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:
Tariffs and the loss of Inflation Reduction Act incentives could realign new power pricing, according to Morgan Stanley.
If you’re putting new power onto the grid right now, the cheapest option is likely solar. Thanks to years of declining equipment costs, generous federal subsidies, and voluntary renewables buyers like big technology companies, much of America’s planned future electricity generation is solar (along with battery storage). Of the 63 gigawatts planned to be added to the grid this year, the Energy Information Administration has estimated that solar will make up about half of it, while solar and storage collectively will make up over 80%.
While there’s no one single price for a megawatt-hour of any given power generation source, a good place to start are estimates from the financial advisory firm Lazard of the levelized cost of energy, which is supposed to allow comparisons between different generation sources. When Lazard put out its updated figures last summer, the average cost of utility solar was $61 per megawatt-hour. For a combined cycle natural gas plant, the most common type of gas generation, the average cost was $76.
But that math may be endangered, according to a new analysis by Morgan Stanley — to the point where solar could lose its competitive cost advantage with new natural gas.
“The cost of power generation is moving higher. The impact of tariffs and potential changes to subsidy support (i.e., IRA) will likely have an inflationary impact on the cost of power,” the analysts wrote to clients.
The team of analysts looked at the impact of both tariffs and the possible reduction or cessation of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits on utility-scale solar costs. According to Morgan Stanley’s figures, about half of the capital expenditure for a utility-scale solar project comes from the hardware, which is mostly the cost of the panels.
While some panels are produced in the United States, there are still significant imports from Southeast Asia, which currently face preliminary tariffs as high as several hundred percent. Those should become permanent later this month when the Department of Commerce completes its investigation into “dumping” by Chinese solar companies that have set up shop in the region.
The imports of these solar panels — some $10 billion in 2024, according to Tim Brightbill, a lawyer for a coalition of domestic solar manufacturers who are pursuing the anti-dumping case — “undercut and really drove down prices in the U.S. solar market,” Brightbill told a group of reporters Thursday. “It forced U.S. producers to significantly reduce their prices,” he said. “The industry was sort of pushed into a cost price squeeze.”
Those days are likely over. Instead, a variety of economic and political factors look to force prices up instead of down for new renewable power.
In a world where capital expenditure for solar projects goes up 5% to 10% — a range the analysts called “reasonably plausible” based on how much solar panels make up of the cost of a project — the Morgan Stanley analysts estimate that to maintain an industry standard investor return in the low-teens, power purchase agreements prices would have to rise to $52 to $57 per megawatt-hour, up from $49 to $54. “In a scenario where tariffs hold and IRA tax credits are eliminated,” the analysts write, those prices might go up as high as $73.
Those PPA prices could seriously degrade the advantage solar has over new natural gas generation, the Morgan Stanley analysts found, despite natural gas seeing its own cost pressures.
For one, there’s the shortage of gas turbines that’s causing higher equipment prices, bringing capital expenditures for a new gas plant up by around 75% in the last few years, the analysts said. Natural gas will also face its own hurdles from tariffs.
After penciling all that out, the Morgan Stanley analysts project that industry standard returns would require PPA prices of about $75 to $80 for natural gas.
You may notice how close that is to the pessimistic forecast on solar pricing.
“While current power market prices are not at levels that would support a new-build of natural gas turbines impacted by a tariff, we believe the co-location opportunity is still viable as a mid-to-high $70/MWh PPA price is still well within the willingness-to-pay for data center customers,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote. In other words, data centers that need a lot of power and don’t particularly care about carbon emissions or supporting renewables could end up procuring new gas.
That seems to track what we’re seeing out in the world. In January, Chevron and the investment firm Engine No. 1 announced a joint venture to deploy GE Vernova turbines on site to power data centers.
Natural gas pipeline giant Kinder Morgan’s executive chairman Richard Kinder told analysts Wednesday during the company’s quarterly earnings call that the company had seen a “nice uptick” in demand, “driven in part by the surge in AI and data centers.” The company’s natural gas pipelines president Sital Mody told analysts that Kinder Morgan is “actively pursuing opportunities to provide supply to ultimately feed these upcoming data centers,” and its chief executive Kimberley Dang called out Arizona as a potential market for gas-powered data centers.
So far this year, despite the threat of IRA repeal and protectionist tariffs hanging over the industry (not to mention “Liberation Day” tariffs on inputs like steel), prices paid for solar power have held steady, according to data from LevelTen, a power purchase agreement marketplace.
“Despite policy uncertainty, clean energy deals are moving forward at high volume,” Zach Starsia, LevelTen’s energy marketplace senior director, told me in an email. “There’s more certainty for projects expected to reach [commercial operation] in the next 12 to 16 months. It’s the longer-term, early-stage projects that are two to three years out where cost predictability becomes more difficult. Buyers are acting now to secure favorable pricing and access before tariffs and policy shifts begin to tighten market conditions,” Starsia said.
The company attributed the steady prices to the sector “finding itself on firmer footing following a long period of pandemic-era supply chain woes and an array of policy headwinds,” according to a LevelTen market analysis. While new and scheduled tariffs “are certainly a cause for concern,” the analysis said, the market is “well-attuned” to them due to the long history of solar tariffs since 2012.
“We expect upward pressure on PPA prices through 2025, particularly in technologies and regions exposed to tariffs and supply chain risk,” Starsia said. But he also wrote, perhaps optimistically, “The window is still open for prepared buyers to secure strong deals before price shifts fully take hold.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.