Will Congress extend clean-energy tax credits before their 2027 step-down?
Peer-to-Peer Order Book
Live- A participant offers to buy or sell a contract at a price they choose.
- Another participant takes the opposite side.
- The exchange matches the orders and holds the collateral.
- Correct contracts settle at $1.00 · incorrect at $0.00.
- Fees are shown before any order is submitted.
What this market asks
In plain language: forecasters are estimating the probability that the outcome in the question actually happens by the deadline. The market currently prices 41% YES / 59% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ 78% of credit-backed projects announced since 2023 are located in districts held by the majority party.
- ▸ A bipartisan 'certainty caucus' of 41 members has formally requested an extension in the year-end package.
- ▸ Utility trade groups from all regions have unified behind extension for grid-planning reasons.
- ▸ Deficit hawks have listed credit step-downs as a scored savings item in budget frameworks.
- ▸ The step-down is automatic — inaction resolves this market NO, and inaction is Congress's default.
- ▸ Tax-title negotiations are entangled with unrelated expiring individual provisions.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if legislation extending the production or investment tax credits for clean energy at current rates beyond their scheduled 2027 step-down is enacted before January 15, 2027.
- Any participant may flag a resolution within 72 hours with cited evidence.
- Trading pauses; positions freeze at last price while flags are reviewed.
- An independent resolution council (rotating, disclosed members) rules within 14 days using only the stated sources.
- Rulings are published with full written reasoning; credits settle after publication.
Related on Quorly
Discussion · 178 comments
LiveYES at 41% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 49%. Holding YES at 36 entry.
Fading the crowd here. "Deficit hawks have listed credit step-downs as a scored savings item in budget frameworks." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 31%.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (6.1K forecasters).
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
YES at 41% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 49%. Holding YES at 36 entry.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.