FR 2025-00500

The document under review is a notice from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) inviting public comment on a proposed collection of information related to greenhouse gas emissions. This initiative is designed to aid electricity producers in applying for certain tax credits. The notice underscores the DOE's commitment to fostering a transparent and participatory approach, encouraging input from stakeholders by March 14, 2025.

General Summary

The DOE's notice seeks public feedback on a proposed data gathering plan concerning greenhouse gas emissions from electricity producers. This plan aligns with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, aiming to evaluate emissions values that could qualify facilities for tax credits under sections 45Y or 48E of the U.S. Tax Code. The comments will help DOE refine the data collection process, which involves collaboration with National Laboratories for emissions analysis. The outcome is expected to facilitate electricity producers in petitioning the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for Provisional Emissions Rates (PER).

Significant Issues or Concerns

Several issues warrant consideration regarding this proposal:

1. Purpose and Necessity: The document does not thoroughly explain the necessity of this new information collection and how it directly benefits the DOE’s functions. Such opacity could raise questions about whether this initiative is a prudent use of resources.

2. Scope of Respondents: With an estimated 20 potential respondents, the initiative appears limited in scope. This small number begs the question of whether the collecting effort justifies the projected annual cost of $77,368. The resource allocation might be perceived as inefficient.

3. Estimation Clarity: The absence of a detailed explanation for the 800 estimated annual burden hours leaves the methodology open to scrutiny. Clarifying these calculations is crucial for stakeholders to evaluate the efficiency of the proposed data collection process.

4. Qualification Process and Criteria: The purpose section mentions emissions values for tax credits but lacks detail on the qualification process for electricity producers. Such ambiguity might lead to misunderstanding among potential participants.

5. Accessibility of Language: The technical language of the document could hinder public engagement, limiting input from non-expert stakeholders who may wish to participate in the comment process.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

Broadly, the document aims to impact the public by enabling electricity producers to secure tax credits, thereby potentially lowering energy production costs and promoting cleaner energy practices. However, the complexity and scope of the proposal may limit its direct impact on the general populace.

Specific Stakeholder Impact: - Electricity Producers: Potentially significant, as the initiative offers a pathway to financial incentives through tax credits. However, the unclear guidelines on qualification and the technical complexity could be deterrents.

• National Laboratories: These entities might see increased engagement and collaboration opportunities with the DOE, facilitating emissions analysis.

• Taxpayers and Consumers: While indirect, taxpayers may question the efficiency and transparency of government spending on such initiatives, potentially affecting public trust.

In conclusion, the DOE's request for comments signals an effort to streamline emissions data collection and benefit stakeholders via tax incentives. However, several issues, primarily around clarity and scope, must be addressed to ensure that the initiative achieves its intended impact effectively and efficiently.

The document issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) discusses a proposed collection of information related to emissions values that electricity producers might need to claim certain tax credits. In examining the financial details, the document provides an annual estimated reporting and recordkeeping cost burden of $77,368. This cost is associated with gathering and maintaining the required data for the DOE's initiative.

The financial allocation of $77,368 emerges in a context where only 20 entities are expected to respond to the request for information. This implies that, on average, each respondent's participation incurs an expense of approximately $3,868.40. The figure signifies the financial resources needed for collecting and maintaining the required data and raises questions about the efficiency and justification for such spending given the limited number of intended respondents. The nature of this limited engagement might suggest the possibility of a misalignment between costs and benefits; some might question whether the resources allocated are proportionate to the potential value extracted from such a small sample size.

Moreover, the document highlights a lack of detailed information on how the 800 burden hours were calculated, adding another layer of opacity regarding the financial commitment. Stakeholders might find it challenging to assess whether these hours justifiably translate into the $77,368 cost burden mentioned.

This cost must also be considered alongside the existing issues identified in the document, such as the absence of clear benefit explanations for DOE's functions and the criteria necessary for tax credit qualification. Without a transparent framework outlining the expected utility or benefits of this information collection, stakeholders could find it difficult to comprehend the necessity and effectiveness of the financial resources being utilized.

In conclusion, while the document outlines the financial commitments associated with collecting emissions-related information, it leaves several questions unanswered about the efficiency and justification of these expenses. The DOE may benefit from clarifying these points to provide stakeholders with a clearer understanding of the financial implications and benefits, ensuring more meaningful public engagement and feedback.