Wind reflects leading source of energy capacity for 2020 in the US

Last year, 42% of new electricity generation capacity in the U.S. came from land-based wind energy -- more than from any other source. By contrast, solar amounted to only 38% of new capacity last year.

This measures capacity, which is the maximum amount of electricity that can be produced under ideal conditions, while actual energy generation can be much less than that ideal amount as wind varies.

While both capacity and electricity generation from wind can vary regionally, land-based wind is now a strong, intermittent energy source across the U.S. According to research by DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a record 16,836 megawatts of new utility-scale land-based wind power capacity was added to U.S. energy infrastructure in 2020, representing about $24.6 billion of investment in new wind power.

Last year, the DOE noted, wind energy was able to provide more than half of in-state electricity generation and sales in a few states. Iowa led the pack with wind power providing 57% of its in-state electricity generation. However, Iowa has a lot of wind turbines, and not a very big population.

More typically, wind is used to generate electricity for the electric power industry during fall and spring nights, and the winter season. (Along the Gulf Coast in Texas, wind energy shows up in the late afternoon or early evenings during the summer.)

The growth of land-based wind energy in the U.S. last year was driven partly by production tax credits that are poised for a phaseout, encouraging development before that event horizon.

Wind technology improvements also helped encourage land-based wind development. Compared to older wind turbines, the latest models feature taller towers with longer blades that can produce more energy by reaching into higher winds.

In addition to land-based wind farms, myriad off-shore wind developments are underway domestically. But last year, off-shore wind farms still weren’t operational across most of the U.S.

The DOE’s 2021 Offshore Wind Market Report instead focuses on the “pipeline” of offshore initiatives. In 2020, the offshore pipeline “grew to a potential generating capacity of 35,324 megawatts (MW),” a 24% increase from the prior year, that report says.

There are 15 other offshore wind projects in the pipeline that have reached the permitting phase, and seven wind energy areas that can be leased at the discretion of the federal government in the future, the DOE report said.

The Biden administration wants to expand U.S. offshore wind capacity to 30 gigawatts by 2030 as part of its goal to achieve a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.

Other forms of clean energy will be needed, alongside all forms of wind power, to fulfill electricity demand in the U.S. while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable energy investing will account for 25% of all energy spending in 2021 and surpass oil/gas

The transition to renewable power from traditional fuels will create a $16 trillion investment opportunity through 2030 as spending shifts to new infrastructure, Goldman Sachs analysts said Tuesday.

The bank projects green-energy spending to pass that of oil and gas for the first time ever next year and account for roughly 25% of all energy spending. The share stood at just 15% in 2014, but a dive in fossil-fuel investing over the past decade shifted more dollars to clean energy initiatives.

If the nation aims to hold global warming within 2 degrees Celsius, the move toward renewable energy would create between $1 trillion and $2 trillion in yearly infrastructure spending, the team led by Michele Della Vigna wrote in a note to clients.

Economic downturns have historically slowed efforts to boost clean energy investing, but Goldman sees the coronavirus downturn bucking that trend and accelerating the nationwide pivot.

"We believe this time will be different, especially for technologies that are now mature enough to be deployed at scale and can benefit from a falling cost of capital and an attractive regulatory framework, unlocking one of the largest infrastructure investment opportunities in history on our estimates," the team wrote.

The decade-long strategy isn't without its risks. Goldman warned that low cost of capital and an attractive regulatory framework are "essential" to moving green infrastructure forward. Such projects can be as much as three-times more demanding of capital and jobs compared to traditional energy developments.If either side of the public-private collaboration falters, the transition will slow dramatically, the bank said.

Two-speed de-carbonization also poses a threat to the firm's outlook. Fiscal and monetary aid will likely boost mainstream clean-energy initiatives like solar and wind power. Yet growing technologies like clean hydrogen and the creation of carbon markets risk being placed on the back-burner.

If the latter efforts can't gain access to sufficient capital, the long-term plan to slash carbon emissions will stall, Goldman warned.

"This may ultimately delay the technological breakthroughs necessary to flatten the de-carbonization cost curve and achieve cost-efficient net-zero carbon," the team wrote.

US wind energy capacity is now more than 100 gigawatts

The U.S. is now home to more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of wind energy capacity, a new report from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said Thursday.

According to the AWEA’s “U.S. Wind Industry Third Quarter 2019 Market Report”, 1,927 megawatts – a little under 2 GW – of wind power capacity was commissioned in the third quarter of 2019, the highest third quarter on record for installations. These installations pushed overall capacity above the landmark figure of 100 GW, the AWEA’s report said.

On a state level, Texas leads the way with more than 27 GW of cumulative capacity, according to the AWEA’s report. Capacity refers to the maximum amount that installations can produce, not what they are currently generating.

“Wind now supplies clean and efficient power to the equivalent of 32 million American homes, sustains 500 U.S. factories, and delivers more than one billion dollars a year in new revenue to rural communities and states,” AWEA CEO Tom Kiernan said in a statement.

While the onshore wind market in the U.S. has undergone significant development in recent years, its offshore sector is still nascent.

The country’s first offshore wind farm, the five turbine, 30 MW Block Island Wind Farm off Rhode island, only commenced commercial operations in late 2016. By comparison, Europe is home to over 18,400 MW of installed offshore wind capacity, according to industry body WindEurope.

Globally, the offshore industry is set for expansion over the coming years. Last week, the International Energy Agency said that offshore wind looked set to become a $1 trillion business by 2040, with global capacity set for a 15-fold increase.

In 2018, utility-scale facilities in the U.S. produced 4,171 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, with roughly 64% of this generation coming from fossil fuels. Wind produced 273 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, or 6.5% of the total.

Illinois Faces Challenges in Reaching Renewable Energy Goals

Illinois law requires that by the year 2025, at least 25% of the state’s energy comes from renewable sources, like wind or solar.

But as that deadline nears, projections by the Illinois Power Agency find that without changes to current policy, Illinois could fall short.

The Illinois Power Agency was created in 2007 to procure electricity for the state’s utility companies, like ComEd. The agency ensures customers who buy power from utility companies receive reliable and affordable service. 

The agency also oversees the implementation of the state’s renewable energy goals, including the 2025 benchmark. 

But in a recent workshop, the IPA shared projections that put the state’s renewable energy share around only 10% in 2025. IPA Director Anthony Star says there’s a chance that number could change by the time the agency updates its long-term plan for 2022 and 2023, “but going from the 10% or so that we project now to 25% would be very challenging if we wait until then.”

Star says there are several reasons why the state could fall short of the 25% goal.

“One is that the funds that are collected to pay for renewables have what’s known as a rate cap on them, so we have a finite budget to make sure that this remains affordable for Illinois customers.”

He also cited new requirements from the 2016 Future Energy Jobs Act, which consolidated the state’s renewable energy procurement under the IPA. 

“The percentage of power that we have to procure for increased significantly at the same time as we were gearing up a number of new programs. So it just takes a while to ramp up,” Star says.

Star says he’s optimistic legislation will address these issues later this year or in early 2020.

Renewable energy 101: Key terms you need to know

The world’s energy mix is changing. Across the world, major companies and countries are turning to renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal to green their operations and become more sustainable.

But what do all these terms mean? Here, CNBC’s “Sustainable Energy” takes a look at some of the most important words and phrases in the renewable energy lexicon.

Biomass

The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines biomass as being “any organic matter” that is “available on a renewable basis.”

This could include organic waste from industrial sources, or feedstock from plants or animals.

Bioenergy is energy produced from “products derived from biomass,” according to the IEA. It represents around 9% of the planet’s primary energy supply, the agency says.

Geothermal

Described by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as a “vital, clean energy resource,” geothermal energy refers to heat from below the Earth’s surface which can be used to produce renewable energy.

The DOE adds that geothermal energy “supplies renewable power around the clock” but emits little or no greenhouse gases.

Hydropower

Energy that comes from the flow of water. Turbines are crucial components of hydropower systems — it’s the powerful flow of water that “drives” them, producing electricity.

The IEA describes hydropower as the world’s largest source of renewable electricity.

Renewable energy

A phrase that encompasses a vast amount of other words, terms and energy production methods.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration describes it as “energy from sources that are naturally replenishing but flow-limited.”

These sources are “virtually inexhaustible in duration.” Examples of renewable energy include solar, wind, geothermal and wave power.

Solar power

Energy from the sun. Can be harnessed in several ways, including through photovoltaic and concentrated solar power systems (CSP).

Photovoltaic refers to a way of directly converting light from the sun into electricity.

For CSP systems, the Solar Energy Industries Association describes them as using mirrors “to concentrate the Sun’s energy to drive traditional steam turbines or engines that create electricity.”

Tidal power

Energy that’s produced from the tides of the sea.

According to the major utility EDF, tidal power makes use of “the differential between low and high tides to generate electricity.” Tidal power is predictable, carbon-free and inexhaustible.

In August 2018, it was announced that a tidal stream turbine had generated record levels of production in its initial year of testing at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, Scotland.

The 2-megawatt SR2000 turbine produced more than 3 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity in 12 months.

Wind power

Perhaps counter-intuitively, wind is actually a form of solar energy.

As the U.S. Department of Energy explains, it’s caused by three simultaneous events, namely: the atmosphere being unevenly heated by the sun; irregularities of the Earth’s surface; and the Earth’s rotation.

Wind turbines — which can vary in size and be located onshore and offshore — are used to take the wind’s kinetic energy and turn it into mechanical power.

Solar installations in US now exceed 2 million and could double by 2023, new figures show

There are now over 2 million solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in the U.S., according to new figures. The 2 million mark comes three years after installations hit 1 million, a figure it took the industry 40 years to reach. 

The numbers, from Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), were released Thursday.

Solar power can be harnessed in several ways, including through photovoltaic and concentrated solar power systems. Photovoltaic refers to a way of directly converting light from the sun into electricity. 

California was responsible for 51 percent of the first million installations and 43 percent of the second million, the SEIA said. It explained that this reduction was “in large part” down to a residential sector that was both growing and “rapidly diversifying across state markets.”

Other states including Texas, Rhode Island, Florida, Utah and Maryland had helped to drive growth, the SEIA added.

Abigail Ross-Hopper, the CEO of the SEIA, said that the organization believed “that the 2020s will be the decade that solar becomes the dominant new form of energy generation.” 

For its part, Wood Mackenzie is forecasting that installations will reach 3 million in 2021 and 4 million in 2023.

“According to our latest forecasts, by 2024 there will be, on average, one solar installation per minute,” Michelle Davis, senior solar analyst at Wood Mackenzie, said in a statement Thursday. “That’s up from one installation every 10 minutes in 2010.” 

Looking at the bigger picture, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says it expects renewable sources, excluding hydropower, will provide around 11% of electricity generation this year, rising to 13% in 2020.

U.S. Renewable Energy Production Set to Outpace Coal

FOR THE FIRST TIME, U.S. renewable energy production is set to outpace coal in April, according to a recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

The report is more bad news for the fossil fuel sector. Despite repeated backings from President Donald Trump, the coal industry's energy generation is at its lowest level since 1979, according to Energy Information Administration.

For April, renewable energy is predicted to produce 2.322 million megawatt-hours per day compared to coal's expected output of 1.997 million megawatt-hours.

Renewables may upstage coal in May as well, according to government data, which the report cites. The Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Energy Outlook predicts May's difference to be slightly less drastic, with renewables generating 2.271 million megawatt-hours per day compared to coal's 2.239 million megawatt-hours.

"Five years ago this never would have been close to happening," Dennis Wamstead, research analyst at IEEFA, told CNN. "The transition that's going on in the electric sector in the United States has been phenomenal."

Seasonal factors come into play, Wamstead wrote in the report. For example, some coal plants are taken offline during fall and spring due to lower demand. This allows companies to perform maintenance and upgrades to prepare for seasons with higher demand, like summer and winter.

Wamstead predicts that solar and wind generation will start to outpace coal more frequently, as has been the case with natural gas. In 2016, natural gas outpaced coal to become the U.S.'s top power source.

"Coal's proponents may dismiss these monthly and quarterly ups and downs in generation share as unimportant, but we believe they are indicative of the fundamental disruption happening across the electric generation sector," Wamstead wrote. "As natural gas achieved earlier, renewable generation is catching up to coal, and faster than forecast."

Two Federal Courts May Have Just Saved The Nuclear Power Industry

States that want to keep their aging nuclear power fleet from retiring now have a court-approved roadmap for doing so.  That’s because two federal courts of appeals last month upheld very similar state laws in Illinois and New York aimed at subsidizing those states’ under-performing and at-risk nuclear power plants.

The current market conditions are, quite literally, killing the nuclear power industry. With natural gas prices low and cheap renewable energy flooding the markets, it’s been virtually impossible for many nuclear power plants to compete.

Some view this as simply the market picking winners and losers. But others see this as a problem. To significantly lower this country’s greenhouse gas emissions, they argue, we’ll need baseload power (i.e., power plants that can run all of the time). And only three current large-scale power sources fit that bill: coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Of those three, only nuclear power can generate energy without carbon dioxide emissions.

Yet, in Illinois (and in most other states), nuclear energy does not qualify as a “renewable energy resource,” which means nuclear generation facilities are categorically ineligible to produce and sell renewable energy credits.

That’s why, in response to concerns that two of Exelon Corporations' nuclear generation facilities were on the brink of closing and that the zero-emission value of nuclear generation was not being recognized, the Illinois legislature passed the Future Energy Jobs Act.

The Act directed the Illinois Power Agency to create a subsidy program requiring generators that use coal or natural gas to buy zero-emissions credits (ZECs) from nuclear power plants connected to the regional grid. The price of each credit was set at $16.50 per megawatt-hour, a number Illinois derived from a federal working group’s calculation of the social cost of carbon emissions.  But, to ensure that the new program does not cause power prices to skyrocket, the price of ZECs under the program goes down if average annual energy prices on the market exceed a set cap.

Almost immediately, a group of generation facilities and consumers filed a lawsuit challenging the Illinois law. The group alleged, among other things, that the ZEC program invades the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) exclusive authority over the wholesale sale of electricity in the interstate markets.

Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has sole jurisdiction over the interstate sale of electricity at wholesale; yet states are authorized to regulate energy production within their borders, including the power plants that produce that energy.

The challengers in the case, called Electric Power Supply Association v. Star, argued that Illinois’ ZEC program went too far because it tied the price of ZECs to future wholesale market prices.

On September 13, 2018, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. “The zero-emissions credit system can influence the [market] price only indirectly,” according to the Court, because the value of a credit does not depend on the producer’s bid in the market.

Interestingly, at the Seventh Circuit’s request, FERC submitted a brief in the case, which argued that Illinois’ ZECs program was “not preempted” by the Federal Power Act because it does not expressly require generation facilities to participate in the FERC-regulated markets.

Exactly two weeks after the Seventh Circuit issued its decision, the Second Circuit issued a strikingly similar ruling in a case called Coalition for Competitive Electricity v. Zibelman.

Plaintiffs in the Zibelman case, a group of electrical generators and trade groups, also alleged that the Federal Power Act preempts New York’s ZEC program.

That program subsidizes three specific nuclear plants: FitzPatrick, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point, all of which are also owned by Exelon Corporation. Each of the plants under the New York program will obtain an additional $17.48 per megawatt-hour over the program’s first two years, and then the ZEC price every two years thereafter will be reset.

Brushing aside similar arguments from the challengers as the Seventh Circuit did, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on September 27, 2018 ruled that the ZEC program is not preempted “because Plaintiffs have failed to identify an impermissible ‘tether’ . . . between the ZEC program and wholesale market participation.”

Together, these two decisions won’t just save the specific nuclear power plants at issue. They may give a lifeline to the entire nuclear power industry.

Unless, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court decides to weigh in.

U.S. Has No Plan to Use Oil Reserve to Curb Prices, Rick Perry Says

The U.S. has no plans to tap the nation’s emergency oil stockpile to offset supply losses from Iran, according to U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

Selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would have “a fairly minor and short-term impact,” Perry told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. Following his remarks, oil jumped higher to erase most of the day’s losses.

Analysts have speculated that President Donald Trump could release oil from the reserve to temper the market effects of U.S. sanctions on Iran’s crude exports, which will take effect Nov. 4. Shipments from the Islamic republic have already fallen 35 percent since April, raising concerns about dwindling global supply. After a meeting this past weekend between OPEC and its allies ended without any pledge to raise production, the international oil benchmark rose above $82 a barrel to the highest in almost four years.

Perry’s remarks come a day after Trump blamed OPEC for high crude prices. “OPEC nations are, as usual, ripping off the rest of the world and I don’t like it,” he said in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.

Perry on Wednesday downplayed the supply risks, saying other producers can offset losses from Iran.

“The market has already adjusted,” he said. “We got some opportunities to fill the void as sanctions go into place in November.”

The U.S. in August announced it would release 11 million barrels of oil from the reserve in October and November as part of a regular drawdown schedule to raise money for government programs. But that likely won’t do much to mitigate the impact of sanctions, which the administration estimates will remove 700,000 to 1 million barrels a day of Iranian crude from the global market by early November.

Rising oil prices in the runup to U.S. midterm elections in November may boost congressional support for proposed legislation that would open up the cartel to antitrust lawsuits. The House of Representatives introduced a version of the “No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act” bill in May. The Senate has also revived a bill which would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That’s the law used more than a century ago to break up the oil empire of John Rockefeller.

Electricity generation drives need for natural gas demand response

As generation grows increasingly reliant on natural gas, challenges that bedevil electric utilities — peak demand and supply shortages for instance — are cropping up for local gas distribution companies in some regions. And in turn, a few gas companies are taking cues from electric demand management programs as they look for solutions.

While there are only a handful of clear examples right now, two recent reports suggest more gas utilities could embrace demand management concepts, to help ease congestion on stressed distribution systems. But while the concepts are similar between the electric and gas sectors, experts say there are important differences that create challenges.

A niche market

"Gas demand response is still pretty niche right now. It's not going to be as widespread as electric," Navigant Principal Research Analyst Brett Feldman told Utility Dive. "Electric demand response can really be used by any utility — there is always some benefit. But gas is more specific, so there's only certain areas were you have these gas constraints, typically the Northeast and California."

A recent Navigant report authored by Feldman concludes, "market trends are forcing utilities to readdress their approach to gas system planning," and identifies both gas demand response and "non-pipes solutions" — the gas sector's answer to the electric industry's non-wires alternatives — as "emerging trends." 

"The gas industry is following the electric industry's footsteps in engaging distributed system solutions," Navigant's report says, while predicting gas DR and non-pipe solutions (NPS) "will change the planning process for utilities and offer new opportunities."

Similarly, a recent Brattle report called natural gas demand response an "underexplored" resource that "could also provide value by deferring or avoiding investments in the longer run." The firm estimated, for example, that deferral of a $100-$500 million gas pipeline or liquefied natural gas peak-shaving facility could save customers $10-$70 million annually.

Gas demand response "has the potential to be an important component of addressing gas supply constraints during peak demand periods," Jürgen Weiss, a Brattle principal and study co-author, said in a statement.

In New England, Brattle estimated that if demand response could reduce the region's peak gas utility demand by 10%, it could free up enough natural gas to displace up to 54,000 MWh of oil-fired generation. When gas supplies run short and utilities must continue delivering firm supplies to other customers, many dual-fuel generators switch from gas to oil when their gas supply is not available.

Freeing up natural gas to generate electricity would help make natural gas the marginal fuel on most winter days, Brattle said, "resulting in lower electric prices, and also providing added fuel security benefits by increasing natural gas supply to the gas-fired generation fleet."

Gas demand response, Brattle said, could "entirely avoid some price spikes and help improve reliability."

Trump push for energy dominant U.S. blunted by China LNG threat

China’s threatened tariff against U.S. liquefied natural gas comes as a second wave of American export terminals seek financing with an eye toward the Asian giant’s drive to reduce its use of coal.

The U.S., with its abundance of shale gas, is rapidly expanding its ability to export the fuel overseas. China, which became the world’s biggest importer of the fuel in May, is seen as a key target as it pursues a strict five-year plan to shift away from smog-inducing coal for both residences and industry.

But a 25% tariff, retaliating for a U.S. plan to expand levies against China, could give exporters Qatar, Australia and Russia an edge in securing contacts with the world’s second-largest economy as a dozen or so U.S. companies seek to build new export terminals. That’s not a happy thought at a time when U.S. President Trump has said he wants the U.S. to be “energy dominant.”

That agenda “will cease to exist if one of the largest energy markets in the world is preemptively placing tariffs on LNG,” Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, a Washington-based industry group, wrote in an email.

It’s the first time LNG, a super-chilled form of natural gas that can be transported by tanker, has been ensnared by the developing trade war between the U.S. and China. It comes as part of a $60 billion response to Trump’s recent statements that he plans $200 billion in tariffs against China.

If the threats are followed through on, billions of dollars could hang in the balance. Cheniere Energy Inc., Tellurian Inc. and other LNG developers have courted utilities and state-backed companies in China to justify building more terminals to ship gas abroad. Cheniere and Tellurian shares slid in New York trading Friday following China’s release of its report.

As U.S. LNG projects under development compete to slash costs for their potential exports, “the 25% tariff will definitely price USA LNG completely out of the Chinese market,” said Claudio Steuer, senior visiting research fellow at The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

Cheniere was the first U.S. company to export shale gas overseas, starting in 2016. It’s already made substantive inroads in China, a country that trails only Mexico and South Korea among the biggest buyers of U.S. LNG.

As of mid-June, China accounted for 13% of the exports from Cheniere’s Sabine Pass terminal. The company recently gave the green light to expand its Texas export terminal thanks in part to a contract it signed earlier this year with China National Petroleum Corp.

Cheniere does “not view tariffs as productive,” spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said by email on Friday, describing LNG as a “win-win’’ financial situation for both the U.S. and China.

Warren Patterson, commodity strategist for ING Bank NV, said Cheniere is right to be concerned. If the tariffs are implemented, China could turn to Australia and Qatar, the world’s two biggest LNG exporters, to supply its needs, he said. Additionally, the tariff threat comes as Russia advances plans to begin pumping gas to China through its newly-built 2,500-mile (4,000 kilometer) Power of Siberia pipeline by the end of 2019.

Patterson said he was “quite surprised” to see LNG show up on China’s tariff list. With China’s aggressive move away from coal “I would have thought that the government would have wanted to ensure adequate supply,” he said in an email.

Meanwhile, Tellurian’s chairman, Charif Souki, downplayed the threat. ‘’This is people posturing one way or another on both sides of the equation; it changes nothing,” Souki in an interview. “One word: gibberish.”

China has a “very fundamental need” for LNG and U.S. gas at $2.75 per million British thermal units is a sharp discount to the roughly $10 LNG is going for in Asia, according to Souki. Tellurian is signing non-binding agreements with some of a pool of about 25 possible partners in its project, some of which are Chinese companies, Souki said.

Whether or not the tariff will deter those negotiations with the companies from China is unknown, he said.

U.S. moves up to second most attractive renewables market after China: report

The United States moved up to second place in a ranking of the most attractive countries for renewables investment, after China, a report by UK accountancy firm Ernst & Young showed on Tuesday.

In an annual ranking of the top 40 renewable energy markets worldwide, China was the top country for the third year running, followed by the United States which had occupied third place last year due to a shift in U.S. energy policy under President Donald Trump.

Even though the United States imposed tariffs on imports of solar photovoltaic and modules this year, the effects have been mostly absorbed by the market and wind projects are not subject to subsidy cuts under a recently-passed U.S. tax reform bill.

“Solar import tariffs imposed by the U.S. government in January are likely to have only a limited impact on solar energy development in the country but are likely to tip the scales toward wind projects at the utility scale,” the report said.

“The solar tariffs — which are to be challenged under World Trade Organization rules — are neither expected to seriously derail U.S .solar investment, nor encourage much, if any, shifting of solar manufacturing back to the U.S.,” it added.

Germany was the third most attractive country in the ranking, while India slipped from second to fourth position due to investor concerns about the threat of solar import tariffs, the report said.