This bill adds a new investment tax credit to the Internal Revenue Code specifically for combined heat and power (CHP) system property. It directs Treasury to write performance and quality standards, ties eligibility to depreciable property and original use or taxpayer construction, and includes special rules for projects using biomass and for projects financed with tax-exempt bonds.
The measure is designed to make on-site efficient power-plus-thermal systems more financially attractive to industrial sites, hospitals, campuses, and similar facilities. For energy and compliance professionals, the bill creates a new federal subsidy stream that will affect project underwriting, tax planning, and equipment manufacturing supply chains.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new IRC section 48F establishing an investment tax credit equal to 10 percent of the basis of qualified CHP system property placed in service. It authorizes two 10-percentage-point bonus increases — one for domestic content and one for projects sited in statutory “energy communities.” The Secretary of the Treasury must issue regulations (after consulting the Department of Energy) that set performance and quality standards and require recordkeeping and reporting.
Who It Affects
Industrial and commercial energy consumers (manufacturing plants, hospitals, campuses, district energy), CHP equipment manufacturers and installers, project developers and financiers, and tax and compliance teams that handle depreciation, credit claims, and domestic-content documentation.
Why It Matters
This fills a gap in federal incentives by targeting combined heat-and-power investments rather than standalone electricity generation. Because the credit modifies basis treatment and links to other IRC provisions, it changes how projects are sized, financed, and combined with other tax incentives — with implications for supply chains and local economic development.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a discrete federal investment tax credit for what it calls "qualified combined heat and power system property." To qualify, property must be depreciable property that is either built by the taxpayer or acquired when its original use begins with the taxpayer. The Treasury Secretary will publish regulations (after consulting the Department of Energy) that set any performance and quality standards applicants must meet and will prescribe recordkeeping and information reporting rules to support administration.
The statutory definition of a qualifying CHP system is technical: a system must use a single energy source to produce both useful thermal energy and electrical or mechanical power; produce a material share of its total useful energy as both thermal and electric/mechanical energy; and meet an energy-efficiency threshold. The bill requires efficiency calculations to be made on a Btu basis and ties allowable credits to the system’s normal operating capacity.
The statute also places both per-project capacity ceilings and proportional limits for systems that exceed specified "applicable capacity" thresholds.Administratively, the bill borrows several tax-law mechanisms. It applies progress expenditure rules similar to pre-1990 rules in section 46 for long-term construction and treats projects financed with tax-exempt bonds under rules analogous to those used for certain renewable credits.
The bill also cross-references existing energy-credit rules for domestic content and the “energy community” bonus, effectively importing the compliance frameworks and definitions in section 45 for those features. A special rule for systems designed to burn biomass for at least 90 percent of their fuel stream changes the efficiency requirement and scales the credit downward if the system’s efficiency falls below the statutory benchmark.Finally, the bill contains a set of conforming amendments to tie the new credit into the broader credit and minimum tax architecture of the Code, and an effective-date rule that generally applies to property whose construction begins after December 31, 2024 (with a narrow coordination rule addressing capacity determinations for properties begun earlier but placed in service in subsequent taxable years).
That mix of technical eligibility, delegated standards-setting, and cross-references to established tax credit procedures means the rulemaking phase will be important for translating statutory text into claimable credits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The base investment tax credit equals 10 percent of the basis of qualifying CHP property placed in service under new IRC section 48F.
The bill authorizes two separate 10-percentage-point increases — one for satisfying domestic-content rules and one for siting within an "energy community" — so a single project could see the statutory credit rate rise to as much as 30 percent if it meets both bonuses.
Capacity rules: the statute treats 25 megawatts (or 33,500 mechanical horsepower) as the "applicable capacity" for prorating credits on oversized systems and bars systems with capacity above 50 megawatts (or 67,000 mechanical horsepower) from qualifying entirely.
Energy-efficiency and output percentages are calculated on a Btu basis: the bill requires determining useful electrical/thermal/mechanical output versus the lower heating value of fuel inputs to compute the energy-efficiency percentage used for eligibility and credit limits.
The bill applies progress-expenditure rules (similar to section 46(c)(4) and (d)) and includes a tax-exempt bond financing limitation patterned on section 45(b)(3), which affects projects financed with municipal or other tax-exempt debt.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates the new CHP investment tax credit
This is the core provision that establishes the credit and ties it into the existing section 46 framework for investment credits. It sets the statutory credit as a percentage of basis for "qualified combined heat and power system property" placed in service during the taxable year and makes clear the credit interacts with other basis-reducing credits (for example, rehabilitation credits). Practically, this is where taxpayers will first identify whether their property can be claimed as a 48F asset and how the amount is computed against project basis.
Defines qualifying CHP systems and basic eligibility gates
This subsection spells out that qualifying property must (i) be CHP system property, (ii) be built by the taxpayer or acquired with original use starting with the taxpayer, and (iii) be depreciable or amortizable property. It also excludes property that is part of a facility that already receives a section 45 production tax credit. These mechanics affect procurement choices (build vs. buy) and the ability to pair this credit with other federal incentives.
Limits on tax-exempt financing and bonus credit enhancements
The bill applies a tax-exempt bond limitation modeled on section 45(b)(3), which means projects financed with certain municipal or tax-exempt debt could lose or reduce the credit. It also authorizes a domestic-content bonus (rules patterned on section 45(b)(9)(B)) and an energy-community bonus (by reference to section 45(b)(11)(B)), each increasing the statutory percentage by 10 percentage points. The cross-references mean taxpayers must follow existing domestic-content documentation and energy-community definitions rather than a new regime.
Applies construction-in-progress/continuity rules to multi-year projects
This subsection incorporates rules similar to section 46(c)(4) and (d), which govern how projects that use progress expenditures or long lead construction are treated for credit eligibility. In practice this affects project timelines, the ability to lock in credits during multi-year builds, and how taxpayers handle costs incurred before placing assets in service.
Technical thresholds, efficiency calculation, and biomass special rule
The statute requires that a qualifying CHP system (i) use the same energy source for simultaneous or sequential generation of electrical/mechanical and thermal energy, (ii) produce material shares of output in both thermal and electric/mechanical forms, and (iii) exceed an energy-efficiency percentage. It instructs that efficiency and output percentages be computed on a Btu basis and clarifies that input/output transportation or distribution equipment is excluded. For systems designed to use biomass for at least 90 percent of their fuel, the statute relaxes the efficiency threshold but caps the credit by scaling it proportionally to the system’s efficiency relative to 60 percent, which will affect projects proposing biomass-fired CHP.
Integration with the Code and timing rules
The bill makes a suite of conforming edits across sections 38, 45L, 46, 48C, 50, and 59A so the new credit is recognized for general credit aggregations, alternative minimum tax computations, and manufacturing tax credits. The effective-date language generally covers property whose construction begins after December 31, 2024, and includes a narrow coordination rule covering capacity determinations for property begun earlier but placed in service in subsequent years — a drafting choice that affects projects already started in 2024 and how developers plan near-term construction starts.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Industrial site owners and large commercial campuses: The credit lowers the upfront after-tax cost of installing CHP systems, improving payback for manufacturers, hospitals, universities, and district-energy operators that capture and use thermal output.
- CHP equipment manufacturers and domestic suppliers: The domestic-content bonus creates a direct financial incentive to source components from U.S. producers and can strengthen demand for domestic manufacturing of turbines, heat-recovery units, and controls.
- Energy communities and local governments: Projects sited in designated energy communities qualify for a supplemental credit, which can attract investment and jobs to regions transitioning away from legacy fossil industries.
Who Bears the Cost
- Taxpayers funding the credit: The federal government bears the revenue cost of the new credit, and Treasury/IRS must add administrative resources to implement and audit the new regime.
- Project developers and owners (compliance burden): Developers face new documentation, domestic-content compliance, and reporting requirements; projects financed with municipal or tax-exempt bonds may face reduced or disallowed credit benefits under the tax-exempt financing limitation.
- Small-scale CHP projects that exceed capacity thresholds: The statutory capacity ceilings and prorating rules can exclude or reduce credit for larger projects and create a cliff that complicates sizing decisions and may push some projects into non-qualifying configurations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to accelerate deployment of highly efficient on-site energy by subsidizing CHP investment now — including projects that may use fossil fuels or biomass — or to insist that federal incentives be tightly constrained to low-carbon, low-risk technologies; the bill leans toward broad uptake via a straightforward investment credit but shifts the carbon and eligibility gating to agency rulemaking and tax-compliance complexity.
The bill combines a generous statutory credit with a technical eligibility framework that will hinge on future Treasury regulations. That approach raises two implementation risks.
First, the statute delegates performance and quality standards to Treasury (with DOE consultation) but does not prescribe measurement protocols beyond Btu-based efficiency calculations and normal operating rates. Treasury rulemaking will determine how real-world seasonal operation, varying fuel mixes, and auxiliary loads are treated — decisions that will materially affect which systems qualify and how efficiency is demonstrated.
Second, the credit’s design balances competing policy goals but creates practical trade-offs. The domestic-content bonus supports U.S. manufacturing but will require documentation and could disadvantage projects that must source specialized foreign components.
The energy-community bonus targets economic development but risks subsidizing facilities that rely on fossil fuels; the biomass exception similarly opens the door to diverse feedstocks but ties credit size to an efficiency metric, complicating underwriting. Finally, the tax-exempt bond limitation and cross-references to existing provisions mean multi-source financing and credit stacking will require careful coordination between tax attorneys, lenders, and project engineers to avoid unintended disallowance or partial credits.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.