Grid battery installations may plunge 29% due to Congress, Trump — report
The utility-scale energy storage market is at risk of plunging 29 percent next year because of 'policy uncertainty' from tariffs and potential rollbacks of key tax credits in Congress, according to a new report.
The analysis from Wood Mackenzie and the American Clean Power Association found that energy storage — which is dominated by lithium-ion batteries — experienced record growth in the first quarter of 2025, adding 2 gigawatts. Utility-scale battery installations alone increased 57 percent in comparison to the same quarter last year.
But federal policy could cause a sharp reversal in 2026, with implications for renewables tied to batteries and grid stability in regions with surging power demand. Among the threats is the end of some Biden-era clean energy tax credits, as outlined in the House and Senate versions of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.'
Advertisement
The industry's quarterly results 'demonstrate the demand for energy storage in the US to serve a grid with both growing renewables and growing load. However, the industry stands at a crossroads, with potential policy changes threatening to disrupt this momentum,' Allison Weis, global head of energy storage at Wood Mackenzie, said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court turns aside conservative challenge to $8 billion phone and internet subsidy program
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax. The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard. Under a law Congress passed in 1996, telecommunications companies are charged a Universal Service Fund fee – passed on to customers − that boosts phone and internet service to households and hospitals in rural areas, to low-income families, and to public schools and libraries. A private administrator overseen by the Federal Communications Commission distributes the funding, collects the fees and estimates how much needs to be raised each quarter. The FCC must approve the estimate before it's used to determine fees for each carrier. The conservative group Consumers' Research, a carrier and a group of consumers challenged this setup, which has been the law for nearly three decades, asserting it's Congress, not the FCC – and certainly not a private entity − that must determine the fee level. "At its heart, this case is about taxation without representation," Trent McCotter, an attorney for the group, told the Supreme Court in March. 'The amount of public revenue to raise is a quintessential legislative determination, not some minor detail to be filled in later.' While appeals courts in Ohio and Georgia rejected those arguments, the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the universal service fee unconstitutional. The challenge was part of a conservative effort to curb the 'administrative state' that has often been successful at the high court. But Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under former President George W. Bush − a Republican − represented a trade association for the telecommunications industry defending the program. He told the justices this was not the right case to revamp Supreme Court decisions that had set a low bar for the non-delegation rule. 'We all benefit from having a communications system that is truly universal,' Clement said. 'I may not live in rural Alaska, but it's nice to be able to place a call there.' And the Justice Department warned that declaring the funding scheme unconstitutional would jeopardize many other programs. The telecommunications law, according to the department, follows the same delegation framework Congress has used in a range of areas, including to prevent unfair competition, oversee the securities industry, ensure the safety of food and drugs, regulate labor relations and set air-quality standards. The lead case of the two that were consolidated for arguments is Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court upholds federal internet subsidy program
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision upheld a multibillion-dollar subsidy program that funds phone and internet services in rural areas and schools on Friday, rejecting a conservative group's claims that Congress delegated away too much power in setting it up. Established in 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) is intended to help the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) accomplish its decades-long aim of affordable 'universal service' nationwide by providing subsidies to rural and low-income consumers as well as schools, libraries and health care facilities. It spends roughly $8 billion annually. Conservative nonprofit Consumers' Research challenged how Congress delegated determining how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund to the FCC, which it, in turn, sets based on a private company's financial projections. The group claimed the two layers combined violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch without an intelligible principle. 'Nothing in those arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, which comprised the court's three Democratic-appointed justices and three of the six Republican-appointed justices. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented. 'When it comes to other aspects of the separation of powers, we have found manageable ways to honor the Constitution's design. This one requires no less of us,' Gorsuch wrote. Anti-regulatory interests had hoped the Supreme Court would use the case to revitalize the nondelegation doctrine, which the high court has not used to strike down a statute in 90 years. But the justices instead sided with the federal government, keeping the USF intact. Both the Biden and Trump-era Justice Departments defended the program. Among others, Consumers' Research challenge was backed by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a libertarian advocacy group affiliated with the Koch brothers; the conservative Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom; Former Vice President Pence's advocacy group, Advancing American Freedom; the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation; and the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian think tank. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of 22 state attorneys general, consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, broadband groups and the American Library Association and others filed briefs in support of USF.
Bloomberg
16 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Upholds FCC's $8.6 Billion Telecom Subsidy Fund
The US Supreme Court upheld the $8.6 billion Universal Service Fund, the annual slate of subsidies that helps cover the cost of telecom services for low-income people, rural residents, schools and libraries. Voting 6-3, the justices rejected contentions that Congress unconstitutionally handed off its taxing powers when it set up the program in 1976. The fund uses a charge imposed on monthly phone bills – in an amount determined by the Federal Communications Commission – to subsidize service for more than 8 million people.
