Connect with us

Non classé

The Policy Paradox: How US Tariffs and Tax Credits Risk Inflating Power Costs and Delaying the Energy Transition

Published

on

The Policy Paradox: How Us Tariffs And Tax Credits Risk Inflating Power Costs And Delaying The Energy Transition

The United States stands at a critical juncture, confronting a surge in electricity demand driven by the rapid expansion of data centers and the broader electrification of its economy. This demand spike coincides with a worldwide imperative to transition toward cleaner energy sources. However, a complex and at times contradictory web of federal policies is creating significant headwinds. While the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) offers powerful incentives to build a domestic clean energy supply chain, a concurrent strategy of imposing steep tariffs on imported components, particularly from China, is creating a policy paradox. This report will analyze how these conflicting measures, intended to foster long-term industrial strength, are raising the immediate cost of the cheapest sources of new power—solar, wind, and batteries—thereby threatening to increase electricity prices and delay the nation’s ability to meet the urgent power needs of data centers and a newly electrified society.

The Conflicting Signals of US Energy Policy

The current U.S. approach to the energy sector is characterized by two powerful but opposing policy levers: punitive tariffs and conditional incentives. This creates a volatile and uncertain environment for developers of renewable energy and storage projects.

The Tariff Wall Against Clean Energy Components

The U.S. has enacted a series of escalating tariffs, primarily under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting a wide range of Chinese goods essential for the energy transition. Lithium-ion batteries, a cornerstone technology for both electric vehicles (EVs) and grid stability, have been a primary focus. In 2024, the tariff on Chinese EV lithium-ion batteries rose from 7.5% to 25%. For non-EV batteries, such as those used in grid-scale storage systems, tariffs are also slated to increase to 25% by 2026. These duties are compounded by additional levies, leading to combined tariff rates on grid batteries of approximately 65%, with projections they could exceed 80%.

The immediate consequence of this tariff wall is a sharp increase in the price of these components in the U.S. market. This directly drives up the capital expenditures for renewable energy projects, complicating deal structures and introducing new financial risks. Because the U.S. battery energy storage system (BESS) industry is heavily reliant on Chinese imports, these tariffs have a particularly disruptive effect, leading to project delays and investment uncertainty.

The Inflation Reduction Act’s Conditional Incentives

In contrast to the punitive nature of tariffs, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was designed to catalyze a domestic clean energy manufacturing renaissance through substantial subsidies. The Section 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit, for instance, offers lucrative tax credits for domestically produced battery components, including $35 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for battery cells and $10/kWh for battery modules.

However, these powerful incentives come with significant strings attached. To qualify for consumer tax credits like the $7,500 Clean Vehicle Credit, products must meet stringent sourcing requirements for battery components and critical minerals. Crucially, the IRA includes a “Foreign Entity of Concern” (FEOC) exclusion rule, which, starting in 2024, disqualifies any vehicle containing battery components from entities in China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea from receiving the credit.

This creates a policy paradox. The federal government is simultaneously subsidizing the clean energy industry while taxing its most critical and cost-effective inputs. For a project developer, this means navigating a landscape where the benefits of IRA credits may be partially or wholly negated by the increased costs imposed by tariffs. This dynamic forces companies to re-evaluate their supply chains, seek alternative suppliers that are often more expensive or have limited capacity, and contend with significant investment uncertainty.

The Direct Impact on Clean Power Costs

While the global trend for clean energy technologies has been one of rapidly falling costs, U.S. policy is creating a notable divergence, artificially inflating the price of the very technologies needed to decarbonize the power grid affordably.

The Rising Cost of Grid-Scale Battery Storage

Grid-scale battery storage is essential for a modern, reliable power grid. It solves the intermittency problem of wind and solar power by storing excess energy and dispatching it when needed, thereby enhancing grid stability. Lithium-ion batteries, particularly the Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) chemistry, have become the preferred choice for these applications due to their high efficiency and the fact that costs have declined 80-90% over th past ten years. .

However, U.S. tariffs are directly countering this deflationary trend. With the U.S. power industry facing an average tariff rate of 38% on electrical equipment, the cost of deploying BESS has risen significantly, deterring investment. This is especially damaging given that the cost of battery packs, which had been falling dramatically for over a decade, is a primary driver of the economic viability of storage projects. While technological advancements continue to push global battery prices down, U.S. trade policy is forcing domestic project costs in the opposite direction, slowing the deployment of this critical grid-balancing technology.

The Ripple Effect on Solar and Wind Projects

The cost pressures extend beyond batteries. Import tariffs are driving up capital expenditures for solar panels and wind turbines as well, complicating the economics of new renewable energy projects. Globally, wind and solar represent the cheapest sources of new electricity generation and are expected to provide 70-90% of all new power in the next 5 years. New grid power in the US was about 93% renewable in 2024. By artificially inflating their costs in the U.S., these policies blunt their competitive edge and slow the pace of their deployment. The result is a more expensive energy transition, where the cost savings that should be realized from adopting cheaper renewable sources are instead eroded by trade policy.

Consequences: Project Delays and Unmet Power Demand

The combination of higher costs and supply chain disruptions is creating a bottleneck in the deployment of new clean power resources. This bottleneck comes at the worst possible time, as new sources of electricity demand, particularly from data centers, are placing unprecedented strain on the nation’s grid. While current policies are pushing fossil power, no new coal plants will be built and the cost and schedule for new natural gas power plants has increased substantially with increased costs for steam and gas turbines and a shortage if engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) manpower to build them.

The Data Center and Electrification Dilemma

The boom in artificial intelligence and cloud computing is fueling a massive build-out of data centers, which have immense and unrelenting power requirements. This, combined with the general electrification of transport and buildings, is creating a surge in new power demand that many utilities are struggling to meet. Clean energy, particularly solar-plus-storage projects, is the ideal solution to quickly power these new loads without increasing emissions. While recent government support for nuclear power is a longer-term option and while firms like Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have entered into alliances with new SMR and advanced reactor suppliers, new nuclear power will take a long time to get on-line and it is highly likely that new unproven reactors will have delays and cost increases.

However, U.S. policy is hindering this solution. The reliance of data centers on lithium-ion batteries for backup power and grid services means that tariffs are directly increasing their construction costs by mid-to-high single digits. More broadly, the delays and cost increases for utility-scale solar and battery projects make it harder for utilities to bring new, clean generation online in time to meet requests for new data center connections. This could force delays in the tech sector’s expansion or, perversely, lead to a greater reliance on fossil fuel “peaker” plants to meet the demand.

The impact on broader electrification is also significant. Tariffs on batteries and other components are contributing to a 10% or more increase in the price of EVs for American consumers, hindering the transition away from internal combustion engines. The complexity of the IRA’s sourcing rules further limits which vehicles qualify for consumer credits, acting as another drag on adoption.

Supply Chain Disruption and Canceled Projects

The strategic goal of reshoring the battery supply chain is a long-term endeavor. In the short-to-medium term, the primary effect of the current policy mix is disruption. Forced to seek alternatives to the dominant Chinese supply chain, U.S. companies face a market with a limited number of global suppliers and insufficient domestic capacity.

This disruption has tangible consequences. Between 2024 and 2025, canceled battery projects in the U.S. amounted to an estimated $9.5 billion, while new project announcements totaled only $1.175 billion. This investment chill, driven by cost uncertainty and supply chain instability, directly translates to a slower build-out of the manufacturing capacity and energy infrastructure needed for the transition.

Conclusion and Outlook

The United States is pursuing two parallel but conflicting policy goals: the rapid, affordable decarbonization of its economy and the strategic, long-term reshoring of its clean energy supply chain. While the latter is a valid national security and economic objective, the current strategy of combining high tariffs with complex, restrictive incentives is creating a policy paradox that jeopardizes the former.

By raising the cost of solar, wind, and battery storage, these policies are slowing the deployment of the cheapest and cleanest sources of new power. This threatens to inflate electricity prices for consumers and businesses and risks leaving the nation unable to cleanly and affordably meet the surging power demands of data centers and broader electrification. The ultimate success of this strategy will depend on how quickly a cost-competitive domestic supply chain can be established. In the interim, the U.S. faces a period of higher costs, project delays, and a potential slowing of its energy transition, highlighting the profound tension between the urgent need for clean energy deployment and the strategic desire for supply chain security.

The post The Policy Paradox: How US Tariffs and Tax Credits Risk Inflating Power Costs and Delaying the Energy Transition appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

Published

on

By

India–u.s. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

The announcement by Donald Trump and Narendra Modi of an India–U.S. “trade deal” has drawn immediate attention from global markets. From a supply chain and logistics perspective, however, the more important observation is not the scale of the claims, but the lack of formal detail required for execution.

At this stage, what exists is a political statement rather than a completed trade agreement. For companies managing sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, and compliance across India–U.S. trade lanes, uncertainty remains the defining condition.

What Has Been Announced So Far

Based on public statements from the U.S. administration and reporting by CNBC and Al Jazeera, several points have been asserted:

U.S. tariffs on Indian goods would be reduced from an effective 50 percent to 18 percent

India would reduce tariffs and non tariff barriers on U.S. goods, potentially to zero

India would stop purchasing Russian oil and increase energy purchases from the United States

India would significantly increase purchases of U.S. goods across energy, agriculture, technology, and industrial sectors

Statements from the Indian government have been more limited. New Delhi confirmed that U.S. tariffs on Indian exports would be reduced to 18 percent, but it did not publicly confirm commitments related to Russian oil, agricultural market access, or large scale procurement from U.S. suppliers.

This divergence matters. In supply chain planning, commitments only become relevant when they are documented, scoped, and enforceable.

Why This Is Not Yet a Trade Agreement

From an operational standpoint, the announcement lacks several elements required to support planning and execution:

No published tariff schedules by HS code

No clarification on rules of origin

No definition of non tariff barrier reductions

No implementation timelines

No enforcement or dispute resolution mechanisms

Without these components, companies cannot reliably model landed cost, supplier risk, or network design changes.

By comparison, India’s recently announced trade agreement with the European Union includes detailed provisions covering market access, regulatory alignment, and investment protections. Those provisions are what allow supply chain leaders to translate trade policy into operational decisions. The U.S. announcement does not yet meet that threshold.

Implications for Supply Chains

Tariff Reduction Could Be Material if Formalized

An 18 percent tariff rate would improve India’s competitive position relative to regional peers such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. If implemented and sustained, this could support incremental sourcing from India in sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and light manufacturing.

For now, however, this remains a scenario rather than a planning assumption.

Energy Commitments Are the Largest Unknown

The claim that India would halt purchases of Russian oil has significant implications across energy, chemical, and manufacturing supply chains. Russian crude has been a key input for Indian refineries and downstream industrial production.

A shift away from that supply would affect energy input costs, tanker routing, port utilization, and U.S.–India crude and LNG trade volumes. None of these impacts can be assessed with confidence without confirmation from Indian regulators and implementing agencies.

Agriculture Remains Politically and Operationally Sensitive

U.S. officials have suggested expanded access for American agricultural exports. Historically, agriculture has been one of the most protected and politically sensitive sectors in India.

Any meaningful liberalization would raise questions around cold chain capacity, port infrastructure, domestic political resistance, and regulatory compliance. These factors introduce execution risk that supply chain leaders should consider carefully.

Compliance and Digital Trade Issues Are Unresolved

Several areas remain undefined:

Whether India will adjust pharmaceutical patent protections

Whether U.S. technology firms will receive exemptions from digital services taxes

Whether labor and environmental standards will be linked to market access

Each of these issues influences sourcing strategies, contract terms, and long term cost structures.

Practical Guidance for Supply Chain Leaders

Until formal documentation is released, a measured approach is warranted:

Avoid making structural network changes based on political announcements

Model tariff exposure using multiple scenarios rather than a single assumed outcome

Monitor customs and regulatory guidance rather than headline statements

Assess exposure to potential energy cost changes in Indian operations

Track implementation of the India–EU agreement as a near term reference point

Bottom Line

This announcement suggests a potential shift in the direction of India–U.S. trade relations, but it does not yet provide the clarity required for operational decision making.

For now, it creates strategic optionality rather than executable change.

Until tariff schedules, regulatory commitments, and enforcement mechanisms are formally published, supply chain and logistics leaders should treat this development as informational rather than actionable. In trade, execution begins only when the documentation exists.

The post India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Published

on

By

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Published: February 3, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) decreased 10% to $2,418/FEU.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) decreased 2% to $3,859/FEU.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) decreased 5% to $2,779/FEU.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) decreased 5% to $4,179/FEU.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 8% to $6.74/kg.

China – N. Europe weekly prices decreased 4% to $3.44/kg.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices increased 10% to $2.53/kg.

Analysis

Winter weather is complicating logistics on both sides of the Atlantic. Affected areas in the US, especially the southeast and southern midwest are still recovering from last week’s major storm and cold.

Storms in the North Atlantic slowed vessel traffic and disrupted or shutdown operations at several container ports across Western Europe and into the Mediterranean late last week. Transits resumed and West Med ports restarted operations earlier this week, but the disruptions have already caused significant delays, and weather is expected to worsen again mid-week.

The resulting delays and disruptions could increase congestion levels at N. Europe ports, but ocean rates from Asia to both N. Europe and the Mediterranean nonetheless dipped 5% last week as the pre-Lunar New Year rush comes to an end. Daily rates this week are sliding further with prices to N. Europe now down to about $2,600/FEU and $3,800/FEU to the Mediterranean – from respective highs of $3,000/FEU and $4,900/FEU in January.

Transpacific rates likewise slipped last week as LNY nears, with West Coast prices easing 10% to about $2,400/FEU and East Coast rates down 5% to $3,850/FEU. West Coast daily prices have continued to slide so far this week, with rates dropping to almost $1,900/FEU as of Monday, a level last seen in mid-December.

Prices across these lanes are significantly lower than this time last year due partly to fleet growth. ONE identified overcapacity as one driver of Q3 losses last year, with lower volumes due to trade war frontloading the other culprit.

And trade war uncertainty has persisted into 2026.

India – US container volumes have slumped since August when the US introduced 50% tariffs on many Indian exports. Just this week though, the US and India announced a breakthrough in negotiations that will lower tariffs to 18% in exchange for a reduction in India’s Russian oil purchases among other commitments. President Trump has yet to sign an executive order lowering tariffs, and the sides have not released details of the agreement, but once implemented, container demand is expected to rebound on this lane.

Recent steps in the other direction include Trump issuing an executive order that enables the US to impose tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba, and threatening tariffs and other punitive steps targeting Canada’s aviation manufacturing.

The recent volatility of and increasing barriers to trade with the US since Trump took office last year are major drivers of the warmer relations and increased and diversified trade developing between other major economies. The EU signed a major free trade agreement with India last week just after finalizing a deal with a group of South American countries, and other countries like the UK are exploring improved ties with China as well.

In a final recent geopolitical development, Panama’s Supreme Court nullified Hutchinson Port rights to operate its terminals at either end of the Panama Canal. The Hong Kong company was in stalled negotiations to sell those ports following Trump’s objection to a China-related presence in the canal. Maersk’s APMTP was appointed to take over operations in the interim.

In air cargo, pre-LNY demand may be one factor in China-US rates continuing to rebound to $6.74/kg last week from about $5.50/kg in early January. Post the new year slump, South East Asia – US prices are climbing as well, up to almost $5.00/kg last week from $4.00/kg just a few weeks ago.

China – Europe rates dipped 4% to $3.44/kg last week, with SEA – Europe prices up 7% to more than $3.20/kg, and transatlantic rates up 10% to more than $2.50/kg, a level 25% higher than early this year.

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Freightos Terminal: Real-time pricing dashboards to benchmark rates and track market trends.

Procure: Streamlined procurement and cost savings with digital rate management and automated workflows.

Rate, Book, & Manage: Real-time rate comparison, instant booking, and easy tracking at every shipment stage.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality

Published

on

By

Microsoft And The Operationalization Of Ai: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding With Execution Reality

Microsoft has positioned itself as one of the central platforms for enterprise AI. Through Azure, Copilot, Fabric, and a rapidly expanding ecosystem of AI services, the company is not merely offering tools, it is proposing an operating model for how intelligence should be embedded across enterprise workflows.

For supply chain and logistics leaders, the significance of Microsoft’s strategy is less about individual features and more about how platform decisions increasingly shape where AI lives, how it is governed, and which decisions it ultimately influences.

From Cloud Infrastructure to Operating Layer

Historically, Microsoft’s role in supply chain technology centered on infrastructure and productivity software. Azure provided scalable compute and storage, while Office and collaboration tools supported planning and coordination. That boundary has shifted.

Microsoft is now positioning AI as a horizontal operating layer that spans data management, analytics, decision support, and execution. Azure AI services, Microsoft Fabric, and Copilot are designed to work together, reducing friction between data ingestion, model development, and business consumption.

The implication for operations leaders is subtle but important: AI is no longer something added to systems; it is increasingly embedded into the platforms those systems rely on.

Copilot and the Question of Decision Proximity

Copilot has become a focal point of Microsoft’s AI narrative. Positioned as an assistive layer across applications, Copilot aims to surface insights, generate recommendations, and automate routine tasks.

For supply chain use cases, the key question is not whether Copilot can generate answers, but where those answers appear in the decision chain. Insights delivered inside productivity tools can improve awareness and coordination, but operational value depends on whether recommendations are connected to execution systems.

This highlights a broader pattern: AI that remains advisory improves efficiency; AI that is embedded into workflows influences outcomes. Microsoft’s challenge is bridging that gap consistently across heterogeneous enterprise environments.

Microsoft Fabric and the Data Foundation Problem

Microsoft Fabric represents an attempt to simplify and unify the enterprise data landscape. By combining data engineering, analytics, and governance into a single platform, Microsoft is addressing one of the most persistent barriers to AI adoption: fragmented and inconsistent data.

For supply chain organizations, Fabric’s value lies in its potential to standardize event data across planning, execution, and visibility systems. However, unification does not eliminate the need for data discipline. Event quality, latency, and ownership remain operational issues, not platform features.

Fabric reduces friction, but it does not resolve governance by itself.

Integration with Existing Enterprise Systems

Microsoft’s AI strategy assumes coexistence with existing ERP, WMS, TMS, and planning platforms. Integration, rather than replacement, is the dominant pattern.

This creates both opportunity and risk. On one hand, Microsoft can act as a connective tissue across systems that were never designed to work together. On the other, loosely coupled integration increases dependence on interface stability and data consistency.

In execution-heavy environments, even small integration failures can cascade quickly. As AI becomes more embedded, integration reliability becomes a strategic concern.

Where AI Is Delivering Value, and Where It Isn’t

AI deployments tend to deliver value fastest in areas such as demand sensing, scenario analysis, reporting automation, and exception identification. These use cases align well with Microsoft’s strengths in analytics, collaboration, and scalable infrastructure.

Where value is harder to realize is in autonomous execution. Closed-loop decision-making that directly triggers operational action requires tighter coupling with execution systems and clearer decision ownership.

This reinforces a recurring theme: platform AI accelerates insight, but execution still depends on operating model design.

Constraints That Still Apply

Despite the breadth of Microsoft’s AI portfolio, familiar constraints remain. Data quality, security, compliance, and organizational readiness continue to limit outcomes. AI platforms do not eliminate the need for process clarity or decision accountability.

In some cases, the ease of deploying AI services can outpace an organization’s ability to absorb them operationally. This creates a risk of insight saturation without action.

Why Microsoft Matters to Supply Chain Leaders

Microsoft’s relevance lies in its ability to shape the default environment in which enterprise AI operates. Platform decisions made today influence data architectures, governance models, and user expectations for years.

For supply chain leaders, the key takeaway is not to adopt Microsoft’s AI stack wholesale, but to understand how platform-level AI affects where intelligence sits, how it flows, and who ultimately acts on it.

The next phase of AI adoption will not be defined solely by model performance. It will be defined by how effectively platforms like Microsoft’s translate intelligence into operational decisions under real-world constraints.

The post Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending