Non classé

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

Published

3 mois ago

15 juillet 2025

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.

Non classé

Federal Industrial Partnerships and Supply Chain Realignment Under the Trump Administration: Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors, Critical Minerals, and Energy

Published

2 jours ago

3 octobre 2025

Federal Industrial Partnerships And Supply Chain Realignment Under The Trump Administration: Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors, Critical Minerals, And Energy

In the months leading up to the 2026 midterm elections, the Trump administration has launched a broad initiative to negotiate agreements with companies across as many as thirty industries. According to reporting from Reuters and other outlets, these deals involve a range of mechanisms, including tariff relief, equity stakes, revenue guarantees, and regulatory adjustments.

The purpose of the initiative, according to administration officials, is to strengthen U.S. national and economic security by encouraging companies to expand production domestically, reduce reliance on China, and ensure the availability of critical products.

For logistics and supply chain leaders, this represents a significant change in the relationship between government and industry. Federal agencies are no longer simply regulators or supporters of infrastructure. They are becoming active participants in corporate strategy, investment, and supply chain design.

Structure of the Deals

The administration’s approach is not uniform. Each agreement varies depending on the sector and company involved. Examples include:

Pharmaceuticals: Eli Lilly was asked to expand insulin production, Pfizer was pressed to increase output of its cancer and cholesterol drugs, and AstraZeneca was encouraged to establish a new U.S. headquarters. In exchange, companies have been offered tariff relief or regulatory flexibility.
Semiconductors: A portion of grants provided under the CHIPS Act has been converted into equity stakes, including a reported 10 percent stake in Intel.
Critical Minerals: The Department of Defense took a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, secured a floor price for future government purchases, and facilitated a $500 million supply agreement between MP Materials and Apple for rare earth magnets.
Energy: The Department of Energy has asked companies such as Lithium Americas for equity stakes in exchange for federal loans supporting domestic mining and battery production.

The unifying theme is the use of federal leverage, such as tariffs, financing programs, or regulatory approvals, to secure commitments from private companies that align with stated national security objectives.

Agencies as Dealmakers

What distinguishes this initiative is the scale of inter-agency involvement. The White House has described the approach as “whole of government.”

The Department of Health and Human Services is leading negotiations in pharmaceuticals.
The Department of Commerce, under Secretary Howard Lutnick, has overseen transactions in steel, semiconductors, and industrial manufacturing.
The Department of Energy is linking financing programs to equity arrangements in energy and mining.
The Pentagon has led negotiations with defense contractors and suppliers of critical minerals.

Senior officials, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and supply chain coordinator David Copley, are directly involved in negotiations. The presence of Wall Street dealmakers, such as Michael Grimes (formerly of Morgan Stanley) and David Shapiro (formerly of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz), illustrates the administration’s transactional orientation.

Financing Mechanisms

The administration is using multiple sources of capital to finance these arrangements:

International Development Finance Corporation (DFC): Originally designed to support development projects abroad, the DFC has proposed expanding its budget authority from $60 billion to $250 billion. If approved by Congress, it would fund projects in infrastructure, energy, and critical supply chains within the U.S.
Investment Accelerator (Commerce Department): Seeded by $550 billion pledged by Japan as part of a bilateral trade agreement, this entity will direct capital into U.S. strategic sectors, serving as a replacement for an earlier proposal to establish a sovereign wealth fund.
Existing Programs: Agencies are repurposing funds from programs such as the CHIPS Act and Department of Energy loan guarantees, often converting grants into equity holdings.

Together, these mechanisms represent one of the largest coordinated federal interventions in U.S. industrial and supply chain development in recent decades.

Implications for Supply Chains

The administration’s policies carry several direct consequences for logistics and supply chain management.

1. Reshoring of Manufacturing

Many of the deals include explicit requirements for expanded U.S. production. This will increase demand for domestic transportation, warehousing, and distribution capacity. It also implies higher utilization of U.S. ports and intermodal corridors, as inputs shift from finished imports to raw materials and intermediate goods requiring processing inside the United States.

2. Critical Minerals and Energy Security

The focus on rare earths, lithium, and other inputs for advanced manufacturing indicates a restructuring of upstream supply chains. Logistics providers should expect increased flows from domestic mining regions, such as Nevada’s Thacker Pass lithium project, to processing and manufacturing centers. This represents a shift away from reliance on Asian supply hubs, particularly China.

3. Government as Stakeholder

Equity stakes and long-term purchase agreements create a different operating environment. Logistics providers serving these industries may find demand more stable due to government-backed contracts. However, these arrangements may also impose compliance requirements and reduce flexibility in adjusting supply networks.

4. Public-Private Coordination

Federal involvement in freight and industrial infrastructure financing could accelerate long-delayed projects. Rail expansion, port upgrades, and domestic warehouse capacity may benefit from this investment. Companies positioned to partner on these projects may see long-term opportunities.

Risks and Concerns

Several risks accompany this shift:

Policy Reversal: Executives have expressed concern that a future administration could unwind or renegotiate these deals. Supply chains built around government-backed agreements may face uncertainty if political priorities shift.
Equity Demands: Some companies are wary of ceding ownership stakes to the federal government. This creates hesitation in sectors where ownership control and investor confidence are sensitive.
Market Distortions: Critics argue that selecting which companies receive government support could disadvantage firms excluded from the arrangements, altering competitive dynamics within industries.
Implementation Capacity: The scale of proposed financing, particularly the expansion of the DFC, requires congressional approval and capable management. Delays or political opposition could slow execution.

Policy-to-Supply-Chain Impact Table

Policy Mechanism
Industry Example
Government Action
Supply Chain Impact

Tariff Relief
Pharmaceuticals (Pfizer, Eli Lilly)
Tariff exemptions in exchange for expanded U.S. production
Increases demand for domestic warehousing, distribution, and cold-chain logistics for added output

Equity Stakes
Intel (10% stake), MP Materials (15% stake)
Federal ownership through converted grants or Defense Production Act
Creates long-term stability in supply flows, but may add compliance requirements for logistics providers

Purchase Guarantees
MP Materials with Apple
Pentagon set floor prices, Apple committed to $500M supply contract
Locks in demand for rare earth shipments, increasing domestic transport flows from mining to manufacturing

Federal Loans Linked to Equity
Lithium Americas (DOE loan, 5–10% stake requested)
Loan support tied to partial government ownership
Supports new mining and battery projects, creating future logistics demand for raw materials and finished batteries

Investment Accelerator Funding
Commerce Department
$550B in financing, partly funded by Japan, allocated to U.S. manufacturing and freight infrastructure
Potential expansion of ports, intermodal rail, and distribution centers, reducing bottlenecks in supply chains

Expanded DFC Financing
Multiple critical industries
Proposed budget growth from $60B to $250B for U.S. supply chains and infrastructure
Large-scale capital for freight corridors, warehouses, and strategic materials, enabling reshoring of production

Case Examples

MP Materials

The rare earth mining company received federal backing through a 15 percent Pentagon stake, floor pricing commitments, and a supply agreement with Apple. This illustrates the administration’s template: equity participation, purchase guarantees, and private-sector co-investment.

Intel

The conversion of CHIPS Act funding into a 10 percent federal equity stake in Intel highlights the new approach to semiconductor supply chain security. By tying financial support to ownership, the government ensures both accountability and a direct role in strategic sectors.

Lithium Americas

A Department of Energy loan of $2.26 billion, paired with negotiations for a 5 to 10 percent federal equity stake, demonstrates how energy supply chains, particularly those tied to electric vehicles and batteries, are being secured through mixed financing and ownership arrangements.

Long-Term Outlook

The administration’s strategy marks a departure from the traditional U.S. model of private-sector–led industrial development. Instead, it resembles coordinated industrial policies pursued in other economies, though with American characteristics.

For supply chain professionals, this means that:

Government will play a larger role in shaping sourcing, production, and distribution decisions.
Access to federal financing and contracts will become a key factor in strategic planning.
Logistics infrastructure may receive substantial investment, creating new opportunities for providers.
Companies must assess political as well as market risks when designing long-term supply chains.

The Trump administration’s pre-midterm industrial deals reflect a significant realignment of government and industry roles in the United States. By leveraging tariffs, financing programs, and direct equity stakes, the federal government is reshaping supply chains across pharmaceuticals, energy, critical minerals, and freight.

The initiative is intended to secure domestic production, reduce reliance on China, and ensure access to strategic inputs. For logistics leaders, the result will be increased reshoring activity, new demand for domestic infrastructure, and closer integration of supply chains with federal priorities.

At the same time, risks remain. The durability of these arrangements depends on political continuity, effective implementation, and the willingness of companies to partner with government under new terms.

In this evolving environment, logistics and supply chain professionals will need to monitor policy developments as closely as they do market trends. Supply chains are no longer shaped solely by efficiency and cost considerations. They are now integral to the nation’s industrial strategy.

The post Federal Industrial Partnerships and Supply Chain Realignment Under the Trump Administration: Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors, Critical Minerals, and Energy appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

Supply Chain and Logistics News Sept 29 – Oct 2nd 2025

Published

2 jours ago

3 octobre 2025

Supply Chain And Logistics News Sept 29 – Oct 2nd 2025

This week in supply chain news, major companies are demonstrating a mix of strategic adaptations and responses to global pressures. ExxonMobil and Kinaxis are collaborating to develop a next-generation supply chain management solution specifically for the complex oil and gas industry, aiming to increase resilience and provide comprehensive visibility. In a push for network efficiency, FedEx has launched a new direct cargo flight between Dublin, Ireland, and Indianapolis, Indiana, bypassing congested coastal hubs to reduce transit times. The pharmaceutical sector is also focused on resilience, with Eli Lilly and Amgen announcing significant U.S. manufacturing investments to bring critical drug production back to North America. Conversely, General Mills is restructuring its supply chain by closing three manufacturing plants in Missouri as a cost-saving measure in response to changing consumer spending habits. Finally, the U.S. government is imposing new tariffs on imported wood products and furniture, effective October 14, 2025, in a move to address what it identifies as a threat to the domestic industry and supply chain security.

The News of the Week:

ExxonMobil and Kinaxis are Developing a Next-Generation Supply Chain Management Solution for Oil and Gas

The oil and gas industry supply chain is one of the most complex in the world. It involves myriad complex production assets both onshore and offshore, transporting highly volatile products around the globe through pipelines, tank farms, ports, ships, rail, and truck. The end product could be gasoline, petrochemicals, natural gas, hydrogen, or any of hundreds of products from asphalt to motor oil. Disruptions to the oil and gas supply chain can have serious consequences for end users. The industry needs more comprehensive supply chain solutions that increase resilience, provide complete visibility across all aspects of the supply chain, and enable swift responses to business challenges and opportunities. Kinaxis and Exxon are collaborating to digitalize various sectors of Exxon’s business. They aim to leverage Kinaxis’s Maestro software to enhance planning and decision-making processes. Through this collaboration, the two companies aim to share solutions tailored to the oil and gas industry, which currently lacks supply chain management solutions that cater to their specific needs.

FedEx Expands Global Air Network with New Dublin- Indianapolis Route

In an effort to shorten transit times and strengthen its international network, FedEx has launched a new direct cargo flight between Dublin, Ireland, and Indianapolis, Indiana. The new four-day-a-week service bypasses traditional, more congested coastal gateways, which is expected to reduce shipping times by a full day for goods moving between Ireland and the U.S. Midwest. This strategic expansion is a response to the growing trade between the two regions and demonstrates how major carriers are adapting their networks to create more direct and efficient routes to meet evolving customer demands.

Eli Lily and Amgen Announce Massive U.S. Manufacturing Investments

In a major push for domestic drug production, pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Amgen have announced huge investments in new U.S. manufacturing facilities. Eli Lilly is planning a new $6.5 billion factory in Houston, while Amgen is expanding its Puerto Rico plant with a $650 million investment. These moves are a direct response to the global supply chain vulnerabilities exposed in recent years and represent a significant effort to boost the resilience of the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain. The investments aim to bring critical drug production back to North America, creating jobs and reducing reliance on overseas manufacturing.

General Mills is Closing Three Manufacturing Plants in Missouri

General Mills is closing three manufacturing plants in Missouri—a pizza crust facility in St. Charles and two pet food locations in Joplin—as part of a multiyear supply chain restructuring effort. The company expects to incur $82 million in restructuring charges, including asset write-offs and severance costs. This action is part of a broader trend among food and beverage companies to implement cost-saving measures in response to consumer spending pullbacks. The closures follow previous organizational actions by General Mills, such as job cuts and the closure of its innovation unit, and are intended to improve the company’s competitiveness.

US to Begin Furniture, Wood Import Tariffs on Oct. 14

New tariffs on imported wood products, including furniture, will take effect on October 14, 2025, following a Section 232 national security investigation. The initial duties will be 10% on softwood lumber and 25% on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities. On January 1, the tariff rates are scheduled to increase to 30% for upholstered furniture and 50% for kitchen cabinets and vanities. The executive order provides for lower tariff caps for imports from specific trading partners, such as the U.K., Japan, and the European Union. These new tariffs are intended to address what the administration has identified as a threat to domestic industry and supply chain security.

Song of the week:

The post Supply Chain and Logistics News Sept 29 – Oct 2nd 2025 appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

Call for Speakers: Ready to Drive Real Change in Intelligent Operations and Resilient Supply Chains – ARC Industry Forum 2025

Published

2 jours ago

2 octobre 2025

Call For Speakers: Ready To Drive Real Change In Intelligent Operations And Resilient Supply Chains – Arc Industry Forum 2025

Call for Speakers – ARC Industry Forum 2025

The ARC Industry Forum is the premier event where operations, supply chain, and technology leaders gather to shape the future of intelligent and resilient enterprises. In 2025, supply chains face unprecedented disruption, but also unmatched opportunity. We are seeking speakers—executives, practitioners, and innovators—who can share strategies, frameworks, and real-world experiences to inspire and guide their peers.

Sample Session Themes

To help illustrate the types of topics we feature, here are a few recent examples:

The New Frontier of Operations and Supply Chain: AI, Resilience, and Intelligence – Exploring how AI, analytics, automation, and connected intelligence converge to deliver agility and resilience.
Building Resilient Supply Chains in the Age of Shifting Geopolitics – Addressing the regulatory, tariff, and policy challenges facing global supply networks.
Unlocking the Power of Knowledge Transfer in Enterprise Systems – Showcasing best practices to fully leverage enterprise and knowledge management systems.

These examples are only a sample of the many tracks available. Additional sessions will cover digital transformation, sustainability, cybersecurity, workforce strategies, and other timely topics.

Submission Guidelines

We invite proposals that highlight real-world case studies, practical lessons, and strategic frameworks. Presentations should be vendor-neutral, educational, and tailored for an audience of senior executives and practitioners.

If you are interested in speaking, please submit:

A proposed session title and abstract (150–250 words)
Key takeaways for attendees
Speaker bio and organizational role

To submit a proposal, or simply for more information, contact us now

The post Call for Speakers: Ready to Drive Real Change in Intelligent Operations and Resilient Supply Chains – ARC Industry Forum 2025 appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.