The Forum was moderated by John Geraghty, National Practice Leader of Energy & Infrastructure at Marshall & Stevens. Panelists included Bobby Majumder, Partner and Co-Chair of the Energy Industry Team at FBT Gibbons; Ken Malik, Head of Project Development at Grupo Cobra; Brent Nelson, Senior Managing Director of Markets and Strategy at Ascend Analytics; and Fahad Siddiqui, Director of Structured Finance at TotalEnergies.
At the Forum, the panel walked through the legal and compliance variables that are unresolved in 2026, and affecting transactions, project finance, and regulatory advice right now.
1. Supplier workarounds may not eliminate FEOC exposure
Bobby Majumder described several strategies companies are attempting to reduce perceived FEOC exposure, including restructuring manufacturing and ownership arrangements. He was skeptical that these approaches fully resolve the underlying compliance risk: ‘That don’t work,’ he said.
The discussion suggested that FEOC exposure could extend beyond initial tax credit qualification and create longer-term audit and compliance risk. The IRS retains the right to audit years after the fact, and representation letters from suppliers, however well-crafted, may still leave substantial downstream risk with the receiving party or indemnifying entities.
“You do not want to run the risk that you’re relying on certifications from your suppliers and have all your tax credits at risk,” Majumder said.
The discussion highlighted the possibility that FEOC-related audit and compliance risk could persist well beyond initial project qualification, particularly for projects with complex supply-chain exposure.
2. The market still lacks clear FEOC standards
A significant takeaway from the discussion was that there is no settled market standard. Fahad Siddiqui described the state of play:
“I don’t think there’s any developer here who has clarity. I don’t think there’s any bank here who has clarity. We’re all looking at it in real time, trying to figure it out.”
Ken Malik highlighted concerns that utility-side interconnection upgrades may still affect FEOC-related incentive exposure for projects that have no control over the utility’s own supply chain.
With reference to the interconnecting utilities, Ken stated: “The fact that FEOC implications with what they do can impact our incentives and returns is, to say it kindly, quite maddening.”
The discussion suggested that attorneys and transaction advisors are operating in an environment where supply-chain-related incentive risk remains difficult for many market participants to evaluate with certainty.
3.Tax incentive reinstatement is “possible, but not bankable”
On whether Congress might reinstate ITC and PTC at reduced levels post-midterms, the panel’s position was generally aligned:
“Possible, just not bankable. Treat any of this as upside optionality, not something you can underwrite in your base case,” said Ken Malik, reflecting the broader discussion around how difficult it remains to underwrite long-duration projects against uncertain policy assumptions.
4. Grid infrastructure remains an underappreciated constraint
Bobby Majumder named the issue he believes the broader energy market continues to underweight:
“Our grid in the United States hasn’t had any meaningful upgrades since the 1970s.”
The panel discussion highlighted how infrastructure constraints, including transmission limitations, grid modernization challenges, and interconnection bottlenecks, are becoming increasingly important variables in energy development and investment decisions. Bobby Majumder specifically pointed to the age of the U.S. grid and the broader implications that aging infrastructure may have for reliability, permitting, and long-term project viability.
More broadly, the panel repeatedly returned to the gap between announced energy demand growth and the physical infrastructure required to support it. Transmission access, power availability, labor, water, and supply-chain constraints were all discussed as practical limitations that could shape what ultimately gets built and where.
The discussion also reflected the degree of uncertainty still present across both policy and market conditions. Panelists described an environment where FEOC guidance remains unsettled, long-term incentive assumptions are difficult to underwrite with confidence, and project economics increasingly need to be evaluated across multiple regulatory and market scenarios.
Across project finance, development, and transaction advisory work, the conversation consistently returned to the challenge of operating within unresolved regulatory uncertainty.
The full conversation on what it takes to develop and finance projects in 2026 is available on demand. Watch the recording or download the 2026 Energy Outlook Report for our complete analysis.
