Domestic Production Incentives and Cost Competitiveness of Solar‑Battery Manufacturing after the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act: A Case Study of GENX Solutions

Introduction

The United States has embarked on an ambitious industrial policy agenda to re-establish domestic manufacturing capabilities in critical clean energy sectors. A primary catalyst for this shift is the significant national reliance on foreign supply chains, particularly for solar photovoltaic (PV) components. China currently dominates the global solar supply chain, accounting for approximately 97% of silicon wafer production and 77% of module manufacturing, while the U.S. has no active crystalline silicon (c-Si) ingot, wafer, or cell production.¹ This concentration poses significant economic and security risks. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 was enacted to address this vulnerability directly, offering a suite of powerful financial incentives to stimulate domestic production of solar components and lithium-ion batteries.

Despite the scale of these incentives, significant uncertainty remains regarding whether they are sufficient to make U.S.-based manufacturing cost-competitive against established, low-cost international producers. The objective of this paper is to analyze the financial viability and cost competitiveness of a domestic solar and battery manufacturing operation in the post-IRA landscape. Through a case study analysis of a hypothetical Ohio-based facility, this study models the financial impact of the IRA’s primary manufacturing incentives—the Section 45X production tax credit and the Section 48C investment tax credit—as well as the crucial role of federal financing programs and the external pressures of international trade policy.

Literature review

The challenge of onshoring solar and battery manufacturing is rooted in a significant cost differential. A 2024 analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated that c-Si PV cells produced in the U.S. would carry a cost premium of $0.135 per watt over identical cells from Southeast Asia, citing underdeveloped supply chains and higher labor and capital costs.² The IRA seeks to overcome this gap primarily through two distinct tax credit mechanisms: the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit (Section 45X) and the Advanced Energy Project Investment Tax Credit (Section 48C).

Section 45X provides long-term, output-based credits for specific components, such as 4¢ per watt for a PV cell, 7¢ per watt for a PV module,³ and up to $35 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for a battery cell.⁴ These credits are designed to directly subsidize the cost of goods sold, but they are legislated to begin phasing down in 2030.⁵ In contrast, Section 48C provides an upfront investment tax credit of up to 30% of the capital cost of establishing or re-equipping a manufacturing facility.⁶ Critically, a manufacturer cannot claim 45X credits for components produced at a facility that has claimed the 48C credit, forcing a strategic choice between upfront capital relief and long-term production support.^6,7 This decision is further complicated by the significant allocation uncertainty and potential project delays associated with the 48C program.⁷

The competitive landscape is also shaped by trade policy. Tariffs on imported solar components can insulate domestic producers but also raise overall project costs for U.S. solar developers. One forecast suggests that under a “trade tensions” scenario, a U.S. solar project could become 54% more expensive than one in Europe.⁸ New tariffs on imported cells alone could increase the total capital expenditure of a utility-scale solar project by nearly 15%,⁹ an effect seen in the market when Chinese suppliers raised prices to reflect new tariff rates.¹⁰

Finally, the cost of capital is a decisive factor. Debt financing constitutes over 40% of clean energy investment in advanced economies,¹¹ and programs like the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO) serve as a critical “bridge to bankability” for projects that are technologically mature but lack access to affordable private capital.¹² By offering low-cost debt, these federal programs can significantly reduce a project’s weighted average cost of capital (WACC),¹³ fundamentally altering its economic viability.¹⁴

Methodology

This study employs a financial modeling framework to assess the cost competitiveness of a hypothetical, vertically integrated solar and battery manufacturing facility located in Ohio. The analysis focuses on distinct segments of the value chain—specifically PV cell and module assembly, and battery cell and pack assembly—to provide a granular assessment of how specific IRA incentives impact production economics. The methodological approach is structured around three core components: defining competitiveness benchmarks, modeling key IRA provisions, and incorporating external market factors.

Cost competitiveness benchmarks

To evaluate cost competitiveness, the analysis utilizes multiple benchmarks. The primary benchmark is the landed cost of comparable imported components from manufacturing hubs in China and Southeast Asia, as this determines direct price competition in the U.S. market. A second benchmark is the estimated pre-IRA domestic production cost, which allows for the isolation and quantification of the IRA’s direct financial impact. A third, more holistic benchmark is the project-level Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), which assesses how using domestically produced components affects the total lifetime cost of a completed solar-plus-storage project. This considers that a higher-cost domestic component may still be preferable if it enables developers to capture additional project-level IRA incentives, even if the baseline LCOE for a standard project is around $30.5/MWh.^15,16

Modeling key IRA provisions

The model simulates the financial trade-offs inherent in the IRA’s structure. A central feature is the comparative analysis of Section 45X versus Section 48C. This involves modeling two distinct financial scenarios for the facility: one assuming it claims the 45X production credits over a ten-year period, and another assuming it receives an upfront 48C investment credit. The model accounts for the mutual exclusivity of these credits for a single production unit,⁷ the differing timing of their cash flows,⁶ and the potential for monetizing 45X credits through direct sale.¹⁷ The model also incorporates the impact of securing a loan from the DOE LPO. It calculates a distinct WACC for the project by incorporating low-cost federal debt based on the LPO’s published pricing structure, which is typically the applicable U.S. Treasury Rate plus a risk-based spread.^13,18

Domestic content and tariff impact

The analysis models the effect of domestic production on a project developer’s ability to qualify for the 10% domestic content bonus credit. This requires meeting escalating thresholds for U.S.-made manufactured products, starting at 40% and rising to 55% by 2027.¹⁹ The model also integrates the impact of potential tariffs on imported solar cells and modules, treating them as a direct increase to the landed cost of competing foreign products.^8,9,10 This allows for an assessment of how trade policy interacts with federal incentives to shape the competitive environment.

Findings and analysis

This section presents the key findings from the financial modeling, highlighting the strategic trade-offs and economic conditions that shape the competitiveness of domestic solar-battery manufacturing under the IRA.

The strategic choice: 45X production credits vs. 48C investment credits

The analysis reveals a fundamental strategic decision for a domestic manufacturer. Opting for the Section 45X credit provides a direct, per-unit subsidy (e.g., 4¢/Wdc per PV cell, $35/kWh per battery cell) that creates a predictable, long-term revenue stream.^3,4 This stream can be directly monetized via the IRA’s transferability provisions, as demonstrated by First Solar’s sale of credits for approximately 95 cents on the dollar, providing a powerful source of non-dilutive financing.¹⁷ The primary risk of this path is the legislated phase-out of the credit value beginning in 2030.⁵

Conversely, the Section 48C credit provides an immediate capital subsidy of up to 30%, significantly de-risking the initial investment and reducing the need for expensive construction financing.⁶ However, this path is fraught with uncertainty. The program is competitive, and there is no guarantee of receiving an allocation. Furthermore, regulations stipulate that any property placed in service before an allocation is awarded becomes ineligible, forcing developers to delay project commissioning and introducing significant timeline risk.⁷ For a vertically integrated facility, it is possible to claim both credits if the site contains multiple “independently functioning production units,” allowing for a hybrid strategy.^7,20

Cost competitiveness in a global market

The IRA’s incentives are substantial enough to directly counter much of the baseline cost premium for U.S. manufacturing.² However, achieving competitiveness is not static; it is highly dependent on trade policy. For example, a 34% tariff on Chinese-made modules directly increases their landed cost, making a domestic alternative more attractive on price.¹⁰ The broader impact of such tariffs, however, is an increase in overall U.S. solar project costs. One analysis found that sustained trade tensions could make a U.S. solar plant 85% more expensive than the same plant built in China.⁸ This creates a tension where policies designed to protect domestic manufacturers can simultaneously hinder the cost-competitiveness of solar energy itself.

The power of low-cost capital

The model confirms that access to low-cost federal financing is a critical enabler for new domestic manufacturing. Securing a loan from the DOE LPO, which prices its debt at a small spread above U.S. Treasury rates,¹⁸ dramatically improves a project’s financial profile. An RMI analysis demonstrated that using such financing can lower a utility’s WACC and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in net present value savings, showcasing the immense financial leverage provided by these programs.¹⁴ For a capital-intensive startup, this reduction in financing cost could be the deciding factor in achieving bankability and competing with established global players who may have access to state-backed financing abroad.

Navigating supply chain gaps and domestic content rules

A major finding is that financial incentives alone cannot solve underlying physical supply chain gaps. The complete absence of domestic c-Si wafer and cell manufacturing means that a U.S. module assembler would still be reliant on imported inputs.¹ This reality directly impacts the ability of project developers to claim the IRA’s 10% domestic content bonus credit. NREL analysis shows that module sourcing is the single most important variable in meeting the domestic content threshold; a system using domestically sourced modules can achieve 60% domestic content, while one using imported modules may only reach 3%.²¹ This creates a powerful, built-in demand signal for the output of domestic module manufacturers, providing them with a key market advantage.

Discussion

The findings of this analysis indicate that the Inflation Reduction Act has successfully created a viable, albeit complex, pathway for reshoring solar and battery manufacturing. The law does not guarantee success but rather reshapes the economic calculus, presenting firms with a series of strategic financial trade-offs. The decision between the Section 45X production credit and the Section 48C investment credit is not merely a financial one; it is a strategic choice that reflects a company’s access to capital, tolerance for regulatory risk, and long-term production outlook. The emergence of a robust market for transferable 45X credits introduces a new and potent financing mechanism that can favor the production-based incentive.¹⁷

This study also highlights the dual-edged nature of trade policy. While tariffs on imports are a form of protection for nascent domestic producers, they simultaneously increase capital costs for the entire U.S. solar deployment ecosystem.^8,9 This can create internal friction within the industry and potentially slow the pace of the energy transition if domestic manufacturing cannot scale quickly enough to meet demand at a competitive price point. The significant regional differences in project economics and policy risk further complicate this picture.¹⁶

The analysis underscores that the IRA’s success is contingent not only on its tax provisions but also on the effective deployment of its financing mechanisms. The DOE’s LPO functions as an essential catalyst, providing the low-cost capital necessary to bridge the “valley of death” for technologically mature but pre-commercial manufacturing ventures.¹² However, the most significant limitation remains the physical supply chain. The persistent reliance on imported inputs, particularly from China, for key upstream components like wafers and cells, represents a critical vulnerability that tax credits alone cannot resolve.¹ The domestic content rules create a powerful “demand-pull” for finished domestic modules,²¹ but a truly resilient supply chain requires a concerted effort to build out these missing upstream segments.

Conclusion

The Inflation Reduction Act represents a landmark piece of industrial policy that fundamentally alters the investment case for domestic solar and battery manufacturing. Through a combination of production and investment tax credits, the IRA provides a powerful financial foundation to close the cost gap with established international competitors. However, this study demonstrates that achieving sustained cost competitiveness is not automatic. It requires firms to make sophisticated strategic choices between different incentive structures, navigate the uncertainties of international trade policy, and leverage access to low-cost federal financing programs.

While the IRA provides the tools, significant challenges remain, most notably the deep-rooted gaps in the upstream solar supply chain. Future research should focus on the long-term impacts of the 45X credit phase-out on investment decisions, the scalability of the domestic supply chain beyond module assembly, and the evolving interplay between U.S. industrial policy and global geopolitical dynamics. Ultimately, the long-term success of the IRA’s manufacturing ambitions will depend on a holistic approach that combines financial incentives with targeted investments in supply chain infrastructure and workforce development.

References and Notes

1. Wang, L., Negi, S., Chen, A., Cheung, D., Nunoo, K., Tsui, K., & Lee, S. (2023, Fall). Investment opportunities in challenged sectors enabled by the Inflation Reduction Act. Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/For%20Circulation_Citi_Guidera.pdf
2. Feldman, D., Zuboy, J., Dummit, K., Stright, D., Heine, M., Grossman, S., Narayanaswami, M., & Margolis, R. (2024). Fall 2024 Solar Industry Update. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/92257.pdf
3. U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Federal tax credits for solar manufacturers. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/federal-tax-credits-solar-manufacturers
4. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. (2022, November 18). Section 45X of the Inflation Reduction Act: New Tax Credits Available to Battery Manufacturers. https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2022/11/Section-45X-of-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-New-Tax-Credits-Available-to-Battery-Manufacturers
5. Crux Climate, LLC. (2025, March 12). §45X tax credits: A guide for manufacturers. Crux Climate. https://www.cruxclimate.com/insights/45x-tax-credit
6. Rubio, G., Tsai, J., & Sandifer, C. (2023, September 21). 48C vs. 45X: Which Inflation Reduction Act tax credit should you claim?. BDO USA, P.C. https://www.bdo.com/insights/industries/manufacturing/48c-vs-45x-which-inflation-reduction-act-tax-credit-should-you-claim
7. Internal Revenue Service. (2023, June 1). Additional guidance for the qualifying advanced energy project credit (§ 48C) (Notice 2023‑44). U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs‑drop/n‑23‑44.pdf
8. Norman, W. (2025). Tariffs to ‘significantly’ increase costs and disrupt US solar and energy storage. PV Tech. https://www.pv-tech.org/tariffs-to-significantly-increase-costs-and-disrupt-us-solar-and-energy-storage/
9. Casey, B. (2025, June 16). Solar shock: How new tariffs could reshape US utility‑scale deployment. Renewable Energy World. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/solar-shock-how-new-tariffs-could-reshape-us-utility-scale-deployment/
10. Ahmed, D. (2025, April 4). Impact of April 2025 reciprocal tariffs on solar equipment pricing. Sunhub. https://www.sunhub.com/blog/april-2025-reciprocal-tariffs-solar-equipment/
11. International Energy Agency. (2024, May). Strategies for affordable and fair clean energy transitions. IEA. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/f0613049-ec1c-4dad-82a7-718a7e879c4e/StrategiesforAffordableandFairCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf
12. Armitage, S. C., Bakhtian, N., & Jaffe, A. B. (2024, February). Innovation market failures and the design of new climate policy instruments. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31622/w31622.pdf
13. Cohen, J., Posner, D., & Wilson, G. (2024). Modeling the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in Resource Planning. RMI. https://rmi.org/modeling-the-does-energy-infrastructure-reinvestment-program-in-resource-planning/
14. Fong, C., Posner, D., & Varadarajan, U. (2024). The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program: Federal financing for an equitable, clean economy. RMI. https://rmi.org/the-energy-infrastructure-reinvestment-program-federal-financing-for-an-equitable-clean-economy/
15. Seel, J., Mulvaney Kemp, J., Cheyette, A., Millstein, D., Gorman, W., Jeong, S., Robson, D., Setiawan, R., & Bolinger, M. (2024). Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/utility_scale_solar_2024_edition_slides.pdf
16. Kim, H., Cibie, M., de Boer, M., Geiger, L., Hoyos, I., Lee, H., Jin, T., Riaz, H., & Wagner, G. (2025). Scaling Solar. Columbia Business School. https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/CKI/CKI%20Solar-250710.pdf
17. Casey, J. P. (2025). First Solar sells US$311.8 million in 45X manufacturing tax credits. PV Tech. https://www.pv-tech.org/first-solar-sells-us311-8-million-45x-manufacturing-tax-credits/
18. U.S. Department of Energy. (2024, March 15). Pricing for LPO financing by program. Loan Programs Office. https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/pricing-lpo-financing-program
19. Feldman, D., Dummit, K., Zuboy, J., & Margolis, R. (2023). Summer 2023 Solar Industry Update. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/87189.pdf
20. Department of the Treasury & Internal Revenue Service. (2023, December 15). Section 45X advanced manufacturing production credit (Proposed Rule, 88 FR 86844). Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/15/2023-27498/section-45x-advanced-manufacturing-production-credit
21. Feldman, D., Dummit, K., Zuboy, J., Smith, B., Stright, D., Heine, M., & Margolis, R. (2023). Fall 2023 Solar Industry Update. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88026.pdf