The wind/solar narrative shifts as the polls do. The latest message is that wind and solar are cost-effective and the natural choice for energy affordability. Yet the renewable industry pleads for evergreen help with the outsized subsidies of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC).
Witness the following: House Democrats Want Clean Energy Tax Credits Back Inside Climate News, March 18, 2026)
A new bill would reinstate incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act and provide assistance for consumer electricity costs.
The “Energy Bills Relief Act,” signed by more than half of House Democrats, 122 in all, seeks to establish new incentives for renewable projects and to protect consumers from rising electricity costs due to grid demands from large energy users such as data centers.
In addition to re-upping clean energy credits introduced in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the sweeping legislation would reinstate grant money for renewable energy projects that the Trump administration terminated and authorize $2.1 billion to address shortages of transformers and other grid technologies.
House Republicans have introduced the American Energy Dominance Act (April 2026) to reverse tightened deadlines on wind and solar tax credits (45Y/48E) imposed by the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). The new bill aims to remove the July 4, 2026, construction deadline and 2027 operational deadline for solar and wind projects, citing lost investments.
American Energy Dominance Act
Utility Drive article:
The bill was introduced by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, Rep. Mike Carey, R-Ohio, and Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. A release from Fitzpatrick’s office said the legislation was “developed in direct partnership with the North America’s Building Trades Unions.”
“Under current law, key incentives such as 179D and 45L are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026,” said the release. The legislation would “fully restore” the 179D, or Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction credit, without a scheduled expiration.
And the fake free market group, . States Drew Bond in “Solar Doesn’t Need Subsidies Anymore” (April 27, 2026):
Solar power is now among the cheapest forms of electricity on Earth. Yet the industry still behaves as if it can’t survive without government support.
Since President Donald Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” last July 4, the solar industry has sounded alarms.
The law ended the residential solar tax credit immediately and set a firm deadline—this coming July 4—for commercial and utility-scale developers to begin construction if they want to qualify for the remaining 30% Investment Tax Credit. Industry groups have warned of collapse. Lobbyists have flooded Capitol Hill. Obituaries for America’s solar industry are already being drafted.
They’re premature.
The solar industry doesn’t have a subsidy problem. It has a confidence problem. July 4 isn’t a deadline to fear but a milestone that signals American solar is ready to compete without training wheels.
The numbers tell the story. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, the cost of utility-scale solar has fallen roughly 90% since 2010—from about 46 cents per kilowatt-hour to roughly 4.3 cents today. Solar is now one of the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in the world, trailing only onshore wind. Over the past decade the industry has grown at an average annual rate of about 28%.
The U.S. now has roughly 262 gigawatts of installed solar capacity—enough to power about 45 million homes, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Demand for electricity is also rising quickly. Data centers, the reshoring of manufacturing, and electrification across the economy are creating the largest sustained expansion of American power demand in a generation. Solar is one of the fastest and least expensive ways to meet much of that need, and that advantage doesn’t disappear on July 5.
All of this means solar is no longer a fragile startup industry. It is one of the most remarkable energy scale-ups in modern American history. The industry simply hasn’t fully accepted that reality.
Solar companies continue to push for the return of tax credits largely because those credits once worked. Two decades ago solar panels were expensive, financing was scarce, and the economics of large projects were uncertain. The Investment Tax Credit gave developers the margin they needed to take risks markets weren’t yet ready to support.
Much like early government incentives helped launch industries ranging from advanced nuclear to biotechnology and aerospace, targeted support helped get American solar off the ground. It bridged the gap between promising technology and a self-sustaining market.
But subsidies are supposed to phase out when industries mature. Solar’s tax credit regime never quite got that memo.
Instead of fading as solar became cost-competitive, the subsidies persisted—and their structure began quietly working against the industry they were meant to help. Because the credit was calculated as a percentage of total project cost, developers were rewarded for how much they spent rather than how efficiently they produced electricity.
Analysis by Resources for the Future suggests investment-based credits such as the ITC can steer projects toward higher capital spending rather than operational efficiency, raising total system costs.
Recent bankruptcies tell part of that story. In 2024 SunPower filed for bankruptcy despite billions in federal subsidies flowing through the industry. Dozens of other companies failed in 2024 and 2025. Subsidies didn’t save them; in many cases they simply prolonged flawed business models.
There has also been a geopolitical cost. Much of the global decline in solar prices has been driven by China’s manufacturing dominance. Today China controls more than 80% of global solar panel production and most key upstream supply chains, according to the International Energy Agency report on Solar PV Supply Chains.
The Investment Tax Credit accelerated America’s dependence on that system. By rewarding rapid deployment, it encouraged developers to buy panels from whichever suppliers could ship fastest and cheapest—often Chinese manufacturers.
The result has been two decades of building American energy infrastructure with components largely produced by a strategic competitor.
The new law attempts to correct that imbalance by tightening limits on components from Chinese-controlled supply chains. Critics argue that ending subsidies while restricting Chinese inputs will devastate the industry. In reality, it may provide a long overdue stress test.
Costs may rise temporarily as supply chains shift and domestic manufacturing scales up. But the long-term result could be a solar sector driven by innovation and competition rather than subsidy optimization.
After decades of public support, policymakers aren’t sending the solar industry to its funeral.
They’re celebrating its graduation.
Drew Bond is Co‑Founder & Executive Chairman of C3 Solutions, a free‑market energy and environment think tank, and Co‑Founder & CEO of PowerField Energy.
When the conventional generation currently used to backup wind and solar becomes inadequate to meet peak demand, storage becomes essential to grid stability and reliability and renewable costs skyrocket.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard P. Feynman