-income communities,
and other communities with environmen-
tal justice concerns. The Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS take seriously concerns
expressed by comments that relate to
issues of environmental justice, consistent
with the directives contained in previously
issued Executive Orders. See, for exam-
ple, EO 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation’s
Commitment for Environmental Justice
for All, (88 FR 25251, April 21, 2023) and
EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Popu-
lations and Low-Income Populations, (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
One comment stated that hydrogen
projects were often developed without
consent from or consideration of or toward
impacted communities, including Tribes.
The comment recommended that the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS implement
a rule that requires taxpayers that claim
the section 45V credit to show that they
obtained consent from impacted commu-
nities, including Tribal nations, and that
such consent was freely given prior to the
start of any projects. Requiring applicants
to show free, prior, and informed con-
sent would reduce harms and the loss of
resources that result from such subsidized
hydrogen production, according to the
comment.
Other comments noted that the regula-
tions might affect the hydrogen industry
in ways harmful to certain communities,
by incentivizing dirty production in those
communities, increasing demand for
water, or by failing to provide full incen-
tives to hydrogen production that could
be produced in certain communities, like
so-called “blue” hydrogen. A comment
suggested that the U.S. government is fail-
ing its trust responsibility with a particular
Tribe by discouraging the production of
blue hydrogen, which the comment states
is a Tribal trust asset.
The final regulations do not adopt these
comments. Unlike some other IRA provi-
sions, section 45V does not include rules
that target investment in particular com-
munities, on Indian land, or in any other
specified geography. Compare section
45(b)(11) (relating to an increase in the
production tax credit for qualified facilities
located in energy communities), section
48(a)(14) (relating to increased invest-
ment tax credit rate for energy projects
placed in service in energy communities),
section 48(e) (relating to special rules for
certain solar and wind facilities placed in
service in connection with low-income
communities), section 45Y(g)(7) (relating
to an increase in the clean energy produc-
tion credit for qualified facilities located
in energy communities), section 48E(a)(3)
(A) (relating to an increase in credit rate
of the clean electricity investment credit
for qualified facilities or energy storage
technologies placed in service in energy
communities), and section 48E(h) (relat-
ing to special rules for the clean electric-
ity investment credit for certain facili-
ties placed in service in connection with
low-income communities).
Nor does section 45V provide rules to
specifically require a taxpayer to obtain the
consent of impacted communities, or rules
that would provide additional incentives
for activity in those communities. Such
regulation of actions between private par-
ties related to the process for the produc-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1351 March 24, 2025
tion of clean hydrogen is not specifically
authorized in section 45V. Moreover, for
the reasons described in this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions,
these final regulations provide appropri-
ate rules for clean hydrogen production
regarding adequate safeguards, emissions
determinations, and verification, con-
sistent with the statute. With respect to
comments stating concern regarding the
lower section 45V credit amount for the
production of certain types of qualified
clean hydrogen, the statutory text of sec-
tion 45V(b) unambiguously provides the
applicable amount and applicable percent-
age for the section 45V credit, which is
based on lifecycle GHG emissions rates.
With respect to Tribes, the Treasury
Department and the IRS will continue to
consider issues that may affect Tribes and
Tribal stakeholders, including, for exam-
ple, whether Tribes may regulate GHG
emissions and how such regulations may
affect the emissions determinations for
qualified clean hydrogen.
VIII. Applicability Date
These final regulations apply to taxable
years beginning after December 26, 2023,
the date the proposed regulations were
published in the Federal Register. For
taxable years beginning after December
31, 2022, and on or before December 26,
2023, taxpayers may choose to apply the
rules of §§1.45V-1, -2, and -4 through -6,
provided that taxpayers apply the rules in
their entirety and in a consistent manner.
One comment requested clarification
on the applicability date of these final
regulations for facilities that were placed
in service prior to the effective date of
these final regulations. As provided in the
Explanation of Provisions to the proposed
regulations, taxpayers may choose to rely
upon the proposed regulations for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2022,
and before the date these final regulations
are published in the Federal Register,
provided that taxpayers follow the pro-
posed regulations in their entirety and in
a consistent manner. Also, as provided in
the preceding paragraph, taxpayers may
choose to apply the final rules of §§1.45V-
1, -2, and -4 through -6, provided that tax-
payers apply the rules in their entirety and
in a consistent manner.
IX. Severability
If any provision in this rulemaking
is held to be invalid or unenforceable
facially, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, it shall be severable from
the remainder of this rulemaking, and
shall not affect the remainder thereof, or
the application of the provision to other
persons not similarly situated or to other
dissimilar circumstances.
Effect on Other Documents
None.
Special Analyses
I. Regulatory Planning and Review
Pursuant to the Memorandum of
Agreement, Review of Treasury Regula-
tions under Executive Order 12866 (June
9, 2023), tax regulatory actions issued by
the IRS are not subject to the requirements
of section 6 of Executive Order 12866, as
amended. Therefore, a regulatory impact
assessment is not required.
II. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) generally
requires that a Federal agency obtain the
approval of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) before collecting
information from the public, whether such
collection of information is mandatory,
voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a
benefit. A Federal agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless the collection of information dis-
plays a valid control number.
The collections of information in
these final regulations contain reporting,
third-party disclosure, and recordkeeping
requirements. These collections are nec-
essary for taxpayers to claim the section
45V credit, or the section 48 credit with
respect to a specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility, and for the IRS to vali-
date that taxpayers have met the regula-
tory requirements and are entitled to claim
either credit.
The recordkeeping requirements in
these final regulations include the require-
ment that taxpayers claiming the section
45V credit, or the section 48 credit with
respect to a specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility, need to meet the general
recordkeeping provisions under section
6001 necessary to substantiate the amount
of the section 45V credit or section 48
credit claimed by the taxpayer as detailed
in proposed §§1.45V-2(c) and 1.48-15(g).
These recordkeeping requirements are
considered general tax records under
§1.6001-1(e). For PRA purposes, general
tax records are already approved by OMB
under 1545-0074 for individuals/sole pro-
prietors, 1545-0123 for business entities,
and 1545-0047 for tax-exempt organiza-
tions, and 1545-0092 for trust and estate
filers.
The final regulations reference the
DOE’s process for applicants to request
an emissions value from the DOE that can
then be used to file a petition with the Sec-
retary for a PER determination as detailed
in proposed §1.45V-4. The petition made
to IRS will be performed by attaching the
emissions value obtained from the DOE to
the filing of Form 7210, Clean Hydrogen
Production Credit. The burden for these
requirements is included within the Form
and Instructions for 7210. Form 7210 was
approved by OMB, in accordance with 5
CFR 1320.10, under the following OMB
Control Numbers: 1545-0074 for indi-
viduals, 1545-0123 for businesses, 1545-
0047 for tax-exempt organizations, and
1545-2321 for trust and estate filers.
The final regulations mention the col-
lection of information associated with
the process for taxpayers to request an
emissions value from the DOE, which is
reflected in the Treasury Department and
IRS’s Paperwork Reduction Act Supple-
mental NPRM dated April 11, 2024 (89
FR 29551), relating to such process. The
OMB approved the DOE’s Submission
related to the DOE’s emissions value
request process on September 27, 2024,
under Control Number 1910-5208. These
final regulations are not creating or chang-
ing any of the collection requirements
approved by OMB under Control Number
1910-5208.
The final regulations include report-
ing requirements that taxpayers claiming
the section 45V credit provide a verifi-
cation report with their annual Federal
income tax return or information return

March 24, 2025 1352 Bulletin No. 2025–13
for each taxable year in which they claim
the section 45V credit as detailed in pro-
posed §1.45V-5. The final regulations also
include a third-party disclosure require-
ment that a verification report must be
certified by an unrelated third party. The
verification report must contain an attes-
tation regarding the taxpayer’s production
of qualified clean hydrogen for sale or
use, the amount of qualified clean hydro-
gen sold or used by the taxpayer, conflicts
of interest, the verifier’s qualifications,
and documentation necessary to substan-
tiate the verification process. The tax-
payer must submit the verification report
to the IRS by attaching it to Form 7210,
or any successor form(s). The burden for
these requirements is included within the
Form and Instructions for Form 7210.
Form 7210 was approved by OMB, in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, under
the following OMB Control Numbers:
1545-0074 for individuals, 1545-0123
for businesses, 1545-0047 for tax-exempt
organizations, and 1545-2321 for trust and
estate filers.
The final regulations include reporting,
third-party disclosure, and recordkeep-
ing requirements that taxpayers making
the election under section 48(a)(15) to
claim the energy credit under section 48
with respect to a specified clean hydrogen
production facility. The reporting require-
ment is that taxpayers submit an annual
verification report with their Federal
income tax return or information return
for the year in which they claim the sec-
tion 48 credit. The third-party disclosure
requirement is that the annual verification
report must be certified by an unrelated
third-party. The annual verification report
must contain an attestation regarding the
taxpayer’s production of qualified clean
hydrogen for sale or use during the taxable
year, the amount of such qualified clean
hydrogen sold or used by the taxpayer,
conflicts of interest, the verifier’s qual-
ifications, the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of the hydrogen that the specified
clean hydrogen production facility pro-
duced, and documentation necessary to
substantiate the verification process. The
final regulations also include a require-
ment that the taxpayer obtain and retain
an annual verification report for each
taxable year of the recapture period. The
taxpayer must obtain the annual verifica-
tion report by the return filing due date
(including extensions) for the taxable year
to which the annual verification report
relates. The annual verification report for
the taxable year in which the section 48(a)
(15) election is made will be attached to
Form 3468, Investment Credit. The annual
verification report for each taxable year of
the recapture period will be retained by
the taxpayer for at least six years after the
due date (including extensions) for filing
the Federal income tax return or informa-
tion return for the year to which the report
relates. The burden for these requirements
is included within the Form and Instruc-
tions for Form 3468. The revisions to
Form 3468 have been approved by OMB,
in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, under
the following OMB Control Numbers:
1545-0074 for individuals, 1545-0123
for businesses, 1545-0047 for tax-exempt
organizations, and 1545-0155 for trust and
estate filers.
No public comments were received by
the IRS directed specifically at the PRA
or on the collection requirements, but
comments generally articulated the bur-
dens associated with the documentation
requirements in the proposed regulations.
As described in the relevant portions of
this preamble, the Treasury Department
and the IRS have determined that the doc-
umentation requirements are necessary to
administer the provisions of sections 45V
and 48(a)(15).
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes certain
requirements with respect to Federal rules
that are subject to the notice and comment
requirements of section 553(b) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.) and that are likely to have a
significant economic impact on a sub-
stantial number of small entities. Unless
an agency determines that a proposal is
not likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 603 of the RFA requires
the agency to present a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) of the final
regulations. The Treasury Department and
the IRS have not determined whether the
final regulations will likely have a signif-
icant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This determina-
tion requires further study. Because there
is a possibility of significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, a FRFA is provided in these final
regulations.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the
Code, the proposed regulations were
submitted to the Chief Counsel of the
Office of Advocacy of the Small Busi-
ness Administration (SBA) for comment
on their impact on small business, and no
comments were received.
A. Need for and Objectives of the Rule
The final regulations provide guidance
to taxpayers intending to claim the section
45V credit for the production of qualified
clean hydrogen or make the election under
section 48(a)(15) to treat qualified prop-
erty that is part of a specified clean hydro-
gen production facility as energy property
and claim the section 48 credit. The final
regulations provide needed guidance for
taxpayers on use of the 45VH2-GREET
model to determine the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate resulting from the hydro-
gen production process, procedures for
petitioning the Secretary for a PER deter-
mination, requirements for the verification
of the production and sale or use of the
hydrogen, requirements for modifications
to an existing hydrogen production facil-
ity, and procedures for making the elec-
tion under section 48(a)(15).
B. Affected Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to provide
a description of, and if feasible, an esti-
mate of, the number of small entities that
may be affected by the proposed rules, if
adopted. The SBA’s Office of Advocacy
estimates in its 2023 Frequently Asked
Questions that 99.9 percent of American
businesses meet the definition of a small
business. The applicability of these final
regulations does not depend on the size of
the business, as defined by the SBA.
As described more fully in the Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions to this final regulation and in
this FRFA, sections 45V and 48(a)(15)
and these final regulations may affect
a variety of different businesses across
several different industries. Because

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1353 March 24, 2025
the potential credit claimants can vary
widely, it is difficult to estimate at this
time the impact of these final regulations,
if any, on small businesses. Although
there is uncertainty as to the exact num-
ber of small businesses within this group,
the current estimated number of respon-
dents to these final regulations is between
400 and 600 taxpayers. Based on further
analysis of announced clean hydrogen
projects and the number of projects eli-
gible for the section 45V credit that have
registered for elective pay or transfer-
ability in the IRS Energy Credits Online
portal, the estimated number of entities
claiming the section 45V credit has been
revised from the 800 to 1,000 taxpayers
estimated in the Special Analyses section
of the proposed regulations. This revi-
sion is not based on any changes made
between the proposed regulations and the
final regulations.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
expect to receive more information on the
impact on small businesses when taxpay-
ers start using the guidance and proce-
dures provided in these final regulations to
claim the section 45V credit, or the section
48 credit with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility.
C. Impact of the Rules
The final regulations provide rules for
how taxpayers can claim the section 45V
credit, or the section 48 credit with respect
to a specified clean hydrogen production
facility. Taxpayers that claim the section
45V credit, or the section 48 credit with
respect to a specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility, will have administrative
costs related to reading and understand-
ing the rules as well as recordkeeping
and reporting requirements because of
the verification and Federal income tax
return or information return requirements.
The costs will vary across different-sized
entities and across the type of project(s) in
which such entities are engaged.
To claim a section 45V credit, a tax-
payer must determine the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate for all hydrogen produced
at a qualified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility during the taxable year. If
the hydrogen production technology or
feedstock used by the taxpayer to pro-
duce hydrogen is addressed in 45VH2-
GREET, the taxpayer must use 45VH2-
GREET to determine the emissions rate
for the hydrogen produced during that
taxable year at the qualified clean hydro-
gen production facility. If the hydrogen
production technology or feedstock used
by the taxpayer to produce hydrogen is
not included in 45VH2-GREET, the tax-
payer must petition the Secretary for a
provisional emissions rate (PER). As part
of the process for a taxpayer to petition
for a PER, a taxpayer must submit an
application to the DOE for an emissions
value that it may use to claim the section
45V credit.
In addition to determining the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate for hydrogen pro-
duced by the taxpayer at a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility during the
taxable year, before claiming the section
45V credit, a taxpayer must submit a ver-
ification report, certified by an unrelated
third party, attesting to the taxpayer’s
production of qualified clean hydrogen
for sale or use, the amount of qualified
clean hydrogen sold or used by the tax-
payer, conflicts of interest, the verifier’s
qualifications, and documentation neces-
sary to substantiate the verification pro-
cess. The process for claiming the section
48 credit with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility requires a
taxpayer to submit an annual verification
report with its Federal income tax return
or information return for the taxable year
in which it claims the section 48 credit,
as well as to obtain an annual verification
report for the five taxable years follow-
ing the taxable year in which the section
48(a)(15) election is made. Additionally,
the taxpayer would need to retain records
sufficient to establish compliance with
these proposed regulations for as long as
may be relevant.
Although the Treasury Department
and the IRS do not have sufficient data
to determine precisely the likely extent
of the increased costs of compliance, the
estimated burden of complying with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements
are described in the PRA section of the
Special Analyses to these final regulations.
D. Alternatives Considered
The Treasury Department and the IRS
considered alternatives to these final reg-
ulations. These final regulations were
designed to minimize burdens for tax-
payers while ensuring that the statutory
requirements of sections 45V and 48(a)
(15) are met. For example, in providing
rules related to the information required
to be submitted to claim the section
45V credit, or the section 48 credit with
respect to a specified hydrogen produc-
tion facility, the Treasury Department
and the IRS considered whether the pro-
duction and sale or use of the hydrogen
could be verified by an unrelated party
without requiring the unrelated party to
possess certain qualifications or conflict
of interest characteristics. Such an option
would, however, increase the opportunity
for fraud or abuse under section 45V or
section 48. Section 45V(f) specifically
authorizes the IRS to promulgate regu-
lations or other guidance providing for
requirements for recordkeeping or infor-
mation reporting for purposes of admin-
istering the requirements of section 45V.
As described in the preamble to these
final regulations, these final rules carry
out that Congressional intent as the ver-
ification requirements allow the IRS to
verify the taxpayer’s entitlement to the
section 45V credit.
Additionally, the Treasury Department
and the IRS considered whether to require
taxpayers to submit an annual verifica-
tion report with their Federal income tax
returns or information returns claiming the
section 45V credit. Section 45V requires
the taxpayer to obtain an annual verifica-
tion report, and the Treasury Department
and the IRS determined that requiring the
taxpayer to attach such a report to their
Federal income tax return or information
return is the most efficient way of ensur-
ing the completion and accuracy of the
report.
Additionally, the Treasury Department
and the IRS considered allowing taxpay-
ers to treat the section 45V credit as deter-
mined in the taxable year of hydrogen
production or verification. However, such
an option would create administrability
issues and potentially a mismatch between
the taxable year in which the hydrogen is
produced and the taxable year in which
the section 45V credit for such produc-
tion is claimed. Thus, the final regulations
would require the credit to be determined
in the taxable year of production.

March 24, 2025 1354 Bulletin No. 2025–13
E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or
Conflicting Federal Rules
The final regulations do not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any relevant Fed-
eral rules. As discussed above, the final
regulations merely provide procedures
and definitions to allow taxpayers to claim
the section 45V credit, or the section 48
credit with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS invite input
from interested members of the public
on identifying and avoiding overlapping,
duplicative, or conflicting requirements.
IV. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies
assess anticipated costs and benefits and
take certain other actions before issuing a
final rule that includes any Federal man-
date that may result in expenditures in
any one year by a State, local, or Tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million (updated
annually for inflation). These final regula-
tions do not include any Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures by State,
local, or Tribal governments, or by the pri-
vate sector in excess of that threshold.
V. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
prohibits an agency from publishing any
rule that has federalism implications if
the rule either imposes substantial, direct
compliance costs on State and local gov-
ernments, and is not required by statute,
or preempts State law, unless the agency
meets the consultation and funding
requirements of section 6 of the Executive
order. These final regulations do not have
federalism implications and do not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments or preempt
State law within the meaning of the Exec-
utive order.
VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal gov-
ernments) prohibits an agency from pub-
lishing any rule that has Tribal implica-
tions if the rule either imposes substantial,
direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal
governments, and is not required by stat-
ute, or preempts Tribal law, unless the
agency meets the consultation and fund-
ing requirements of section 5 of the Exec-
utive order. This final rule does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
federally recognized Indian tribes and
does not impose substantial direct compli-
ance costs on Indian Tribal governments
within the meaning of the Executive order.
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule meets the criteria
set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VIII. Immediate Effective Date
These final regulations have an effec-
tive date of January 10, 2025. To the
extent that a good cause statement is nec-
essary, the Treasury Department and the
IRS find that there would be good cause to
make this rule immediately effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Section 45V was added to the Code by
the IRA, and generally is applicable for
facilities placed in service after Decem-
ber 31, 2022. The provision provides
a new tax credit for the production of
clean hydrogen produced by a taxpayer
at a qualified clean hydrogen production
facility during the 10-year period begin-
ning on the date such facility is placed
in service. The credit amount is based on
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the
qualified clean hydrogen and is increased
for taxpayers satisfying prevailing wage
and apprenticeship requirements. The
IRA also amended section 48 to provide
for an election to treat qualified property
which is part of a specified clean hydro-
gen production facility as energy prop-
erty for purposes of claiming the section
48 investment tax credit in lieu of the
section 45V credit.
Following the enactment of section
45V, many stakeholders and members of
Congress expressed the need for prompt
guidance on section 45V, in particular to
provide investment certainty given that
the credit became effective shortly after
enactment and expires for facilities begin-
ning construction after December 31,
2032. After publication of the proposed
regulations in December 2023, the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS received
more than 30,000 comments, reflecting
the high level of interest in the provision
and the continued expression of a need
for certainty. In addition, hydrogen pro-
duction facilities are capital intensive and
require significant lead time to address
financial, regulatory, and other issues
before such facilities can begin construc-
tion. At the time of publication of these
final regulations, more than two years have
passed from the date that section 45V was
enacted. For facilities that were placed in
service prior to publication of these final
regulations, delaying the effective date of
these final regulations would only further
delay or hinder their ability to realize the
full benefit of the credit. In addition, tax-
payers already have been provided notice
of the general contents of the rules in the
proposed regulations and their proposed
applicability to taxable years beginning
after December 26, 2023, the date of
publication of the proposed regulations.
Furthermore, taxpayers have been able to
rely on the proposed regulations for tax-
able years beginning after December 31,
2022, until the date of publication of these
final regulations. For these reasons, the
Treasury Department and the IRS have
determined that an immediate effective
date of the final regulations is appropriate
to provide certainty to taxpayers and that
delaying action on the provisions would
disserve taxpayers.
Consistent with Executive Order
14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad,” (86 FR 7619, January
27, 2021), letters from Members of Con-
gress urging expeditious publication of
final regulations, and comments’ request
for finalized rules, the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS have determined that
an expedited effective date of the final
regulations is appropriate here to provide
certainty to taxpayers considering invest-
ments to build qualified clean hydrogen
production facilities before eligibility for
the provisions expires. The final regula-
tions provide needed rules on what the law
requires for taxpayers to begin job-gen-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1355 March 24, 2025
erating construction of capital-intensive
projects qualifying for section 45V cred-
its. Accordingly, the rules in this Treasury
decision will take effect on the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
Statement of Availability of IRS
Documents
Guidance cited in this preamble is pub-
lished in the Internal Revenue Bulletin
and is available from the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Publish-
ing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by
visiting the IRS website at https://www.
irs.gov.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of these final
regulations are James Rider, Courtney
Hutson, Alan Tilley, and Glenn Kats,
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel
(Passthroughs and Special Industries),
IRS. However, other personnel from the
Treasury Department and the IRS partic-
ipated in their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and record-
keeping requirements
Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, the Treasury Department
and the IRS amend 26 CFR part 1 as fol-
lows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 is amended by adding entries in
numerical order for §§1.45V-1, 1.45V-2,
1.45V-4 through 1.45V-6, and 1.48-15 to
read in part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
* * * * *
Section 1.45V-1 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 45V(c)(1)(B) and 45V(f).
Section 1.45V-2 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 45V(c)(1)(B) and 45V(f).
* * * * *
Section 1.45V-4 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 45V(c)(1)(B) and 45V(f).
Section 1.45V-5 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 45V(c)(1)(B) and 45V(f).
Section 1.45V-6 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 45V(c)(1)(B) and 45V(f).
* * * * *
Section 1.48-15 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 48(a)(15)
* * * * *
Par. 2 Section 1.45V-0 through 1.45V-6
are added to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
1.45V-0 Table of contents.
1.45V-1 Credit for production of quali-
fied clean hydrogen.
1.45V-2 Special rules.
1.45V-4 Procedures for determining the
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rates
for qualified clean hydrogen.
1.45V-5 Procedures for verification of
qualified clean hydrogen production
and sale or use.
1.45V-6 Rules for determining the
placed in service date for an existing
facility that is modified to produce qual-
ified clean hydrogen.
* * * * *
§1.45V-0 Table of contents.
This section lists the captions con-
tained in §§1.45V-1, 1.45V-2, and 1.45V-4
through 1.45V-6.
§1.45V-1 Credit for production of clean
hydrogen.
(a) Overview.
(b) Amount of credit.
(c) Determination of credit.
(d) Applicability date.
§1.45V-2 Special rules.
(a) Coordination with credit for carbon
oxide sequestration.
(b) Anti-abuse rule.
(c) Recordkeeping.
(d) Applicability date.
§1.45V-4 Procedures for determining
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rates
for qualified clean hydrogen.
(a) Overview.
(b) Use of the 45VH2-GREET Model.
(c) Provisional emissions rate (PER).
(d) Use of energy attribute certificates
(EACs).
(e) Carbon capture and sequestration.
(f) Use of methane from certain sources to
produce hydrogen.
(g) Applicability date.
§1.45V-5 Procedures for verification of
qualified clean hydrogen production
and sale or use.
(a) In general.
(b) Requirements for verification reports.
(c) Requirements for the production attes-
tation.
(d) Requirements for the sale or use attes-
tation.
(e) Requirements for the conflict attesta-
tion.
(f) Requirements for the qualified verifier
statement.
(g) General information on the taxpayer’s
hydrogen production facility.
(h) Qualified verifier.
(i) Unrelated party.
(j) Requirements for taxpayers claiming
both the section 45V credit and the section
45 credit or the section 45U credit.
(k) Timely verification report.
(l) Applicability date.
§1.45V-6 Rules for determining the
placed-in-service date for an existing
facility that is modified or retrofitted to
produce qualified clean hydrogen.
(a) Modification of an existing facility.
(b) Retrofit of an existing facility (80/20
Rule).
(c) Examples.
(d) Applicability date.
§1.45V-1 Credit for production of clean
hydrogen.
(a) Overview—(1) In general. For pur-
poses of section 38 of the Internal Reve-
nue Code (Code), the clean hydrogen pro-
duction credit is determined under section
45V of the Code, so much of sections 6417
and 6418 of the Code that relate to section
45V, and the section 45V regulations (as
defined in paragraph (a)(17) of this sec-
tion). Paragraphs (a)(2) through (17) of
this section provide generally applicable

March 24, 2025 1356 Bulletin No. 2025–13
definitions of terms that, unless otherwise
provided, apply for purposes of section
45V, the section 45V regulations, and any
provision of the Code or this chapter that
expressly refers to any provision of sec-
tion 45V or the section 45V regulations.
Paragraph (b) of this section provides
rules for determining the amount of the
section 45V credit for any taxable year,
which generally depends on the kilograms
of qualified clean hydrogen produced
during the taxable year and the emissions
intensity of the process used to produce
such hydrogen, as well as whether certain
requirements, including the requirements
under §1.45V-3, are satisfied. Paragraph
(c) of this section provides rules regard-
ing the taxable year for which a section
45V credit is determined. See §1.45V-2
for special rules, including rules to coordi-
nate the section 45V credit with the credit
for carbon oxide sequestration determined
under section 45Q of the Code, an anti-
abuse rule, and recordkeeping require-
ments. See §1.45V-3 for rules relating to
the increased credit amount for satisfying
the prevailing wage and apprenticeship
requirements. See §1.45V-4 for proce-
dures to determine lifecycle greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions rates for qualified
clean hydrogen and §1.45V-5 for proce-
dures for verification of qualified clean
hydrogen production and sale or use. See
§1.45V-6 for rules to determine the placed
in service date for an existing facility that
is modified or retrofitted to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen. See also §1.48-15 for
procedures to elect to treat any qualified
property that is part of a specified clean
hydrogen production facility as energy
property for purposes of section 48 of the
Code.
(2) Applicable amount—(i) In general.
The term applicable amount means the
amount equal to the applicable percentage
of $0.60, provided that if any such amount
is not a multiple of 0.1 cent, such amount
is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.1
cent.
(ii) Inflation adjustment. The $0.60
amount specified in section 45V(b)(1)
and paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is
adjusted annually by multiplying such
amount by the inflation adjustment fac-
tor (as determined under section 45(e)
(2) of the Code, determined by substitut-
ing “2022” for “1992” in section 45(e)
(2)(B)) for the calendar year in which the
qualified clean hydrogen is produced, pro-
vided that if any such amount as adjusted
is not a multiple of 0.1 cent, such amount
is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.1
cent.
(3) Applicable percentage. The term
applicable percentage means the per-
centage set forth in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section, which is deter-
mined according to the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of the process by which the
qualified clean hydrogen is produced:
(i) In the case of any qualified clean
hydrogen that is produced through a pro-
cess that results in a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of not greater than 4 kilograms
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per
kilogram of hydrogen, and not less than
2.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen, the applicable percentage is 20
percent.
(ii) In the case of any qualified clean
hydrogen that is produced through a pro-
cess that results in a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of less than 2.5 kilograms of
CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, and not
less than 1.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilo-
gram of hydrogen, the applicable percent-
age is 25 percent.
(iii) In the case of any qualified clean
hydrogen that is produced through a pro-
cess that results in a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of less than 1.5 kilograms of
CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, and not
less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e per kilo-
gram of hydrogen, the applicable percent-
age is 33.4 percent.
(iv) In the case of any qualified clean
hydrogen that is produced through a pro-
cess that results in a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of less than 0.45 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, the
applicable percentage is 100 percent.
(4) Claim. With respect to the sec-
tion 45V credit determined for qualified
clean hydrogen produced by the taxpayer
at a qualified clean hydrogen production
facility, the term claim means the filing
of a completed Form 7210, Clean Hydro-
gen Production Credit, or any succes-
sor form(s), with the taxpayer’s Federal
income tax return or annual information
return for the taxable year in which the
credit is determined, and includes the
making of an election under section 6417
or 6418 and the regulations in this chapter
under section 6417 or 6418, as applicable,
with respect to such section 45V credit on
the applicable entity’s or eligible taxpay-
er’s timely filed (including extensions)
Federal income tax return or annual infor-
mation return.
(5) Code. The term Code means the
Internal Revenue Code.
(6) DOE. The term DOE means the
U.S. Department of Energy.
(7) Facility—(i) In general. For pur-
poses of the definition of qualified clean
hydrogen production facility provided at
section 45V(c)(3) and paragraph (a)(14)
of this section, unless otherwise specified,
the term facility means a single production
line that is used to produce qualified clean
hydrogen. For this purpose, a single pro-
duction line includes all components of
property that function interdependently to
produce qualified clean hydrogen through
a process that results in the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate used to determine the credit.
Components of property function inter-
dependently to produce qualified clean
hydrogen if the placing in service of each
component is dependent upon the placing
in service of each of the other components
to produce qualified clean hydrogen. A
facility includes carbon capture equipment
if such carbon capture equipment contrib-
utes to the lifecycle GHG emissions rate
of the process by which the qualified clean
hydrogen for which the credit is deter-
mined is produced.
(ii) Treatment of certain indirect pro-
duction and post-production equipment.
The term facility does not include—
(A) Equipment that is used to condition
or transport hydrogen beyond the point of
production; or
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)
(7)(iii) of this section, feedstock-related
equipment, including production, purifica-
tion, recovery, transportation, or transmis-
sion equipment; or electricity production
equipment used to power the hydrogen
production process, including any carbon
capture equipment associated with the
electricity production process.
(iii) Multipurpose components. Com-
ponents that have a purpose in addition to
the production of qualified clean hydrogen
may be part of a facility if such compo-
nents function interdependently with other
components to produce qualified clean
hydrogen.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1357 March 24, 2025
(iv) Example. The following example
illustrates the definition of facility pro-
vided in this paragraph (a)(7).
(A) Facts. Taxpayer owns a hydrogen pro-
duction facility that is equipped with carbon cap-
ture equipment (as defined in §1.45Q-2(c)), as
distinguished from the carbon capture equipment
described in paragraph (a)(7)(ii)(B) of this section.
One purpose of this equipment is the capture of car-
bon oxides. The facility produces hydrogen through
a process that results in a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e per kilo-
gram of hydrogen. Without the carbon capture
equipment, the facility could not produce hydrogen
through a process that results in a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e
per kilogram of hydrogen. Taxpayer determines the
section 45V credit using a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e per kilo-
gram of hydrogen.
(B) Analysis. Because the carbon capture equip-
ment is functionally interdependent with other
components of property to produce qualified clean
hydrogen through a process that results in the life-
cycle GHG emissions rate that Taxpayer uses to
determine the credit, the carbon capture equipment
is part of the facility for purposes of section 45V(c)
(3) and the section 45V regulations, along with all
other components of property that function interde-
pendently with the carbon capture equipment to pro-
duce such hydrogen.
(8) Hydrogen gas stream. The term
hydrogen gas stream means a flow of
gases that includes hydrogen, either alone
or with one or more other gases.
(9) Lifecycle GHG emissions—(i) In
general. Subject to section 45V(c)(1)(B)
and paragraphs (a)(9)(ii) through(iv) of
this section, and unless otherwise specified
in the section 45V regulations, the term
lifecycle GHG emissions has the meaning
given the term lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions by 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(H), as
in effect on August 16, 2022. For purposes
of section 45V, lifecycle GHG emissions
include emissions only through the point
of production (well-to-gate), as deter-
mined under the 45VH2-GREET Model.
(ii) 45VH2-GREET Model. Unless oth-
erwise specified in the section 45V reg-
ulations, for purposes of the section 45V
credit, the term 45VH2-GREET Model
means the latest publicly available version
of 45VH2-GREET developed by Argonne
National Laboratory and published by
the DOE, as provided in the instructions
to the latest version of Form 7210, Clean
Hydrogen Production Credit, or any suc-
cessor form(s), on the first day of the tax-
able year during which the qualified clean
hydrogen for which the taxpayer is claim-
ing the section 45V credit was produced.
If a version of 45VH2-GREET becomes
publicly available after the first day of the
taxable year of production (but still within
such taxable year), then the taxpayer may,
in its discretion, treat such later version of
45VH2-GREET as the 45VH2-GREET
Model.
(iii) Emissions through the point of
production (well-to-gate). The term
emissions through the point of production
(well-to-gate) means the aggregate life-
cycle GHG emissions related to hydro-
gen produced at a hydrogen production
facility during the taxable year through
the point of production. It includes emis-
sions associated with growth, gathering,
extraction, processing, and delivery of
feedstocks to a hydrogen production
facility. It also includes the emissions
associated with the hydrogen production
process, inclusive of the production of a
mixed gas or impurity, and the electricity
used by the hydrogen production facility
and any capture and sequestration of car-
bon dioxide generated by the hydrogen
production facility. Examples of emis-
sions outside of the well-to-gate bound-
ary generally include, but are not limited
to, emissions from the liquefaction, stor-
age, or transport of hydrogen.
(iv) Certain emissions related to purifi-
cation treated as through point of produc-
tion. If the taxpayer knows or has reason
to know the purification of a hydrogen gas
stream (that is, removal of a mixed gas or
impurity) is necessary for a hydrogen gas
stream to be productively used, or to be
sold for productive use, any lifecycle GHG
emissions relating to such purification (for
example, emissions from electricity used
in purification, or carbon dioxide that is
separated from a hydrogen gas stream and
then vented as part of purification) are
treated as emissions through the point of
production (well-to-gate). Additionally,
if the taxpayer knows or has reason to
know that a hydrogen gas stream contains
less than 99 percent hydrogen and will be
combusted without purification, any life-
cycle GHG emissions relating to the puri-
fication needed to purify the hydrogen gas
stream to contain 99 percent hydrogen are
treated as emissions through the point of
production (well-to-gate).
(v) Example. The following example
illustrates the rule of paragraph (a)(9)(iv)
of this section.
(A) Facts. Taxpayer is a C corporation that has a
calendar year taxable year. In 2025, Taxpayer places
Facility in service in the United States. Facility’s
hydrogen production process produces a hydrogen
gas stream containing mixed gases or impurities, and
the stream is subsequently sold to Customer without
removing the mixed gases or impurities. Taxpayer
knows or has reason to know that the purity of the
hydrogen gas stream is materially different from
what the Customer requires for productive use, and
Customer will need to remove the mixed gases or
impurities in order for the hydrogen gas stream to be
productively used. Because Taxpayer refrains from
removing the mixed gases or impurities at the hydro-
gen production facility, 45VH2-GREET reflects a
lower lifecycle GHG emissions rate for the hydro-
gen production process than it would have reflected
had the mixed gases or impurities been removed at
Facility.
(B) Analysis. The Taxpayer has not accurately
reflected well-to-gate emissions in 45VH2-GREET
because the emissions associated with purification
that was necessary for productive use have not been
reflected. All lifecycle GHG emissions relating to
the purification of the hydrogen gas stream to be
productively used are emissions through the point
of production (well-to-gate) and therefore must be
taken into account as part of the emissions within the
well-to-gate boundary.
(10) Mixed gas or impurity. The term
mixed gas or impurity means a non-hy-
drogen gas that is part of a hydrogen gas
stream.
(11) Process. The term process means
the operations conducted by a facility to
produce hydrogen (for example, elec-
trolysis or steam methane reforming)
during a taxable year using a primary
feedstock. The term primary feedstock
means a hydrogen-containing chemical
that is transformed to produce hydrogen
at a hydrogen production facility and has
uniform or similar attributes distinguished
by the source from which it is derived, if
such source materially affects the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions associated with use of
the chemical to produce hydrogen.
(12) Productive use. The term produc-
tive use means, with respect to a hydrogen
gas stream, a consumption of the hydro-
gen gas stream in a manner that generates
positive economic value, which is deter-
mined without regard to the availability
of the section 45V credit. The term pro-
ductive use means, with respect to quali-
fied clean hydrogen, a consumption of the
qualified clean hydrogen in a manner that
generates positive economic value, which
is determined without regard to the avail-
ability of the section 45V credit.
(13) Qualified clean hydrogen—(i) In
general. The term qualified clean hydro-

March 24, 2025 1358 Bulletin No. 2025–13
gen means hydrogen that is produced
through a process that results in a life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of not greater
than 4 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen. Such term does not include any
hydrogen unless the production and sale
or use of such hydrogen is verified by an
unrelated party in accordance with, and
satisfying the requirements of, §1.45V-5,
and such hydrogen is produced—
(A) In the United States (as defined in
section 638(1) of the Code) or a U.S. ter-
ritory, which, for purposes of section 45V
and the section 45V regulations, has the
meaning of the term possession provided
in section 638(2) of the Code;
(B) In the ordinary course of a trade or
business of the taxpayer; and
(C) For sale or use.
(ii) For sale or use. The term for sale
or use means for the primary purpose of
making ready and available for sale or
use. Storage of hydrogen following pro-
duction does not disqualify such hydrogen
from being considered produced for sale
or use.
(14) Qualified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility. The term qualified clean
hydrogen production facility means a
facility—
(i) Owned by the taxpayer;
(ii) That produces qualified clean
hydrogen; and
(iii) The construction of which begins
before January 1, 2033.
(15) Secretary. The term Secretary
means the Secretary of the Treasury or her
delegate.
(16) Section 45V credit. The term sec-
tion 45V credit means the credit for pro-
duction of clean hydrogen determined
under section 45V of the Code, so much
of sections 6417 and 6418 of the Code that
relate to section 45V, and the section 45V
regulations.
(17) Section 45V regulations. The term
section 45V regulations means this sec-
tion, §§1.45V-2 through 1.45V-6, and the
regulations in this chapter under sections
6417 and 6418 of the Code that relate to
the section 45V credit.
(b) Amount of credit—(1) In general.
The amount of the section 45V credit
determined under section 45V(a) and
the section 45V regulations for any tax-
able year is the product of the kilograms
of qualified clean hydrogen produced by
the taxpayer during such taxable year at a
qualified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity during the 10-year period beginning
on the date such facility was originally
placed in service, multiplied by the appli-
cable amount with respect to each process
used to produce such hydrogen.
(2) Producer of qualified clean hydro-
gen. For purposes of section 45V(a)(1)
and paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the
term taxpayer means the taxpayer that
owns the qualified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility at the time of the facili-
ty’s production of hydrogen for which the
section 45V credit is claimed, regardless
of whether such taxpayer is treated as a
producer under section 263A of the Code
or under any other provision of law with
respect to such hydrogen.
(3) Increased credit amount for quali-
fied clean hydrogen production facilities.
Pursuant to section 45V(e)(1), §1.45V-3
provides rules that permit the amount of
the section 45V credit determined under
section 45V(a) and paragraph (b)(1) of
this section to be multiplied by five if cer-
tain prevailing wages and apprenticeship
requirements are met. See §1.45V-3(a).
(c) Determination of credit. Subject to
any applicable sections of the Code that
may limit the section 45V credit amount,
the section 45V credit for any taxable
year of a taxpayer who produces qualified
clean hydrogen and claims such credit is
determined with respect to the qualified
clean hydrogen produced by the taxpayer
during that taxable year, regardless of
whether the verification of the production
and sale or use of that hydrogen occurs in
a later taxable year. Although the section
45V credit is determined with respect to
the taxable year in which the qualified
clean hydrogen is produced, a taxpayer is
not eligible to claim the section 45V credit
with respect to the production of that
hydrogen until all relevant verification
requirements, and the verification itself,
have been completed for both the produc-
tion of the hydrogen and the sale or use of
that hydrogen. Accordingly, although the
sale or use of the hydrogen and the ver-
ification thereof may occur in a taxable
year after the taxable year of production,
the section 45V credit is properly claimed
with respect to the taxable year of produc-
tion and is subject to the general period
of limitations for filing a claim for credit
or refund under section 6511(a) and other
applicable provisions of the Code.
(d) Applicability date. This section
applies to taxable years beginning after
December 26, 2023.
§1.45V-2 Special rules.
(a) Coordination with credit for carbon
oxide sequestration. In the case of any
qualified clean hydrogen produced at a
qualified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity that includes carbon capture equipment
for which a credit is allowed to any tax-
payer under section 45Q of the Code (sec-
tion 45Q credit) for the taxable year or any
prior taxable year, no section 45V credit
is allowed under section 45V of the Code.
However, if the 80/20 Rule provided in
§1.45Q-2(g)(5) is satisfied with respect
to such carbon capture equipment, and no
new section 45Q credit has been allowed
to any taxpayer for such carbon capture
equipment, then the unit of carbon capture
equipment (as defined in §1.45Q-2(c)(3))
for which the 80/20 Rule is satisfied will
not be treated as carbon capture equip-
ment for which a section 45Q credit was
allowed to any taxpayer for any prior tax-
able year for purposes of section 45V(d)
(2) and this paragraph (a).
(b) Anti-abuse rule—(1) In general.
The rules of section 45V of the Code (and
so much of sections 6417 and 6418 of the
Code related to the section 45V credit) and
the section 45V regulations (as defined
in §1.45V-1(a)(17)) must be applied in
a manner consistent with the purposes
of section 45V and the section 45V reg-
ulations. A purpose of section 45V is to
provide taxpayers an incentive to produce
qualified clean hydrogen for a productive
use. Accordingly, the section 45V credit is
not allowable if the primary purpose of the
sale or use of qualified clean hydrogen is to
obtain the benefit of the section 45V credit
in a manner that is wasteful, such as when
a taxpayer claims the section 45V credit
for qualified clean hydrogen that the tax-
payer knows or has reason to know will, in
excess of standard commercial practices,
be vented, flared, used to produce heat or
power that is then directly used to produce
hydrogen, or otherwise used to produce
hydrogen. For example, venting or flaring
for safety or maintenance reasons in the
ordinary course of business is a non-abu-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1359 March 24, 2025
sive commercial industry practice. While
not abusive, such venting or flaring is also
not a verifiable use under §1.45V-5(d)(2)
(ii), and therefore any such hydrogen that
is vented or flared for safety reasons is
not eligible for the section 45V credit. A
determination of whether the sale or use
of qualified clean hydrogen is inconsistent
with the purposes of section 45V is based
on all relevant facts and circumstances.
(2) Example. The following example
illustrates the application of paragraph (b)
(1).
(i) Example 1—(A) Facts. Taxpayer is a C corpo-
ration that has a calendar year taxable year. In 2031,
Taxpayer places Facility in service in the United
States. Facility produces qualified clean hydrogen
that qualifies for the highest applicable amount of the
section 45V credit at a production cost of $2 per kilo-
gram of hydrogen (assuming Taxpayer also claims
the increased credit under section 45V(e), excluding
any future inflation adjustment, the amount of the
section 45V credit would be $3 per kilogram of qual-
ified clean hydrogen). The cost of producing each
kilogram of qualified clean hydrogen is less than
the amount of the section 45V credit that would be
available if Taxpayer qualified for the section 45V
credit. In 2031, Taxpayer sells all the qualified clean
hydrogen produced at Facility that year to Customer
at a price that is well below the current market price.
Taxpayer knows or reasonably expects that Cus-
tomer will vent or flare the qualified clean hydrogen
it purchased from Taxpayer, in excess of standard
commercial practices. In addition, Taxpayer intends
to obtain the benefit of the section 45V credit by
claiming such credit itself or monetizing such credit
through an election under section 6417 or 6418 of
the Code.
(B) Analysis. Based on all the facts and circum-
stances, the primary purpose of Taxpayer’s sale of
qualified clean hydrogen is to obtain the benefit of
the section 45V credit in a manner that is wasteful.
Taxpayer is not eligible for the section 45V credit
with respect to the qualified clean hydrogen that Tax-
payer produced and sold in 2031 to Customer that is
subsequently vented or flared by Customer.
(c) Recordkeeping. Consistent with
section 6001 of the Code, a taxpayer
claiming the section 45V credit for qual-
ified clean hydrogen produced at a qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
must maintain and preserve records suffi-
cient to establish the amount of the sec-
tion 45V credit claimed by the taxpayer.
At a minimum, those records must include
records to substantiate the information
required to be included in the verification
report under §1.45V-5, records establish-
ing that the facility meets the definition
of a qualified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility under section 45V(c)(3) and
§1.45V-1(a)(14), records of past credit
claims under section 45Q by any taxpayer
with respect to carbon capture equipment
included at the facility, and records estab-
lishing the date the qualified clean hydro-
gen production facility was placed in
service. If the requirements under section
45V(e) and §1.45V-3(b) for the increased
credit amount were satisfied, then the tax-
payer must also maintain records in accor-
dance with §1.45-12. Taxpayers must also
retain all raw data used for submission
of a request for an emissions value to the
DOE for at least six years after the due
date (including extensions) for filing the
Federal income tax return or information
return to which the provisional emissions
rate (PER) (as defined in §1.45V-4(c)(1))
petition is ultimately attached.
(d) Applicability date. This section
applies to taxable years beginning after
December 26, 2023.
§1.45V-4 Procedures for determining
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rates
for qualified clean hydrogen.
(a) Overview—(1) In general. Except
as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, the amount of the section 45V
credit is determined under section 45V(a)
of the Code and §1.45V-1(b) according to
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of each
hydrogen production process conducted
at a hydrogen production facility during
the taxable year. The lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of each process is determined
under the 45VH2-GREET Model. In the
case of any hydrogen production pathway,
as described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section, for which a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate has not been determined under
the 45VH2-GREET Model for purposes
of section 45V, a taxpayer producing
hydrogen via such a pathway may file a
petition for a provisional emissions rate
(PER) with the IRS for the Secretary’s
determination of the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate with respect to such hydrogen.
(2) Lifecycle GHG emissions rate of
hourly electricity consumption. In the case
of a facility’s use of electricity generated
on or after January 1, 2030, for which the
taxpayer acquires and retires a qualifying
EAC (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(vii)
of this section) that represents electricity
that is generated in the same hour (Coordi-
nated Universal Time (UTC)) that the tax-
payer’s process uses electricity to produce
hydrogen, the taxpayer may determine the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
the use of such electricity by the taxpay-
er’s process during such hour using the
attributes of such qualifying EAC rather
than using an annual average of the life-
cycle GHG emissions associated with the
use of electricity in the taxpayer’s pro-
cess. If a taxpayer determines the lifecycle
GHG emissions associated with the use of
electricity on an hourly basis in the man-
ner provided in this paragraph (a)(2), such
taxpayer must determine the lifecycle
GHG emissions associated with the use of
electricity on an hourly basis for the entire
taxable year. In the case of hydrogen pro-
duced at a facility using electricity for
which the taxpayer does not acquire and
retire qualifying EACs that represent elec-
tricity that is generated in the same hour
that the taxpayer’s hydrogen production
facility uses electricity to produce hydro-
gen on or after January 1, 2030, the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate of such hydrogen
is determined using the regional annual
average emissions rate of such electric-
ity usage as reflected in 45VH2-GREET.
The taxpayer may determine the lifecycle
GHG emissions associated with the use of
electricity on an hourly basis only if the
annual average lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of the hydrogen production process
during the taxable year is not greater than
4 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) per kilogram of hydrogen for all
hydrogen produced pursuant to that pro-
cess during the taxable year.
(3) Examples. The following examples
illustrate the application of paragraphs (a)
(1) and (2) of this section.
(i) Example 1: Annual emissions accounting—
(A) Facts. Taxpayer, which files its Federal income
tax return based on the calendar year, owns a hydro-
gen production facility, Facility, that constantly pro-
duces hydrogen through electrolysis during all 24
hours of each day of taxable year 2031. Facility’s
only inputs are water and electricity. For the first 23
of the 24 hours of each day of 2031, Facility acquires
and retires qualifying EACs that represent electricity
that is generated in the same hour that the taxpayer’s
hydrogen production facility uses electricity to pro-
duce hydrogen. The qualifying EACs reflect electric-
ity from wind power, a uniform source of zero-emis-
sion electricity depicted in 45VH2-GREET. During
the last hour of each day in 2031, Facility sources
electricity from a regional grid. During taxable
year 2031, Taxpayer produces 2,402,145.12 kilo-
grams of a hydrogen gas stream (an annual total of
2,302,055.74 kilograms produced during the first

March 24, 2025 1360 Bulletin No. 2025–13
23 hours of each day, and 100,089.38 kilograms
produced during the remaining one hour of each
day). To produce such a stream, Facility consumes
132,000 MWh of electricity. Of the 132,000 MWh of
electricity consumed, 126,500 MWh of the electric-
ity is from wind power, and 5,500 MWh of the elec-
tricity is from the regional electricity grid. On aver-
age, of the 2,402,145.12 kilograms produced, 99.99
percent by mol is pure hydrogen and 0.01 percent is
water vapor (this translates to 99.9107 percent pure
hydrogen and 0.0893 percent water vapor by mass).
Thus, Facility produced an annual total of 2,400,000
kilograms of pure hydrogen by mass. In 2031, the
Facility produces 10,000,000 kilograms of oxygen
co-product. The pressure at which Facility produces
the hydrogen gas stream is 300 psi.
(B) Analysis. To determine the annual average
lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the process by
which the 2,400,000 kilograms of pure hydrogen
were produced in 2031, Taxpayer must account
for the total amount of electricity consumed by
Facility in taxable year 2031 (132,000 MWh), the
annual average share of electricity that is from
each source depicted in 45VH2-GREET (95.8333
percent wind power, 4.1667 percent regional elec-
tricity grid), the total amount of hydrogen gas
stream produced in that year (2,402,145.12 kilo-
grams), the average share of mixed gases in the
hydrogen gas stream over the year (99.99 percent
hydrogen by mol, 0.01 percent water by mol), the
total amount of oxygen co-product produced in
that year (10,000,000 kilograms); and the pressure
at which the hydrogen gas stream is produced (300
psi). Assuming that, using these inputs, 45VH2-
GREET reflects that the average annual lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of the process by which the
2,400,000 kilograms of hydrogen were produced
in 2031 not greater than 4 kilograms of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen, then the hydrogen produced
by Facility in 2031 is qualified clean hydrogen.
Further, assuming that, using these inputs, 45VH2-
GREET reflects that Facility produces hydrogen
through a process that results in an annual life-
cycle GHG emissions rate of less than 2.5 but
not less 1.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen, the applicable percentage under section
45V(b)(2) is 25 percent. Accordingly, assuming
all other requirements to claim the section 45V
credit are met, and assuming prevailing wage
and apprenticeship requirements under section
45V(e) are met, Taxpayer may claim the section
45V credit for the 2,400,000 kilograms of quali-
fied clean hydrogen in the amount of $1,800,000
(2,400,000 kilograms of qualified clean hydrogen
produced by Taxpayer at Facility during taxable
year 2031 multiplied by $0.75 with respect to such
hydrogen) (unadjusted for inflation).
(ii) Example 2: Hourly emissions accounting—
(A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph
(a)(3)(i)(A) of this section (Example 1), except that
Taxpayer opts to determine the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of electricity used to produce hydrogen on
an hourly basis pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(B) Analysis. To determine whether Taxpayer
is eligible to use hourly accounting, Taxpayer must
first complete an analysis on an annual basis, as
described in Example 1. Assuming that the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate associated with pure hydro-
gen production at Facility during the taxable year is
not greater than 4 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram
of hydrogen, Taxpayer is eligible to use hourly
accounting. To determine the hourly lifecycle GHG
emissions rate, Taxpayer must first determine the
average share of mixed gases in the hydrogen gas
stream over taxable year 2031 (99.99 percent hydro-
gen by mol, 0.01 percent water vapor by mol) and
the average amount of oxygen co-product produced
for every kilogram of hydrogen gas stream pro-
duced in taxable year 2031 (10,000,000 kilograms
of oxygen divided by 2,402,145.12 kilograms of
hydrogen gas stream equals 4.163 kilograms of
oxygen per kilogram of hydrogen gas stream).
Then, for each hour, Taxpayer must account for
the following inputs in 45VH2-GREET: the total
kilograms of hydrogen gas stream produced in
that hour, the product of the annual average oxy-
gen co-product rate (4.163 kilograms of oxygen
co-product per kilogram of hydrogen gas stream)
and the total kilograms of hydrogen gas stream pro-
duced in that hour, the average impurity content of
the hydrogen gas stream produced in that hour, the
total amount of electricity consumed in that hour,
and the source of the electricity used in that hour,
as depicted in 45VH2-GREET (for example, wind
power, regional electricity grid). Assuming that,
using these inputs, 45VH2-GREET reflects that
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the process by
which the hydrogen was produced in each hour of
the first 23 hours of each day in taxable year 2031
is less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen, then for purposes of section 45V(b)(2),
the applicable percentage for such hydrogen pro-
duced in each hour of the first 23 hours of each day
of taxable year 2031 is 100 percent. For the hydro-
gen produced during the last hour of each day of
taxable year 2031, assuming that 45VH2-GREET
reflects that the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the
process exceeded 4 kilograms of CO2e per kilo-
gram of hydrogen, the applicable percentage for
such hydrogen is zero percent (that is, the hydrogen
produced is not qualified clean hydrogen). Assum-
ing all other requirements of section 45V are met,
including the prevailing wage and apprenticeship
requirements of section 45V(e), Taxpayer is entitled
to a section 45V credit equal to $3 (not adjusted for
inflation) per kilogram of qualified clean hydrogen
produced in the first 23 hours of each day of taxable
year 2031 and no credit for the hydrogen produced
in the last hour of each day of taxable year 2031.
As described in Example 1, in taxable year 2031,
Taxpayer produced 2,400,000 kilograms of pure
hydrogen by mass at a constant rate. Accordingly,
during the first 23 hours of each day of taxable year
2031, Taxpayer produced 2,300,000 kilograms of
pure hydrogen. Taxpayer may therefore claim a sec-
tion 45V credit of $6,900,000 (2,300,000 kilograms
of qualified clean hydrogen produced by Taxpayer
during the first 23 hours of each day of taxable year
2031 at Facility multiplied by $3 with respect to
such hydrogen).
(b) Use of the 45VH2-GREET
Model—(1) In general. For each taxable
year during the period described in sec-
tion 45V(a)(1), a taxpayer claiming the
section 45V credit determines the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate of each hydro-
gen production process conducted at a
hydrogen production facility under the
45VH2-GREET Model separately for
each process. This determination is made
following the close of each such taxable
year and, subject to paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, must include all of a pro-
cess’s hydrogen production during the
taxable year. In using the 45VH2-GREET
Model to calculate the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate for purposes of determin-
ing the amount of the section 45V credit
under section 45V(a) and §1.45V-1(b),
the taxpayer must accurately enter all
information about its facility requested
within the interface of 45VH2-GREET
(as described in §1.45V-1(a)(9)(ii)).
Information regarding where taxpayers
may access 45VH2-GREET and accom-
panying documentation will be included
in the instructions to the Form 7210,
Clean Hydrogen Production Credit, or
any successor form(s).
(2) Beginning of construction safe har-
bor—(i) In general. A taxpayer may, in its
discretion, make an irrevocable election
effective for the remaining taxable years
within the period described in section
45V(a)(1), to treat the latest version of
45VH2-GREET that was publicly avail-
able on the date when construction of the
qualified clean hydrogen facility began as
the 45VH2-GREET Model. In the case of
a facility owned by the taxpayer that began
construction prior to December 26, 2023,
such taxpayer may, in its discretion, make
an irrevocable election effective for the
remaining taxable years within the period
described in section 45V(a)(1), to treat the
first publicly-available version of 45VH2-
GREET (that is, the version of 45VH2-
GREET released in December 2023) as
the 45VH2-GREET Model. For purposes
of this paragraph (b)(2), in the case of a
facility that is modified to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen under section 45V(d)
(4) and §1.45V-6(a), or a facility that is
retrofitted in a manner that entitles the
facility to a new placed in service date
under §1.45V-6(b), the date when con-
struction of the facility began is the date
when construction of such modification
or retrofit began. An election under this
paragraph (b)(2)(i) relates to the version
of 45VH2-GREET and does not alter any

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1361 March 24, 2025
other rules provided in this section and in
§§1.45V-1, -2, -3, -5, and -6.
(ii) Time and manner of making elec-
tion. The taxpayer makes the election
described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section with respect to a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility’s hydrogen
production process on Form 7210 or any
successor form(s). The taxpayer must
make the election by no later than the due
date for filing its Federal income tax return
or information return (including exten-
sions) for a taxable period ending no later
than December 31, 2025, or the due date
for filing its Federal income tax return or
information return (including extensions)
for the taxable period in which such facil-
ity is placed in service, whichever due
date is later.
(c) Provisional emissions rate (PER)—
(1) In general. For purposes of section
45V(c)(2)(C) and paragraph (a) of this
section, the term provisional emissions
rate or PER means the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of the hydrogen produced
through a process at a hydrogen produc-
tion facility as determined by the Secre-
tary under this paragraph (c).
(2) Rate not determined—(i) In gen-
eral. For purposes of section 45V(c)(2)
(C), a taxpayer may not file a petition
for a PER unless a lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate has not been determined under
the 45VH2-GREET Model with respect
to hydrogen produced through a process
by the taxpayer at a hydrogen produc-
tion facility. A lifecycle GHG emissions
rate has not been determined under the
45VH2-GREET Model with respect to
hydrogen produced through a process
by the taxpayer at a hydrogen produc-
tion facility if either the feedstock used
in such process or the facility’s hydrogen
production technology, together referred
to as the facility’s “hydrogen production
pathway,” is not included in the 45VH2-
GREET Model. If a taxpayer’s request
for an emissions value pursuant to para-
graph (c)(5) of this section with respect
to the hydrogen produced through a pro-
cess by the taxpayer at a hydrogen pro-
duction facility is pending at the time
such facility’s hydrogen production
pathway becomes included in an updated
version of 45VH2-GREET, the taxpay-
er’s request for an emissions value will
be automatically denied. In such case,
the taxpayer must determine the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate with respect to
such hydrogen under paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
of this section.
(ii) Subsequent inclusion in 45VH2-
GREET. Notwithstanding the definition
of the 45VH2-GREET Model provided
at §1.45V-1(a)(9)(ii), for the taxable
year in which the hydrogen production
facility’s hydrogen production pathway
is first included in an updated version of
45VH2-GREET, the updated version of
45VH2-GREET will be considered the
45VH2-GREET Model with respect to
the hydrogen produced through a process
by the taxpayer at the hydrogen produc-
tion facility during such taxable year, and
for purposes of section 45V(c)(2)(C), a
lifecycle GHG emissions rate for such
hydrogen will be considered to have been
determined.
(3) Process for filing a PER petition. To
file a PER petition with the Secretary, a tax-
payer must submit a PER petition attached
to the taxpayer’s Federal income tax
return (or information return) for the first
taxable year of hydrogen production end-
ing within the 10-year period described in
section 45V(a)(1) for which the taxpayer
claims the section 45V credit for hydro-
gen to which the PER petition relates and
for which a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
has not been determined, as defined under
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. A PER
petition must contain the letter received
from the DOE stating the emissions value
the DOE determined with respect to the
facility’s hydrogen production pathway,
and the control number the DOE assigned
to the emissions value request application.
If the taxpayer obtained more than one
emissions value from the DOE, the PER
petition must contain the emissions value
setting forth the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of the hydrogen for which the section
45V credit is claimed on the Form 7210,
Clean Hydrogen Production Credit, or
any successor form(s), to which the PER
petition is attached.
(4) PER determination. Upon the tax-
payer’s filing of its Federal income tax
return (or information return) containing
a PER petition in a manner consistent with
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the emis-
sions value of the hydrogen determined
by the DOE will be deemed accepted.
The taxpayer may rely upon an emissions
value provided by the DOE for purposes
of calculating and claiming a section 45V
credit, provided that any information,
representations, or other data provided to
the DOE in support of the request for an
emissions value are accurate. The IRS’s
deemed acceptance of such emissions
value is the Secretary’s determination
of the PER. However, the production,
including the data the taxpayer submitted
in the PER petition and the data provided
to the DOE in support of the taxpayer’s
request for an emissions value, and sale
or use of such hydrogen must be veri-
fied by an unrelated party under section
45V(c)(2)(B)(ii) and §1.45V-5. Such ver-
ification and any information, representa-
tions, or other data provided to the DOE
in support of the request for an emissions
value are subject to later examination by
the IRS.
(5) Department of Energy (DOE)
emissions value request process (EVRP).
An applicant that submits a request for
an emissions value must follow the pro-
cedures specified by the DOE to request
and obtain such emissions value. Emis-
sions values will be evaluated using the
same well-to-gate system boundary that
is employed in 45VH2-GREET. Addi-
tionally, background data parameters in
45VH2-GREET will also be treated as
background data (fixed values that an
applicant cannot change) in the emis-
sions value request process. Treatment
of qualifying EACs and other sources of
emissions addressed in the section 45V
regulations will be consistently applied
in the EVRP. An applicant may request
an emissions value from the DOE only
after a Class 3 front-end engineering and
design (FEED) study or similar indication
of project maturity, as determined by the
DOE, such as project specification and
cost estimation sufficient to inform a final
investment decision, has been completed
for the hydrogen production facility. The
DOE may decline to review applications
that are not responsive, including those
applications that use a hydrogen produc-
tion technology and feedstock already in
45VH2-GREET or applications that are
incomplete. Applicants seeking a new
emissions value for a given hydrogen
production facility after the DOE has
completed its analysis may reapply only
if they wish to resubmit their application

March 24, 2025 1362 Bulletin No. 2025–13
with new or revised technical information
or clarifications related to the informa-
tion previously submitted. Guidance and
procedures for applicants to request and
obtain an emissions value from the DOE
will be published by the DOE.
(6) Effect of PER—(i) In general. A
taxpayer may use a PER determined by
the Secretary to calculate the amount
of the section 45V credit under section
45V(a) and §1.45V-1(b) with respect to
qualified clean hydrogen produced at a
qualified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity, provided—
(A) The lifecycle GHG emissions rate
of such hydrogen has not been determined
(for purposes of section 45V(c)(2)(C))
under the 45VH2-GREET Model;
(B) There are no material changes
to the information about the taxpayer’s
hydrogen production process from the
information provided to the DOE to obtain
an emissions value pursuant to paragraph
(c)(5) of this section; and
(C) All other requirements of section
45V are met.
(ii) Material change. For purposes of
paragraph (c)(6)(i)(B) of this section,
a material change means any change
that would cause a qualified verifier (as
defined in §1.45V-5(h)) to be unable to
complete a production attestation under
section 45V(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Code and
§1.45V-5(c).
(iii) Subsequent inclusion safe har-
bor—(A) In general. The taxpayer may,
in its discretion, make an irrevocable elec-
tion, effective for the remaining taxable
years within the period described in sec-
tion 45V(a)(1), to treat the first version of
45VH2-GREET that includes the taxpay-
er’s qualified clean hydrogen production
facility’s hydrogen production pathway as
the 45VH2-GREET Model.
(B) Time and manner of making elec-
tion. The taxpayer makes the election
described in paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(A) of
this section with respect to a qualified
clean hydrogen production facility on
Form 7210 or any successor form(s).
The taxpayer must make the election by
no later than the due date for filing its
Federal income tax return or information
return (including extensions) for a tax-
able period ending no later than Decem-
ber 31, 2025, or the due date for filing its
Federal income tax return or information
return (including extensions) for the tax-
able period in which the taxpayer’s qual-
ified clean hydrogen production facility’s
hydrogen production pathway is first
included in 45VH2-GREET, whichever
due date is later.
(iv) Special rule for facilities that
receive an emissions value prior to the
beginning of construction. Notwithstand-
ing the requirement of paragraph (c)(6)
(i)(A) of this section, a taxpayer who
received an emissions value from the
DOE with respect to a qualified clean
hydrogen production facility (pursuant
to paragraph (c)(5) of this section) before
the date when construction of the facil-
ity began, may, in its discretion, use the
PER determined by the Secretary and
the associated emissions value to cal-
culate the amount of section 45V credit
with respect to qualified clean hydrogen
produced at the qualified clean hydrogen
production facility for the entirety of the
period described in section 45V(a)(1),
provided that the taxpayer continues to
satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (c)
(6)(i)(B) and (C) of this section.
(v) Not an examination of books and
records. The Secretary’s PER determina-
tion is not an examination or inspection of
books of account for purposes of section
7605(b) of the Code and does not preclude
or impede the IRS (under section 7605(b)
or any administrative provisions adopted
by the IRS) from later examining a return
or inspecting books or records with respect
to any taxable year for which the section
45V credit is claimed. For example, the
verification report submitted under sec-
tion 45V(c)(2)(B)(ii) and §1.45V-5 and
any information, representations, or other
data provided to the DOE in support of
the request for an emissions value are still
subject to examination. Further, a PER
determination does not signify that the
IRS has determined that the requirements
of section 45V have been satisfied for any
taxable year.
(d) Use of energy attribute certificates
(EACs)—(1) In general. For purposes
of the section 45V credit, if a taxpayer
determines a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate for hydrogen produced at a hydro-
gen production facility using the 45VH2-
GREET Model or the Secretary deter-
mines a PER for hydrogen produced at
a hydrogen production facility subject
to a PER petition, then the taxpayer may
treat such hydrogen production facil-
ity’s use of electricity as being from a
specific electricity generating facility
rather than as electricity with the annual
average lifecycle GHG emissions of the
regional electricity grid (as represented
in 45VH2-GREET) only if the taxpayer
acquires and retires qualifying EACs (as
defined in paragraph (d)(2)(vii) of this
section) for each unit of electricity that
the taxpayer claims from such source. For
example, one megawatt-hour of electric-
ity used to produce hydrogen would need
to be matched with one megawatt-hour
of qualifying EACs. Further, to satisfy
this requirement, a taxpayer’s acquisi-
tion and retirement of qualifying EACs
must also be recorded in a qualified EAC
registry or accounting system (as defined
in paragraph (d)(2)(viii) of this section)
so that the acquisition and retirement of
such EACs may be verified by a quali-
fied verifier (as defined in §1.45V-5(h)).
The requirements of this paragraph (d)(1)
apply regardless of whether the electric-
ity generating facility is grid connected,
directly connected, or co-located with the
hydrogen production facility.
(2) Definitions. For purposes of this
section—
(i) Commercial operations date. The
term commercial operations date or COD
means the date on which a facility that
generates electricity begins commercial
operations.
(ii) Energy attribute certificate. The
term energy attribute certificate (EAC)
means a tradeable contractual instru-
ment, issued through a qualified EAC
registry or accounting system (as defined
in paragraph (d)(2)(viii) of this section),
that represents the energy attributes of
a specific unit of energy produced. An
EAC may be traded with or separately
from the underlying energy it represents.
An EAC can be retired by or on behalf
of its owner, which is the party that has
the right to claim the underlying attri-
butes represented by an EAC. Renewable
energy certificates (RECs) and other sim-
ilar energy certificates issued through a
registry or accounting system are forms
of EACs.
(iii) Eligible EAC. The term eligible
EAC means an EAC that represents elec-
tricity that is produced by an electric-

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1363 March 24, 2025
ity generating facility that is registered
on only one qualified EAC registry or
accounting system and that, with respect
to the electricity to which the EAC relates,
provides, at a minimum, the information
described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iii)(A)
through (H) of this section—
(A) A description of the facility, includ-
ing the technology and feedstock used to
generate the electricity;
(B) The amount and units of electricity;
(C) The COD of the facility that gener-
ated the electricity;
(D) For electricity that is generated
before January 1, 2030, the calendar year
in which such electricity was generated;
(E) For electricity that is generated
after December 31, 2029, the date and
hour (including time zone, or in UTC) in
which such electricity was generated;
(F) Other attributes required by
45VH2-GREET or in the determination of
a PER to accurately determine the emis-
sions associated with such electricity;
(G) For electricity generating sources
that use carbon capture equipment, the
placed in service date of such equipment;
and
(H) The project identification number
or assigned identifier.
(iv) Qualifying electricity decarbon-
ization standard. A qualifying electricity
decarbonization standard is a standard
that—
(A) Contains a target that 100 percent
of the State’s retail sales of electricity from
obligated entities be supplied by renew-
able, non-emitting, zero-emitting, or min-
imal-emitting sources, where obligated
entities and eligible sources are defined
by State policy, or a target for GHG emis-
sions from the State’s electricity sector
that reflects an equivalent of such a retail
sales target, by 2050 or earlier;
(B) Applies to the large majority of eli-
gible electricity supplied to the state, as
determined by the State; and
(C) Includes policies that would
achieve the target, a requirement that the
state develop a plan to achieve the stan-
dard, or a requirement that entities subject
to the standard are required to develop
such a plan.
(v) Qualifying GHG cap program. A
qualifying GHG cap program is a legally
binding program that meets the following
minimum criteria—
(A) Creates a limitation (cap) on the
quantity of GHG emissions from the elec-
tricity sector (either alone or along with
other sectors) in a State through issuance
of a limited number of allowances or other
compliance instruments to covered enti-
ties for each compliance period;
(B) Includes annual obligations (even
if part of multi-year compliance periods)
under which an entity subject to the cap
must provide information about such
entity’s GHG emissions and for which an
entity must submit at least some compli-
ance instruments to the State’s regulatory
authority;
(C) Includes a cap on GHG emis-
sions from covered entities that generally
declines over time from the cap on GHG
emissions in effect in calendar year 2025
(or the first calendar year in which the cap
is in effect, if later), with adjustments as
appropriate for expansions in the scope of
the cap;
(D) Applies to the large majority of
in-state electricity sources of emissions
that emit greater than 25,000 metric tons
of CO2e in a calendar year;
(E) Applies to the large majority of out-
of-state electricity supplied to the State
and to emissions associated with those
imports, including emissions that arise
from entities that emit greater than 25,000
metric tons of CO2e in a calendar year;
(F) Generally ensures that the prices
of allowances sold in a state-run auction
cannot fall below $25 per metric ton of
CO2e, adjusted for inflation from 2025
dollars using at a minimum the most
recently available twelve-month value of
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), as published by the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS); and
(G) Generally ensures that the cap
on greenhouse gas emissions cannot be
exceeded for less than $90 per metric
ton of CO2e, adjusted for inflation from
2025 dollars using at a minimum the most
recently available twelve-month value of
the CPI-U, as published by the BLS.
(vi) Merchant nuclear reactor. The
term merchant nuclear reactor means a
nuclear reactor that competes in a com-
petitive electricity market through the sale
of energy and, in some cases, other ser-
vices and for which over 50 percent of the
reactor and its electricity production does
not receive cost recovery through rate reg-
ulation or public ownership with related
retail rate recovery.
(vii) Qualifying EAC. The term qual-
ifying EAC means an eligible EAC that
meets the requirements of paragraph (d)
(3) of this section and for which the sat-
isfaction of those requirements has been
verified by a qualified verifier (as defined
in §1.45V-5(h)).
(viii) Qualified EAC registry or
accounting system. The term qualified
EAC registry or accounting system means
a tracking system that—
(A) Assigns a unique identification
number to each EAC tracked by such sys-
tem;
(B) Enables verification that only one
EAC is associated with each unit of elec-
tricity;
(C) Verifies that each EAC is claimed
and retired only once;
(D) Identifies the owner of each EAC;
and
(E) Provides a publicly accessible view
(for example, through an application pro-
gramming interface) of all currently reg-
istered generators in the tracking system
to prevent the duplicative registration of
generators.
(ix) Region. The term region means
a Region that corresponds to a Balanc-
ing Authority, as identified in the fol-
lowing table. Alaska, Hawaii, and each
U.S. territory will be treated as separate
regions. Future versions of this table
may be provided as a safe harbor in
guidance published in the Internal Rev-
enue Bulletin.

March 24, 2025 1364 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Table 1 to paragraph (d)(2)(ix)
Balancing AuthorityRegion
Balancing Authority of Northern CaliforniaCalifornia
California Independent System Operator (Balancing Authority)California
Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia
Los Angeles Dept of Water & PowerCalifornia
Turlock Irrigation DistrictCalifornia
Midcontinent ISO (Balancing Authority): SouthDelta
Duke Energy Florida IncFlorida
Florida Municipal Power PoolFlorida
Florida Power & LightFlorida
Gainesville Regional UtilitiesFlorida
Homestead (City of)Florida
JEAFlorida
New Smyrna Beach Utilities CommissionFlorida
Reedy Creek Improvement DistrictFlorida
Seminole Electric Coop IncFlorida
Tallahassee FL (City of)Florida
Tampa Electric CoFlorida
East Kentucky Power Coop IncMid-Atlantic
LG&E & KU Services CoMid-Atlantic
Ohio Valley Electric CorpMid-Atlantic
PJM InterconnectionMid-Atlantic
Associated Electric Coop IncMidwest
Electric Energy IncMidwest
Gridliance HeartlandMidwest
Midcontinent ISO (Balancing Authority): North and CentralMidwest
NaturEner Power Watch LLC (GWA)Mountain
NaturEner Wind Watch LLCMountain
Nevada Power CoMountain
Northwestern EnergyMountain
PacifiCorp EastMountain
Public Service Co of ColoradoMountain
WAPA Rocky Mountain RegionMountain
WAPA Upper Great Plains WestMountain
New England ISO (Balancing Authority)New England
Northern MaineNew England
New York ISO (Balancing Authority)New York
Avangrid Renewables LCCNorthwest
Avista CorpNorthwest
Bonneville Power AdministrationNorthwest
Gridforce Energy Management LLCNorthwest
Idaho Power CoNorthwest
PacifiCorp WestNorthwest
Portland General ElectricNorthwest

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1365 March 24, 2025
Balancing AuthorityRegion
PUD No 1 of Chelan CountyNorthwest
PUD No 1 of Douglas CountyNorthwest
PUD No 2 of Grant CountyNorthwest
Puget Sound Energy IncNorthwest
Seattle City LightNorthwest
Tacoma PowerNorthwest
Southwest Power Pool (Balancing Authority)Plains
Southwestern Power AdministrationPlains
Alcoa Power Generating Inc Yadkin DivisionSoutheast
Duke Energy Carolinas LLCSoutheast
Duke Energy Progress EastSoutheast
Duke Energy Progress WestSoutheast
PowerSouth Energy CoopSoutheast
South Carolina Electric & Gas CoSoutheast
South Carolina Public Service AuthoritySoutheast
Southeastern Power Administration (Southern)Southeast
Southern Co Services IncSoutheast
Tennessee Valley AuthoritySoutheast
Arizona Public Service CoSouthwest
Arlington Valley LLCSouthwest
El Paso ElectricSouthwest
Gila River Power LLCSouthwest
Griffith Energy LLCSouthwest
New Harquahala Generating Co LLCSouthwest
Public Service Co of New MexicoSouthwest
Salt River ProjectSouthwest
Tucson Electric Power CoSouthwest
WAPA Desert Southwest RegionSouthwest
ERCOT ISO (Balancing Authority)Texas
(x) Qualifying nuclear reactor. The
term qualifying nuclear reactor means,
with respect to an EAC, a nuclear reac-
tor—
(A) That is a merchant nuclear reac-
tor, as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of
this section, or is a nuclear reactor that is
not co-located with any other operating
nuclear reactor,
(B) For which the average annual gross
receipts within the meaning of section
45U(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the reactor are less
than 4.375 cents per kilowatt hour, for any
two of the calendar years 2017 through
2021, as determined with respect to any
one owner of the reactor, and
(C) That either
(1) Has a physical electrical connec-
tion with the hydrogen production facility
which acquires and retires the EAC, which
is on the reactor’s side of a utility service
meter before the reactor or the hydrogen
production facility connect to a distribu-
tion or transmission system, or
(2) Is the subject of a written binding
contract, as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(xi)
of this section, for a fixed term of at least
10 years beginning on the first date on
which qualified EACs are acquired, under
which the owner of the hydrogen produc-
tion facility agrees to acquire and retire
EACs from the nuclear reactor, and which
manages the qualifying nuclear reactor’s
revenue risk.
(xi) Written binding contract. For pur-
poses of this paragraph (d)(2)(xi), a con-
tract is a written binding contract if it is
enforceable under state law against the
taxpayer or a predecessor and does not
limit damages to a specified amount (for
example, by use of a liquidated damages
provision). For this purpose, a contrac-
tual provision that limits damages to an
amount equal to at least five percent of the
total contract price will not be treated as
limiting damages to a specified amount.
For additional guidance regarding the
definition of a written binding contract,
see §1.168(k)-2(b)(5)(iii).
(xii) Qualifying State. The term quali-
fying State means a state which, as deter-

March 24, 2025 1366 Bulletin No. 2025–13
mined by the Secretary, has under its state
law or regulations a qualifying electricity
decarbonization standard as defined in
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section and a
qualifying GHG cap program as defined
in paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section.
For purposes of this rule, the District of
Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Common-
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
are treated as states.
(3) Qualifying EAC requirements.
An eligible EAC meets the requirements
of this paragraph (d)(3) if it meets the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) Incrementality. An EAC meets the
requirements of this paragraph (d)(3)(i) if
it meets the requirements of paragraph (d)
(3)(i)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of this section.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B)(4) of this section
provides an example that illustrates the
application of paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) of
this section.
(A) In general. An EAC meets the
requirements of this paragraph (d)(3)(i)
(A) if the electricity generating facility
that produced the unit of electricity to
which the EAC relates has a COD that is
no more than 36 months before the hydro-
gen production facility for which the EAC
is retired was placed in service, or, if the
electricity represented by the EAC is pro-
duced by an electricity generating facility
that uses carbon capture and sequestration
(CCS) technology, such technology has a
placed in service date that is no more than
36 months before the hydrogen produc-
tion facility for which the EAC is retired
was placed in service.
(B) Uprates—(1) In general. An EAC
meets the requirements of this paragraph
(d)(3)(i)(B) if the electricity represented
by the EAC is produced by an electricity
generating facility that had an uprate no
more than 36 months before the hydro-
gen production facility with respect to
which the EAC is retired was placed in
service and such electricity is part of
such electricity generating facility’s upra-
ted production. The term uprate means
an increase in an electricity generating
facility’s rated nameplate capacity (in
nameplate megawatts) or capacity mea-
sured by a standard other than nameplate
capacity (specified capacity) meeting the
requirements of the measurement stan-
dard described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B)
(3) of this section. The term pre-uprate
capacity means the nameplate capacity or
specified capacity of an electricity gener-
ating facility before an uprate. The term
post-uprate capacity means the nameplate
capacity or specified capacity of an elec-
tricity generating facility after an uprate.
The term incremental generation capacity
means the increase in an electricity gen-
erating facility’s rated nameplate capacity
or specified capacity from the pre-uprate
capacity to the post-uprate capacity. The
term uprated production rate means the
incremental generation capacity (in name-
plate megawatts) divided by the post-up-
rate capacity (in nameplate megawatts).
The term uprated production means the
uprated production rate of an electricity
generating facility multiplied by its total
generation output (in megawatt hours).
An electricity generating facility’s uprated
production must be prorated to each hour
of such facility’s generation by multiply-
ing the production for each hour or each
year, consistent with the requirements in
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, by the
uprated production rate to determine the
electricity to which the uprate relates.
(2) Special rule for restarted facilities.
For purposes of this paragraph (d)(3)(i)
(B), a facility that is decommissioned
or in the process of decommissioning
and restarts can be considered to have
increased nameplate or specified capacity
from a base of zero if the following condi-
tions are met:
(i) The existing facility must have
ceased operations;
(ii) The existing facility must have a
shutdown period of at least one calendar
year during which it was not authorized to
operate by its respective Federal regula-
tory authority (that is, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC));
(iii) The increased capacity of the
restarted facility must be eligible to restart
based on an operating license issued by
either FERC or NRC; and
(iv) The existing facility must not have
ceased operations for the purpose of qual-
ifying for the special rule for restarted
facilities.
(3) Measurement standard. For pur-
poses of paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this
section, taxpayers must use one of the fol-
lowing measurement standards described
in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii)
of this section to measure the capacity and
change in capacity of a facility, except
a taxpayer cannot use the measurement
standard described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)
(B)(3)(ii) of this section if the taxpayer
is able to use the measurement stan-
dard described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B)
(3)(i) of this section:
(i) Modified or amended facility oper-
ating licenses from FERC or NRC, or
related reports prepared by FERC or NRC
as part of the licensing process;
(ii) The International Standard Orga-
nization (ISO) conditions to measure the
nameplate capacity of the facility con-
sistent with the definition of nameplate
capacity provided in 40 CFR 96.202; or
(iii) A measurement standard pre-
scribed by the Secretary in guidance pub-
lished in the Internal Revenue Bulletin
(see §601.601 of this chapter).
(4) Example. The following example
illustrates the application of paragraph (d)
(3)(i)(B) of this section.
(i) Facts. Power Plant undergoes an uprate that
expands its rated nameplate capacity from a pre-up-
rate capacity of 10 megawatts (MW) to a post-uprate
capacity of 12 MW. After the uprate, its generation
output increases to a total of 40,000 megawatt hours
(MWh) for the year.
(ii) Analysis. Power Plant’s incremental gen-
eration capacity is 2 MW, its uprated production
rate is 0.167 (2 MW divided by 12 MW), and its
total uprated production for the year is 6,667 MWh
(2 MW divided by 12 MW multiplied by 40,000
MWh). Two-twelfths (0.167) of each hour of Power
Plant’s production may be considered uprated pro-
duction.
(C) Electricity produced in qualifying
States. An EAC meets the requirements of
this paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C) if the electric-
ity represented by the EAC is produced
by an electricity generating facility that is
located in a qualifying State, as defined in
paragraph (d)(2)(xii) of this section, and
the hydrogen production facility acquiring
and retiring such EAC is also located in a
qualifying State.
(D) Electricity produced by cer-
tain nuclear facilities—(1) In general.
An EAC meets the requirements of this
paragraph (d)(3)(i)(D) if the electricity
represented by the EAC is produced by
an electricity generating facility that is a
qualifying nuclear reactor, as defined in
paragraph (d)(2)(x).

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1367 March 24, 2025
(2) For purposes of paragraph (d)(3)(i)
of this section, only 200 megawatt hours
of electricity per operating hour per qual-
ifying nuclear reactor may be considered
incremental, except that, if a qualifying
nuclear reactor has integrated opera-
tions with one or more other qualifying
nuclear reactors, the amount of electric-
ity from those integrated reactors deemed
incremental shall instead be subject to an
aggregate limit of 200 megawatt hours per
operating hour multiplied by the number
of integrated nuclear reactors that have
not permanently ceased operations.
(3) A qualifying nuclear reactor is
treated as having integrated operations
with any other qualifying nuclear reactor
if the reactors—
(i) Are owned by the same or related
taxpayers; and
(ii) Transmit electricity generated by
the reactors through the same point of
interconnection or, if the reactors are not
grid-connected, or are delivering electric-
ity directly to an end user behind a util-
ity meter, are able to support the same
end user, or, if the reactors have multiple
points of interconnection, are co-located
with each another.
(4) For purposes of paragraph (d)(3)(i)
(D)(3)(i) of this section, the term related
taxpayers means members of a group of
trades or businesses that are under com-
mon control (as defined in §1.52-1(b)).
Related taxpayers are treated as one tax-
payer in determining whether a qualify-
ing nuclear reactor has integrated oper-
ations.
(5) In the case of a nuclear reactor
that satisfies the definition of a qualifying
nuclear reactor because it is the subject of
a written binding contract as provided in
paragraph (d)(2)(x)(C)(2) of this section,
the megawatt hours of electricity per hour
per qualifying nuclear reactor that may be
considered incremental are further limited
to those megawatt hours of electricity for
which the taxpayer acquires EACs from
the nuclear reactor pursuant to the written
binding contract.
(ii) Temporal matching—(A) In gen-
eral. An EAC meets the requirements of
this paragraph (d)(3)(ii) if the electricity
represented by the EAC is generated in
the same hour that the taxpayer’s hydro-
gen production facility uses electricity to
produce hydrogen.
(B) Transition rule. For EACs that rep-
resent electricity generated before January
1, 2030, the EAC will be considered gen-
erated in the same hour that the taxpayer’s
hydrogen production facility uses elec-
tricity to produce hydrogen as required in
paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section if
the electricity represented by the EAC is
generated in the same calendar year that
the taxpayer’s hydrogen production facil-
ity uses electricity to produce hydrogen.
(C) Use of energy storage. For pur-
poses of meeting the requirements of
paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section,
an EAC meets such requirements if the
electricity represented by the EAC is
discharged from a storage system in the
same hour that the taxpayer’s hydrogen
production facility uses electricity to pro-
duce hydrogen. The storage system must
be located in the same region as both the
hydrogen production facility and the facil-
ity generating the stored electricity. To use
the rule described in this paragraph (d)
(3)(ii)(C), the volume of electricity use
substantiated by each EAC representing
stored electricity must account for stor-
age-related efficiency losses. In addition,
to use the rule described in this paragraph
(d)(3)(ii)(C), EACs representing stored
electricity must comprehensively address
the storage of electricity by reflecting the
energy attributes of the electricity gen-
erating facility that provided electricity
to the storage facility, reflecting the tem-
poral attributes regarding when the elec-
tricity is discharged from energy storage,
and ensuring that paragraph (d)(2)(viii)
(C) of this section relating to verification
that each EAC is claimed and retired only
once applies to EACs representing stored
electricity.
(iii) Deliverability—(A) In general. An
EAC meets the requirements of this para-
graph (d)(3)(iii) if the electricity repre-
sented by the EAC is generated by a facil-
ity that is in the same region (as defined
in paragraph (d)(2)(ix) of this section) as
the hydrogen production facility. Whether
the electricity generating source and the
hydrogen production facility are located
in the same region is determined by the
balancing authority to which each is elec-
trically interconnected, not the geographic
location.
(B) Interregional delivery. For pur-
poses of meeting the requirements of
paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(A) of this section, an
EAC meets such requirements if the elec-
tricity generation represented by the EAC
has transmission rights from the generator
location to the region in which the hydro-
gen production facility is located and that
generation is delivered to (i.e., scheduled
and dispatched or settled in) such facili-
ty’s region. Such delivery must be demon-
strated on at least an hour-to-hour basis,
with no direct counterbalancing reverse
transactions, and must be verified with
NERC E-tags or the equivalent. In addi-
tion, to use the rule described in this para-
graph (d)(3)(iii)(B), the qualified EAC
registry or accounting system for each eli-
gible EAC representing delivered electric-
ity must track such delivery. Finally, to use
the rule described in this paragraph (d)(3)
(iii)(B), in the case of electricity imported
from Canada or Mexico, the electricity
generator must provide an attestation to
the hydrogen production facility for pur-
poses of the verification process described
in §1.45V-5 that the use or attributes of the
electricity represented by each EAC are
not being claimed for any other purpose.
(e) Carbon capture and sequestration.
For purposes of the section 45V credit, if
a taxpayer determines a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate for hydrogen produced at
a hydrogen production facility using the
45VH2-GREET Model or the Secretary
determines a PER for hydrogen produced
at a hydrogen production facility subject
to a PER petition, then carbon capture and
sequestration may be taken into account
only if the carbon capture occurs in the
production of qualified clean hydrogen
(for subsequent sequestration) or occurs
in the production of electricity, fuel, or
feedstock that is used by such facility to
produce hydrogen and is captured and
disposed of in secure geological storage,
pursuant to section 45Q(f)(2) and any reg-
ulations established thereunder, or utilized
in a manner described in section 45Q(f)(5)
and any regulations established thereun-
der. Such carbon capture and sequestration
that occurs in the production of qualified
clean hydrogen (rather than in the produc-
tion of electricity, fuel, or feedstock) may
only be taken into account if the carbon
capture equipment is part of the qualified
clean hydrogen production facility.
(f) Use of methane from certain sources
to produce hydrogen—(1) In general.

March 24, 2025 1368 Bulletin No. 2025–13
The requirements provided by this para-
graph (f) apply to a process (as defined
in §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that uses methane
derived from biogas, renewable natural
gas (RNG) derived from biogas, or fugi-
tive sources of methane.
(2) Definitions. The following defini-
tions apply for purposes of this paragraph
(f):
(i) Alternative fate. The term alterna-
tive fate means a set of informed assump-
tions (for example, production processes,
material outcomes, and market-mediated
effects) used to estimate the emissions
from the use or disposal of each feedstock
were it not for the feedstock’s new use due
to the implementation of policy (that is, to
produce hydrogen).
(ii) Biogas. The term biogas means gas
containing methane that results from the
decomposition of organic matter under
anaerobic conditions.
(iii) Coal mine methane. The term
coal mine methane means methane that
is stored within coal seams and is liber-
ated as a result of current or past mining
activities. Liberated coal mine methane
can be released intentionally by the mine
for safety purposes, such as through mine
degasification boreholes or underground
mine ventilation systems, or it may leak
out of the mine through vents, fissures, or
boreholes. The term coal mine methane
does not include methane removed from
virgin coal seams (for example, coal bed
methane).
(iv) Fugitive methane. The term fugi-
tive methane means methane released
from equipment leaks or venting during
the extraction, processing, transformation,
or delivery of fossil fuels and other gas-
eous fuels to the point of final use.
(v) Renewable natural gas. The term
renewable natural gas (RNG) means
biogas that has been upgraded to remove
water, CO2, and other impurities such that
it is interchangeable with fossil natural
gas.
(vi) Gas energy attribute certificate.
The term gas energy attribute certificate
(gas EAC) means a tradeable contractual
instrument, issued through and retired
within a qualified gas EAC registry or
accounting system (as defined in para-
graph (f)(2)(ix) of this section), that rep-
resents the attributes of a specific unit of
RNG or coal mine methane. A gas EAC
may be traded with or separately from
the underlying gas it represents. A gas
EAC can be retired by or on behalf of its
owner, which is the party that has the right
to claim the underlying attributes repre-
sented by a gas EAC.
(vii) Eligible gas EAC. The term eligi-
ble gas EAC means a gas EAC that rep-
resents the quantity of RNG or coal mine
methane that is produced by a producing
facility that is registered on only one qual-
ified gas EAC registry or accounting sys-
tem (as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ix) of
this section) and that, with respect to the
RNG or coal mine methane to which the
gas EAC relates, provides, at a minimum,
the following information:
(A) A description of the production
facility, including the technology or prac-
tice and feedstock used to produce RNG
or coal mine methane;
(B) The amount (and units) of RNG or
coal mine methane;
(C) The month and year in which the
RNG or coal mine methane is produced;
(D) The location at which the RNG or
coal mine methane is injected into a nat-
ural gas pipeline (or the location of the
production facility if directly used without
injection into a natural gas pipeline);
(E) The source or sources of the gas
that comprises the RNG or coal mine
methane associated with each certificate
as well as other attributes required by
45VH2-GREET, or in the determination
of a PER, to determine the emissions
associated with such RNG or coal mine
methane; and
(F) A project identification number or
assigned identifier.
(viii) Qualifying gas EAC. The term
qualifying gas EAC means an eligible
gas EAC that meets the requirements of
paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section and for
which the satisfaction of those require-
ments has been verified by a qualified ver-
ifier (as defined in §1.45V-5(h)).
(ix) Qualified gas EAC registry or
accounting system. The term qualified gas
EAC registry or accounting system means
an electronic tracking system that—
(A) Assigns a unique identification
number to each certificate associated with
RNG and coal mine methane tracked by
such system;
(B) Requires independent verification
of the source or sources of the gas that
comprises the RNG or coal mine meth-
ane and any other factual considerations
relevant to the lifecycle GHG emissions
assessment for purposes of section 45V
for tracking and verification purposes
(self-reported data without independent
verification are not allowed);
(C) Requires use of a revenue grade
meter, with production volumes reported
to the registry via an application program-
ming interface (API) or with independent
reporting to ensure accurate accounting
for production volumes (self-reported data
are not allowed);
(D) Enables verification that only one
certificate is associated with each unit of
RNG or coal mine methane;
(E) Verifies that each certificate is
claimed and retired only once;
(F) Identifies the owner of each certif-
icate and provides for documentation of
the chain-of-custody of any transfers of
certificates;
(G) Requires an attestation that a pro-
ducer has not registered the RNG or coal
mine methane with other registries;
(H) Provides a publicly accessible
view (for example, through an application
programming interface) of all currently
registered RNG or coal mine methane
production facilities in the tracking sys-
tem to prevent the duplicative registration
of such production facilities; and
(I) Requires verification of pipeline
interconnection, if applicable.
(3) Considerations regarding the life-
cycle greenhouse gas emissions asso-
ciated with the production of hydrogen
using methane from certain sources—(i)
In general. For purposes of determining
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of a
process (as defined §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that
uses methane derived from biogas, RNG,
or fugitive methane to produce hydrogen,
estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions
must consider all the direct and signifi-
cant indirect emissions from the hydro-
gen production process. Such determina-
tions must consider the alternative fates
of that methane, including avoided emis-
sions and alternative productive uses of
that methane; the risk that the availability
of tax credits creates incentives resulting
in the production of additional methane
or otherwise induces additional emis-
sions; and observable trends and antici-
pated changes in waste management and

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1369 March 24, 2025
disposal practices over time as they are
applicable to methane generation and
uses.
(ii) Methane from landfill sources.
For purposes of determining the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate of a process (as
defined §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that uses meth-
ane derived from landfill sources, the
alternative fate of such gas must be flar-
ing using an efficiency determined by
45VH2-GREET.
(iii) Methane from wastewater sources.
For purposes of determining the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate of a process (as
defined §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that uses meth-
ane derived from wastewater sources, the
alternative fate of such gas must assume
flaring and use the flaring efficiency and
other factors as determined by 45VH2-
GREET, including accounting for the pro-
portion of the gas typically used to heat
the anaerobic digester.
(iv) Coal mine methane. For purposes
of determining the lifecycle GHG emis-
sions rate of a process (as defined §1.45V-
1(a)(11)) that uses coal mine methane,
flaring of such gas must be used as the
alternative fate.
(v) Methane from animal waste. For
purposes of determining the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of a process (as
defined §1.45V-1(a)(11)) that uses meth-
ane derived from biogas sourced from ani-
mal waste, the emissions associated with
producing and transporting such biogas to
the point where it is fed into an upgrader
must use an alternative fate derived from
the national average of all animal waste
management practices, which results in
a carbon intensity score of -51 grams of
CO2e per megajoule (MJ), where the MJ
basis refers to the lower heating value of
the methane contained in the biogas prior
to upgrading.
(vi) Fugitive methane other than coal
mine methane. For purposes of determin-
ing the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of
a process (as defined §1.45V-1(a)(11))
that uses fugitive methane other than coal
mine methane, such as fugitive methane
from oil and gas operations, productive
use of such gas must be used as the alter-
native fate, which would result in emis-
sions equivalent to the carbon intensity of
using fossil natural gas.
(4) Use of gas EACs—(i) In general.
Subject to paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this sec-
tion, for purposes of the section 45V credit,
if a taxpayer determines a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate for hydrogen produced at
a hydrogen production facility using the
45VH2-GREET model or the Secretary
determines a PER for hydrogen produced
at a hydrogen production facility subject
to a PER petition, then the taxpayer may
treat such hydrogen production facility’s
use of RNG (as defined in paragraph (f)(2)
(v) of this section) or coal mine methane
(as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this
section) as being from a specific source of
such gas rather than fossil natural gas only
if the taxpayer acquires and retires quali-
fying gas EACs (as defined in paragraph
(f)(2)(viii) of this section) for each unit
of such gas that the taxpayer claims from
such source. To satisfy this requirement,
a taxpayer’s acquisition and retirement of
qualifying gas EACs must also be recorded
in a qualified gas EAC registry or account-
ing system (as defined in paragraph (f)(2)
(ix) of this section) so that the acquisition
and retirement of such gas EACs may be
verified by a qualified verifier (as defined
in §1.45V-5(h)). The requirements of
this paragraph (f)(4) apply regardless of
whether the source of the RNG or coal
mine methane is connected to a pipeline
network, directly connected to a hydrogen
production facility, or co-located with the
hydrogen production facility.
(ii) System readiness. Paragraph (f)(4)
(i) of this section applies only if the Secre-
tary determines that one or more electronic
tracking systems meet the definition of a
qualified gas EAC registry or accounting
system (as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ix)
of this section). The Secretary may make
this determination no earlier than January
1, 2027. Prior to the Secretary making a
determination described in this paragraph
(f)(4)(ii), a taxpayer using RNG or coal
mine methane in a hydrogen production
process must substantiate the use of such
gas by maintaining a direct pipeline con-
nection to a supplier of such gas or doc-
umentation of other physical methods
of exclusive delivery of such gas. Prior
to the Secretary making a determination
described in this paragraph (f)(4)(ii), a
taxpayer must ensure that attributes of
the RNG or coal mine methane used in a
hydrogen production process are not dou-
ble counted by obtaining attestations from
the RNG or coal mine methane producers
that there has been and will be no double
counting of such attributes. The taxpayer
must provide such attestations to the tax-
payer’s qualified verifier (as defined in
§1.45V-5(h)).
(iii) Qualifying gas EAC requirements.
An eligible gas EAC meets the require-
ments of this paragraph (f)(4)(iii) if it
meets the requirements of paragraphs (f)
(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Temporal matching. An eligible
gas EAC meets the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(4)(iii)(A) if the RNG or coal
mine methane represented by the eligi-
ble gas EAC was injected into a pipeline
described in paragraph (f)(4)(iii)(B) of
this section in the same calendar month
that the hydrogen production facility uses
the RNG or coal mine methane in the pro-
duction of hydrogen or, if the RNG or coal
mine methane represented by the eligible
gas EAC was delivered to the hydrogen
production facility from the RNG or coal
mine methane producer, through a direct
pipeline connection or other physical
method of exclusive delivery.
(B) Deliverability. An eligible gas
EAC meets the requirements of this para-
graph (f)(4)(iii)(B) if the RNG or coal
mine methane represented by the eligible
gas EAC is injected into a natural gas
pipeline in the contiguous United States
and the hydrogen production facility is
also located in and connected to a natu-
ral gas pipeline in the contiguous United
States. Alaska, Hawaii, and each U.S. ter-
ritory are separate regions, such that an
eligible gas EAC meets the requirements
of this paragraph (f)(4)(iii)(B) if the RNG
or coal mine methane represented by the
eligible gas EAC is injected into a natu-
ral gas pipeline in one of these regions
and the hydrogen production facility is
located in and connected to a natural gas
pipeline in the same region. An eligible
gas EAC also meets the requirements of
this paragraph (f)(4)(iii)(B) if the RNG
or coal mine methane represented by the
eligible gas EAC was delivered to the
hydrogen production facility from the
RNG or coal mine methane producer
through a direct pipeline connection or
other physical method of exclusive deliv-
ery.
(g) Applicability date. This section
applies to taxable years beginning after
December 26, 2023.

March 24, 2025 1370 Bulletin No. 2025–13
§1.45V-5 Procedures for verification of
qualified clean hydrogen production
and sale or use.
(a) In general. A verification report
must be attached to a taxpayer’s Form
7210, Clean Hydrogen Production Credit,
or any successor form(s), with the taxpay-
er’s Federal income tax return or infor-
mation return for each qualified clean
hydrogen production facility and for each
taxable year in which the taxpayer claims
the section 45V credit.
(b) Requirements for verification
reports. A verification report specified in
paragraph (a) of this section must be pre-
pared by a qualified verifier under penal-
ties of perjury and must contain—
(1) An attestation from the qualified
verifier regarding the taxpayer’s produc-
tion of qualified clean hydrogen for sale
or use, including an attestation that the
inputs used to determine the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of the hydrogen pro-
duction process are accurate (production
attestation);
(2) An attestation from the qualified
verifier regarding the amount of qualified
clean hydrogen sold or used (sale or use
attestation);
(3) An attestation from the qualified
verifier regarding conflicts of interest
(conflict attestation);
(4) Information regarding the qualified
verifier, including documentation of the
qualified verifier’s qualifications (quali-
fied verifier statement);
(5) Certain general information about
the taxpayer’s hydrogen production facil-
ity where the hydrogen production under-
going verification occurred;
(6) Any documentation necessary to
substantiate the verification process given
the standards and best practices prescribed
by the qualified verifier’s accrediting body
and the circumstances of the taxpayer and
the taxpayer’s hydrogen production facil-
ity; and
(7) Any other information required by
IRS forms or instructions.
(c) Requirements for the production
attestation. The following requirements
apply to the production attestation:
(1) The production attestation must be
an attestation, made under penalties of per-
jury, that the qualified verifier performed a
verification sufficient to determine that the
operation, during the applicable taxable
year, of the hydrogen production facility
that produced the hydrogen for which the
section 45V credit is claimed, any life-
cycle GHG emissions data inputs, and
any energy attribute certificates (EACs)
applied pursuant to §1.45V-4(d) for the
purpose of accounting for such facility’s
emissions, are accurately reflected with
reasonable assurance in—
(i) The amount of qualified clean
hydrogen produced by the taxpayer that is
claimed on the Form 7210, Clean Hydro-
gen Production Credit, or any successor
form(s), to which the verification report is
attached; and
(ii) Either—
(A) The data the taxpayer entered into
the 45VH2-GREET Model to determine
the lifecycle GHG emissions rate that is
claimed on the Form 7210, Clean Hydro-
gen Production Credit, or any successor
form(s), to which the verification report is
attached; or
(B) The data the taxpayer submitted
in the PER petition relating to the hydro-
gen for which the section 45V credit is
claimed, and the data provided to the DOE
in support of the taxpayer’s request for the
emissions value provided in the PER peti-
tion.
(2) If the production attestation attests
that qualifying EACs were acquired and
retired pursuant to §1.45V-4(d), then
the production attestation must confirm
that the electricity generator or genera-
tors associated with such EACs were not
registered on multiple qualifying EAC
registries, or, in the event such genera-
tors are registered on multiple qualifying
EAC registries, that each EAC undergo-
ing verification from each such generator
registered on multiple qualifying EAC
registries is being issued by only one qual-
ifying EAC registry.
(3) If the production attestation attests
to the information specified in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, then the pro-
duction attestation must also specify the
emissions value received from the DOE
that was calculated using such data,
expressed in kilograms of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) per kilogram of hydro-
gen.
(4) The production attestation must
specify the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate(s) (expressed in kilograms of CO2e
per kilogram of hydrogen) and the amount
of qualified clean hydrogen produced by
the taxpayer (expressed in kilograms),
that are claimed on the Form 7210, Clean
Hydrogen Production Credit, or any suc-
cessor form(s), to which the verification
report is attached.
(d) Requirements for the sale or use
attestation—(1) In general. The sale or
use attestation must be an attestation,
made under penalties of perjury, that the
qualified verifier performed a verification
sufficient to determine that the amount of
qualified clean hydrogen that is specified
in the production attestation pursuant to
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, and
that is claimed on the Form 7210, Clean
Hydrogen Production Credit, or any suc-
cessor form(s), to which the verification
report is attached, has been sold, or has
been used by a person who makes a verifi-
able use of such hydrogen.
(2) Verifiable use. For purposes of
section 45V(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Code and
the section 45V regulations (as defined
in §1.45V-1(a)(17)), a person’s verifiable
use of the hydrogen specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section can occur within or
outside the United States. A verifiable use
can be made by the taxpayer or a person
other than the taxpayer. For example, a
verifiable use includes a tolling arrange-
ment pursuant to which a service recipi-
ent provides raw materials or inputs, such
as water or electricity, to a toller (that is,
a third-party service provider that owns
a hydrogen production facility), and the
toller produces hydrogen for the service
recipient using the service recipient’s raw
materials or inputs in exchange for a fee.
In such a case, use of the hydrogen by the
service recipient would be a verifiable
use. However, a verifiable use does not
include—
(i) Use of hydrogen to generate heat
or power that is then directly used in the
production of more hydrogen (except
when such heat or power is derived from a
byproduct of hydrogen use); or
(ii) Venting or flaring of hydrogen.
(3) The following example illustrates
the application of paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(i) Example—(A) Facts. In 2025, Taxpayer
A produces 100 kilograms of hydrogen through
a process that results in an emissions rate of not
greater than four kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen produced. However, throughout the year,

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1371 March 24, 2025
Taxpayer A feeds two kilograms of the hydrogen
back into its facility’s process train to replace what
would otherwise be externally sourced energy inputs
directly supplying the hydrogen production process.
Taxpayer A also flares two kilograms of the hydro-
gen for testing and maintenance purposes. Taxpayer
A puts 96 kilograms of the hydrogen to use in a sep-
arate facility that produces fertilizer. Additionally,
Taxpayer A recovers waste heat from the fertilizer
production process to generate electricity used to
power both facilities.
(B) Analysis. Taxpayer A has made a verifiable
use of 96 kilograms of qualified clean hydrogen and
may claim the section 45V credit for that amount,
assuming all other requirements for claiming the
section 45V credit are met. The two kilograms of
hydrogen that are flared have not been verifiably
used, and therefore Taxpayer A may not determine
the section 45V credit with respect to such two kilo-
grams of hydrogen. The two kilograms of hydrogen
that are directly supplied back into the hydrogen
process have also not been verifiably used because
the hydrogen is being consumed to produce heat or
power that will then directly be used to produce more
hydrogen. Consumption of hydrogen in this manner
(to generate heat or power that is then directly used
to produce hydrogen) is not a verifiable use under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(e) Requirements for the conflict
attestation. The conflict attestation must
include attestations, made under penalties
of perjury, that—
(1) The qualified verifier has not
received a fee based to any extent on the
value of any section 45V credit that has
been or is expected to be claimed by any
taxpayer and no arrangement has been
made for such fee to be paid at some time
in the future;
(2) The qualified verifier has not been a
party to any transaction in which the tax-
payer sold qualified clean hydrogen it had
produced or in which the taxpayer pur-
chased inputs for the production of such
hydrogen;
(3) The qualified verifier is not related,
within the meaning of section 267(b) or
707(b)(1) of the Code, to, or an employee
of, the taxpayer;
(4) The qualified verifier is not married
to an individual described in paragraph (e)
(3) of this section; and
(5) If the qualified verifier is acting
in his or her capacity as a partner in a
partnership, an employee of any person,
whether an individual, corporation, or
partnership, or an independent contractor
engaged by a person other than the tax-
payer, the attestations under paragraphs
(e)(1) through (4) of this section must also
be made with respect to the partnership or
the person who employs or engages the
qualified verifier.
(f) Requirements for the qualified veri-
fier statement. The qualified verifier state-
ment must include the following—
(1) The qualified verifier’s name,
address, and taxpayer identification num-
ber;
(2) The qualified verifier’s qualifica-
tions to conduct the verification, includ-
ing a description of the qualified verifier’s
education and experience and a photo-
copy of the qualified verifier’s certificate
received from their accrediting body;
(3) If the qualified verifier is acting in
his or her capacity as a partner in a partner-
ship, an employee of any person, whether
an individual, corporation, or partnership,
or an independent contractor engaged by a
person other than the taxpayer, the name,
address, and taxpayer identification num-
ber of the partnership or the person who
employs or engages the qualified verifier;
(4) The signature of the qualified ver-
ifier and the date signed by the qualified
verifier; and
(5) A statement that the verification
was conducted for Federal income tax
purposes.
(g) General information on the tax-
payer’s hydrogen production facility.
The verification report must include the
following information for the taxpayer’s
hydrogen production facility where the
hydrogen production undergoing verifica-
tion occurred:
(1) The location of the hydrogen pro-
duction facility;
(2) A description of the hydrogen pro-
duction facility, including its method of
producing hydrogen;
(3) The type(s) of feedstock(s) used by
the hydrogen production facility during
the taxable year of production;
(4) The amount(s) of feedstock(s) used
by the hydrogen production facility during
the taxable year of production; and
(5) A list of the metering devices used
to record any data used by the qualified
verifier to support the production attes-
tation under paragraph (c) of this section
along with a statement that the qualified
verifier is reasonably assured that the
device(s) underwent industry-appropriate
quality assurance and quality control, and
the accuracy and calibration of the device
has been tested in the last year.
(h) Qualified verifier. The term quali-
fied verifier means any individual or orga-
nization with active accreditation—
(1) From the American National Stan-
dards Institute National Accreditation
Board to conduct validation and verifica-
tion in accordance with the requirements
of ISO 14065:2020 and ISO 14064-
3:2019; or
(2) As a verifier, lead verifier, or ver-
ification body under the California Air
Resources Board Low Carbon Fuel Stan-
dard program.
(i) Unrelated party. For purposes of
section 45V(c)(2)(B)(ii), the term unre-
lated party means a qualified verifier who
meets the requirements of paragraph (e) of
this section.
(j) Requirements for taxpayers claim-
ing both the section 45V credit and the
section 45 credit or the section 45U credit.
In the case of a taxpayer who produces
electricity for which either the section 45
or section 45U credit is claimed and the
taxpayer or a related person uses such
electricity to produce hydrogen for which
the section 45V credit is claimed, the ver-
ification report must also contain attesta-
tions that the qualified verifier performed a
verification sufficient to determine that—
(1) The electricity used to produce such
hydrogen was produced at the relevant
facility for which a section 45 or section
45U credit is claimed;
(2) The given amount of electricity
(in kilowatt hours) used to produce such
hydrogen at the relevant hydrogen pro-
duction facility is reasonably assured of
being accurate; and
(3) The electricity for which a section
45 or section 45U credit was claimed is
represented by EACs that are acquired
and retired in connection with the produc-
tion of such hydrogen.
(k) Timely verification report. A verifi-
cation report must be signed and dated by
the qualified verifier no later than—
(1) The due date, including extensions,
of the Federal income tax return or infor-
mation return for the taxable year during
which the hydrogen undergoing verifica-
tion is produced; or
(2) In the case of a credit first claimed
for the taxable year on an amended return
or administrative adjustment request,
the date on which the amended return or
administrative adjustment request is filed.

March 24, 2025 1372 Bulletin No. 2025–13
(l) Applicability date. This section
applies to taxable years beginning after
December 26, 2023.
§1.45V-6 Rules for determining the
placed in service date for an existing
facility that is modified or retrofitted to
produce qualified clean hydrogen.
(a) Modification of an existing facil-
ity—(1) In general. Under section 45V(d)
(4) of the Code, in the case of an existing
facility that—
(i) Was originally placed in service
before January 1, 2023, and, prior to the
modification described in this paragraph
(a), did not produce qualified clean hydro-
gen, and after the date such facility was
originally placed in service—
(A) Is modified to produce qualified
clean hydrogen; and
(B) Amounts paid or incurred with
respect to such modification are prop-
erly chargeable to the taxpayer’s capital
account for the facility,
(ii) Such facility will be deemed to
have been originally placed in service as
of the date the property required to com-
plete the modification described in this
paragraph (a) is placed in service.
(2) Modification requirements. For pur-
poses of section 45V(d)(4) and paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, an existing facility
will not be deemed to have been originally
placed in service as of the date the prop-
erty required to complete the modification
is placed in service unless the modifica-
tion is made for the purpose of enabling
the facility to produce qualified clean
hydrogen and amounts paid or incurred
with respect to the modification are prop-
erly chargeable to the taxpayer’s capital
account. A modification is made for the
purpose of enabling the facility to produce
qualified clean hydrogen if the facility
could not produce hydrogen with a lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate that is less than
or equal to 4 kilograms of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) per kilogram of hydro-
gen but for the modification. For example,
if a taxpayer solely pays or incurs capital
expenses to modify existing components
of a hydrogen production facility that are
not necessary for the production of hydro-
gen with a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
that is less than or equal to 4 kilograms
of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, such
modification does not entitle the facility to
a new placed in service date. A modifica-
tion does not include changing fuel inputs
to the hydrogen production facility. For
example, changing from using conven-
tional natural gas to using renewable natu-
ral gas as a feedstock, is not a modification
under this paragraph.
(3) Interaction with 80/20 Rule. An
existing facility that satisfies the require-
ments of section 45V(d)(4) and para-
graphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section is
deemed to be originally placed in service
as of the date that the property required
to complete the modification described in
section 45V(d)(4)(B) is placed in service
regardless of whether such facility satis-
fies the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) Retrofit of an existing facility (80/20
Rule). For purposes of section 45V(a)(1),
a retrofitted hydrogen production facility
may establish a new date on which it is
considered originally placed in service,
even though the facility contains some
used components of property of a single
production line, provided the fair market
value of the used property is not more than
20 percent of the facility’s total value,
calculated by adding the cost of the new
property to the value of the used property
(80/20 Rule). For purposes of the 80/20
Rule, the cost of new property includes
all properly capitalized costs of the new
property included within the facility. If a
facility satisfies the requirements of the
80/20 Rule, then the date on which such
facility is considered originally placed in
service for purposes of section 45V(a)
(1) is the date on which the new property
added to the facility is placed in service.
(c) Examples. The following examples
illustrate the application of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section:
(1) Example 1: Modification of an existing
facility—(i) Facts. Facility X, a hydrogen produc-
tion facility that was originally placed in service on
January 1, 2018, could not produce qualified clean
hydrogen as described in section 45V(c)(2). After
January 1, 2023, Facility X was modified to pro-
duce qualified clean hydrogen, and all amounts paid
or incurred with respect to such modifications were
properly chargeable to the taxpayer’s capital account
for Facility X. The property required to complete the
modification was placed in service on June 1, 2023.
(ii) Analysis. Under section 45V(d)(4) and para-
graph (a) of this section, because Facility X was orig-
inally placed in service before January 1, 2023, and
before the modification could not produce qualified
clean hydrogen, it is deemed to be originally placed
in service as of the date the property required to com-
plete the modification is placed in service. Accord-
ingly, for purposes of section 45V(a)(1) and (d)(4),
Facility X is deemed to have been originally placed
in service on June 1, 2023.
(2) Example 2: Modification of an existing facil-
ity; coordination with the section 45Q credit previ-
ously allowed—(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section (Example 1), except
that taxpayer was allowed a section 45Q credit with
respect to carbon capture equipment (CCE) included
at Facility X before June 1, 2023.
(ii) Analysis. Under paragraph (a) of this section
and §1.45V-2(a), although Facility X is deemed to
have been originally placed in service on June 1,
2023, because taxpayer had previously been allowed
a section 45Q credit with respect to the CCE included
at Facility X, no section 45V credit is allowable for
qualified clean hydrogen produced at Facility X,
despite the modification. The result would be the
same if the section 45Q credit with respect to the
CCE included at Facility X were allowed to a person
other than the taxpayer.
(3) Example 3: Modification of an existing facil-
ity and coordination with section 45Q credit not
previously allowed—(i) Facts. Facility Y, a hydro-
gen production facility that was originally placed in
service on February 1, 2020, could not previously
produce qualified clean hydrogen as described in
section 45V(c)(2). On February 1, 2026, Facility Y
was modified to produce qualified clean hydrogen
by adding new CCE to allow Facility Y to capture,
process, and prepare carbon dioxide for transport for
disposal, injection, or utilization. All amounts paid
or incurred with respect to such modifications were
properly chargeable to the taxpayer’s capital account
for Facility Y. The property required to complete the
modification of Facility Y was placed in service on
February 1, 2026, and as a result, Facility Y, includ-
ing the new CCE, is deemed to be originally placed
in service on February 1, 2026, for purposes of sec-
tions 45V and 45Q. No section 45Q credit has been
allowed to any taxpayer with respect to the new CCE
located at Facility Y.
(ii) Analysis. Under paragraph (a) of this section
and §1.45V-2(a), because no section 45Q credit has
been allowed to any taxpayer with respect to the new
CCE located at Facility Y, a section 45V credit is
allowable for the qualified clean hydrogen produced
at Facility Y, assuming all other requirements of sec-
tion 45V are met.
(4) Example 4: Retrofit of an existing facility
(80/20 Rule)—(i) Facts. Facility Z, a hydrogen pro-
duction facility that was originally placed in service
on February 1, 2023, does not produce qualified
clean hydrogen as described in section 45V(c)(2).
On January 1, 2026, Facility Z was retrofitted to
produce qualified clean hydrogen. After the retrofit,
the cost of the new property included in Facility Z
is greater than 80 percent of Facility Z’s total value.
(ii) Analysis. Even though Facility Z does not sat-
isfy the requirements of section 45V(d)(4) because
Facility Z was not originally placed in service before
January 1, 2023, under paragraph (b) of this section,
Facility Z is deemed to be originally placed in ser-
vice on January 1, 2026, because Facility Z meets the
80/20 Rule. Thus, a section 45V credit is allowable
for qualified clean hydrogen produced at Facility Z

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1373 March 24, 2025
during the 10-year period beginning on January 1,
2026, assuming all other requirements of section
45V are met.
(5) Example 5: Retrofit of an Existing Facility
(80/20 Rule) and coordination with section 45Q
credit previously allowed—(i) Facts. The facts
are the same as in paragraph (c)(4) of this section
(Example 4), except that before the retrofit, Facility
Z included CCE for which a section 45Q credit was
allowed to a taxpayer.
(ii) Analysis. Under paragraph (b) of this section
and §1.45V-2(a), Facility Z is deemed to be origi-
nally placed in service on January 1, 2026, because
Facility Z meets the 80/20 Rule. However, a section
45V credit is not allowable for qualified clean hydro-
gen produced at Facility Z during the 10-year period
beginning on January 1, 2026, because a section 45Q
credit has been allowed to a taxpayer with regard to
the CCE included in Facility Z.
(d) Applicability date. This section
applies to taxable years beginning after
December 26, 2023.
Par. 3. Section 1.48-15 is added to read
as follows:
§1.48-15 Election to treat clean
hydrogen production facility as energy
property.
(a) In general. Under section 48(a)(15)
of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), a
taxpayer that owns and places in service a
specified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity (as defined in section 48(a)(15)(C) and
paragraph (b) of this section) can make an
irrevocable election under section 48(a)
(15)(C)(ii)(II) to treat any qualified prop-
erty (as defined in section 48(a)(5)(D))
that is part of the facility as energy prop-
erty for purposes of section 48.
(b) Specified clean hydrogen produc-
tion facility. The term specified clean
hydrogen production facility means any
qualified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity—
(1) That is placed in service after
December 31, 2022;
(2) With respect to which no credit has
been allowed under section 45V or 45Q
of the Code, and for which the taxpayer
makes an irrevocable election to have sec-
tion 48(a)(15) apply; and
(3) For which an unrelated party has
verified in the manner specified in para-
graph (e) of this section that such facility
produces hydrogen through a process or
processes that results in lifecycle GHG
emissions that are consistent with the
hydrogen that such facility was designed
and expected to produce under section
48(a)(15)(A)(ii) and paragraph (c) of this
section.
(c) Energy percentage—(1) In general.
In the case of a specified clean hydrogen
production facility that is designed and
reasonably expected to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen through a process or
processes that results in a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of:
(i) Not greater than 4 kilograms of car-
bon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilo-
gram of hydrogen, and not less than 2.5
kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of hydro-
gen, the energy percentage is 1.2 percent;
(ii) Less than 2.5 kilograms of CO2e
per kilogram of hydrogen, and not less
than 1.5 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram
of hydrogen, the energy percentage is 1.5
percent;
(iii) Less than 1.5 kilograms of CO2e
per kilogram of hydrogen, and not less
than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram
of hydrogen, the energy percentage is 2
percent; and
(iv) Less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2e
per kilogram of hydrogen, the energy per-
centage is 6 percent.
(2) Designed and reasonably expected
to produce. Hydrogen that a facility is
designed and reasonably expected to pro-
duce means hydrogen produced through
a process or processes that result in the
lifecycle GHG emissions rate specified in
the annual verification report described in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section for the tax-
able year in which the election is made. In
the case of a facility that is designed and
reasonably expected to produce hydrogen
through multiple processes, the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate must be determined
using the weighted average of the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rates of all hydrogen
production processes.
(d) Time and manner of making the
election—(1) In general. To make an elec-
tion under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II), a
taxpayer must claim the section 48 credit
with respect to a specified clean hydrogen
production facility on a completed Form
3468, Investment Credit, or any successor
form(s), and file the form with the taxpay-
er’s Federal income tax return or informa-
tion return for the taxable year in which
the specified clean hydrogen production
facility is placed in service. The taxpayer
must also attach a statement to its Form
3468, or any successor form(s), filed with
its Federal income tax return or informa-
tion return that includes the information
required by the instructions to Form 3468,
or any successor form(s), for each spec-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
subject to an election. A separate election
must be made for each specified clean
hydrogen production facility that meets
the requirements provided in section 48(a)
(15) to treat the qualified property that is
part of the facility as energy property. If
any taxpayer owning an interest in a spec-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
makes an election under section 48(a)(15)
(C)(ii)(II) with respect to the specified
clean hydrogen production facility, then
that election is binding on all taxpayers
that directly or indirectly own an interest
in the specified clean hydrogen production
facility.
(2) Special rule for partnerships and
S corporations. In the case of a specified
clean hydrogen production facility owned
by a partnership or an S corporation, the
election under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)
(II) is made by the partnership or S cor-
poration and is binding on all ultimate
credit claimants (as defined in §1.50-1(b)
(3)(ii)). The partnership or S corporation
must file a Form 3468, or any successor
form(s), with its partnership or S corpo-
ration return for the taxable year in which
the specified clean hydrogen production
facility is placed in service to indicate
that it is making the election, and attach
a statement that includes all the informa-
tion required by the instructions to Form
3468, or any successor form(s), for each
specified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity subject to the election. The ultimate
credit claimant must claim the section 48
credit on a completed Form 3468, or any
successor form(s), and file such form on a
timely filed (including extensions) Federal
income tax return for the taxable year in
which the ultimate credit claimant’s dis-
tributive share or pro rata share of the sec-
tion 48 credit is taken into account under
section 706(a) of the Code or section
1366(a) of the Code, respectively. The
partnership or S corporation making the
election must provide the ultimate credit
claimants with the necessary information
to complete Form 3468, or any successor
form(s), to claim the section 48 credit.
(3) Election irrevocable. The election
to treat qualified property that is part of a

March 24, 2025 1374 Bulletin No. 2025–13
specified clean hydrogen production facil-
ity as energy property is irrevocable.
(4) Election availability date. The elec-
tion to treat qualified property that is part
of a specified clean hydrogen production
facility as energy property is available for
property placed in service after Decem-
ber 31, 2022. In the case of any property
placed in service after December 31, 2022,
for which construction began before Jan-
uary 1, 2023, the election under section
48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II) applies only to the
extent of the basis of such property that
is attributable to construction, reconstruc-
tion, or erection occurring after December
31, 2022.
(5) Beginning of construction safe har-
bor—(i) In general. A taxpayer may, in its
discretion, make an irrevocable election
effective for the remaining taxable years
within the period described in paragraph
(f)(3) of this section, to treat the latest ver-
sion of 45VH2-GREET that was publicly
available on the date when construction
of the specified clean hydrogen facility
began as the 45VH2-GREET Model. In
the case of a facility owned by a taxpayer
that began construction prior to Decem-
ber 26, 2023, such taxpayer may, in its
discretion, make an irrevocable election
effective for the remaining taxable years
within the period described in paragraph
(f)(3) of this section, to treat the first pub-
licly-available version of 45VH2-GREET
(that is, the version of 45VH2-GREET
that was released in December 2023) as
the 45VH2-GREET Model. For purposes
of this paragraph (d)(5), in the case of a
facility that is modified to produce quali-
fied clean hydrogen under section 45V(d)
(4) or a facility that is retrofitted in a man-
ner that entitles the facility to a new placed
in service date under §1.45V-6(b), the date
when construction of the facility began is
the date when construction of such modifi-
cation or retrofit began. An election under
this paragraph (d)(5)(i) relates to the ver-
sion of 45VH2-GREET and does not alter
any other rules provided in this section.
(ii) Time and manner of making elec-
tion—(A) In general. The taxpayer makes
the election described in paragraph (d)(5)
(i) of this section with respect to a spec-
ified clean hydrogen production facility
by attaching a statement to the Form 3468
or any successor form(s). The taxpayer
must make the election by no later than
the due date for filing its Federal income
tax return or information return (includ-
ing extensions) for the taxable period in
which such facility is placed in service.
(B) Special rule for facilities placed in
service prior to January 1, 2024. In the
case of a taxpayer that places in service
a specified clean hydrogen production
facility prior to January 1, 2024, the tax-
payer must make the election described
in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section by
no later than the period of limitation on
filing a claim for credit or refund under
section 6511(a) for the taxable period in
which such facility is placed in service.
(6) Provisional emissions rate—(i) In
general. A taxpayer files a petition with
the Secretary for a provisional emissions
rate (PER) by following the procedures
stated in §1.45V-4(c)(3) through (5),
except, in lieu of attaching the PER peti-
tion to the Form 7210 in the first taxable
year of production as specified in §1.45V-
4(c)(3), the taxpayer must attach the PER
petition to the Form 3468, or a successor
form(s), attached to the taxpayer’s Federal
income tax return for the taxable year in
which the specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility is originally placed in ser-
vice. A taxpayer may use such PER to cal-
culate the amount of the section 48 credit
with respect to a specified clean hydrogen
production facility, provided—
(A) The lifecycle GHG emissions rate
of the hydrogen produced at the specified
clean hydrogen production facility has not
been determined (for purposes of section
45V(c)(2)(C)) under the 45VH2-GREET
Model;
(B) There are no material changes to the
information about the taxpayer’s hydro-
gen production process from the infor-
mation provided to the DOE to obtain an
emissions value pursuant to §1.45V-4(c)
(5); and
(C) All other requirements of section
48(a)(15) are met.
(ii) Material change. For purposes of
paragraph (d)(6)(i)(B), a material change
means any change that would cause a qual-
ified verifier (as defined in §1.45V-5(h)) to
be unable to complete a verification under
paragraph (e) of this section.
(iii) Subsequent inclusion safe har-
bor—(A) In general. The taxpayer may,
in its discretion, make an irrevocable elec-
tion, effective for the remaining taxable
years within the period described in para-
graph (f)(3) of this section, to treat the first
version of 45VH2-GREET that includes
the taxpayer’s specified clean hydrogen
production facility’s hydrogen production
pathway, as described in §1.45V-4(c)(2)
(i), as the 45VH2-GREET Model.
(B) Time and manner of making elec-
tion. The taxpayer makes the election
described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii) of this
section with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility by attaching
a statement to the Form 3468 or any suc-
cessor form(s). The taxpayer must make
the election by no later than the due date
for filing its Federal income tax return or
information return (including extensions)
for the taxable period in which such facil-
ity is placed in service.
(C) Special rule for facilities placed in
service prior to January 1, 2024. In the
case of a taxpayer that places in service
a specified clean hydrogen production
facility prior to January 1, 2024, the tax-
payer must make the election described
in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A) of this section
by no later than the close of the period of
limitation for filing a claim for credit or
refund under section 6511(a) for the tax-
able period in which such facility is placed
in service.
(iv) Special rule for facilities that
receive an emissions value prior to the
beginning of construction. Notwithstand-
ing the requirement of paragraph (d)(6)
(i)(A) of this section, a taxpayer who
received an emissions value from the DOE
with respect to a specified clean hydrogen
production facility (pursuant to §1.45V-
4(c)(5)) before the date when construction
of the facility began, may, in its discre-
tion, continue to use the PER determined
by the Secretary and the associated emis-
sions value to calculate the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of the hydrogen produced
at the specified clean hydrogen production
facility for the remainder of the period
described in paragraph (f)(3) of this sec-
tion, provided that the taxpayer continues
to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs
(d)(6)(i)(B) and (C) of this section.
(v) Not an examination of books and
records. The Secretary’s PER determina-
tion is not an examination or inspection of
books of account for purposes of section
7605(b) of the Code and does not preclude
or impede the IRS (under section 7605(b)

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1375 March 24, 2025
or any administrative provisions adopted
by the IRS) from later examining a return
or inspecting books or records with respect
to any taxable year for which the section
48 credit is claimed. For example, the
annual verification report submitted under
section 48(a)(15)(C)(iii) and paragraph
(e)(2) of this section and any information,
representations, or other data provided to
the DOE in support of the request for an
emissions value are still subject to exam-
ination. Further, a PER determination
does not signify that the IRS has deter-
mined that the requirements of section
48(a)(15), including the cross-references
to section 45V, have been satisfied for any
taxable year.
(e) Third-party verification—(1) In
general. In the case of a taxpayer that
makes an election under section 48(a)(15)
(C)(ii)(II) to treat any qualified property
that is part of a specified clean hydrogen
production facility as energy property for
purposes of the section 48 credit, the tax-
payer must obtain an annual verification
report for the taxable year in which the
election under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II)
is made for the facility and for each tax-
able year thereafter during the recapture
period specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this
section. The taxpayer must also submit
the annual verification report as an attach-
ment to the Form 3468, or any successor
form(s), for the taxable year in which the
election under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II)
is made for the facility.
(2) Annual verification report—(i) In
general. For purposes of paragraph (e)
(1) of this section, the annual verification
report must be signed under penalties of
perjury by a qualified verifier (as defined
in §1.45V-5(h)) and contain an attestation
providing all of the following—
(A) The information specified in
§1.45V-5(b) and (d) through (h);
(B) A statement attesting to the lifecy-
cle GHG emissions rate of the hydrogen
produced through a process (determined
under section 45V(c) and §1.45V-4), or
the weighted average of the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of the hydrogen produced
through processes, by which all hydrogen
was produced at the specified clean hydro-
gen production facility for the taxable year
to which the annual verification report
relates and that the operation, during such
taxable year, of the specified clean hydro-
gen production facility, and any qualify-
ing energy attribute certificates applied
pursuant to §1.45V-4(d) for the purpose of
accounting for such facility’s emissions,
are accurately reflected in the data that the
taxpayer entered into the 45VH2-GREET
Model (as defined in §1.45V-1(a)(9)
(ii)) (or that the taxpayer provided to the
Department of Energy (DOE) in support
of the taxpayer’s request for an emissions
value), to determine the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of the hydrogen undergo-
ing verification; and
(C) A statement attesting that the facil-
ity produced hydrogen through a process
or processes that results in a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate that is consistent with, or
lower than, the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of the hydrogen that such facility was
designed and expected to produce.
(ii) Inconsistent lifecycle GHG emis-
sions. In the event the facility produces
hydrogen through a process (or processes)
that results in a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate that is greater than the lifecycle GHG
emissions rate that such facility was
designed and expected to produce (and
thus the qualified verifier cannot provide
the attestation specified in paragraph (e)
(2)(i)(C) of this section), resulting in a
reduced energy percentage under section
48(a)(15)(A)(ii) with respect to such facil-
ity, an emissions tier recapture event under
paragraph (f)(2) of this section will occur.
(iii) Designed and expected to produce.
Hydrogen that the facility was designed
and expected to produce means hydrogen
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this sec-
tion.
(iv) Timely annual verification report.
The annual verification report must be
signed and dated by the qualified verifier
no later than the due date, including exten-
sions, of the Federal income tax return for
the taxable year in which the hydrogen
undergoing verification was produced.
(v) Records retention. In addition to
the recordkeeping requirements set forth
in paragraph (g) of this section, the tax-
payer must retain the annual verification
report for at least six years after the due
date, with extensions, for filing the Fed-
eral income tax return for the taxable year
in which the hydrogen undergoing verifi-
cation was produced.
(f) Recapture—(1) In general. Pursu-
ant to of section 48(a)(15)(E), in any tax-
able year of the recapture period specified
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section in which
an emissions tier recapture event (as
defined in paragraph (f)(2) of this section)
occurs, the tax imposed on the taxpayer
under chapter 1 of the Code for the taxable
year of the emissions tier recapture event
is increased by the recapture amount spec-
ified in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(2) Emissions tier recapture event. For
purposes of paragraph (f)(1) of this sec-
tion, an emissions tier recapture event is
any of the following occurrences—
(i) The taxpayer fails to obtain an
annual verification report by the deadline
for filing its Federal income tax return or
information return (including extensions)
for any taxable year in which an annual
verification report is required under para-
graph (e)(1) of this section;
(ii) The specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility actually produced hydro-
gen through a process (or processes) that
results in a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
that can only support a lower energy per-
centage than the energy percentage used
to calculate the amount of the section 48
credit for the facility for the taxable year
in which the facility is placed in service;
or
(iii) The specified clean hydrogen pro-
duction facility actually produced hydro-
gen through a process (or processes) that
results in a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
of greater than 4 kilograms of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen.
(3) Recapture period. For purposes of
paragraph (f) of this section, the recapture
period begins on the first day of the tax-
able year after the taxable year in which
the facility was placed in service and ends
on the close of the fifth taxable year fol-
lowing the close of the taxable year in
which the facility was placed in service.
(4) Recapture amount—(i) In general.
In the case of an emissions tier recapture
event under paragraph (f)(2) of this sec-
tion, the recapture amount for the taxable
year in which the emissions tier recapture
event occurred is equal to 20 percent of
the excess of the section 48 credit allowed
to the taxpayer for the specified clean
hydrogen production facility for the tax-
able year in which the facility was placed
in service, over the section 48 credit that
would have been allowed to the taxpayer
for the facility if the taxpayer had used the

March 24, 2025 1376 Bulletin No. 2025–13
energy percentage supported by the actual
production to calculate the amount of the
section 48 credit.
(ii) Carrybacks and carryovers. In the
case of any emissions tier recapture event
described in paragraph (f)(2) of this sec-
tion, the carrybacks and carryovers under
section 39 must be adjusted by reason of
the emissions tier recapture event.
(iii) Recapture amount in case of
recapture events under paragraph (f)(2)
(i) or (iii) of this section. For purposes
of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, in
the case of an emissions tier recapture
event under paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (iii) of
this section, the amount of the section 48
credit that would have been allowed to the
taxpayer for the specified clean hydrogen
production facility if the taxpayer had
used the energy percentage supported by
the actual production is zero. Accordingly,
the recapture amount in the taxable year
of an emissions tier recapture event under
paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (iii) of this section,
is 20 percent of the section 48 credit
allowed to the taxpayer for such specified
clean hydrogen production facility.
(5) Example. The following example
illustrates the application of paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(i) Facts. On June 1, 2024, Taxpayer, a cal-
endar-year taxpayer, originally places in service
Facility X, a specified clean hydrogen production
facility. At such time, Taxpayer’s basis in qualified
property that is part of Facility X is $100,000,000.
In the taxable year in which Facility X was origi-
nally placed in service (taxable year 2024), Facil-
ity X produces qualified clean hydrogen through a
process that results in a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of 0.44kg of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen.
Taxpayer submits with its 2024 Federal income tax
return an annual verification report attesting that, for
the taxable year 2024, Facility X produced hydrogen
through a process that resulted in a lifecycle GHG
emissions rate of 0.44kg of CO2e per kilogram of
hydrogen, which is consistent with the lifecycle
GHG emissions rate of the hydrogen that the facil-
ity was designed and expected to produce. Taxpayer
makes a valid election under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)
(II) with respect to Facility X on its Federal income
tax return for the taxable year 2024. In the first year
of the recapture period (taxable year 2025), Tax-
payer fails to obtain an annual verification report
by the deadline (including extensions) for filing its
2025 Federal income tax return. In the second year
of the recapture period (taxable year 2026), Facility
X produces qualified clean hydrogen through a pro-
cess that results in a lifecycle GHG emissions rate of
1.4kg of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen and obtains
an annual verification report attesting to such life-
cycle GHG emissions rate. In the third, fourth, and
fifth years of the recapture period (taxable years
2027, 2028, and 2029), Facility X produces qualified
clean hydrogen through a process that results in a
lifecycle GHG emissions rate of 0.44kg of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen and obtains an annual verifica-
tion report attesting to such lifecycle GHG emissions
rate, and attesting that such lifecycle GHG emissions
rate is consistent with the lifecycle GHG emissions
rate of the hydrogen that the facility was designed
and expected to produce, by the deadline (including
extensions) for filing its 2027, 2028, and 2029 Fed-
eral income tax returns, respectively.
(ii) Analysis. Facility X is designed and reason-
ably expected to produce hydrogen through a pro-
cess that results in a lifecycle GHG emissions rate
of 0.44kg of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen, which
is the rate specified in Taxpayer’s annual verification
report submitted with Taxpayer’s Federal income
tax return for the taxable year in which the election
under section 48(a)(15)(C)(ii)(II) with respect to
Facility X was made. Under paragraph (c)(1)(iv)
of this section, Facility X’s energy percentage is
therefore 6 percent. For the taxable year 2024, the
year in which Taxpayer places in service Facility
X, Taxpayer claims a section 48 credit for its basis
in qualified property that is part of Facility X in the
amount of $6,000,000 (6 percent of $100,000,000).
In taxable year 2025 there is an emissions tier recap-
ture event under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section
because Taxpayer failed to obtain an annual verifi-
cation report. Under paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this sec-
tion, the amount of the section 48 credit recaptured
in 2025 is $1,200,000. This reflects 20 percent of the
section 48 credit allowed ($6,000,000) for Facility
X. In taxable year 2026, there is an emissions tier
recapture event under paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this sec-
tion because Facility X produced hydrogen through
a process that resulted in a lifecycle GHG emissions
rate that could only support an energy percentage of
2 percent, which is lower than the energy percentage
used to calculate the amount of the section 48 credit
for Facility X. Under paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this sec-
tion, the amount of the section 48 credit recaptured in
2026 is $800,000. This reflects 20 percent of the dif-
ference between the amount of the section 48 credit
allowed ($6,000,000) and the amount of the section
48 credit that would have been allowed for Facility
X if Taxpayer had used the energy percentage sup-
ported by the actual production ($2,000,000). There
is no emissions tier recapture event in taxable years
2027, 2028, or 2029 because, in those years, Facility
X produced hydrogen through a process that resulted
in a lifecycle GHG emissions rate that was consis-
tent with the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of the
hydrogen that Facility X was designed and expected
to produce, and Taxpayer obtained an annual verifi-
cation report attesting to such by the deadline (with
extensions) for filing its Federal income tax return
for each of those taxable years.
(6) Coordination with sections 50(a)
and 48(a)(10)(C) of the Code—(i) In gen-
eral. In each taxable year of the recapture
period specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this
section for any credit allowed under sec-
tion 48 with respect to a specified clean
hydrogen production facility, the recap-
ture rules, if applicable, apply in the fol-
lowing order:
(A) Section 50(a);
(B) Section 48(a)(10)(C), as provided
in §1.48-13; and
(C) Section 48(a)(15)(E).
(ii) The following examples illustrate
the application of paragraph (f)(6) of this
section.
(A) Example 1—(1) Facts. The facts are the same
as in paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section (Example),
except that, in addition to failing to obtain an annual
verification report by the deadline (including exten-
sions) for filing its 2025 Federal income tax return,
on August 1, 2025, Taxpayer disposes of Facility
X. Taxpayer has not been allowed any other credits
under section 38.
(2) Analysis. For taxable year 2025, under section
50(a)(1)(B)(ii), because the period of time between
when Facility X was placed in service is more than
1, but less than 2 full years, the applicable recapture
percentage is 80 percent. Taxpayer has an increase
in tax for taxable year 2025 under section 50(a) of
$4,800,000 ($6,000,000 aggregate decrease in credit
allowed multiplied by 0.80). Under paragraph (f)(6)
of this section, because the credit was recaptured
under section 50(a), no further amounts would be
recaptured under either section 48(a)(10)(C) (had
Taxpayer claimed the increased credit amount under
section 48(a)(9)) or section 48(a)(15)(E) (on account
of Taxpayer’s failure to obtain an annual verification
report).
(B) Example 2—(1) Facts. The facts are the same
as in paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section (Example),
except that, in taxable year 2025, Facility X pro-
duces qualified clean hydrogen through a process
that results in a lifecycle GHG emissions rate of 1.4
kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen and
obtains an annual verification report attesting to such
lifecycle GHG emissions rate. On August 1, 2026,
Taxpayer disposes of Facility X. Taxpayer has not
been allowed any other credits under section 38.
(2) Analysis. In taxable year 2025, there is an
emissions tier recapture event under paragraph (f)
(2)(ii) of this section because Facility X produced
hydrogen through a process that resulted in a life-
cycle GHG emissions rate that could only support
an energy percentage of 2 percent, which is lower
than the energy percentage used to calculate the
amount of the section 48 credit for Facility X. Under
paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, the amount of the
section 48 credit recaptured in 2025 is $800,000. In
taxable year 2026, under section 50(a)(1)(B)(iii),
because the period of time between when Facility X
was placed in service is more than 2, but less than
3 full years, the applicable recapture percentage is
60 percent. Taxpayer has an increase in tax under
section 50(a) of $3,120,000 ($5,200,000 aggre-
gate decrease in credit allowed ($6,000,000 credit
allowed minus $800,000 amount recaptured under
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section in taxable year
2025) multiplied by 0.60).
(g) Recordkeeping. Consistent with
section 6001 of the Code, a taxpayer
making the election under section 48(a)
(15)(C)(ii)(II) with respect to a specified
clean hydrogen production facility must
maintain and preserve records sufficient

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1377 March 24, 2025
to establish the amount of the section 48
credit claimed by the taxpayer. At a min-
imum, those records include the annual
verification report required under para-
graph (e)(2) of this section, records to
substantiate the information required to
be included in the annual verification
report, records establishing that the facil-
ity meets the definition of a specified
clean hydrogen production facility under
section 48(a)(15)(C) and paragraph (b) of
this section, records of past credit claims
under section 45Q by any taxpayer with
respect to carbon capture equipment
included at the facility, and records estab-
lishing the date the specified clean hydro-
gen production facility was placed in ser-
vice. If the increased section 48 credit
amount was allowed under section 48(a)
(9), then the taxpayer must also maintain
records in accordance with §1.45-12.
Taxpayers must also retain all raw data
used for submission of a request for an
emissions value to the DOE for at least
six years after the due date (including
extensions) for filing the Federal income
tax return or information return to which
the provisional emissions rate (PER) (as
defined in §1.45V-4(c)(1)) petition is
ultimately attached.
(h) Applicability date. This section
applies to taxable years beginning after
December 26, 2023.
Douglas W. O’Donnell,
Deputy Commissioner.
Approved: December 25, 2024.
Aviva R. Aron-Dine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury (Tax Policy).
(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register January
3, 2025, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the
Federal Register for January 10, 2025, 90 FR 2224)

March 24, 2025 1378 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Part III
Determination of Housing
Cost Amounts Eligible for
Exclusion or Deduction for
2025
Notice 2025-16
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This notice provides adjustments to the
limitation on housing expenses for pur-
poses of section 911 of the Internal Rev-
enue Code for specific locations for 2025.
These adjustments are based on geo-
graphic differences in housing costs rela-
tive to housing costs in the United States.
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND
Section 911 allows a qualified individ-
ual to elect to exclude from gross income
the foreign earned income and to exclude
or deduct the housing cost amount of such
individual.
The term “housing cost amount” is
generally the total of the housing expenses
for the taxable year minus a base housing
amount. See § 911(c)(1). For this purpose,
the base housing amount for the taxable
year is limited to an amount that is tied
to the maximum foreign earned income
exclusion amount of the qualified indi-
vidual, which is $130,000 for 2025. See §
911(c)(1)(B). Specifically, the base hous-
ing amount is 16 percent of the maximum
foreign earned income exclusion amount
(computed on a daily basis), multiplied
by the number of days in the applicable
period that fall within the taxable year.
Assuming that the entire taxable year of
a qualified individual is within the appli-
cable period, the base housing amount for
2025 is $20,800 ($130,000 x .16).
Similarly, the housing expense amount
is also limited, based on a percentage of
the maximum foreign earned income
exclusion amount. Specifically, the limit
on such housing expenses generally
equals 30 percent of the maximum for-
eign earned income exclusion amount
(computed on a daily basis), multiplied
by the number of days in the applicable
period for which the taxpayer is a qualified
individual. See § 911(c)(2)(A) and (d)(1).
Thus, under this general limitation, a qual-
ified individual whose entire taxable year
is within the applicable period is limited
to maximum housing expenses of $39,000
($130,000 x .30) for 2025. However, sec-
tion 911(c)(2)(B) authorizes the Secretary
to issue regulations or other guidance to
adjust the percentage under section 911(c)
(2)(A)(i) (which determines the limit on
housing expenses) based on geographic
differences in housing costs relative to
housing costs in the United States. Pur-
suant to this authority, the Department of
the Treasury (Treasury Department) and
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have
published annual notices concerning the
limitation on the section 911 housing cost
amounts since the 2006 taxable year.
For more background on the foreign
housing exclusion, see https://www.irs.
gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/
foreign-housing-exclusion-or-deduction.
SECTION 3. TABLE OF ADJUSTED
HOUSING LIMITATIONS FOR 2025
The following table provides adjusted
limitations on housing expenses (in lieu
of the otherwise applicable limitation of
$39,000) for 2025. All amounts are in
U.S. dollars.
CountryLocation
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(full year)
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(daily/365 days)
AngolaLuanda84,000230.14
ArgentinaBuenos Aires56,500154.79
ArubaOranjestad46,200126.58
ArubaOther46,200126.58
AustraliaSydney62,300170.68
AustraliaWollongong43,700119.73
Bahamas, TheNassau49,700136.16
BahrainBahrain48,300132.33
BermudaBermuda90,000246.58
BrazilSao Paulo56,600155.07
CanadaCalgary43,400118.90
CanadaMontreal50,100137.26
CanadaOttawa46,800128.22
CanadaToronto57,400157.26
CanadaVancouver56,600155.07
CanadaVictoria39,200107.40

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1379 March 24, 2025
CountryLocation
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(full year)
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(daily/365 days)
Cayman IslandsGrand Cayman48,000131.51
ChinaBeijing66,600182.47
ChinaHong Kong114,300313.15
ChinaShanghai57,001156.17
ColombiaBogota58,700160.82
ColombiaAll cities other than Bogota49,400135.34
Democratic Republic of the CongoKinshasa42,000115.07
DenmarkCopenhagen43,704119.74
Dominican RepublicSanto Domingo45,500124.66
EstoniaTallinn46,600127.67
FranceGarches65,700180.00
FranceParis65,700180.00
FranceSevres65,700180.00
FranceSuresnes65,700180.00
FranceVersailles65,700180.00
GermanyBerlin39,300107.67
GermanyBoeblingen41,200112.88
GermanyBonn42,000115.07
GermanyCologne56,200153.97
GermanyGelnhausen40,600111.23
GermanyHanau40,600111.23
GermanyIngolstadt46,000126.03
GermanyKaiserslautern, Landkreis39,500108.22
GermanyLudwigsburg41,200112.88
GermanyMainz44,000120.55
GermanyMunich46,000126.03
GermanyNellingen41,200112.88
GermanyPirmasens39,500108.22
GermanySembach39,500108.22
GermanyStuttgart41,200112.88
GermanyWahn42,000115.07
GermanyWiesbaden44,000120.55
GermanyZweibrucken39,500108.22
GuatemalaGuatemala City42,000115.07
GuineaConakry51,300140.55
Holy See, TheHoly See, The43,700119.73
IndiaMumbai67,920186.08
IndiaNew Delhi56,124153.76
IsraelBeer Sheva55,300151.51
IsraelJerusalem49,000134.25
IsraelTel Aviv50,800139.18
IsraelWest Bank49,000134.25
ItalyGenoa41,800114.52

March 24, 2025 1380 Bulletin No. 2025–13
CountryLocation
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(full year)
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(daily/365 days)
ItalyLa Spezia40,400110.68
ItalyMilan65,300178.90
ItalyNaples44,900123.01
ItalyRome43,700119.73
JamaicaKingston41,200112.88
JapanGifu74,300203.56
JapanKomaki74,300203.56
JapanNagoya74,300203.56
JapanOkinawa Prefecture41,600113.97
JapanOsaka-Kobe90,664248.39
JapanTokyo67,700185.48
KazakhstanAlmaty48,000131.51
KoreaCamp Colbern54,200148.49
KoreaCamp Mercer54,200148.49
KoreaK-1644,500121.92
KoreaKimpo Airfield44,500121.92
KoreaSeoul44,500121.92
KoreaSuwon44,500121.92
KuwaitKuwait City64,400176.44
KuwaitAll cities other than Kuwait
City
57,700158.08
LuxembourgLuxembourg51,700141.64
MalaysiaKuala Lumpur46,200126.58
MaltaMalta55,100150.96
MexicoMexico City47,900131.23
MexicoAll cities other than Ciudad
Juarez, Cuernavaca,
Guadalajara, Hermosillo,
Matamoros, Mazatlan, Merida,
Mexico City, Monterrey,
Nogales, Nuevo Laredo,
Tijuana, and Veracruz
39,400107.95
MozambiqueMaputo39,500108.22
NetherlandsAmsterdam52,900144.93
NetherlandsHague, The52,100142.74
NetherlandsSchiphol52,900144.93
Netherlands AntillesCuracao45,800125.48
OmanMuscat41,300113.15
PanamaPanama City39,500108.22
PeruLima39,100107.12
PolandWarsaw55,000150.68
PortugalAlverca40,000109.59
PortugalLisbon40,000109.59
QatarDoha45,888125.72

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1381 March 24, 2025
CountryLocation
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(full year)
Limitation on
Housing Expenses
(daily/365 days)
RomaniaBucharest41,200112.88
RussiaMoscow108,000295.89
RussiaSaint Petersburg60,000164.38
Saudi ArabiaRiyadh40,000109.59
SingaporeSingapore82,900227.12
SloveniaLjubljana45,900125.75
South AfricaPretoria39,300107.67
SpainBarcelona40,600111.23
SpainMadrid53,300146.03
SwitzerlandBern72,100197.53
SwitzerlandGeneva102,600281.10
SwitzerlandZurich39,219107.45
TaiwanTaipei46,188126.54
TanzaniaDar Es Salaam44,000120.55
ThailandBangkok59,000161.64
Trinidad and TobagoPort of Spain54,500149.32
UkraineKyiv72,000197.26
United Arab EmiratesAbu Dhabi49,687136.13
United Arab EmiratesDubai57,174156.64
United KingdomBasingstoke41,099112.60
United KingdomBath41,000112.33
United KingdomBracknell62,100170.14
United KingdomCaversham73,800202.19
United KingdomCheltenham47,300129.59
United KingdomCroughton43,100118.08
United KingdomFarnborough54,700149.86
United KingdomGibraltar44,616122.24
United KingdomHarrogate42,300115.89
United KingdomHigh Wycombe62,100170.14
United KingdomLakenheath43,300118.63
United KingdomLondon67,000183.56
United KingdomLoudwater54,300148.77
United KingdomMenwith Hill42,300115.89
United KingdomMildenhall43,300118.63
United KingdomReading62,100170.14
United KingdomSouthampton44,200121.10
United KingdomSurrey48,402132.61
VenezuelaCaracas57,000156.16
VietnamHanoi46,800128.22
VietnamHo Chi Minh City42,000115.07

March 24, 2025 1382 Bulletin No. 2025–13
SECTION 4. OPTION TO APPLY
2025 ADJUSTED HOUSING
LIMITATIONS TO 2024 TAXABLE
YEAR
For some locations, the limitation on
housing expenses provided in Section
3 of this notice may be higher than the
limitation on housing expenses provided
in the “Table of Adjusted Limitations
for 2024” in Notice 2024-31, 2024-15
I.R.B. 869. A qualified individual incur-
ring housing expenses in such a location
during 2024 may apply the adjusted lim-
itation on housing expenses provided in
Section 3 of this notice for 2025 (pro-
rated over 366 days rather than 365)
in lieu of the amounts provided in the
“Table of Adjusted Limitations for 2024”
in Notice 2024-31 (and as set forth in
the Instructions to Form 2555, Foreign
Earned Income, for 2024).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
anticipate that future annual notices pro-
viding adjustments to housing expense
limitations will make a similar option
available to qualified individuals that incur
housing expenses in the immediately pre-
ceding year. For example, when adjusted
housing expense limitations for 2026 are
issued, it is expected that taxpayers will be
permitted to apply those adjusted limita-
tions to the 2025 taxable year.
SECTION 5. EFFECT ON OTHER
DOCUMENTS
This notice supersedes Notice 2024-31,
2024-15 I.R.B. 869.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This notice is effective for taxable years
beginning on or after January 1, 2025.
However, as provided in Section 4, tax-
payers may apply the 2025 adjusted hous-
ing limitations contained in Section 3 of
this notice to the taxable year beginning in
2024.
SECTION 7. DRAFTING
INFORMATION
The principal author of this notice is
Kate Y. Hwa of the Office of Associate
Chief Counsel (International). For further
information regarding this notice, contact
Ms. Hwa at (202) 317-5001 (not a toll-
free call).
26 CFR 1.911-2: Qualified Individuals.
(Also: Part I, § 911.)
Rev. Proc. 2025-17
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This revenue procedure provides infor-
mation to any individual who failed to
meet the eligibility requirements of sec-
tion 911(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code (Code) for 2024 because of adverse
conditions in a foreign country.
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND
.01 Section 911 allows a “qualified
individual,” as defined in section 911(d)
(1), to elect to exclude from gross income
the foreign earned income and to exclude
or deduct the housing cost amount of such
individual.
.02 Section 911(d)(1) of the Code
defines the term “qualified individual” as
an individual whose tax home is in a for-
eign country and who is (A) a citizen of the
United States and establishes to the satis-
faction of the Secretary of the Treasury
that the individual has been a bona fide
resident of a foreign country or countries
for an uninterrupted period that includes
an entire taxable year, or (B) a citizen or
resident of the United States who, during
any period of 12 consecutive months, is
present in a foreign country or countries
during at least 330 full days.
.03 In addition, section 911(d)(4) of
the Code provides that an individual will
be treated as a qualified individual with
respect to a period in which the individ-
ual was a bona fide resident of, or was
present in, a foreign country if the indi-
vidual left the country during a period for
which the Secretary of the Treasury, after
consultation with the Secretary of State,
determines that individuals were required
to leave because of war, civil unrest, or
similar adverse conditions that precluded
the normal conduct of business. An indi-
vidual must establish that but for those
conditions the individual could reasonably
have been expected to meet the eligibility
requirements.
.04 The Internal Revenue Service pre-
viously has listed countries for which the
eligibility requirements of section 911(d)
(1) of the Code are waived under section
911(d)(4) because of adverse conditions in
those countries. See Rev. Proc. 2024-17,
2024-15 I.R.B. 873.
SECTION 3. SCOPE
.01 For 2024, the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, has determined that war, civil
unrest, or similar adverse conditions pre-
cluded the normal conduct of business in
the following countries beginning on the
specified date:
CountryDate of Departure On or After
UkraineJanuary 13, 2024
IraqJanuary 18, 2024
HaitiJanuary 23, 2024
BangladeshAugust 5, 2024
For example, for purposes of section
911 of the Code, an individual who left
Ukraine on or after January 13, 2024, will
be treated as a qualified individual with
respect to the period during which that
individual was a bona fide resident of, or
was present in, Ukraine if the individual
establishes a reasonable expectation that
he or she would have met the requirements
of section 911(d) but for those conditions.
.02 To qualify for relief under section
911(d)(4) of the Code, an individual must

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1383 March 24, 2025
have established residency, or have been
physically present, in the foreign country
on or before the date that the Secretary of
the Treasury determines that individuals
were required to leave the foreign country.
For example, individuals who first estab-
lished residency or were physically present
in Ukraine after January 13, 2024, are not
eligible to qualify for the exception provided
in section 911(d)(4) of the Code for 2024.
SECTION 4. APPLICATION
A taxpayer who needs assistance on
how to claim this exclusion, or on how
to file an amended return, should consult
the foreign earned income exclusion topic
at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/inter-
national-taxpayers/foreign-earned-in-
come-exclusion or contact a local IRS
office.
SECTION 5. DRAFTING
INFORMATION
The principal author of this revenue
procedure is Kate Y. Hwa of the Office of
Associate Chief Counsel (International).
For further information regarding this rev-
enue procedure contact Ms. Hwa on (202)
317-5001 (not a toll-free call).

March 24, 2025 1384 Bulletin No. 2025–13
Part IV
U.S.-Switzerland Competent Authority Arrangement
Announcement 2025-8
The following is a copy of the Competent Authority Arrangement entered into by the competent authorities of the United States of
America and the Swiss Confederation under paragraph 3 of Article 25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure) of the Convention Between
the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income
signed at Washington on October 2, 1996, as amended by the Protocol, signed on September 23, 2009, regarding certain U.S. and
Swiss pension or other retirement arrangements, including individual retirement savings plans, that may be eligible for benefits under
paragraph 3 of Article 10 (Dividends).
The text of the Competent Authority Arrangement is as follows:
COMPETENT AUTHORITY ARRANGEMENT
The competent authorities of the United States and Switzerland hereby enter into the following arrangement (Arrangement) regarding
certain U.S. and Swiss pension or other retirement arrangements, including individual retirement savings plans, that may be eligible
for benefits under paragraph 3 of Article 10 (Dividends) of the Convention Between the United States of America and the Swiss
Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income signed at Washington on October 2, 1996,
as amended by the Protocol, signed on September 23, 2009 (Treaty). This Arrangement is entered into under paragraph 3 of Article
25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure) of the Treaty and supersedes the competent authority arrangement entered into on May 6, 2021,
I.R.B. 2021-23.
1. Paragraph 3 of Article 10 (Dividends) of the Treaty
Article 10(3) states:
Notwithstanding paragraph 2, dividends may not be taxed in the Contracting State of which the company paying the dividends
is a resident if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a pension or other retirement arrangement which is a resident of the other
Contracting State, or an individual retirement savings plan set up in, and owned by a resident of, the other Contracting State, and
the competent authorities of the Contracting States agree that the pension or retirement arrangement, or the individual retirement
savings plan, in a Contracting State generally corresponds to a pension or other retirement arrangement, or to an individual retire-
ment savings plan, recognized for tax purposes in the other Contracting State. This paragraph shall not apply if such pension or
retirement arrangement, or such individual retirement savings plan, controls the company paying the dividends.
2. Qualified U.S. pension or other retirement arrangements
The following arrangements are U.S. pension or other retirement arrangements that should qualify for benefits under Article 10(3)
provided that they do not control the Swiss company paying the dividend and that they satisfy all additional applicable requirements
set forth in the Treaty, including Article 22 (Limitation on Benefits):
a) A trust providing pension or retirement benefits under a Code section 401(a) qualified pension plan (which includes a Code
section 401(k) plan) and a profit sharing or stock bonus plan;
b) A trust described in Code section 457(g) providing pension or retirement benefits under a Code section 457(b) plan;
c) A Code section 403(a) qualified annuity plan and a Code section 403(b) plan;
d) A group trust described in IRS Revenue Ruling 81-100 (as amended by IRS Revenue Ruling 2014-24 and IRS Revenue Rul-
ing 2011-1) (U.S. Group Trust), provided that it is operated exclusively or almost exclusively to earn income for the benefit
of pension funds that are themselves entitled to benefits under the Treaty as a resident of the United States; and
e) The Thrift Savings Fund (Code section 7701(j)).

Bulletin No. 2025–13 1385 March 24, 2025
3. Qualified U.S. individual retirement savings plans
The following arrangements are U.S. individual retirement savings plan that will qualify for benefits under Article 10(3) provided
that they do not control the Swiss company paying the dividend and that they satisfy all additional applicable requirements set forth
in the Treaty, including Article 22:
a) A trust that is an individual retirement account under Code section 408(a) or an annuity or endowment contract that is an
individual retirement annuity under Code section 408(b);
b) A Roth individual retirement account under Code section 408A;
c) A simple retirement account under Code section 408(p); and
d) A trust providing pension or retirement benefits under a simplified employee pension plan under Code section 408(k).
4. Qualified Swiss pension or other retirement arrangements
The following arrangements are Swiss pension or other retirement arrangements that will qualify for benefits under Article 10(3)
provided that they do not control the U.S. company paying the dividend and that they satisfy all additional applicable requirements
set forth in the Treaty, including Article 22:
a) A Swiss resident pension or other retirement arrangement that has been established in accordance with the Federal Act on
old age, survivors’ and disabled persons’ insurance payable in respect of employment or self-employment of 25 June 1982,
including a retirement arrangement covered by:
i. the Federal Act on Vested Benefits of 17 December 1993;
ii. paragraph 6 and paragraph 7 of Article 89a of the Swiss Civil Code of 10 December 1907; and
iii. any arrangement covered by paragraph 1 of Article 331 of the Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code
(Part Five: The Code of Obligations) of 30 March 1911.
5. Qualified Swiss individual retirement savings plans
The following arrangements are Swiss individual retirement savings plans that will qualify for benefits under Article 10(3) provided
that they do not control the U.S. company paying the dividend and that they satisfy all additional applicable requirements set forth in
the Treaty, including Article 22:
a) Any arrangement covered by the Federal Act on old age, survivors’ and disabled persons’ insurance payable in respect of
employment or self-employment of 25 June 1982, including individual recognized pension plans comparable with occupa-
tional pension plans.
6. Not an exclusive list; verification
The pension or other retirement arrangements and individual retirement savings plans described in paragraphs 2 through 5, above,
are not intended to be exclusive. Any U.S. or Swiss pension or other retirement arrangement, or individual retirement savings plan,
not mentioned above, including any such arrangement or plan established pursuant to legislation enacted after the date of signature
of this Arrangement may present its case to the U.S. and Swiss Competent Authorities pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 25 (Mutual
Agreement Procedure) to determine whether it qualifies for benefits under paragraph 3 of Article 10, provided it has satisfied all addi-
tional applicable requirements set forth in the Treaty, including Article 22.
7. Procedure for U.S. Group Trusts Claiming Treaty Benefits from Switzerland
For purposes of claiming a refund from the Swiss Tax Authorities pursuant to Article 10(3) with respect to Swiss tax imposed on a
dividend, a U.S. Group Trust should provide together with its claim for refund a list of its participating pension funds including their
name, address, TIN, the applicable Code section and the percentage of U.S. Group Trust assets held for each participating pension

March 24, 2025 1386 Bulletin No. 2025–13
fund, which will be used to confirm that at least 95 percent of the U.S. Group Trust’s participating pension funds were themselves
entitled to benefits under the Treaty as a resident of the United States as of January 1 of the year in which the dividend was paid.
Information requested by the Swiss Tax Authorities while examining a claim for refund should be limited only to the information
specified above relating to participating pension funds of a U.S. Group Trust, if such information has not been previously provided
by the U.S. Group Trust.
8. Operative date
Upon signature by the U.S. and Swiss competent authorities, this Arrangement becomes operative for dividends paid on or after Jan-
uary 1, 2020, and supersedes the competent authority arrangement entered into on May 6, 2021, I.R.B. 2021-23.
Signed by the undersigned competent authorities:
/s/ Holly O. Paz /s/ Pascal Duss
________________________ ________________________
Holly O. Paz Pascal Duss
United States Competent Authority State Secretariat for International
Financial Matters SIF
Date: December 5, 2024 Date: December 5, 2024

Bulletin No. 2025–13 i March 24, 2025
Definition of Terms
Revenue rulings and revenue procedures
(hereinafter referred to as “rulings”) that
have an effect on previous rulings use the
following defined terms to describe the
effect:
Amplified describes a situation where
no change is being made in a prior pub-
lished position, but the prior position is
being extended to apply to a variation of
the fact situation set forth therein. Thus,
if an earlier ruling held that a principle
applied to A, and the new ruling holds that
the same principle also applies to B, the
earlier ruling is amplified. (Compare with
modified, below).
Clarified is used in those instances
where the language in a prior ruling is
being made clear because the language
has caused, or may cause, some confu-
sion. It is not used where a position in a
prior ruling is being changed.
Distinguished describes a situation
where a ruling mentions a previously pub-
lished ruling and points out an essential
difference between them.
Modified is used where the substance
of a previously published position is being
changed. Thus, if a prior ruling held that a
principle applied to A but not to B, and the
new ruling holds that it applies to both A
and B, the prior ruling is modified because
it corrects a published position. (Compare
with amplified and clarified, above).
Obsoleted describes a previously pub-
lished ruling that is not considered deter-
minative with respect to future transactions.
This term is most commonly used in a ruling
that lists previously published rulings that
are obsoleted because of changes in laws or
regulations. A ruling may also be obsoleted
because the substance has been included in
regulations subsequently adopted.
Revoked describes situations where the
position in the previously published ruling
is not correct and the correct position is
being stated in a new ruling.
Superseded describes a situation where
the new ruling does nothing more than
restate the substance and situation of a
previously published ruling (or rulings).
Thus, the term is used to republish under
the 1986 Code and regulations the same
position published under the 1939 Code
and regulations. The term is also used
when it is desired to republish in a single
ruling a series of situations, names, etc.,
that were previously published over a
period of time in separate rulings. If the
new ruling does more than restate the sub-
stance of a prior ruling, a combination of
terms is used. For example, modified and
superseded describes a situation where the
substance of a previously published ruling
is being changed in part and is continued
without change in part and it is desired to
restate the valid portion of the previously
published ruling in a new ruling that is
self contained. In this case, the previously
published ruling is first modified and then,
as modified, is superseded.
Supplemented is used in situations in
which a list, such as a list of the names of
countries, is published in a ruling and that
list is expanded by adding further names
in subsequent rulings. After the original
ruling has been supplemented several
times, a new ruling may be published that
includes the list in the original ruling and
the additions, and supersedes all prior rul-
ings in the series.
Suspended is used in rare situations
to show that the previous published rul-
ings will not be applied pending some
future action such as the issuance of new
or amended regulations, the outcome of
cases in litigation, or the outcome of a
Service study.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations in current
use and formerly used will appear in
material published in the Bulletin.
A—Individual.
Acq.—Acquiescence.
B—Individual.
BE—Beneficiary.
BK—Bank.
B.T.A.—Board of Tax Appeals.
C—Individual.
C.B.—Cumulative Bulletin.
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations.
CI—City.
COOP—Cooperative.
Ct.D.
—Court Decision.
CY—County.
D—Decedent.
DC—Dummy Corporation.
DE—Donee.
Del. Order—Delegation Order.
DISC—Domestic International Sales Corporation.
DR—Donor.
E—Estate.
EE—Employee.
E.O.—Executive Order.
ER—Employer.
ERISA—Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
EX—Executor.
F—Fiduciary.
FC—Foreign Country.
FICA—Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
FISC—Foreign International Sales Company.
FPH—Foreign Personal Holding Company.
F.R.—Federal Register.
FUTA—Federal Unemployment Tax Act.
FX—Foreign corporation.
G.C.M.—Chief Counsel’s Memorandum.
GE—Grantee.
GP—General Partner.
GR—Grantor.
IC—Insurance Company.
I.R.B.—Internal Revenue Bulletin.
LE—Lessee.
LP—Limited Partner.
LR—Lessor.
M—Minor.
Nonacq.—Nonacquiescence.
O—Organization.
P—Parent Corporation.
PHC—Personal Holding Company.
PO—Possession of the U.S.
PR—Partner.
PRS—Partnership.
PTE—Prohibited Transaction Exemption.
Pub. L.—Public Law.
REIT—Real Estate Investment Trust.
Rev. Proc.—Revenue Procedure.
Rev. Rul.—Revenue Ruling.
S—Subsidiary.
S.P.R.—Statement of Procedural Rules.
Stat.—Statutes at Large.
T—Target Corporation.
T.C.—Tax Court.
T.D.—Treasury Decision.
TFE—Transferee.
TFR—Transferor.
T.I.R.—Technical Information Release.
TP—Taxpayer.
TR—Trust.
TT—Trustee.
U.S.C.—United States Code.
X—Corporation.
Y—Corporation.
Z—Corporation.

March 24, 2025 ii Bulletin No. 2025–13
Numerical Finding List
1
Bulletin 2025–13
Announcements:
2025-2, 2025-2 I.R.B. 305
2025-3, 2025-2 I.R.B. 306
2025-4, 2025-2 I.R.B. 306
2025-1, 2025-3 I.R.B. 431
2025-5, 2025-3 I.R.B. 433
2025-6, 2025-5 I.R.B. 526
2025-8, 2025-13 I.R.B. 1384
Notices:
2025-1, 2025-3 I.R.B. 415
2025-2, 2025-3 I.R.B. 418
2025-4, 2025-3 I.R.B. 419
2025-5, 2025-3 I.R.B. 426
2025-3, 2025-4 I.R.B. 488
2025-7, 2025-5 I.R.B. 524
2025-9, 2025-6 I.R.B. 681
2025-10, 2025-6 I.R.B. 682
2025-11, 2025-6 I.R.B. 704
2025-13, 2025-6 I.R.B. 710
2025-6, 2025-8 I.R.B. 799
2025-8, 2025-8 I.R.B. 800
2025-12, 2025-8 I.R.B. 813
2025-14, 2025-10 I.R.B. 980
2025-15, 2025-11 I.R.B. 1089
2025-16, 2025-13 I.R.B. 1378
Proposed Regulations:
REG-117213-24, 2025-3 I.R.B. 433
REG-134420-10, 2025-4 I.R.B. 513
REG-105479-18, 2025-5 I.R.B. 527
REG-116610-20, 2025-5 I.R.B. 638
REG-115560-23, 2025-6 I.R.B. 716
REG-123525-23, 2025-6 I.R.B. 726
REG-124930-21, 2025-7 I.R.B. 772
REG-100669-24, 2025-8 I.R.B. 819
REG-101268-24, 2025-8 I.R.B. 836
REG-107420-24, 2025-8 I.R.B. 854
REG-116085-23, 2025-8 I.R.B. 865
REG-118988-22, 2025-8 I.R.B. 869
REG-107895-24, 2025-9 I.R.B. 972
REG-110878-24, 2025-9 I.R.B. 979
REG-112261-24, 2025-10 I.R.B. 983
Revenue Procedures:
2025-1, 2025-1 I.R.B. 1
2025-2, 2025-1 I.R.B. 118
2025-3, 2025-1 I.R.B. 142
2025-4, 2025-1 I.R.B. 158
2025-5, 2025-1 I.R.B. 260
2025-7, 2025-1 I.R.B. 301
2025-8, 2025-3 I.R.B. 427
2025-9, 2025-4 I.R.B. 491
Revenue Procedures:—Continued
2025-10, 2025-4 I.R.B. 492
2025-11, 2025-4 I.R.B. 501
2025-12, 2025-4 I.R.B. 512
2025-6, 2025-6 I.R.B. 713
2025-14, 2025-7 I.R.B. 770
2025-13, 2025-8 I.R.B. 816
2025-15, 2025-11 I.R.B. 1090
2025-16, 2025-11 I.R.B. 1100
2025-17, 2025-13 I.R.B. 1382
Revenue Rulings:
2025-1, 2025-3 I.R.B. 307
2025-2, 2025-3 I.R.B. 309
2025-3, 2025-4 I.R.B. 443
2025-4, 2025-7 I.R.B. 758
2025-5, 2025-7 I.R.B. 767
2025-6, 2025-11 I.R.B. 1064
2025-7, 2025-13 I.R.B. 1239
Treasury Decisions:
10016, 2025-3 I.R.B. 313
10020, 2025-3 I.R.B. 408
10018, 2025-4 I.R.B. 446
10019, 2025-4 I.R.B. 482
10017, 2025-5 I.R.B. 517
10028, 2025-6 I.R.B. 660
10022, 2025-8 I.R.B. 773
10026, 2025-9 I.R.B. 878
10027, 2025-9 I.R.B. 897
10029, 2025-9 I.R.B. 936
10030, 2025-11 I.R.B. 1066
10024, 2025-12 I.R.B. 1104
10023, 2025-13 I.R.B. 1259
1
A cumulative list of all revenue rulings, revenue procedures, Treasury decisions, etc., published in Internal Revenue Bulletins 2024–27 through 2024–52 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin
2024–52, dated December 23, 2024.

Bulletin No. 2025–13 iii March 24, 2025
Finding List of Current Actions on
Previously Published Items
1
Bulletin 2025–13
1
A cumulative list of all revenue rulings, revenue procedures, Treasury decisions, etc., published in Internal Revenue Bulletins 2024–27 through 2024–52 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin
2024–52, dated December 23, 2024.

Internal Revenue Service
Washington, DC 20224
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN
The Introduction at the beginning of this issue describes the purpose and content of this publication. The weekly Internal Revenue
Bulletins are available at www.irs.gov/irb/.
We Welcome Comments About the Internal Revenue Bulletin
If you have comments concerning the format or production of the Internal Revenue Bulletin or suggestions for improving it,
we would be pleased to hear from you. You can email us your suggestions or comments through the IRS Internet Home Page
www.irs.gov) or write to the Internal Revenue Service, Publishing Division, IRB Publishing Program Desk, 1111 Constitution Ave.
NW, IR-6230 Washington, DC 20224.