Tariff is the word of the day right now, with every nation, industry, and business aware of potential changes to imports and exports due to new tariffs - and subsequent retaliation. While writing this article, the US government announced sweeping new tariffs that hit most of world trade, and now, by the time of publishing, many of those tariffs have been walked back. However, 125% tariffs are still in effect on imports from China. Regardless of the political aims, there is no doubt that this change to global trade will have huge impacts.

The energy industry is no exception, with stories already proliferating on the potential for Canadian generators to impose tariffs on electricity sold to America’s northern energy markets. At the time of writing, no tariffs have been imposed, but the situation is changing day by day. 

Still, volatility in the price paid for electricity is hardly new, with world energy prices still reeling from the impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Canadian tariffs on energy supplied to the US might be a blow to locals affected, but it’s unlikely to have larger ripple effects. Instead, one of the bigger indirect impacts that could arise from tariffs will come from disruption to supply chains. By far, the fastest growing source of generation capacity in the United States over the past decade has been the growth in renewable energy, but with much of the equipment manufactured overseas - particularly in China - tariffs could make further projects economically unviable.

All this comes at the same time as some states are switching trajectories when it comes to renewable energy. This twin blow threatens to derail progress on renewable energy at a crucial time. 

In this blog, we will take a deep dive into the headwinds facing renewable energy development, looking at what the consequences might be and how energy retailers will need to adapt. The blog will begin by examining the background to the recent tariff developments, as well as some of the state-level changes. We will then examine the impacts on renewable generation and energy retailers before highlighting some potential strategies to mitigate these impacts.

• New U.S. tariffs on solar panels, batteries, and grid components—especially imports from China and Southeast Asia—are increasing costs and disrupting clean energy supply chains.
  
• Texas, the U.S. leader in wind and solar, is introducing state-level policies that could significantly slow renewable development, including mandates for backup power and local vetoes on projects.
  
• These federal and state-level policy shifts are creating deep uncertainty for renewable energy developers, raising investment risks, delaying projects, and potentially increasing wholesale power prices.
  
• Energy retailers are directly affected, especially in competitive markets like ERCOT, where retail pricing, forecasting, and hedging strategies rely on stability in energy sources and costs.
  
• Forecasting models must be updated to reflect the possibility of slower renewable growth, higher costs, and more volatile pricing—especially in high-demand regions.
  
• Hedging strategies and procurement planning need to account for policy-driven risk, including potential delays, price spikes, or changes in market structure.
  
• Retailers should diversify supply portfolios, invest in demand-side flexibility, and engage with policy processes to advocate for their interests.
• ‍Despite headwinds, long-term fundamentals still favor renewables, but short-term adaptation and proactive risk management will be essential to stay competitive.

The renewable question

After a decade of breakneck growth in renewable energy, the clean energy transition may be at risk from these wider trends. Recent moves at both federal and state levels threaten to stall the momentum that wind and solar power have built. The warnings are coming from all corners: industry analysts, trade groups, and energy experts are increasingly concerned that these policy shifts could increase costs, deter investment, and slow the deployment of renewables at a time when the grid needs them more than ever.

At the same time, state legislatures – notably in Texas, the nation’s renewable energy leader – put forward a flurry of bills aimed at curbing wind and solar growth in favor of natural gas. These developments have injected uncertainty into energy markets. Energy retailers, especially in regions like ERCOT, are now grappling with how to adjust models and strategies to account for potential slowdowns in new renewable capacity and the prospect of sustained higher costs.

Renewable energy developers are no strangers to tariffs, but the scale and breadth of these new levies are unprecedented. Back in 2018, the U.S. slapped a 30% tariff on imported solar panels (mostly from China) under the Trump administration, a move that was expected to slow solar growth. The Biden administration later tried to balance support for domestic manufacturing with the need for cheap panels – in 2022, President Biden waived certain solar tariffs for two years to serve as a “bridge” while U.S. factories ramped up. Those waivers were crucial because about 80% of U.S. solar panel supplies come from four Southeast Asian countries. Biden’s veto was a relief to developers, ensuring panel imports stayed duty-free until the planned mid-2024 expiration of the waiver.

Now, however, that bridge period is ending – and the new administration’s stance is decidedly more hawkish on trade, as evidenced by the wave of new tariffs unveiled in President Trump’s “Liberation Day”. By late 2024, the Commerce Department set steep preliminary duties (from 21% up to a staggering 254%) on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asia. Moreover, in May 2024 even the Biden administration (amid rising geopolitical tensions) imposed new tariffs on solar cells, batteries, and electric vehicles from China – another cost pressure now inherited by the current regime. The cumulative effect is a slew of import barriers across nearly every component of clean energy technology: solar panels, wind turbine parts, battery metals, transformers, and more.

Recent developments have exacerbated this, with the announcement of a blanket 125% tariff on China - to which China has retaliated with its own tariffs of 84% on US imports. 

Analysts note that these trade actions will likely exacerbate existing shortages of key electrical components needed for the grid. The linked article reports on a recent industry survey which found that items like transformers, circuit breakers, and switchgear have already been in short supply for over 54 consecutive months, delaying grid connections for new projects. 

Every delay or cost increase for a wind farm or solar array means lost generation that the grid is counting on to meet rising demand and climate goals. The BloombergNEF/BCSE Sustainable Energy Factbook reported that despite uncertainty, the U.S. renewables sector achieved record capacity additions in 2024, buoyed by strong demand and cost competitiveness. However, it cautioned that policy headwinds could soon slow investment and deployment.

Those headwinds are no longer hypothetical – they are here. With tariffs slated to bite, solar developers are already adjusting their plans. Some manufacturers began reconfiguring supply chains to avoid tariff-hit countries, but shifting manufacturing locations is costly and not instantaneous. In the interim, project developers may face equipment price spikes or delays. This is starting to show up in market data: by late 2024, power purchase agreement (PPA) prices for solar and wind projects were climbing steadily, reversing years of declines. In the fourth quarter of 2024, U.S. solar PPA prices jumped about 3.3%, contributing to a 13% year-over-year rise.

To be sure, the intended upside of tariffs is to stimulate domestic manufacturing of clean energy equipment – a cornerstone of energy security and job creation. If these tariffs succeed in rapidly scaling American production of solar panels, batteries, and grid hardware, the long-term payoff could be reduced import dependence. Some experts argue that, if IRA tax credits remain intact, tariffs could even act as an “accelerant” for onshoring supply chains. The risk is that tariffs arrive before domestic manufacturing is ready to fill the gap, creating a painful supply crunch in the interim. As of 2024, most solar cells and battery components used in U.S. projects were still produced abroad (over 70% of battery cell imports came from China, for example). Rystad Energy analysts warn that 2025 could be a “reality check” for renewables, with shifting policies favoring fossil fuels and uncertainty about funding and subsidies putting the clean energy boom at risk.

State pushback on clean energy

While federal trade policy creates headwinds for renewables nationwide, a parallel battle is playing out in state capitols. Nowhere is this more evident than in Texas. Ironically, Texas has been the poster child of the U.S. clean energy boom – it leads the nation in both wind and solar generation by a wide margin. In 2024, Texas generated about 169,000 GWh from wind and solar (almost double California’s output) and installed more new renewable capacity than any other state. This growth wasn’t driven by green mandates but by economics: Texas’s competitive market and developer-friendly policies (fast permitting, ample land, and strong resources) made it profitable to build renewables.

Yet, as Texas’s renewable fleet has grown, it has also drawn political pushback. In the 2023 and 2025 legislative sessions, a wave of proposals sought to tilt the playing field back toward fossil fuels under the banner of “grid reliability.” By early 2025, Texas lawmakers had introduced roughly 60 bills aiming to curb renewable development and boost natural gas. One high-profile measure, passed by the Texas Senate in March 2025, would effectively force wind and solar developers to build expensive backup power for every new project. In practice, this bill mandates that renewable operators invest in new “dispatchable” generation (like natural gas plants or battery storage) to cover their output. Proponents argue this is needed to ensure reliability and offset federal subsidies that give renewables an “unfair” advantage. However, clean energy experts warn that such a rule would “crush renewable development in the state, send electric bills soaring, and make it difficult for Texas to keep up with rising electricity demand”.

That bill is just one example. Other Texas proposals in 2025 included: new fees and permitting hurdles targeted at renewables, bans on renewable projects near certain areas, and even allowing local vetoes of projects. Inside the legislature, some pushed to let counties ban energy storage installations within 500 yards of residences, citing safety or aesthetic concerns. “There’s a lot of concern,” noted Doug Lewin, a Texas energy consultant, about the combined impact of federal tariffs and new state rules. “New tariffs and [state] policies… will almost certainly cause power prices to go up” if they stall generation investments.

The pushback isn’t confined to Texas. Across several states, we’ve seen attempts to roll back renewable-friendly policies or impose new burdens on clean energy projects. For instance, in the Midwest, there have been moves to let local governments impose moratoria or bans on wind and solar farms.

Texas remains the most closely watched because of its outsized role. The state’s approach is sometimes seen as a bellwether: a test of whether a large grid can integrate huge volumes of renewables without sacrificing reliability. Notably, ERCOT’s energy-only market (which lacks a capacity payment mechanism) has historically relied on competition to drive investment. Wind and solar thrived under this system, proving profitable and beneficial to consumers. Now, policy changes could alter that market structure. Clean energy advocates argue that hampering renewables now is counterproductive – akin to “shooting the horse that’s pulling the cart.” A recent analysis found that renewable energy saved Texas consumers roughly $11 billion in electricity costs over 2020-2022 by reducing fuel price-driven spikes.

From an economic perspective, these state measures could deter private investment. Companies that develop renewable projects or big corporate energy buyers could start viewing policy risk in places like Texas as too high, directing their capital to friendlier jurisdictions. As one renewable executive put it, “If Texas’ leaders can just stay out of their own way, the state is on track to dominate the renewable energy economy for generations to come”.

Cost pressures and investment uncertainty

The intersection of federal tariffs and state-level restrictions is creating a challenging economic equation for renewable energy projects. One immediate effect is rising cost pressures on new development. 

Beyond pure cost increases, uncertainty itself carries a price. Investors and financiers demand higher returns when policy risks loom, which can raise the cost of capital for renewable projects. We are already seeing signs of investor caution. In late 2024, as the prospect of a more hostile policy environment grew, some renewable energy developers delayed finalizing projects or signing contracts until there was clarity on whether key IRA incentives (like the Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit) would remain untouched. Mergers and acquisitions in the renewable sector also slowed as buyers tried to gauge the new administration’s regulatory posture. According to FTI Consulting’s review of renewable M&A activity, uncertainty under the new administration – especially around tax incentives and regulations – cast a chill on deal-making heading into 2025. This cautious sentiment can translate to slower project pipelines.

One concrete metric of uncertainty impacting costs is the rise in PPA prices mentioned earlier. When developers increase the price in power purchase agreements, it often reflects anticipated costs or risks that they pass on to the buyer. LevelTen Energy’s Q4 2024 report explicitly tied the uptick in PPA prices to tariff and incentive worries. In effect, energy buyers (including utilities and corporate offtakers) are being asked to shoulder some of the policy risk. 

From the macro perspective, the risk is a slow-down in the pace of renewable additions just when acceleration is needed. ERCOT’s own capacity outlook, for instance, anticipates over 20 GW of solar added in Texas by 2025-2026 to meet demand growth – but that assumed historical trends continue. Should policy changes defer even a few gigawatts of projects, ERCOT might face capacity shortfalls in peak seasons sooner than expected.

For energy retailers, the shifting winds of policy present both immediate and longer-term challenges. Here’s how the recent policy-driven changes could impact them:

• Wholesale Price Volatility and Risk to Pricing Strategies: If renewable projects slow down and demand continues to increase, the expected growth in low marginal cost generation (which tends to suppress wholesale electricity prices) may not materialize as previously forecast. Retailers that had anticipated abundant cheap solar would continue to flood the midday market, for instance, might see higher midday prices than planned in the future. This can affect how they set their retail tariffs. Many retailers offer fixed-price plans or time-of-use rates to customers. These plans are priced based on expected future wholesale costs.
  

Energy retailers also often serve commercial and industrial (C&I) clients who demand renewable energy (for example, via PPAs) to meet sustainability goals. If policy barriers make new renewable supply scarce or pricier, retailers might have trouble sourcing enough clean energy at reasonable prices to meet that customer demand. This could force retailers to adjust their product offerings or pricing. 

Hedging strategies will also need to account for more price volatility – e.g. using financial derivatives or bilateral contracts to lock in prices and mitigate the risk of price spikes during periods when renewable output is less than expected. Notably, one analysis pointed out that tariff and policy uncertainty is favoring larger, more sophisticated energy buyers who can secure energy deals more quickly and manage these risks. Smaller retailers might find it harder to compete if the market becomes more volatile, as they typically have fewer resources to dedicate to complex hedging and risk management.

• Revising Forecasting Assumptions: The recent developments mean that any long-term load and price forecasts must be revisited. With policy uncertainties, forecasting of wholesale prices becomes more complex, and there’s a greater risk of underestimating costs. For example, if Texas ends up with, say, 5 GW less solar in 2026 than expected, summertime peak prices could spike higher, and retailers who sold fixed-rate plans assuming lower prices could suffer losses. Even in regulated markets, utilities (acting as default retailers) could face higher fuel and purchase costs, eventually passing through to consumers. 

A year ago, a 10-year ERCOT outlook might have assumed Texas would add ~30 GW of solar by 2030. Now, one must create scenarios: perhaps a “high renewables” case if policies are defeated or watered down, and a “low renewables” case if they all pass and tariffs remain. In the low case, more gas-fired generation might be built instead (aided by state support), which could mean higher fuel cost risk and higher emissions. Forecasters will need to incorporate the potential for policy-driven supply shortfalls leading to resource adequacy concerns. ERCOT’s latest Capacity, Demand, and Reserves report already warns that reserve margins could fall below targets in a few years without additional resources. If renewable build slows, that reserve margin gap could widen, implying more frequent scarcity pricing events (and even greater value for any fast-ramping resources or demand response that can fill the gap).

Weather uncertainties already make forecasting tricky. Layering policy uncertainty means retailers should stress-test their portfolios against scenarios like “what if half of planned wind farms don’t get built on time?” or “what if solar costs 20% more, delaying some projects by 2 years?” In those scenarios, peak prices and volatility might be higher, and demand might also respond (e.g., high prices could induce more conservation or on-site generation by large users). Retailers with advanced forecasting tools (like Gorilla’s, for example) will be better equipped to incorporate such scenario analysis quickly and adjust procurement plans. In short, forecasting is no longer “business as usual” – it must become more dynamic and policy-aware.

• Adapting to regulatory change: Retailers in Texas also face a unique risk: regulatory changes to market design. If Texas mandates renewables to procure backup or pay new fees, how might that cost be passed on? Possibly through higher PPA prices or ancillary service costs that show up in wholesale market charges. Retailers should be monitoring the regulatory dockets closely. If a new cost is likely (for example, a “firming requirement” cost on each MWh of renewable energy), a retailer with many wind PPAs might need to budget for that or hedge it by securing some fast-start gas capacity contract. Similarly, if a capacity-like mechanism or strategic reserve is created to boost reliability, retailers may have new capacity payments to factor into their cost of serving load.
• Risk management becomes paramount. The infamous Texas winter storm of 2021 taught retailers that extreme events can bankrupt those without adequate hedges (as some retailers who were caught paying $9,000/MWh real-time prices learned). Now, extreme policy could have analogous effects: e.g. if insufficient generation leads to more frequent scarcity events, only those retailers who hedged their load sufficiently (or invested in demand response to reduce exposure) will weather the storm financially. We might see retailers increase their use of physical hedges like owning or leasing backup generation assets (peakers or storage) as insurance against both policy and weather volatility. In fact, some Texas retail providers have started to integrate battery storage to shave their peak loads or to provide backup during emergencies – strategies that also double as a hedge against high prices if renewables fall short at critical moments.

• Retail Product Innovation and Customer Communication: On the customer-facing side, retailers may need to adjust how they position renewable energy options. If costs rise, they might consider new products such as a renewables “blend and extend” contract (blending renewable supply with some conventional energy to balance cost and reliability) or tiered pricing where customers can choose levels of green power from different sources at different price points. Transparency and communication will be key – customers need to understand that if prices are rising, it might be due to policy-driven cost increases, not just profiteering. For those retailers with a pro-renewable brand identity, this period is tricky: they must stay the course on sustainability commitments while pragmatically managing cost risks. It may fall on them to advocate for sensible policies, educate policymakers about market impacts, and work collectively (through industry groups) to push back on rules that would unnecessarily harm the market.
  
  

In ERCOT, many large retailers are also generators or have affiliates that generate. These “gen-tailers” will be strategizing about their asset mix. Owning some generation provides a natural hedge for a retailer (as generation revenues go up when prices spike, offsetting retail losses). The current uncertainty might spur vertical integration or contracting as retailers seek more control over supply.

Given these headwinds, what can energy retailers do to mitigate risk and prepare for the possibility that renewable momentum slows or costs rise? Here are several strategies and considerations:

1. Diversify Supply Portfolios and Embrace Flexibility: Retailers should aim for a balanced mix of energy sources and contract durations. By diversifying, retailers can cover more bases. Diversification also means geographic: a retailer operating in multiple states might contract for renewable energy in states less affected by anti-renewable policies. In ERCOT, retailers may contract a mix of West Texas wind, South Texas solar, and perhaps in the not so distant future a bit of coastal wind or battery can provide a hedge against any one resource underperforming or being targeted. Flexibility in contracts is also key – negotiating PPAs that allow rescheduling project timelines or costs if regulatory delays occur can protect a retailer from non-delivery to a customer. 

2. Invest in Customer-Side Solutions (Demand Response and Efficiency): One often overlooked “resource” is the demand side. If supply is becoming less predictable, reducing or shifting demand can achieve similar reliability goals. Retailers can expand programs that incentivize customers to use energy off-peak or to curtail usage during critical periods. By doing so, the retailer reduces its exposure to peak prices and can even avoid having to buy the most expensive power when the grid is strained. Texas, for example, has huge demand response potential that remains untapped relative to its needs. Retailers could offer smart thermostats, IoT device incentives, or dynamic pricing that rewards customers for load flexibility. These measures effectively act as a hedge: if policy or supply issues drive prices up, a well-curated demand response portfolio can shield the retailer (and the customer) from the worst of it. Likewise, energy efficiency programs (helping customers lower overall consumption through better insulation, efficient appliances, etc.) can reduce the total volume of energy the retailer must procure, thus lowering exposure to high market prices. These strategies also generate goodwill and have societal benefits, aligning with decarbonization by reducing consumption.

3. Monitor Policy and Engage in Advocacy: It may sound obvious, but staying ahead of the policy curve is vital. Retailers (especially those serving the ERCOT region and other affected markets) should closely monitor legislative and regulatory developments. This might mean dedicating internal resources or working with trade associations to track bills like the ones in Texas. Where possible, they should participate in the policymaking process – providing data and analysis to lawmakers on how a proposal would impact grid reliability or consumer bills. 

4. Leverage Hedging Instruments and Insurance Products: As discussed, more volatile markets call for robust hedging. Retailers should review their hedging strategies – are they prepared for extreme scenarios? Some retailers might consider contractual clauses that share policy risk with generators. While buyers usually prefer fixed prices, a shared-risk approach could enable more projects to move forward in uncertain times. Retailers should also ensure their trading teams have access to timely data and analytics to adjust hedges as conditions evolve. 

5. Scenario Planning for Strategic Decisions: Retail executives should incorporate scenario planning at the strategic level. What if certain states in your footprint become hostile to renewables? Does it make sense to pivot growth to other regions or to distributed energy like rooftop solar (which might be less impacted by utility-scale project roadblocks)? Conversely, if domestic manufacturing ramps up, could that open opportunities for bilateral deals with local manufacturers at stable prices? Strategic planning should include best-case and worst-case policy scenarios over the next 5-10 years, and decisions on entering/exiting markets or investing in new tech should be tested against those. 

6. Embrace Technology and Analytics: Uncertain times amplify the value of good data. Utilizing advanced forecasting tools can help process the myriad factors (weather, policy, market trends) affecting prices and demand. Real-time monitoring of policy news and integrating that into load forecasting (for instance, adjusting the expected growth of rooftop solar adoption if a state changes net metering rules) can give a retailer an edge. Additionally, investing in customer analytics to foresee how customers might respond to price changes (will high prices drive more to install their own solar or seek alternative providers?) can inform a retailer’s strategy to retain customers and maintain margins. Gorilla provides solutions exactly for this kind of complex data-driven decision making, which is increasingly indispensable.

No single strategy is a panacea, but a combination can build resilience. In effect, retailers need to become as innovative and adaptive as the technologies driving the energy transition. The policy headwinds are strong, but they are navigable with prudent planning. Importantly, many of these strategies (demand response, better forecasting, portfolio diversity) are not just defensive – they can improve a retailer’s profitability and customer satisfaction in any case. So investing in them yields benefits even if, say, tariffs are lifted in two years or a state re-embraces renewables after a policy trial – the retailer will simply be stronger and more competitive.

The imposition of tariffs is a momentous change for the energy industry and will require a holistic approach that addresses challenges in multiple domains. The effects of the change will not be solved with any single strategy or project, and individual companies can only do so much mitigation by themselves. Nonetheless, it is important to take any actions that might help

The Gorilla platform won’t remove the threat of tariffs from the energy industry, but it can still provide vital agility and flexibility to energy retailers. Gorilla empowers retailers to:

1. Innovate pricing strategies at scale
   With Gorilla’s pricing applications, retailers can respond to changing cost structures by creating new pricing models—including ones that encourage renewable uptake in a financially viable way. This includes cost-reflective, meter-level, and segment-specific pricing that balances competitiveness with risk reduction​​.
2. Align operations for smarter, greener outcomes
   Energy companies often operate in silos. Gorilla breaks those silos by harmonising forecasting, pricing, and analysis through a shared data layer and applications built for energy. This creates a unified commercial view so sustainability and profitability goals are no longer at odds​​​.
3. Recalculate and simulate impact across portfolios fast
   Gorilla's Portfolio Re-costing application lets teams model the impact of new tariffs and new generation profiles on the profitability of existing customer contracts and forecasted demand. By integrating actual settlement data, trading positions, and evolving cost structures, retailers can quickly pinpoint contracts at risk of becoming unprofitable—and act accordingly​.
4. Enable real-time data-driven insights
   Gorilla’s simple integration approach allows companies to plug Gorilla data into broader BI and analytics ecosystems, ensuring every decision—on tariffs, incentives, trading, and contracting—is based on the latest and most accurate data available​.

In a world where the energy transition is volatile and political incentives are shifting fast, the real competitive edge is agility. Gorilla helps energy retailers respond to these shifts faster and in a way that ensures renewable investments still make sense - both environmentally and financially.

The current clash between pro-renewable economics and newly interventionist policies has put the U.S. energy transition at a pivotal juncture. On one hand, we have a power sector on the cusp of transformation: renewables broke records in 2024, technology costs (absent interference) are on a long-term downtrend, and innovations like battery storage and smarter grids promise to tackle the reliability challenges of intermittent resources. On the other hand, recent tariffs and legislative efforts risk undermining this progress – potentially leading to higher energy costs, prolonged dependence on fossil fuels, and a slower reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. For energy retailers and market participants, these policy headwinds translate directly into business risk and operational complexity.

A broadly pro-renewables stance, as adopted in this analysis, isn’t rooted in ideology so much as in the empirical outcomes we’ve observed: renewables have saved consumers money, opened new economic opportunities, and enhanced grid reliability in critical moments. Slowing their momentum now would forfeit those benefits and make the job of decarbonizing the grid that much harder down the road. Moreover, with electricity demand rising (from electric vehicles, data centers, and population growth), the grid will strain under that load unless all generation options are available and growing. As one energy expert warned Texas lawmakers, “We’re going to need every megawatt we can get, from every generation resource… proposals that discourage development of any resource – that’s anti-energy”.

Yet, it’s important to approach the situation with nuance. The concerns driving these policies – whether it’s a desire for domestic manufacturing, grid reliability fears, or economic interests of certain regions – need to be addressed constructively. Blanket opposition to any tariff or any regulation isn’t realistic. Instead, the energy industry and policymakers should seek a balanced approach: one that continues to encourage rapid renewable deployment (to meet urgent climate and energy needs) while shoring up grid reliability and fostering domestic industry in parallel. 

For energy retailers, the path forward is about adaptation and engagement. The analytical, data-driven mindset that our most successful customers use for pricing and forecasting must now also be adaptable for policy changes. Retailers that successfully integrate policy risk into their decision-making will be able to protect their margins and find opportunities even in volatility. 

Ultimately, history has shown that the economics of renewables are hard to suppress for long. Market forces and innovation tend to win out. Tariffs and unfriendly policies can cause painful delays, but they rarely stop technology adoption that makes fundamental economic sense – and renewables, in most cases, still do. However, the transition could be needlessly delayed and made more expensive, which helps no one. As the U.S. navigates this fraught period, stakeholders must keep sight of the long game: a decarbonized grid that is reliable, affordable, and resilient. 

For now, energy retailers and all industry players should approach the coming years as a period of careful navigation and new opportunity. By being informed, agile, and proactive, they can help ensure that the renewable revolution not only survives these storms but emerges on the other side even stronger.