Typesetting & Proofreading | Ke Yangming

No one knows the outcome of the tense US presidential election, but regardless of who wins and who takes control of the White House, as the world's largest energy market, the US election will have a significant impact on the energy sector, especially the renewable energy industry.

Based on various sources, after more than six months of confrontation, both sides have adjusted their energy policies to attract centrist voters, moving towards a middle ground. There is a certain degree of consensus between the two parties, especially on issues such as energy independence and inflation control.

In previous debates, Trump began advocating for renewable energy, while Harris, while still expressing support for traditional energy, softened her stance on environmental protection policies to appeal to voters in Pennsylvania, an energy-producing state. She began advocating for traditional energy while also supporting the reduction of foreign oil dependence.

Both sides have also expressed varying degrees of support for energy independence, with nuclear energy revival being a consensus between the two parties.

While Trump's energy policy focuses more on traditional energy, it does not completely restrict the renewable energy industry. During his first term, Trump implemented a series of policies to relax environmental regulations, revoke methane emission regulations, cancel the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, and expand traditional energy production.

On the other hand, during Trump's tenure, US natural gas and renewable energy (such as wind and solar) production also reached new highs. Subsidies for clean energy increased from $7.1 billion in 2017 to $17.3 billion in 2020, indicating that Trump did not completely restrict the renewable energy industry.

Harris's policy stance is more supportive of clean energy development, but adjustments have also been made this year.

During her first term, the Biden-Harris administration promoted clean energy investments and tax incentives through the Inflation Reduction Act and clean energy infrastructure through the Infrastructure Bill, including the construction of charging networks for electric vehicles. However, to win support in swing state Pennsylvania, Harris softened her stance on environmental protection policies and began advocating for traditional energy. Under Biden's tenure, US crude oil production reached a new high, and after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Biden administration also took measures to increase traditional energy production.

Nevertheless, there are still significant differences in energy policies between the two parties.

Trump's energy policy focuses on traditional energy, relaxing exploration, development, and production license restrictions for traditional energy producers, canceling subsidies for clean energy, and encouraging oil and gas companies to increase capital expenditures and expand production, thereby lowering energy prices in the US. In contrast, Harris's energy policy tightly links energy policy with climate governance, using clean industry policies to drive the economy and employment, achieving the US's energy transition and climate leadership.

It's important to note that making promises and fulfilling them are two different things.

Regardless of who wins, without congressional cooperation, it remains to be seen whether either Harris's or Trump's energy policies can be implemented. In 2024, Harris's proposals in the tax area, such as increasing corporate tax rates, capital gains tax, and expanding tax credits, require congressional legislation. If the two chambers are divided, there may be significant restrictions. Similarly, Trump's proposals to reduce corporate tax rates, extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and eliminate new energy tax credits also require congressional support.

According to research by Shenwan Hongyuan Securities, both candidates have a poor track record of fulfilling campaign promises. During their first terms, the Biden-Harris administration achieved a policy fulfillment rate of about 27%. Biden's first term focused mainly on healthcare, economy, and justice. He had the best fulfillment rate in climate and environment, at 60%, including reversing Trump's environmental rollback and expanding renewable energy investments. However, economic policy implementation was poor, with unfulfilled promises to raise the minimum wage, provide housing subsidies, and end wage discrimination. Trump's first-term policy fulfillment rate was about 23%. During the 2016 election, Trump made nearly 100 campaign promises in areas such as trade, immigration, and the economy.

Overall, Trump's campaign promise fulfillment rate was lower than that of Biden and Obama, with Obama fulfilling 47% of his promises, Biden 27%, and Trump only 23%. However, Trump had a higher fulfillment rate in trade, including withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, and imposing tariffs on imported goods.

Additionally, many research institutions have pointed out that although Trump's support for clean energy is weak, existing bills such as the IRA are expected to remain.

While there are market concerns about the repeal of the IRA, and Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to "repeal Biden's clean energy policies," the legislative process indicates that even if Trump wins, repealing or significantly modifying the IRA would still require unanimous approval from both chambers of Congress. Currently, the Republicans have a higher probability of winning the Senate, while the House race remains tight.

According to 270 To Win's predictions, the Republicans currently have a slight advantage in the House race, but the results of 21 seats are still uncertain. In the Senate elections, the Republicans are likely to win, reversing the previous Democratic majority.

From an interest perspective, over 80% of IRA-driven clean energy manufacturing investments are distributed in red and swing states. More than 70% and 60% of wind and solar installations corresponding to the new energy ITC subsidies are also located in red or swing states.

As of March 2024, Bloomberg NEF data shows that only 12% of IRA-driven industrial investments are in Democratic-leaning states, with the remaining 47% and 40% in swing and red states. Swing states like Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, and Ohio, as well as red states like Kentucky and Tennessee, have 68% of their investments focused on battery manufacturing, with the remaining 30% in photovoltaics, wind energy, and electric vehicle manufacturing. The IRA has created over 70,000 clean energy jobs, with Georgia, Michigan (swing state), and South Carolina (red state) accounting for over 40% of the new jobs.

According to EIA statistics as of May 2024, wind, photovoltaic, and energy storage installations in red and swing states accounted for 76%, 64%, and 46% of the national total, respectively. The top three states for wind energy installations (Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma) are all red states, and the top five states for photovoltaic installations (California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada) are all red or swing states except California.

Therefore, from the perspective of supporting industries and employment, there are forces within the Republican Party that support the IRA. Dozens of House Republicans have jointly requested the retention of tax credits in the IRA.

In August this year, 18 House Republicans wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House stating that although the IRA is a "seriously flawed bill," it "has stimulated investment and created good job opportunities in many parts of the country." Premature repeal of energy tax credits "would harm private investment and hinder ongoing project development." Some IRA agendas also align with Trump's policy goals. Robert Lighthizer, the US Trade Representative in Trump's first administration, stated in the summer of 2024 that Trump's second administration would at least "consider" retaining the IRA tax credits supporting domestic manufacturing.

Now, let's analyze the impact of the US election on the photovoltaic and energy storage market.

In recent years, demand for photovoltaic and energy storage in the US has grown rapidly, occupying an important position in the global market. In 2023, the US installed 32.4GW of new photovoltaic capacity, a 60% year-on-year increase, accounting for about 8% of global new installations. Additionally, the US installed 19.9GWh of new large-scale energy storage capacity, a 92% year-on-year increase, accounting for about 28% of global new installations.

Meanwhile, the US is an important export market for China's photovoltaic and energy storage products. Among all overseas markets, the US photovoltaic industry has the highest sales profit rate, with market prices about twice those in Europe and profits per watt two to three times higher.

Chinese photovoltaic module companies primarily sell to the US market through production capacity in Southeast Asia. From January to July this year, the US imported approximately $9.1 billion worth of photovoltaic modules from Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Cambodia, accounting for about 82% of its total photovoltaic module imports during the same period; China's total photovoltaic module exports during the same period were approximately $18.7 billion.

If Trump wins, it is expected to increase trade barriers for the photovoltaic industry, such as increasing tariffs on imported photovoltaic modules and related products, which would raise costs and market prices. If Harris wins, given her support for renewable energy, it is possible that the US will not introduce new anti-dumping or countervailing duty policies, potentially attracting more traders to the US photovoltaic market.

At the same time, due to the minor differences between the two parties in protectionism and energy independence, both emphasize local manufacturing. Some analysts believe that in the short term, the installed capacity of the entire photovoltaic market will not be significantly affected by the election. In the long run, it may prompt more companies to establish production bases in the US.

Overall, Harris is more favorable to the development of the photovoltaic and energy storage industry, while a Trump victory would have a greater impact on China's photovoltaic industry.

Previously, Trump proposed increasing tariffs by 10% on all US trading partners and 60% on Chinese imports. If he wins again, China's photovoltaic industry is expected to face numerous challenges and changes, especially as tariff policies could directly impact Chinese photovoltaic enterprises. Additionally, a Trump victory could affect China's photovoltaic industry supply chain.

However, as mentioned above, reports from multiple institutions indicate that since IRA-related job opportunities are mainly created in red states, even if Trump wins the election and the Republicans control both the Senate and the House, the IRA is likely to remain largely intact.

It's worth noting that there are recent signs of easing US photovoltaic policies towards China.

On October 21, US time, the US Federal Corporation issued a notice that the US Department of Commerce is initiating a Changed Circumstances Review (CCR) to consider the possibility of partially revoking the countervailing duty order on specific small, low-power, off-grid CSPV cells. Mainland Chinese photovoltaic stocks listed in Hong Kong saw a general increase. The notification stated that this action was in response to a request from Lutron Electronics and aimed to assess the possibility of partially revoking the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (i.e., solar cells, whether or not assembled into modules) originating from China. The products covered by this review include certain small, low-power, off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells.

In recent years, the countervailing duties and other policies imposed by the US on Chinese photovoltaic products have put considerable pressure on China's photovoltaic industry. The initiation of the CCR by the US Department of Commerce undoubtedly injects a boost into the photovoltaic sector, which is currently at a low point.

Analysts point out that if the US partially revokes relevant tax orders, it will directly benefit Chinese photovoltaic module enterprises and indirectly drive the development of the photovoltaic material and auxiliary material industries.

Now, let's turn to new energy vehicles.

In terms of pre-election policies, Trump views Biden's electric vehicle plan as a threat to the US automotive industry and economy, focusing on the development of traditional fuel vehicles. In contrast, Harris encourages the manufacture of electric vehicles in the US and the phasing out of fuel vehicles.

If the Republicans win, they may cancel new energy vehicle subsidies and potentially increase tariffs on products from China. Related enterprises may reduce research and development and capacity building for new energy vehicle models. If the Democrats win, they may continue existing policies and push forward with the Infrastructure Bill to build charging piles, etc. For example, the Senate passed Biden's Infrastructure Bill in November 2021, aiming to build 500,000 public charging piles by 2030, with one new energy charging station every 80 kilometers, each equipped with four fast chargers.

By June 2024, California had already built 105,000 charging piles, compared to only 180,000 nationwide in 2023, indicating an accelerated construction speed. It is expected that by 2030 or 2035, the country may have 2.11 million charging piles.

However, to protect the development of local automakers, regardless of which party wins, the trend of increasing tariffs on new energy vehicles such as Chinese electric cars is unlikely to change in recent years.

In fact, after years of development, China's new energy vehicle industry has achieved a "curve overtaking." Data shows that China's new energy vehicles have led the world for nine consecutive years, with 9.587 million vehicles produced and 9.495 million sold in 2023. However, Europe and the US have slowed down their electrification transformation and begun to "suppress" Chinese electric vehicles, causing market concerns.

In January this year, the US Congress passed a new law prohibiting the US Department of Defense from purchasing batteries from six Chinese companies, including CATL, BYD, and EVE Energy, starting from October 2027. In March this year, US President Biden announced an investigation into Chinese-made connected vehicles due to alleged "potential national security risks."

In May this year, the Biden administration announced an increase in import tariff rates on Chinese goods such as electric vehicles, lithium batteries, photovoltaic cells, semiconductors, steel, and aluminum products, based on the existing Section 301 tariffs. Specifically, tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles were increased from the current 25% to 100%. In September, the US government decided to significantly increase import tariffs on Chinese products, with electric vehicles facing a 100% tariff increase.

As the US election enters its final stretch, Trump is not to be outdone, focusing on new energy vehicles in his public challenges related to China.

It is reported that Trump addressed China at the Detroit Economic Club meeting, stating that after the "two giant disasters" of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China's accession to the World Trade Organization, the US has lost nearly four million manufacturing jobs, including 250,000 in Michigan alone. Based on such "disasters," the US should not only impose any necessary tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, whether it be 100%, 200%, or even 1000%, but also closely monitor the flow of Chinese electric vehicles into the US through Mexico, as Chinese automakers are currently building huge auto factories in Mexico, posing a significant challenge to the US.

This will undoubtedly have a significant impact on Chinese electric vehicles.

Finally, let's talk about nuclear power.

Nuclear power revival is one of the few energy issues on which the Republicans and Democrats have some consensus. Trump's campaign platform for this round emphasizes "unleashing all energy production, including nuclear energy," and his latest rally speech proposed "accelerating new nuclear power units" for the first time.

In fact, during his previous term, Trump began to revive nuclear power through executive orders and financial allocations. This included Trump's 2018 order to the Secretary of Energy to halt the closure of unprofitable coal and nuclear power plants nationwide; in April 2020, the Trump administration released a blueprint to "Restore America's Nuclear Energy Competitiveness," prioritizing support for emerging cutting-edge nuclear technologies; in October of the same year, the Department of Energy announced an initial funding of $80 million each (totaling $3.2 billion) for two advanced nuclear reactors in Bellevue, Washington, and Rockville, Maryland, with plans to put them into operation within seven years.

At the end of 2021, the Biden administration promoted the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), providing nuclear power production tax credits (PTC) through the 45U rule, ensuring a floor price for nuclear power of $40-45 per megawatt-hour, reversing the profitability of nuclear power.

In June of this year, the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the Accelerating Deployment of Advanced Nuclear Clean Energy Act of 2023 (ADVANCE Act). The bill's supportive measures include accelerating the approval process for nuclear power projects and establishing incentives for advanced nuclear reactor technologies.

In October, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the approval of $900 million in funding to support the construction of small modular reactors (SMRs). Meanwhile, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also announced plans to release a draft for public comment on new advanced nuclear reactor design certification rules on October 31, with the primary change being the removal of the requirement for quantitative health assessments for nuclear power plants.