This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
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:
A conversation with Tim Brightbill of Wiley Rein LLP
Today we’re talking with Tim Brightbill, a trade attorney at Wiley Rein LLP and lead counsel for a coalition of U.S. solar cell and module manufacturers – the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee. Last week, his client won a massive victory – fresh tariffs on south Asian solar panel parts – on the premise that Chinese firms are dumping cheap products in the region to drive down prices and hurt American companies. It’s the latest in a long series of decadal trade actions against solar parts with Chinese origin.
We wanted to talk to Tim about how this move could affect developers, if an America-first strategy could help insulate solar from political opposition, and how this could play out in next year’s talks over the future of the IRA. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
If you were talking to a developer, what would you tell them should be their takeaway?
I think the takeaway is that these determinations appear to go a long way toward addressing the unfair trade that’s been present in solar panels, solar cells, for more than a decade. And I think these duties do send a signal that will help build up domestic manufacturing. We’ve seen historic investment next to the Inflation Reduction Act in U.S. solar manufacturing facilities – in places like Georgia with QCells, in Ohio for First Solar – and we’re at a critically important point here.
Those investments were being undercut by this unfair trade by these Chinese-owned companies. We think now hopefully that will be addressed and that should lead to a bright future for solar deployment, the growth of solar power in the United States.
How does the pursuit of a fairer trade landscape globally in the broader sense impact support for solar energy in the U.S.? I hear often that a “made without China” approach can shore up support for renewables. Do you find that to be the case?
Definitely, I find that to be the case.
The U.S. industry invented solar technology and perfected it. And then unfortunately, it was virtually wiped out due to the unfair trade practices of China and these Chinese-owned companies. If we want to have solar and not be dependent on other countries for renewable energy needs, the best way to do that is to have a strong manufacturing base and a strong supply chain.
What do you think the direction of this is going to be under the next administration? Even more ratcheting up of trade measures?
Well the trade laws are a calculation, right? They’re based on rules, they’re not political. I don’t expect this administration to necessarily change individual trade cases. But I do think trade policy will change in a way that tries to address these Chinese-owned companies that undercut the rest of the world.
For example, the IRA provides right now potential benefits for any company that sets up shop here, even if they are owned by a foreign entity of concern. That seems like something this administration is going to address. If you’re going to receive IRA money, you should not be affiliated with a foreign entity of concern.
Given the potential for an impact on pricing, combined with the impacts on limiting the tax credits in that way – wouldn’t that make it harder to build projects in the U.S. short term?
I don’t think so. The solar panels themselves are not anywhere close to the majority of the cost of a project. There are so many other things that impact project cost, from permitting to the land. I don’t think this will impact the costs of deployment of solar. It will just give us a more secure supply chain that is either here in the United States or at least more regional in nature, which is going to be better for the industry.
With foreign entities of concern – are you referring to 45X? You’re anticipating that tax credit will change with respect to the IRA?
I expect the Trump administration will focus on that. There are already other related products under IRA where “foreign entity of concern” participation is not allowed for those tax credits. So it seems like a ready fix to ensure that is the same for solar technologies.
Is that bad news, or is that saving the credit?
I don’t think it’s bad news. I think it’s good news. It means more of the credit will be available to U.S. companies and our allies who might want to set up here as well.
If Chinese companies want to come here and set up in the United States, that’s great, but they shouldn’t also receive subsidies because those are the same companies that have harmed our industry with unfair trade for more than a decade.
Okay enough serious talk. Can I ask you a fun question: what was the last band you listened to?
It’s sort of dad rock-ish right now: Spoon. When I get my Spotify Wrapped, it’s going to be Spoon. That’s my favorite rock band right now.
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 conversation with Bob Moczulewski, tax director for Baker Tilly’s federal credits and incentives practice
Given the Trump administration’s new pause on grants under the Inflation Reduction Act, this week’s conversation is with Bob Moczulewski, tax director for Baker Tilly’s federal credits and incentives practice. We asked him to explain this 90-day pause via executive order, because if anyone’s going to cut the nonsense and tell you what actually matters here, it’ll be a tax expert.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
Does Trump’s executive order actually impact the IRA’s tax credits?
The IRA had several components to it, most of which – the biggest things – are tax credits. Those are written into tax law. They are a legally binding ability for developers and users, creators of renewable energy that are allowed within the law – wind, solar, geothermal, battery storage, biogas – those are laws.
[The order] has a stop on those items that were more discretionary that had the control of the administration to delegate out: its grants, loans, and contracts. That has no impact on the tax credits, where the bulk of the IRA sits right now. A lot of that stuff was in anticipation of being heavily pushed through and sent out before January 20. There’s actual impact there. But tax credits are not appropriated funds.
This is not holding back the tax credits that are there.
You’ve said it is unclear if this covers all prospective funding, like direct pay?
If you’re a municipality and you put up a solar project that is eligible for tax credits and direct pay, that is the part with this potential slow play that could be done here. We really don’t know what the executive branch can do to hold back the payment of those direct payments. If you’re a business, you put up a solar, it’s a $10,000 tax credit, you can use it to reduce your taxable income. None of these orders impact that.
Now if you’re a municipality and you’re requesting a direct payment for those tax credits that are legally binding in tax law, I could see the possibility that an executive branch could have pressure on the Treasury Department, which has pressure on the IRS, to slow play those payments. But that’s only speculation. The law is stated, this is supposed to be paid out. This is in a realm of, y’know, almost a conspiracy theory-type of thing that could be done.
With respect to how a pause like this can impact the bankability of IRA, are you seeing it affect executives’ views on the durability of the law?
I would say there’s just a lot of caution as to [the] next steps around it. These are laws. Until the laws are repealed, if they are repealed, that would be the only way you’d know for certain.
As I’ve explained many times over, the history of tax credit laws is once they’re repealed or altered, those changes are prospective as to the time the law is changed. If I have a half a billion dollar solar project underway, I’ve met or begun a construction criteria. There has been no prior passing of tax laws that would revoke the ability to claim credits on that.
What are you watching for next for clarity?
There’s two things I’m looking for in the future. Where pundits around this really feel this is truly going. And the other part is to see if there’s any actual traction to repeal the tax credits that exist right now.
There’s a whole new realm of credits that begin in 2025 and continue through 2032. Will there be incentive to repeal those credits?
I have clients that are engaging in multi billions of dollars of projects that are in the heart of the southern tier of the United States of America, that would impact thousands of jobs. Those groups have strong ties to a lot of senators and congresspeople along the way. Just enough of a push and turn on this and all it takes is a few senators to not go along with it.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article misidentified Moczulewski’s profession. He is a CPA, not an attorney. The article has been corrected. We regret the error.
And more of the week's news in renewable energy fights.
1. Magic Valley, Idaho – It’s never a dull day for the Lava Ridge wind project.
2. Multiple counties, Ohio – Regulators in Ohio issued final decisions for two contested solar projects, clearing the way for one while all but stopping another.
3. Pender County, North Carolina – A solar project that was rejected late last year by the North Carolina Court of Appeals will be reconsidered by the same court, after the Democrat vote that decided the case was replaced by a Republican.
4. Lancaster County, Nebraska – in We have good news for solar in Nebraska, where county commissioners have approved a massive NextEra solar project.
5. Montgomery County, Alabama – Another solar project – Silicon Ranch – also got approval this past week from the local Board of Adjustments, meaning a Meta data center is now poised to receive renewable energy.
Here’s what else we’re watching ...
In Kansas, landowners are suing to stop a NextEra solar project in Jackson County.
In Oklahoma, a Woodside-backed hydrogen project has been paused citing the Trump administration’s changes in policy.
In Nevada, the Bureau of Land Management cleared the way for the Rough Hat solar project days before Joe Biden left office.
The American wind industry faces a potentially existential threat.
President Trump’s executive order halting permits and leases for wind projects is starting to look like a potential existential threat to the industry’s future. Just don’t expect everyone to say it out loud.
On Monday, Trump issued an order pausing new federal approvals for wind projects, pending a “comprehensive assessment” of permitting practices, while opening the door to a review of existing leases and previously-issued permits subject to litigation. In the days following the order, lawyers, industry trade representatives, and professionals who work for renewable energy developers explained to me how this could impact essentially any wind project, even ones not sited on federal lands. Wind projects are just so large and impactfulthat it’s hard to avoid a federal permit.
Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, told me Wednesday afternoon that a pause on federal permits would impact “probably more than half” of all wind projects under development in the U.S.
“If in fact the federal government stops issuing approvals, a significant amount of the pipeline would be interrupted,” Grumet said.
Given the high costs associated with building a wind project, and the likelihood of tariffs making that situation worse, the uncertainty produced by a potential halt to permits may also be enough to cause developers to pull the plug on projects – because even if the order itself winds up tossed out in court, that could take years.
As one renewable energy professional told me anonymously, for fear of reprisal, “If we say, well we probably have the right to do this but we have to sue the government to enforce that right, it’s probably only going to get the [project] deal done 40% of the time now.” He concluded: “It’s definitely going to chill investment.”
It’s early days, and Grumet of ACP says he’s holding out hope that the new president can be walked back from the brink. He’s focusing on the possibility that people in the administration including Trump’s picks to run the Interior and Energy Departments – Doug Burgum and Chris Wright – are willing to listen and potentially help walk back a complete and total permitting shutdown.
When asked however if suing the administration may be required, Grumet said it’s a hypothetical that could come true in the worst case scenarios.
“We’re taking it seriously. But the idea that you would have a pro-business administration trying to stop private companies from taking economically appropriate action on private land is just so out of step with the role of government that we’re expecting they’re going to clarify their intent.”
Trump’s executive order is so far-reaching because wind projects regularly need federal permits and other authorizations, even if they’re sited on private or state lands.
A commonly cited federal nexus is endangered species. Opponents of wind energy have long criticized turbines for being a potential threat to birds, but it is the case that many wind projects are collocated within or near areas for rare bird migration. Cultural heritage impacts can often also be a difficulty.
One major threat I’ve been hearing about from many in the industry flew out of left field: the Federal Aviation Administration often must clear wind projects for construction. Matt Eisenson, an expert in renewables permitting at the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told me FAA approvals are required “very frequently” for wind projects because any land structure more than 200 feet tall must be approved to not be a hazard for commercial planes. And while the order didn’t cite the FAA specifically, it instructed all “relevant agencies” to wind permitting stop giving approvals related to projects, opening the door to aviation-related clearances idling on a procedural tarmac.
“It’s hard to avoid it if you’ve got anything sizable,” an attorney who works in the renewable energy industry told me, adding the total scope of impact is still unknown: “There’s nobody you could talk to who could have nearly all the answers [about Trump’s order]. And that includes developers and companies, because they don’t know either.” (It’s worth noting no industry attorney would be willing to go on the record with me because of ongoing impacts to clients.)
Then there’s the existing leases and permits. It’s easy to assume that a permit issued is a permit safe, and the Biden administration quickly rushed approvals for many wind projects, onshore and offshore, in the final days before Trump’s inauguration.
But the order left open a process to challenge existing approvals through litigation. In the offshore wind space, we’re already seeing public requests for Trump to review the leases for the MarWin project off the coast of Maryland and Delaware, and Atlantic Shores off the coast of New Jersey.
Paul Kamenar, a lawyer involved in a suit challenging Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, says we can expect the same in his case. Kamenar is with the National Legal and Policy Center, which joined with the Heartland Institute and anti-wind group CFACT to sue the government for approving Coastal Virginia, claiming it did not consider the cumulative impacts of building the project on endangered whales.
Kamenar told me he believes the order shows Trump’s team is sympathetic to the arguments raised in the case, and he’s planning to file a request for the federal government to reconsider its permits and leasing for the project as soon as next week. Kamenar said the order provides avenues for similar challenges to many other projects.
“I think this affects all the onshore and offshore wind projects,” Kamenar said. “Some more than others. But if I were the energy company, I would be loath to continue going forward until I got clarification.”
Eisenson at Columbia told me the executive order “opened the door” to a massive range of new potential hurdles for wind development. He sees legal vulnerabilities in the executive order because there’s a history in recent case law surrounding Biden’s pauses on federal oil and gas leasing. But that’s cold comfort for an industry with such high capital costs that it describes low interest rates as its “fuel.”
“This could have a major chilling impact,” Eisenson said. “Even if the EO is unlawful, it could take years in court to invalidate an unlawful decision.”