The energy transition sustained an electoral trauma as last year drew to a close. The incoming administration of US president-elect Donald Trump promises to undo at least some of the progress made on decarbonization under US President Joe Biden. However, the energy market is its own beast, subject to politics, but also beholden to economic, technological, environmental and international forces. Here are five elements to watch in Year One of Trump Two.
THE IRA: WALKING DEAD OR WALKING WOUNDED?
Democrats entered 2021 debating how many trillions of dollars of subsidies would feature in a climate bill. Four years later, they brace for how much of the (shrunken) legislation that ultimately passed would survive.
Three things offer them grounds for cautious hope. First, Trump’s earlier trifecta, in his first term, did not deliver a death blow to the Affordable Care Act, a prior Republican bete noire. It is just hard to remove federal benefits once enacted — which leads into the second factor: Cleantech investment and jobs spurred by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) flow overwhelmingly to red districts. Thirdly, Republicans’ majority in the US House of Representatives is razor thin.
Some things, like electric vehicle (EV) customer tax credits and offshore wind power support, look doomed. The same goes for regulatory struts, such as tighter fuel economy standards.
The upshot would be higher emissions, but also widespread uncertainty. A recent flurry of cleantech loans by the Department of Energy reflects a desire by the outgoing administration to cement investments before the political ground shifts against them. Companies must now navigate a murky path on exactly which bits of the IRA might go in the next year or two, and how things might swing back again after next year or 2028. After a surge in such spending over the past two years, this year would provide clues on whether private money targeting the energy transition saw the recent election as a speed bump or a wall.
MUSK PUTS THE BRAKES ON EVS
Having failed to cut US$20,000 from the cost of making a car, Elon Musk is confident he can rip US$2 trillion out of the federal budget.
None of that is good for EVs in the US. Reversing flagging sales growth in the country requires the arrival of much cheaper models, such as the one Musk was touting less than two years ago. Instead, with Tesla Inc’s valuation overwhelmingly a function of Musk’s robotaxi utterances and proximity to Trump as cost czar, EV subsidies are for the chop.
Foreknowledge of that could actually boost sales early this year, as the EV-curious rush to take advantage while they can. However, next year as a whole would disappoint, as cuts to federal support raise the price of existing EVs and slow the development of new ones. Besides Tesla’s still MIA “more affordable” models, Detroit has spent last year walking back its EV ambitions.
For Tesla itself, the big issue should be whether it actually puts some robotaxis on the roads, with Musk having re-upped his long-standing pledge at the company’s poorly received event in October. That said, Musk has deferred a reckoning on that for years. Plus, he has a new, if vague, story to sell the faithful, centered on his potentially advantageous relationship with Trump — assuming the two of them can share the spotlight.
POLITICS VS. (RENEWABLE) POWER
In the battle over whether Democrats can force an energy transition by legislation and Republicans can, by the same token, prevent it, we can lose sight of underlying forces. Take renewable energy, where subsidies matter, but so do basic things like electricity demand.
A full repeal of federal tax credits for wind and solar power and batteries — while unlikely — would make those technologies significantly more expensive. The average cost of US grid-scale solar this year, for example, would rise from an estimated US$58 per megawatt-hour to US$72, according to Morgan Stanley. A sudden jump in energy procurement costs would make any buyer at least hesitate before signing up.
A related, and important, question is how badly that customer needs the power. The year closed with a crescendo of stories about Big Tech chasing any source of electricity to fuel an artificial intelligence arms race. Renewable energy, due to its intermittency, offers only a partial solution for data centers with 24x7 demand. Yet new nuclear power is at least a decade away and even new gas-fired plants commissioned today would take at least three to five years.
We would certainly see plans for new gas-fired plants accelerate this year. Equally, the sheer need for supply, and quickly, should mean even Trump cannot stop new renewables capacity, with its faster development schedules, being contracted. Reduced federal support would no doubt slow the pace. Although, as Bloomberg NEF points out, expectations of tax credits sunsetting could, paradoxically, pull forward demand and make this year a banner year for new projects.
HYDROPOWER NEEDS FREE REIN
Long before solar panels or giant batteries, there was flowing water spinning turbines. More than a quarter of US renewable power generation last year derived from hydroelectricity.
That was still the lowest absolute level of output since 2001. Drought is the immediate problem. The area of the US experiencing drier-than-normal conditions hit almost 88 percent in October, the highest level in weekly data going back to 2000. This being weather-related, forecasting is especially tricky. While the Energy Information Administration projects a 9 percent increase in hydropower output this year, it was similarly optimistic this time last year, when output ended up falling.
When hydropower dries up, natural gas tends to fill in. That is partly because hydropower offers some of the same flexibility to back up wind and solar power that gas turbines provide; making it not just a source of clean energy, but also an enabler of other clean energies.
In a grim irony, climate change might hamper this source of clean energy in particular. A peer-reviewed study published in November warned that hydropower generation in the western US — roughly half of the country’s output — could drop by up to 23 percent by 2050.
Besides emissions, another problem threatens. An industry association noted recently a rising number of dam operators choosing not to renew licenses in large part because it can take a decade to do so. Progress on permitting reform this year would offer some respite — although last year has not ended hopefully on that front.
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM
No matter who won November’s election, this year was bound to see further fragmentation of international relations. The return of Trump, with his special taste for tariffs and a transactional approach to allies, would accelerate that — and extend into the energy transition.
The two intersect most clearly in trade, because China dominates clean technology supply chains and the US has tied decarbonization to reindustrialization. An amped-up trade war with Beijing, combined with IRA subsidy rollbacks, would mean even starker divisions emerging on transition.
EV market share in US auto sales looks set to remain stuck in a low double-digit percentage next year, while in China it is nearing 50 percent on an annual basis. Tariffs might shield Detroit from foreign competition, but would accelerate its path to irrelevance worldwide. With solar power, Bloomberg NEF projects annual US installations over the next two years to increase by 28 percent compared with the prior two — against an 84 percent leap across the rest of the world. If Republicans take the extreme step of scrapping tax credits, the US projection drops to just 11 percent.
Washington’s marked retreat from support for transition will not be replicated elsewhere, especially China, which aims to fortify its leadership in clean tech, even as it burns more coal. Therein might lie one curveball for this year: Republicans actually advancing legislation to establish carbon border tariffs, less to address climate change, more to squeeze China further (and raise revenue). There just happens to be a bill floating around on that side of the aisle already.
Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy. A former banker, he edited the Wall Street Journal’s Heard on the Street column and wrote the Financial Times’ Lex column. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS