The backdrop for Wednesday afternoon’s session, Driving the Future of U.S. Solar Manufacturing at Intersolar & Energy Storage North America (IESNA)’s Flagship event, was timely: moderator Suzi Emmerling, founder of Calina Strategies, opened by citing explosive solar growth forecasts: utility-scale generation rising 17% this year, with 63% growth in PJM and 92% in ERCOT.
She also referenced recent tweets from Katie Miller, wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, declaring that solar “is now the dominant source of new U.S. power capacity” and “the energy of the future.”
The central question, Emmerling posed, is straightforward: “Where will it be made? Here or abroad?”
The panel brought together representatives from major domestic manufacturers—Jack Groarke, director of government relations at Qcells; Ashok Nair, senior vice president and head of sales at Waaree Solar Americas; Sterling Clifford, director of state policy at Jinko Solar; and Sriram Das, co-founder of DYCM Power—to discuss the policy landscape shaping U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
FIOC Guidance: Clarity, But Questions Remain
Treasury’s Foreign Entity of Concern guidance released the previous week dominated early discussion. Manufacturers appreciated having rules rather than speculation, but concerns about policy durability persisted.
“Guidance is better than not having guidance,” Das said. “Before, we spent a lot of time guessing what the guidance is going to look like, and there’s only so much actual planning you can do when you’re guessing what the rules are going to be.”
Nair highlighted documentation requirements as a key clarification: “Some of the confusion we had earlier about what documentation we need to provide to our customers, that is being addressed to some extent in the new guidance.”
But he raised a critical uncertainty: “Whether we take this as final and work on it, or is it going to change again and we have to go back and work again? That question remains.”
Groarke emphasized Qcells’ position as a non-FIOC manufacturer: “We feel very comfortable that we are able to comply with all restrictions around FIOC and prohibited foreign entities. For developers looking to purchase, we’re able to provide that information and documentation.”
The Safe Harbor Competitive Disadvantage
Nair identified a significant policy asymmetry that disadvantages U.S. manufacturers. Developers who commenced construction before January 1, 2026, can safe harbor projects and avoid FIOC material traceability restrictions until 2030.
“Whereas as a manufacturer who’s based in the U.S., we have to comply with material traceability requirements from now,” Nair explained. “That puts us at a competitive disadvantage versus somebody who’s setting up manufacturing overseas” who can use any components and export to the U.S. while developers remain exempt.
“We feel the policies, as they’re written, are not really boosting U.S. manufacturing,” he said, noting that tax credits expire for projects starting construction after June 2026 while safe harbor exemptions continue years longer.
What’s Driving Manufacturing Investment
When asked what policies matter most, Groarke pointed to the Advanced Manufacturing Production Tax Credit (45X) as crucial to Qcells’ $2.5 billion Cartersville, Georgia facility—the only vertically integrated solar supply chain from ingots to modules outside China.
“45X being retained in the tax reconciliation bill last year was really important to us and our business,” Groarke said. He also highlighted the domestic content bonus under the Investment Tax Credit (48E) as giving manufacturers “an edge in the market.”
Clifford emphasized that demand drives facility decisions more than incentives alone. “For an industry where there’s a lot of nervousness and fear about the future, we sure are busy, right?” he noted. “As long as solar remains cost-effective and fast-growing and the country needs it, there’s going to be demand.”
But he stressed the need for long-term clarity: “You can move the supply chain around with tariffs, but they don’t necessarily drive domestic manufacturing. In order to justify the investment of building a facility, you need some long-term clarity and real faith in that market.”
The Elon Musk Factor
Panelists responded to Elon Musk’s announcement of plans to manufacture 100 gigawatts of solar cells in the U.S. with cautious optimism mixed with skepticism.
“It would be great if he did it. 100 gigawatts of cells would be amazing,” Das said. “More supply means better pricing, which means a bigger market.”
Nair questioned the scale but welcomed potential policy benefits: “Having a company like Tesla build a U.S.-based cell factory would strengthen the U.S. domestic ecosystem because that should bring more clarity in policies with companies who have a bigger say and the ability to be heard in the administration.”
Groarke welcomed new entrants, noting “more competition is better,” while Clifford emphasized the signal it sends about market strength.
The Challenge: Policy Certainty Beyond Tax Credits
When asked their biggest challenge, manufacturers converged on a single theme: policy uncertainty beyond current tax credit expirations.
Nair surprised himself by noting that workforce development—expected to be their biggest hurdle—proved straightforward. “We thought that’s going to be a mammoth effort, but that has been a pleasant surprise. We’ve been able to hire the folks we need and get the machines running.”
The real challenge? “How do we scale manufacturing beyond a certain horizon? Building a cell factory with a two-year timeline and then having just a two-year window is a challenge. Once the tax credits expire, there’s no domestic content requirement. Whoever can get the cheapest panel into the country wins. So what do we do with the multi-billion-dollar investment?”
Das pointed to India’s domestic content requirements as a model that enabled Waaree’s growth from a small company to 25 gigawatts of module capacity over a decade. “Something similar has to happen here if we actually want that.”
Groarke echoed the need for continuity: “If America and Congress and the executive branch really wanted to incentivize more domestic manufacturing, having policy that continues from administration to administration” is essential. “When policy is shifting year to year, the business has to constantly reevaluate.”
Clifford offered the most direct prescription: “The solar industry broadly needs to make investments that are financially viable with or without tax credits. To have a facility that can churn out a cost-competitive quality product regardless—that’s the space we all need to be in.”
He also identified a broader challenge: “Energy policy in America is consistently five or eight years behind energy technology. Encouraging utility commissions, state legislatures, and federal agencies to catch up and move quicker in adapting to that new technological landscape is probably one of the most important things we can all be working on.”
With multi-billion-dollar facilities now operational and more capacity coming online, U.S. manufacturers are building the infrastructure. The question is whether policy will provide the stability needed to sustain it.