Clean renewable energy bonds (CREBs) present a low-cost 

opportunity for public entities to issue bonds to finance 

renewable energy projects. The federal government lowers 

the cost of debt by providing a tax credit to the bondholders 

in lieu of interest payments from the issuer. Because CREBs 

are theoretically interest free, they may be more attractive 

than traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds. 

In February 2009, Congress appropriated a total of $2.4 billion 

for the “New CREBs” program. No more than one-third of 

the budget may be allocated to each of the eligible entities: (1) 

governmental bodies, (2) electric cooperatives, and (3) public 

power providers. Applications for this round of “New CREBs” 

were due to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on August 4, 

2009. There is no indication Congress will extend the CREBs 

program; thus going forward, only projects that are already 

approved under the 2009 round will be able to issue CREBs. 

This factsheet explains the CREBs mechanism and provides 

guidance on procedures related to issuing CREBs.

On October 27, 2009, the U.S. Department of the Treasury 

announced the allocation of $2.2 billion of issuing authority 

for “New CREBs” to successful applicants. Per IRS Notice 

2009-33, the IRS plans to reallocate any unallocated volume 

cap as well as any relinquished or reverted allocations. 

Because $191 million of the volume cap for electric cooperatives was not allocated on October 27, there may be a supplemental allocation round for cooperative projects.

CREBs Funding

•	2005. CREBs were created under the Energy Tax Incentives 

Act of 2005 (and detailed in Internal Revenue Code Section 

54). The CREBs program was funded at $800 million.

•	2006. Legislation increased total CREBs funding to $1.2 

billion.

•	2008. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 

2008 (the “Energy Act”) authorized $800 million of “New 

CREBs” funding and extended the issuance deadline for 

existing CREBs by one year to December 31, 2009.

•	2009. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (the “Recovery Act”) increased the “New CREBs” 

allocation by $1.6 billion, bringing the “New CREBs” total 

to $2.4 billion.

How it Works

With CREBS, a type of tax credit bond, the investor receives a 

tax credit from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury 

Department) rather than an interest payment from the issuer. 

However as discussed below, in many cases the tax credit 

provided to investors has been insufficient and investors have 

required issuers to pay supplemental interest payments or 

issue their bonds at a discount. Tax credit bonds differ from 

traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds in several ways.

•	Tax-exempt municipal bonds. The issuer makes cash interest payments. The federal government exempts this interest 

income from federal taxes, thereby allowing an investor to 

offer bond rates that are lower than those for a corporate 

bond of similar credit rating.

•	Tax credit bonds. The federal government provides the 

investor with tax credits in lieu of interest payments from 

the borrower, theoretically subsidizing municipal borrowing completely. 

Application and Allocation Procedure

The CREBs program is administered by the IRS. Each time 

Congress makes a CREBs authorization, the IRS issues guidance soliciting applications from qualified entities with qualified projects. In April 2009, the IRS published an application 

and related guidance for securing “New CREBs” allocations 

(U.S. Department of Treasury 2009a). These applications were 

due to the IRS on August 4, 2009. Projects eligible for allocations include facilities that generate electricity from a variety 

of sources including, wind, solar, closed-loop biomass, 

open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation, qualified 

hydropower, landfill gas, marine renewables, and trash combustion. Projects that receive allocations in this round will 

have three years to issue the bonds.

The Energy Act specifies that up to $800 million will be 

awarded to each category of applicant: governmental bodies, 

cooperative electric utilities, and public power providers. For 

governmental bodies and electric cooperatives, the Treasury 

Department will make awards to eligible projects, from 

smallest to largest project, until either the $800 million for 

each category has been exhausted or all applications have 

been granted. Awards to public power providers, namely 

Fact Sheet Series on Financing Renewable Energy Projects

Energy Analysis

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Financing Public Sector Projects with Clean 

Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Sponsorship Format Reversed

Color:White 

Vertical Format Reversed-A

Vertical Format Reversed-B

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future
Page 2

municipal utilities, are no longer made on a smallest to

largest project basis. The “New CREBs” methodology

allows all eligible projects, regardless of project size, to 

receive funds. Public power providers will receive a prorata share of the overall allocation of funds in this category 

(U.S. Congress House 2008). Each project will be allocated a 

portion of the $800 million, based on the fraction of its total 

request to the total requested for all public power projects 

(U.S. House 2009).

The CREBs Tax Credit and Term

The tax credit received is calculated by multiplying the current tax credit rate by the CREB’s outstanding principal. The 

tax credit is calculated quarterly and can be claimed against 

regular income tax liability or alternative minimum tax 

liability. Unlike the interest on traditional tax-exempt bonds, 

the CREBs tax credit is considered taxable income (i.e., as if it 

were interest income for the investor). 

Because longer bond terms mean longer-lasting tax benefits 

for investors but increased costs to the Treasury Department, 

the CREBs program limits the maximum term of the bonds. 

Term limitations are currently on the order of 14 to 15 years.1

Thus, as interest rates (including applicable federal rates) fall, 

the maximum maturity of a CREB rises. Waiting to lock into 

a bond with a longer maturity might make sense if interest 

rates are expected to fall. For example, the long-term adjusted 

applicable federal rate (AFR)2 fell from 4.56% in April 2009 to 

4.53% in May 2009, resulting in an increase in the maturity 

limit from 14 to 15 years for bonds issued in May.

The Treasury Department must set the credit rate such that 

the issuer need not discount the bond nor pay additional 

interest payments (Internal Revenue Code Section 54A(b)(3)). 

For the first two rounds of CREBs in 2006 and 2007, the Treasury Department determined the tax credit rates based on the 

market rate for AA-rated corporate bonds (U.S. Department 

of Treasury 2007). However, this method proved problematic 

because many municipalities had credit ratings lower than 

AA and were unable to borrow at a rate equivalent to the AA 

corporate rate; i.e., their borrowing rate was higher. Additionally, investor demand was limited because investors were 

unfamiliar with the instrument and because the size of the

 bonds tends to be small (IRS typically allocates funds from 

1

 The maximum term of a CREB is set by the Secretary of the Treasury and 

is based on a quantitative estimate of the present value of half the bond. The 

discount rate is equal to 110 percent of the long-term adjusted applicable federal rates (AFR), compounded semi-annually, for the month in which the bond 

is sold (U.S. Department of the Treasury 2009a). First, half of the face value of 

the bond is assumed to be the balance in year one. Then, the 110% discount 

rate is applied to determine the present value of the loan during each 6-month 

period. Once the discounted amount of the loan balance reaches the face 

value of the bond, the total years of the term of the CREBs is determined. 

2

 Each month, the IRS provides various prescribed rates for federal income 

tax purposes. The IRS publishes these rates, known as applicable federal 

rates (or AFRs), as revenue rulings. 

the smallest to the largest). Consequently, many issuers have 

had to discount the bonds or have agreed to pay supplemental interest to attract investors (Serchuk 2008). In addition, 

many potential issuers decided against issuing CREBs when 

the transaction costs and interest payments were higher than 

originally anticipated. In light of this market reaction, the 

Treasury Department modified its methodology for determining the tax credit rate. For “New CREBs,” the Treasury 

Department bases the tax credit rate on yield estimates on 

outstanding bonds with investment grade ratings between 

“single A” and BBB for bonds of a similar maturity (U.S. 

Department of Treasury 2009b). 

“New CREBs” reduce the annual tax credit rate allowed. 

Before the recent program changes, CREBs issuers were 

required to repay a fraction of the principle annually over 

the term of the loan, such that the investor received a tax 

credit on the full amount of the bond for the full term. Under 

“New CREBs,” borrowers will repay the entire principal at 

the bond’s maturity. As a result, the Energy Act reduced the 

annual tax credit rate allowed to 70% of the rate determined 

by the IRS (Hunton & Williams 2008). Table 1 shows recent 

rates published by the Treasury Department, with and without the 70% credit reduction. Given the current rates, issuers 

are likely to have to pay some supplemental interest (see 

Analysis section below). 

Table 1. Tax Credit Rates, Maturities, and Permitted 

Sinking Fund Yields for “New CREBs” in June 2009

Date Rate Maturity PSFY*

70% 

Reduction

5/29/2009 7.90% 15 yrs 4.98% 5.53%

6/10/2009 7.88% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.52%

6/11/2009 7.98% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.59%

6/12/2009 7.90% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.53%

6/15/2009 7.59% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.31%

6/16/2009 7.54% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.28%

6/17/2009 7.43% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.20%

6/18/2009 7.59% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.31%

6/19/2009 7.41% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.19%

6/22/2009 7.32% 16 yrs 4.66% 5.12%

* Permitted Sinking Fund Yield (PSFY) is the return allowed on a reserve fund for

the project. 

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury 2009c. Rates found at https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/rates/irs/rates_qtcb.htm

For example, if the recipient of an allocation were to issue a 

CREB on June 22, 2009, the term would be 16 years and the 

tax credit interest rate would be 5.12%. If the risk profile of a 

given project were such that the market required a rate
Page 3

greater than 5.12%, the issuer would have to make supplemental interest payments to sufficiently compensate the 

investor. As previously mentioned, in practice, the tax credit 

rate has not been sufficient for investors and supplemental 

interest payments have been required. This trend is likely 

to continue, especially now that the “New CREBs” program 

uses a 70% reduction rate.

With the passing of the Energy Act, lawmakers also sought 

to increase the liquidity of CREBs and expand the buyer base 

for the bonds. Investors are now permitted to strip the tax 

credits from principal payments and to sell them separately. 

For example, a bondholder who does not have sufficient tax 

liability can sell the right to the tax credit to someone who 

does have a tax appetite. Additionally, unused credits can be 

carried over indefinitely (Hunton & Williams 2008). These 

provisions are expected to make CREBs more liquid and 

attractive in the marketplace.

Guidance for Issuers

Upon receiving an allocation, a qualified issuer (i.e., a state, 

local or tribal government, cooperative electric company, 

public power provider, or CREBs lender that has an outstanding loan to a publically owned utility) can issue a CREB for 

a qualified renewable energy facility. IRS Notice 2009-33 

specifies that “New CREBs” must be issued within three 

years after the allocation date. The IRS requires written 

notification from qualified issuers as soon as they determine 

that the bonds will not be issued within three years. Upon 

receiving such notification, the IRS considers an allocation 

to be forfeited. Unused allocations revert to the IRS and are 

reallocated (U.S. Department of Treasury 2009a).

A qualified borrower can use CREBs proceeds to reimburse 

qualified expenditures (i.e. development costs or equipment 

down payments incurred prior to receiving the allocation) 

as long as reimbursement occurs no later than 18 months 

after the original expenditure. The borrower must declare 

intent in the project-financing plan, before the first project 

expenditure,3 to use the proceeds of a CREB for reimbursement. Timing is important; the reimbursement window is 18 

months, and reimbursable costs can only be claimed after the 

allocation is approved (Lamb and Jones 2008).

In the first two rounds of CREBs, issuers were required to 

make equal annual installment payments over the term of 

the bond. For “New CREBs,” the Treasury Department lifted 

the straight-line principal amortization requirement so that 

an issuer can repay the entire principal on the final maturity 

date (a “bullet maturity”) (U.S. Congress House 2008). Consequently, the investor is entitled to a tax credit on the bond’s 

full-face amount for its entire life. This change eliminated the 

3

 Alternatively, borrowers can declare this intent in writing no later than 60 

days after the original expenditure.

particularly thorny problem of an early first principal repayment for the issuer,4

 which was cited as a barrier in previous 

rounds (Cory et al. 2008).

One-hundred percent of available project proceeds (APP) 

must be used on qualified expenditures within three years of 

the date of issuance. Available project proceeds include the 

bond proceeds and any investment earnings on these bond 

proceeds, less issuance costs. Qualified expenditures consist 

of capital expenditures for a qualified project. Thus, costs that 

are not capital expenditures cannot be funded from the available project proceeds. Non-qualified costs include items such 

as debt service reserve funds and project working capital. 

Technically, the costs of issuance are also non-qualified costs, 

but under a special rule, proceeds of the CREBs can be used 

to fund costs of issuance in an amount up to 2% of the CREBs 

sale proceeds. Any costs of issuance in excess of the 2% limit 

must be paid from other sources of funds. 

At the time of issuance of the CREBs, the issuer must reasonably expect to spend 10% of the APP within 6 months and 

100% of the APP by the third anniversary of issuance. The 

three-year expenditure period is considered a hard deadline. 

However, a “relief valve” in the statute does permit issuers to 

apply to the IRS for an extension if they can show that failure 

to meet a deadline is due to reasonable cause and that they 

will proceed with due diligence to complete the project and 

expend the remaining APP. Any amount unspent after three 

years (as the same may be extended) must be used to redeem 

an equal amount of the outstanding CREB. 

CREBs, like tax-exempt bonds, are subject to the investment 

yield restrictions and arbitrage-rebate requirements under 

IRC Section 148. However, the Energy Act liberalized the 

arbitrage rules for CREBs proceeds during the construction period,5

 and investment returns on the bond proceeds 

4

 A fraction of the principal was due in December of the year the bond

was issued.

5

 In previous rounds of CREBs, developers who invested money during

the construction period had to pay to the IRS earnings in excess of the cost 

of borrowing.

Iberdrola Renewables/PIX 16110
Page 4

invested during the three-year construction spending period 

are now exempt from arbitrage restrictions.

Furthermore, an invested sinking fund6 option was created 

under the “New CREBs” legislation. Issuers can set aside 

project revenues (or other funds, such as tax revenues in the 

case of general obligation bonds) in equal installments annually to an invested sinking fund in order to accumulate the 

funds needed to pay the CREBs when due. 

For this fund to comply with arbitrage-rebate rules, it is 

expected to be used to repay the issue. The issuer can invest 

this sinking fund, but the yield on any such investments

cannot exceed the discount rate used to determine the

maximum maturity on the bonds (Hunton & Williams 2008).7

6

 The title to IRC Section 54A(d)(4)(C) refers to this as a “reserve fund.” However, this term can confuse those familiar with the law of tax-exempt bonds 

because it customarily refers to a “debt service reserve fund,” which consists 

of money set aside for paying debt service if and only if the issuer encounters 

financial difficulties and has no other funds to pay debt service. Rather, the 

provision under discussion here relates to what is usually called an “invested 

sinking fund”–a fund set up to accumulate money to pay scheduled debt service. For example, if $1 million in principal is due in five years, an investor may 

be concerned about the issuer’s ability to produce the entire $1 million in year 

five. To alleviate this concern, the issuer may create a covenant to set up an 

invested sinking fund into which the investor will pay and set aside $200,000 

from project revenues each year. In this way, the $1 million will be on hand in 

year five and the investor can pay the amount due. (Because payment of debt 

service on the CREBs is not a qualified cost, project revenues—not CREBs 

proceeds—must fund the invested sinking fund.) An invested sinking fund is a 

type of “reserve fund” broadly speaking, but it needs to be distinguished from 

the debt service reserve fund found in many tax-exempt bond issues. For 

regular tax-exempt bonds (i.e., those that bear tax-exempt interest in lieu of 

granting tax credits), a debt service reserve fund can be funded with the bond 

proceeds (subject to limits set forth in the Code and Regulations). But, as 

noted above, no portion of the CREBs proceeds can be used to fund a debt 

service reserve. Thus, the distinction between a debt service reserve fund and 

an invested sinking fund is particularly important to understand in the case of 

CREBs.

7

 That is, the maximum “permitted sinking fund yield” (PSFY) is a rate equal 

to 110% of the long-term adjusted AFR, compounded semi-annually, for the 

month in which the bond was sold (U.S. Department of the Treasury 2009a). 

The PSFY is published monthly at https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/rates/

irs/rates_qtcb.htm and was approximately 5% for April and May of 2009.

This special rule on invested sinking funds is quite favorable to issuers in that it allows them to earn a return on the 

amounts accumulated in the fund (and these earnings can 

be used to pay the debt service). Under the normal invested 

sinking fund rules applicable to tax-exempt bonds (referred 

to as the “bona fide debt service fund” rules), issuers are not 

afforded a similar investment opportunity.

Analysis

Investors will only invest in CREBs if they offer a return that 

is comparable to tax-exempt municipal bonds and the credit 

risk is reasonable. Because issuers are not required to repay 

principal until the final maturity date, investors are likely to 

require the creation of a sinking fund or the pledge of assets 

as additional collateral. 

Tables 2, 3, and 4 compare 16-year “New CREBs” with average tax-exempt bonds (TEB) issued the week of June 15, 2009 

when the tax credit rate was 7.59% and the effective rate 

5.31% given the 70% credit reduction. This analysis ignores 

the differences in term, amortization, and liquidity. Table 2 

shows that the net benefit after taxes for CREBs is less than 

tax-exempt bond net benefits, even though the CREBs tax 

credit rate of 5.31% is higher than certain 20-year taxexempt rates. If the tax rate is less than 35%, the gap in net 

benefit is reduced. 

Under a scenario such as this, an investor requires supplemental interest payments from the issuer; the interest rate 

depends on the bondholder’s tax rate, the project risk profile, 

and the issuer’s credit rating. If bondholders are assumed 

to have to pay taxes on the interest income (Benge 2009), 

an investor with a 35% corporate tax rate might require 2% 

supplemental interest, which is comparable to estimates from 

Bank of America, a major CREBs investor (Coughlin 2009). 

If the municipal bond is rated an investor might require as 

much as 3% supplemental interest.

Table 3 examines a 35% corporate tax rate and includes the 

benefits of the tax credit as well as the corporation’s ability 

to deduct interest payments with a tax-exempt bond. This 

scenario also “nets out” the taxes paid on the tax credit and 

the interest. At these interest coupons, the net benefits of the 

“New CREBs” are shown to be approximately the same as 

tax-exempt bonds, from the standpoint of the investor.

Subsidiaries of companies with lower tax rates may be able 

to structure bonds such that less supplemental interest is 

required. For example, if a subsidiary has a tax rate of 20% 

(as in Table 4), it might be able to offer bonds to AAA-rated 

borrowers with 0.5% supplemental interest and AA-rated 

and A-rated borrowers with 1% supplemental interest. In this 

case, “New CREBs” offer a slight advantage over traditional 

tax-exempt bonds.

Utah Geological Survey - Robert Blackett/PIX 13995
Page 5

Table 4. Net Benefits of Different Bond Investments for Companies with a 20% Tax Rate

Year 1

"New" 

CREB

"New" 

CREB

"New" 

CREB TEB (AAA) TEB (AA) TEB (A)

Par Amount $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Tax Credit Rate (70%) 5.31% 5.31% 5.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Interest Rate 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 4.85% 5.25% 5.13%

Tax Credit $5,313 $5,313 $5,313

Interest Payment $500 $1,000 $1,500 $4,850 $5,250 $5,130

Tax on Credit $1,063 $1,063 $1,063

Tax on Interest $100 $200 $300

Net Benefit (Credit - Taxes)* $4,650 $5,050 $5,450 $4,850 $5,250 $5,130

* Net Benefit is defined the sum of tax credits plus interest payment, minus taxes (on credit and interest).

Sources: Yahoo! Finance (2009), U.S. Department of the Treasury (2009c).

Table 2. Net Benefits of Different Bond Investments under 35% and 20% Corporate Tax Rates

Year 1

“New” CREB 

(35% Tax Rate)

“New” CREB 

(20% Tax Rate) TEB (AAA) TEB (AA) TEB (A)

Par Amount $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Tax Credit Rate (70%) 5.31% 5.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Interest Rate 0.00% 0.00% 4.85% 5.25% 5.13%

Tax Credit $5,313 $5,313

Interest Payment $0 $0 $4,850 $5,250 $5,130

Tax on Credit $1,860 $1,063

Net Benefit (Credit - Taxes)* $3,453 $4,250 $4,850 $5,250 $5,130

* Net Benefit is the sum of tax credits plus interest payment, minus taxes (on credit and interest).

Sources: Yahoo Finance 2009, Treasury Direct 2009

Table 3. Net Benefits of Different Bond Investments for Companies with a 35% Tax Rate

Year 1 "New" CREB "New" CREB TEB (AAA) TEB (AA) TEB (A)

Par Amount $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Tax Credit Rate (70%) 5.31% 5.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Interest Rate 2.00% 3.00% 4.85% 5.25% 5.13%

Tax Credit $5,313 $5,313

Interest Payment $2,000 $3,000 $4,850 $5,250 $5,130

Tax on Credit $1,860 $1,860

Tax on Interest $700 $1,050

Net Benefit (Credit - Taxes) $4,753 $5,403 $4,850 $5,250 $5,130

* Net Benefit is the sum of tax credits plus interest payment, minus taxes (on credit and interest).

Sources: Yahoo Finance 2009, Treasury Direct 2009
Page 6

Conclusions

Low-cost municipal debt benefits project developers in the 

public sector. CREBs, which offer public entities lower cost 

financing than traditional municipal bonds, may be an 

attractive option with which to deploy renewables. However, 

several challenges might make financing with CREBs difficult for public agencies. Deadlines for issuing the bond, reimbursing project costs, and spending all available proceeds are 

tight. If bonds are not issued within three years, the agency 

risks forfeiting the allocation. Under new program rules, the 

issuer also must spend proceeds within three years of issuing the bond. Unspent proceeds must be used for redemption 

of the outstanding debt. Project developers must heed all 

deadlines, as extensions are not necessarily easily obtained. 

The high cost and complexity of issuing CREB can drive 

up overall financing costs for projects. Some public agencies (municipal utilities and governments) have cited high 

transaction costs as a barrier to issuing CREBs. Applying for 

and issuing CREBs requires considerable up-front legwork. 

These costs are relatively independent of project size and 

include the labor required to submit an application and issue 

the bond, any legal fees, and the costs associated with voter 

approval (if pursuing a general obligation bond). Furthermore, the new legislation limits non-qualified costs to 2% of 

the proceeds of the bond, so financing of some transaction 

costs outside of the bond will likely be required.

State and local governments can overcome these financing challenges. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for 

example, creatively reduced transaction costs and attracted 

investor interest. Massachusetts’ bonding agency, MassDevelopment, issued one bond for 12 bundled projects totaling

1 MW. This approach significantly reduced the cost of

issuance and helped attract investor interest with the larger 

bond size (Cory et al. 2008). 

The Energy Act amended CREBs program rules to attract 

investors and potential issuers. Under the program, public 

sector renewable energy projects have significant potential

to obtain low-cost financing despite the challenges

described above.

References

Benge, A. (June 2009). Conference call. Jones Hall, San Diego, CA.

Cory, K; Coughlin J.; and Coggeshall, C. (2008). Solar Photovoltaic 

Financing: Deployment on Public Property by State and Local

Governments. NREL/TP-670-43115. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory.

Coughlin, J. 2009 (May 5, 2009). Conference call. “CREBs and QECB.” 

NREL, Golden, CO.

Hunton & Williams. (2008). “Summary of New CREBs and QECBs.” 

http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details%5CFileUpload

265%5C2457%5CSummary_New_CREBs_and_QECBs.pdf.

Accessed March 10, 2009.

Lamb, D.; Jones, L. (October 30, 2008). “Energy Tax Credit Bonds 

Teleconference.” Presented at the Energy Tax Credit Bonds

Teleconference. http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/pages/

HuntonLambOct2008.html/$file/10-30-08-Tax%20Credit%20

Bonds%20Teleconference.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2008.

Serchuk, B. (December, 2008). Conference call. “Clean Renewable 

Energy Bonds.” Nixon Peabody, Washington, DC.

U.S. Congress. House. (2008). “Emergency Economic Stabilization

Act of 2008, Division B, Energy Improvement and Extension Act 

of 2008, Section 107.” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.

xpd?bill=h110-1424. Accessed February 25, 2009.

U.S. Congress. House. (2009). “American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, Division B, Tax, Unemployment, Health, State Fiscal 

Relief, and Other Provisions, Section 1111.” http://www.govtrack.us/

congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1. Accessed February 25, 2009.

U. S. Department of the Treasury. (2007). Notice 2007-26. Internal 

Revenue Bulletin: 2007-14. “Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.”

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/n-07-26a.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2007.

U. S. Department of the Treasury. (2009a). Notice 2009-33. “New Clean 

Renewable Energy Bond Application Solicitation and Requirements.” 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-33.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2009.

U. S. Department of the Treasury. (2009b). Notice 2009-15L.

“Credit Rates on Tax Credit Bonds.” http://www.irs.gov/pub/

irs-drop/n-09-15.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2009.

U. S. Department of the Treasury. (2009c). “Clean Renewable 

Energy Bond Rates.” https://www.treasurydirect.gov/SZ/

SPESRates?type=CREBS. Accessed June 22, 2009.

Yahoo! Finance. (2009). “Composite Bond Rates.” http://finance.

yahoo.com/bonds/composite_bond_rates. Accessed June 23, 2009.

Contacts

This factsheet was written by Claire Kreycik and Jason 

Coughlin of NREL. For more information, contact Claire 

Kreycik at Claire.Kreycik@nrel.gov.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3305

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

NREL/FS-6A2-46605 • December 2009

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least

50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Sponsorship Format Reversed

Horizontal Format-B Reversed

Vertical Format Reversed-A

Vertical Format Reversed-B

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Horizontal Format-A Reversed

NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Sponsorship Format Black

Horizontal Format Black-B

Vertical Format-A Black

Vertical Format-B Black 

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Horizontal Format Black-A

NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future