You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The little-known subsidy is supercharging U.S. clean energy manufacturing.

This year may forever be remembered as the start of the American clean energy manufacturing boom.
Since the beginning of 2023, companies have announced more than 150 separate investments in new and expanded factories to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and other clean energy technologies in the U.S., for a total pledged outlay of nearly $60 billion, according to tracking by the nonpartisan group E2. And these factories won’t just be assembling the final products. Entire supply chains have arrived on shore.
This is all, of course, due to the Inflation Reduction Act, the historic climate legislation President Biden signed in 2022. The projects announced this year are on top of some 60 announcements made right after the law passed.
But more specifically, these factories are the result of one program in the law that has perhaps not been fully appreciated — the 45X tax credit. The IRA’s X-factor, if I may.
In ecology, scientists refer to animals that have a disproportionate effect on their ecosystem as “keystone species.” Beavers, for example, engineer the landscape around them, creating habitat that allows certain other plants and animals to thrive. If beavers suddenly disappeared, those habitats and the creatures they supported would vanish, too.
Similarly, 45X is the “keystone” of the IRA, according to Harry Godfrey, managing director at Advanced Energy United, an industry association that represents a variety of clean energy companies. This one provision engineers the ecosystems supporting three key technologies — wind, solar, and batteries — by offering tax relief to U.S. manufacturers producing components up and down their supply chains.
The goal is not just to lower the cost of these climate solutions, but also to level the global playing field for American-made goods. Before the end of the year the Treasury Department will propose new guidance on how the 45X tax credit will work — for example, how the government will prevent fraud and abuse of the program — but the basic mechanics established in the IRA have given companies enough confidence to get to work.
The size of the credit companies are eligible for is specific to each manufactured component. Let’s look at how solar panels are made, as an example:
1. At the top of the supply chain are the companies that make polysilicon, the key material that helps transform sunlight into electricity. Those producers will earn $3 per kilogram of polysilicon fabricated in the U.S.
2. Next are the companies that buy polysilicon and turn it into solar wafers, thin slices that are later stacked to produce solar cells. They will receive $12 per square meter of wafer they produce.
3. The solar cell fabricators will receive a refund based on how much electricity their cells are capable of producing, paid out at 4 cents per watt, or $40 per kilowatt.
4. Producers of “polymeric backsheets,” a protective layer applied to the back of the final solar panels, can earn 40 cents per square meter.
5. Finally, companies that assemble the cells into a solar panel and apply the backsheets will get $70 per kilowatt.
Advanced Energy United made a rough estimate of what those five incentives would mean for solar using 2018 manufacturing data. It found that 45X would reduce the cost of a domestically produced solar panel by 41%. “That’s huge to the global competitiveness of this industry,” said Godfrey.
There are additional incentives under 45X not even included in their analysis. The program pays back 10% of the cost of producing the aluminum that goes into the solar panel’s frame and into the inverter that enables it to send power onto the electric grid, for example. Producers of “torque tubes” and “fasteners,” the structural components used to mount solar panels to a field or roof, are also eligible. Inverter manufacturers qualify, as well.
There’s no per-company cap or annual funding limit on the tax credit, and it will be in effect until 2032. But if it succeeds, it could become self-sustaining, encouraging companies to come to the U.S. in the future because that’s where the supply chain and workforce is. “Suddenly you’re shifting the gravity back into the United States,” Godfrey told me.
Proponents of subsidizing a domestic clean energy manufacturing industry tout benefits like job creation, economic development, and improving U.S. energy security and independence. Renewable energy technologies like wind and solar already inherently do this, as they reduce our exposure to the price volatility of oil and gas, as when energy prices spiked around the world in 2022 due to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Diversifying supply chains and bringing them to the U.S. further insulates the country from being overly dependent on China, which currently controls some 60% of the manufacturing capacity of clean energy technologies. Being so reliant on any one country is risky — and when that country is China, a country with which the U.S. has a longstanding rivalry, the risk is greater still. For instance, China recently restricted exports of graphite, a key mineral for electric vehicles, in retaliation to U.S. export limits on semiconductors.
45X is not the only program in the IRA that encourages domestic production. The consumer tax credit for electric vehicles, for example, which gives car buyers a $7,500 discount on a new EV, only applies to models that were assembled in the U.S., with at least 50% of their battery components made in the country, too. But the IRA creates a push and pull dynamic — 45X provides the push for that consumer-based pull to work.
“In order for these demand side credits to be effective, we need the manufacturing capacity,” Thomas Boylan, regulatory director at the Zero Emissions Transportation Association told me. “Broadly speaking, this is what will make or break the success of some of these other credits.”
Treasury’s upcoming guidance will help clarify exactly which processes and technologies qualify. But unlike some of the IRA’s other programs, where the department has had to contend with big, industry-shaping questions, like how a company can prove it is using clean electricity, the uncertainty around 45X is mostly around small details.
For example, Boylan told me there’s some confusion in the industry about who can claim which aspect of the credit. Can producers of critical minerals claim 45X, or is the credit just for companies who buy the minerals? And if one company is involved in multiple steps of the supply chain, can they claim 45X for each one? There’s also uncertainty about whether only producers of new materials are eligible, or whether, for example, an electric vehicle battery recycling company can claim the credit.
But as evidenced by the investment numbers, companies haven’t exactly been waiting for the guidance to make moves.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
According to a new analysis shared exclusively with Heatmap, coal’s equipment-related outage rate is about twice as high as wind’s.
The Trump administration wants “beautiful clean coal” to return to its place of pride on the electric grid because, it says, wind and solar are just too unreliable. “If we want to keep the lights on and prevent blackouts from happening, then we need to keep our coal plants running. Affordable, reliable and secure energy sources are common sense,” Chris Wright said on X in July, in what has become a steady drumbeat from the administration that has sought to subsidize coal and put a regulatory straitjacket around solar and (especially) wind.
This has meant real money spent in support of existing coal plants. The administration’s emergency order to keep Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant open (“to secure grid reliability”), for example, has cost ratepayers served by Michigan utility Consumers Energy some $80 million all on its own.
But … how reliable is coal, actually? According to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund of data from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a nonprofit that oversees reliability standards for the grid, coal has the highest “equipment-related outage rate” — essentially, the percentage of time a generator isn’t working because of some kind of mechanical or other issue related to its physical structure — among coal, hydropower, natural gas, nuclear, and wind. Coal’s outage rate was over 12%. Wind’s was about 6.6%.
“When EDF’s team isolated just equipment-related outages, wind energy proved far more reliable than coal, which had the highest outage rate of any source NERC tracks,” EDF told me in an emailed statement.
Coal’s reliability has, in fact, been decreasing, Oliver Chapman, a research analyst at EDF, told me.
NERC has attributed this falling reliability to the changing role of coal in the energy system. Reliability “negatively correlates most strongly to capacity factor,” or how often the plant is running compared to its peak capacity. The data also “aligns with industry statements indicating that reduced investment in maintenance and abnormal cycling that are being adopted primarily in response to rapid changes in the resource mix are negatively impacting baseload coal unit performance.” In other words, coal is struggling to keep up with its changing role in the energy system. That’s due not just to the growth of solar and wind energy, which are inherently (but predictably) variable, but also to natural gas’s increasing prominence on the grid.
“When coal plants are having to be a bit more varied in their generation, we're seeing that wear and tear of those plants is increasing,” Chapman said. “The assumption is that that's only going to go up in future years.”
The issue for any plan to revitalize the coal industry, Chapman told me, is that the forces driving coal into this secondary role — namely the economics of running aging plants compared to natural gas and renewables — do not seem likely to reverse themselves any time soon.
Coal has been “sort of continuously pushed a bit more to the sidelines by renewables and natural gas being cheaper sources for utilities to generate their power. This increased marginalization is going to continue to lead to greater wear and tear on these plants,” Chapman said.
But with electricity demand increasing across the country, coal is being forced into a role that it might not be able to easily — or affordably — play, all while leading to more emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, mercury, and, of course, carbon dioxide.
The coal system has been beset by a number of high-profile outages recently, including at the largest new coal plant in the country, Sandy Creek in Texas, which could be offline until early 2027, according to the Texas energy market ERCOT and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
In at least one case, coal’s reliability issues were cited as a reason to keep another coal generating unit open past its planned retirement date.
Last month, Colorado Representative Will Hurd wrote a letter to the Department of Energy asking for emergency action to keep Unit 2 of the Comanche coal plant in Pueblo, Colorado open past its scheduled retirement at the end of his year. Hurd cited “mechanical and regulatory constraints” for the larger Unit 3 as a justification for keeping Unit 2 open, to fill in the generation gap left by the larger unit. In a filing by Xcel and several Colorado state energy officials also requesting delaying the retirement of Unit 2, they disclosed that the larger Unit 3 “experienced an unplanned outage and is offline through at least June 2026.”
Reliability issues aside, high electricity demand may turn into short-term profits at all levels of the coal industry, from the miners to the power plants.
At the same time the Trump administration is pushing coal plants to stay open past their scheduled retirement, the Energy Information Administration is forecasting that natural gas prices will continue to rise, which could lead to increased use of coal for electricity generation. The EIA forecasts that the 2025 average price of natural gas for power plants will rise 37% from 2024 levels.
Analysts at S&P Global Commodity Insights project “a continued rebound in thermal coal consumption throughout 2026 as thermal coal prices remain competitive with short-term natural gas prices encouraging gas-to-coal switching,” S&P coal analyst Wendy Schallom told me in an email.
“Stronger power demand, rising natural gas prices, delayed coal retirements, stockpiles trending lower, and strong thermal coal exports are vital to U.S. coal revival in 2025 and 2026.”
And we’re all going to be paying the price.
Rural Marylanders have asked for the president’s help to oppose the data center-related development — but so far they haven’t gotten it.
A transmission line in Maryland is pitting rural conservatives against Big Tech in a way that highlights the growing political sensitivities of the data center backlash. Opponents of the project want President Trump to intervene, but they’re worried he’ll ignore them — or even side with the data center developers.
The Piedmont Reliability Project would connect the Peach Bottom nuclear plant in southern Pennsylvania to electricity customers in northern Virginia, i.e.data centers, most likely. To get from A to B, the power line would have to criss-cross agricultural lands between Baltimore, Maryland and the Washington D.C. area.
As we chronicle time and time again in The Fight, residents in farming communities are fighting back aggressively – protesting, petitioning, suing and yelling loudly. Things have gotten so tense that some are refusing to let representatives for Piedmont’s developer, PSEG, onto their properties, and a court battle is currently underway over giving the company federal marshal protection amid threats from landowners.
Exacerbating the situation is a quirk we don’t often deal with in The Fight. Unlike energy generation projects, which are usually subject to local review, transmission sits entirely under the purview of Maryland’s Public Service Commission, a five-member board consisting entirely of Democrats appointed by current Governor Wes Moore – a rumored candidate for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. It’s going to be months before the PSC formally considers the Piedmont project, and it likely won’t issue a decision until 2027 – a date convenient for Moore, as it’s right after he’s up for re-election. Moore last month expressed “concerns” about the project’s development process, but has brushed aside calls to take a personal position on whether it should ultimately be built.
Enter a potential Trump card that could force Moore’s hand. In early October, commissioners and state legislators representing Carroll County – one of the farm-heavy counties in Piedmont’s path – sent Trump a letter requesting that he intervene in the case before the commission. The letter followed previous examples of Trump coming in to kill planned projects, including the Grain Belt Express transmission line and a Tennessee Valley Authority gas plant in Tennessee that was relocated after lobbying from a country rock musician.
One of the letter’s lead signatories was Kenneth Kiler, president of the Carroll County Board of Commissioners, who told me this lobbying effort will soon expand beyond Trump to the Agriculture and Energy Departments. He’s hoping regulators weigh in before PJM, the regional grid operator overseeing Mid-Atlantic states. “We’re hoping they go to PJM and say, ‘You’re supposed to be managing the grid, and if you were properly managing the grid you wouldn’t need to build a transmission line through a state you’re not giving power to.’”
Part of the reason why these efforts are expanding, though, is that it’s been more than a month since they sent their letter, and they’ve heard nothing but radio silence from the White House.
“My worry is that I think President Trump likes and sees the need for data centers. They take a lot of water and a lot of electric [power],” Kiler, a Republican, told me in an interview. “He’s conservative, he values property rights, but I’m not sure that he’s not wanting data centers so badly that he feels this request is justified.”
Kiler told me the plan to kill the transmission line centers hinges on delaying development long enough that interest rates, inflation and rising demand for electricity make it too painful and inconvenient to build it through his resentful community. It’s easy to believe the federal government flexing its muscle here would help with that, either by drawing out the decision-making or employing some other as yet unforeseen stall tactic. “That’s why we’re doing this second letter to the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy asking them for help. I think they may be more sympathetic than the president,” Kiler said.
At the moment, Kiler thinks the odds of Piedmont’s construction come down to a coin flip – 50-50. “They’re running straight through us for data centers. We want this project stopped, and we’ll fight as well as we can, but it just seems like ultimately they’re going to do it,” he confessed to me.
Thus is the predicament of the rural Marylander. On the one hand, Kiler’s situation represents a great opportunity for a GOP president to come in and stand with his base against a would-be presidential candidate. On the other, data center development and artificial intelligence represent one of the president’s few economic bright spots, and he has dedicated copious policy attention to expanding growth in this precise avenue of the tech sector. It’s hard to imagine something less “energy dominance” than killing a transmission line.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Plus more of the week’s most important fights around renewable energy.
1. Wayne County, Nebraska – The Trump administration fined Orsted during the government shutdown for allegedly killing bald eagles at two of its wind projects, the first indications of financial penalties for energy companies under Trump’s wind industry crackdown.
2. Ocean County, New Jersey – Speaking of wind, I broke news earlier this week that one of the nation’s largest renewable energy projects is now deceased: the Leading Light offshore wind project.
3. Dane County, Wisconsin – The fight over a ginormous data center development out here is turning into perhaps one of the nation’s most important local conflicts over AI and land use.
4. Hardeman County, Texas – It’s not all bad news today for renewable energy – because it never really is.