 |
|
|
|||||
What shape could buildings take in 2026? Fast Company asked architects from some of the top firms working around the world what they thought about the look of architecture in 2026. Of course, a building designed in 2026 almost certainly will not be completed in 2026, and construction timelines are notoriously fluid. But according to experts, there are some overarching trends in architectural design that could put a clear 2026 stamp on buildings designed this year, whenever they officially open. Here’s the question we put to a panel of designers and leaders in architecture: When they finally get built, what will buildings designed in 2026 look like, and what will be the biggest factors determining their design? Integrated design After years of spectacle and brand-driven architecture, there’s an appetite, especially in New York, for buildings that feel integrated and inevitable rather than singular and expressive. Architecture that values experience and usefulness over heroic form will (hopefully) produce buildings that are calm, proportioned, and materially grounded.Trent Tesch, principal, KPF Complexity rethought People need to ask more of their buildings. Our built world can and should fulfill our purposes in more targeted, uniquely tailored ways. Buildings will do more to meet the needs of people beyond the walls, in their communities, and be more inclusive on multiple fronts. Our built spaces will say something about who we are collectively and represent the best qualities of our society. They can do more to make people feel safe, to be responsive to climate specificities, to challenge the very perceptions of what a building should be while also being beautiful in unexpected ways. That is what the best buildings of the future will look like and achieve. Rather than design being complex for complexity’s sake, rich and complex buildings will emerge out of solving for this multiplicity of conditions, perspectives, and needs we face societally.David Polzin, executive director of design, CannonDesign Situational design At the scale of our work at PAU, something built next year was designed starting in 2020 or 2021. This is why architecture is not like fashion or softwareit simply cannot be produced in time to reflect a zeitgeist. PAU’s work is “situational” in the sense that it is a mirror and window into the places and prerogatives in which each project is situated. So it is as much about where, why, and for whom as it is about when. That said, there are material advancements occurring that will allow us to use, for example, more sustainable concrete and other greener materials in the coming years.Vishaan Chakrabarti, founder, PAU Architecture goes organic The buildings of 2026 will be softer and more organicwith more natural, low carbon materials than any generation of contemporary buildings before them.Colin Koop, partner, SOM Building trust As someone deeply engaged in design leadership for an international practice, I see 2026 as a pivotal moment for architecturea true point of inflection. We are all confronting the profound and unavoidable emergence of artificial intelligence, which will transform how we work, think, and live; that transformation is real and consequential. But for me, the pressing issue shaping my approach to the built environment today is not technological. It is the state of our social fabric. We are designing at a moment of intense fragmentation: fraying civic trust, weakened institutions, and a growing sense of disconnection between people, between communities, and between society and nature. In that context, the most meaningful architecture of 2026 is not defined by a particular aesthetic, but by its intent and agency. We at Ennead have long believed that architecture is a civic and cultural act, and that our creative energies need to increasingly carry responsibility in addition to program and performance, beyond aesthetics and form. I believe our buildings are being asked to act as anchors of trustplaces that reaffirm the value of science, education, culture, and public life. Design in our contemporary society should prioritize openness and steadiness, reinforce institutions as places of collective knowledge and shared values, create environments that encourage community, inspire hope, and embody optimism. Design should become an act of reassurance: that knowledge matters, that culture endures, and that the public realm is still worth investing in. This shift requires architects to think deeply about human behavior, psychology, and social dynamics, and to see architecture as a long-term contributor to the historical record, not just a response to a brief. If architecture can engage these issues not in an esoteric way, but as an active participant in the global ethos, then I believe the built environment can play a meaningful rolehowever modestin helping to heal some of the fractures we are living with today.Thomas J. Wong, design partner, Ennead Architects Multipurpose architecture Buildings designed in 2026 will reflect a growing pressure on new development of all types to serve more and growing needs. We expect architecture to become more multipurpose and adaptive, shaped by embodied carbon and material limits, life-cycle performance, climate resilience, and long-term value. The most compelling projects will not announce themselves through form alone; spatial delight and invention is key. There is a basic need for joy and inspiration in the places that we can create to ease daily life. In many cases, the most radical choice will be to build with less, reuse even more, and design in ways that encourage change by others.Claire Weisz, founding principal, WXY architecture + urban design
Category:
E-Commerce
The fiercest space race is not about getting back to the moonits about allowing you to post a TikTok or watch Netflix on your phone anywhere around the globe, from the Atacama Salt Flats to the Khongor sand dunes in the Gobi Desert. To make this happen, two distinct design philosophies are at war, as companies build out the infrastructure needed to ensure every phone on the planet is permanently connected to the internet. On one side is Elon Musks SpaceX/Starlink and the copycat companies that have followed in Starlinks wake. Their approach is to invade space with tens of thousands of small satellites, creating a network of objects that blanket low Earth orbit. On the other side is a small Texas-based company called AST SpaceMobile, which believes it can provide better service with fewer than 100 gigantic satellites in space. Both companiesalong with Amazon and a handful of Chinese organizationswant to dominate worldwide wireless communications. The satellite constellation with the fastest service, widest coverage, best compatibility with 5G cellphones, and lowest operational costs will own how we communicate for years to come. Which approach prevails will have serious impact not only on the future of the internet but also the health of our planet. A new space race era Musk set off a new space race with his desire to rule low Earth orbit. SpaceX, which owns Starlink, launched its first satellite in 2019, providing broadband internet access to anyone with a large Starlink antenna and modem on the ground. Since then, it has put more than 9,000 satellites into orbit. The company projects it will eventually have a constellation of 34,000 satellites. After Starlinks initial launch, competitors followed suit, including Jeff Bezos and his Project Kuipernow called Amazon Leoand the Chinese, whose plans include two large satellite constellations. But theres a fundamental problem with this mega-constellation design: Musks plan for space internet is a flawed, wasteful, and dangerous game of orbital Russian roulette. The crowded sky, a 30-minute exposure taken in June 2025 [Photo: Alan Dyer/VWPics/Universal Images Group/Getty Images] Scientists worry that Starlinks projected 34,000-satellite constellation will cause irreparable damage to the atmosphere. A large-scale constellation also dramatically increases the possibility of a space collision that could start a catastrophic chain reaction, destroying orbital networks that are crucial for our survival as a species. Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist and spaceflight historian at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been documenting satellite launches in his newsletter, Jonathan’s Space Report. He believes there may be other, better ways to achieve global coverage via satellitesif we need to be doing it at all. I do personally have a preference for smaller numbers of larger satellites, he tells Fast Company. One of the reasons is the risk of space collisions. If you have 10 times as many satellites, you have 100 times as many close misses. So from that point of view alone, consolidating on a smaller number of satellites seems wiser. A more efficient alternative Thats where Musks biggest competitor comes into play. AST SpaceMobile has developed a direct-to-cell technology that utilizes large satellites called BlueBirds. These machines use thousands of antennas to deliver broadband coverage directly to standard mobile phones, says the company’s president, Scott Wisniewski. This approach is remarkably efficient: We can achieve global coverage with approximately 90 satellites, not thousands or even tens of thousands required by other systems, Wisniewski writes in an email. McDowell agrees that AST SpaceMobile’s approach is more efficient and less wasteful. The key is its satellites size and sophistication. ASTs first generation of commercial satellite, the BlueBird 1-5, unfolds into a massive 693-square-foot array in space. Today, the company has five operational BlueBird 1-5 satellites in orbit, but its ambitions are much bigger. On December 24, 2025, AST launched the first of its next-generation satellites from Indiacalled Block 2and this one broke records. The BlueBird 6 has a surface of almost 2,400 square feet, making it the largest single satellite in low Earth orbit. The company plans to launch up to 60 more by the end of 2026. [Photo: AST SpaceMobile] This large surface area is essential for gathering faint signals from standard, unmodified mobile phones on the ground, Wisniewski explains. It is essentially a single, extremely powerful and sensitive cell tower in the sky, capable of serving a huge geographical area. This design philosophy directly addresses the two greatest threats posed by the mega-constellation model. First, with only about 90 Block 2 satellites needed for global coverage, the sheer volume of material being launched and deorbited is orders of magnitude less than the tens of thousands planned by Starlink and others. With a 7- to 10-year lifespan, AST SpaceMobile’s satellites are designed to last longer than Starklinks satellites, which have a lifespan of about 5 years. This combination of factors drastically reduces the potential for atmospheric pollution. Additionally, a smaller number of satellites dramatically lowers the risk of orbital collisions. Fewer satellites in orbit inherently reduces the probability of collisions and the creation of space debris, promoting a more sustainable orbital environment, Winiewski says. It is a solution built on precision engineering rather than brute numerical force, a testament to a different way of thinking about the problem. As McDowell puts it, from a space traffic point of view, Fewer, bigger satellites is probably better. It is a design choice that prioritizes sustainability and risk mitigation. A reckless, brute-force plan The core idea behind Starlinks direct-to-cell service is one of brute force. It is the digital equivalent of carpet-bombing: Saturate low Earth orbit with tens of thousands of relatively small, cheap, and disposable satellites. Each one acts like a tiny cell tower in the sky, talking to the phone in your pocket. Because they are in a low orbit, the lag is minimal, and the signal is strong enough for a standard phone. Its a simple concept, but its elegance is deceptive. In reality, it has the elegance of a sledgehammer. A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying a payload of 24 Starlink internet satellites soars into space after launching from Vandenberg Space Force Base on July 18, 2025; seen from Santee, California. [Photo: Kevin Carter/Getty Images] Starlinks model relies on a constant cycle of replacement. The satellites are programmed to fall back to Earth after about five years, burning up on reentry. This is where the first major problem arises. “When they burn up, they don’t just vanish,” McDowell explains. They turn into dust, alumina dust, aluminum oxide particles. These particles are very good at destroying ozone. The long-term effect of depositing tons of this material into the upper atmosphere every single day is a terrifying unknown. We are, in effect, conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the protective layers of our own planet. McDowell notes that while a single rocket launch causes temporary, localized ozone damage, the continuous reentry of thousands of satellites creates a persistent, global problem that has never been studied on this scale. SpaceX aggressively dismissed these concerns in 2021 in a legal battle with Viasat, a rival space internet service for home, business, and military use. Its legal defense directly attacked the scientific premise that burning satellites create harmful amounts of aluminum oxide. SpaceX has been ignoring warnings about potential ozone depletion since 2024. However, the company has tried to address light pollution. When faced with an outcry from the astronomy community about its satellites brightness, it iterated on the design. First came DarkSat, an experimental coating that proved ineffective. Then came VisorSat, a deployable sunshade that blocked light from reflecting off the brightest parts of the satellite. A comparison of different generations of Starlink satellites [Image: SpaceX] McDowell tells me that now SpaceX is using a dielectric mirror film that reflects less light back to Earth. They have made a significant effort to reduce the brightness, and the newer Starlinks are substantially fainter than the early ones, McDowell says. But they are still bright enough to be a problem for the big survey telescopes like the Vera Rubin Observatory. These mitigation efforts, while commendable, address only one symptom of the problemlight pollutionand do nothing to solve the more fundamental issues of atmospheric pollution and orbital crowding. The problem is compounded by the fact that everyone is now copying the SpaceX model. Amazon’s Project Leo plans to launch more than 3,200 satellites. Beijing and some Chinese companies are planning two separate mega-constellations, Guowang and G60 Starlink, totaling nearly 26,000 satellites. We’re just at the beginning of this . . . so that gets very worrying because now it’s not just one company, it’s a whole bunch of companies, McDowell warns. To add to his worries, just this week the Chinese government has applied for launch permits for 200,000 satellites. To be clear, AST SpaceMobile’s approach is not without its own controversies. The sheer size of the companys satellites makes them incredibly bright in the night sky, a significant source of frustration for ground-based astronomers. McDowell confirms that when it launched in 2022, ASTs prototype satellite, BlueWalker 3, became one of the top 10 brightest objects in the night sky for a while. It’s a serious issue, and we are working directly with the astronomy community to mitigate our impact, Wisniewski says. The company is exploring solutions like anti-reflective coatings and operational adjustments to minimize the time its satellites are at maximum brightness. However, McDowell is not aware of anyone working with AST SpaceMobile, and the company didnt provide any specifics. According to McDowell, the size and brightness is a trade-off he believes is reasonable. Although the BlueBirds are scary bright, there aren’t that many. So I kind of prefer that approach, he says. As long as they don’t turn around then and say, Actually, we need 30,000 of these as well. A ULA Atlas V-551 rocket lifts off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, carrying the first 27 satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper, in April 2025. [Photo: Manuel Mazzanti/NurPhoto/Getty Images] A game of orbital Russian roulette Beyond the environmental concerns lies an even more immediate existential threat: Kessler Syndrome. Popularized by the movie Gravity, it is a scenario that keeps space experts like McDowell up at night. The theory, proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978, describes a domino effect where a collision between two objects in orbit creates a cloud of debris. Each piece of that debris then becomes a projectile that can cause another collision, creating even more debris, until low Earth orbit becomes an impassable minefield of hypervelocity shrapnel. The more satellites you have, the more the chance of a collision, McDowell states plainly. And the problem is once you have the first collision, the debris from that is now threatening all the other satellites. SpaceX has engineered a highly automated collision avoidance system for Starlink, and McDowell acknowledges its sophistication. The companys satellites constantly monitor their trajectories and can autonomously fire their thrusters to dodge potential impacts. They do thousands of maneuvers a month, he says, which is a testament to both the system’s capability and the terrifyingly crowded environment it operates in. In total, Starlink satellites have performed 50,000 evasive maneuvers since 2019. But while SpaceX claims that its satellites are 100% safe, the facts tell us that they are not foolproof. Even with a 99% success rate for deorbiting, a 1% failure rate on a 30,000-satellite constellation means you’re adding 300 dead, multi-hundred-kilogram satellites to orbit every five years, McDowell says. That’s 300 uncontrollable bullets waiting to start the Kessler Syndrome. A catastrophic chain reaction could, in a matter of hours or days, wipe out the essential satellite networks that underpin modern civilization. This isn’t just about losing your GPS navigation on the way to a new restaurant. It’s about the collapse of global finance, weather forecasting, communications, and critical military and disaster-response systems. We are talking about a technological regression of decades, a scenario McDowell finds increasingly plausible as more mega-constellations are launched. Its a high-stakes gamble with civilization’s essential infrastructure. Theres also a direct-hit danger for people on the ground. A few Starlink satellites have already failed in orbit, becoming uncontrollable space junk that fell back to Earth. Theres at least one report of a piece of a satellite hitting a building in Canada. The latest reported incident took place on December 17, 2025, when a Starlink satellite experienced an anomaly, losing communication and causing a propulsion tank vent, rapid orbital decay, and the release of debris in low Earth orbit. In a 2023 report to congress, the Federal Aviation Administration said theres a real risk of falling Starlink debris injuring or killing someone by 2035. The Shenzhou-20 launches from Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest China on April 24, 2025. [Photo: Li Xin/Xinhua/Getty Images] Space junk is also a problem for rockets. In early November, three taikonauts returned after being stranded on Chinas Tiangong space station for nine days. They couldnt use the spaceship that was going to take them to Earththe Chengdou-20because it had been struck by orbital debris. The China Manned Space Agency said its astronauts found “tiny cracks” in a small window of their Shenzhou-20 spacecraft. The hit was not fatal, but things could have gone very wrong. The Chinese, however, seem undeterred. Beijing will be launching hundreds of thousands of satellites that mirror Starlinks design, contributing to the problem and increasing the risk to themselves and everyone else. Why AST SpaceMobile could win Right now, Starlink doesnt provide direct-to-cell broadband; instead, it provides only text and limited data connections. This low-speed connectivity requires a line of sight with the satellite, as SpaceX states on its site. Starlink, despite its leading market position in the internet satellite business, is still playing catch-up on the direct-to-cell front, and it may never be able to close the gap with AST. Musks company has two big strikes against it. First is the hardware in orbit. To provide broadband to phones it needs a next-generation Starlink V3 satellite, which doesnt exist yet. SpaceX has no reliable way to launch it, anyway. At an estimated 4,400 pounds, the V3 satellite is too big and heavy for the workhorse Falcon 9 rocket to deploy in economically viable numbers. The entire business model for Starlink V3 hinges on the success of Starship, Musk’s next-generation, super-heavy-lift launch vehicle. But Starship remains in development, having yet to achieve the consistent opertional launch cadence required to deploy and maintain a constellation of thousands of V3 satellites. But even if SpaceX manages to finish Starship and Starlink V3 satellites on time, theres a second, even bigger hardware problem: The broadband connectivity wont work unless the cellphone has a special modem chip. Yes, my space cadets, you will need to buy a new phone to enjoy Starlink connectivity, while AST works with any current, unmodified phone. None of these new Starlink-enabled phones exist or have been announced yet. According to SpaceX CEO Gwynne Shotwell, the company is now working on this chip. [Rendering: AST SpaceMobile] Were working with chip manufacturers to get the proper chips in phones, she told the audience at World Space Business Week in Paris back in September. Expecting phone manufacturers to incorporate Starlinks proprietary modem in their phones feels like a tall order. Especially when manufacturers like Apple have their own direct cell-to-space plans. It seems unlikely that Tim Cook will tie his companys crown jewel to Musks whims. Or make the phones even more expensive. However, that doesnt matter, because even if Musk had 15,000 V3 satellites and the Starships ready to launch, the problem will remain the same: You will need phones with Starlink modems in them for broadband. And the line-of-sight problem will persist. The broadband works only when the phone can look at the satellites in the sky. This is why Musks promised direct-to-cell broadband timeline is speculative. In fact, while he said it would be ready in 2026, according to SpaceX, testing of the first phones equipped with Starlink chips is scheduled for this year, with an aim to complete its V3 direct-to-cell satellite constellation in 2027. It is a promise built on a promise, a technological if dependent on a logistical when. Meanwhile, AST SpaceMobile is preparing to launch new operational satellites on existing rockets. AST SpaceMobile has already proven its technology works, with six working satellites now transmitting at typical 5G speeds directly to regular phones. This doesnt mean that it has a guaranteed win against Starlink or any of its competitors. While it has the capital to execute its planwith the backing of investors like AT&T, Alphabet, Rakuten, Vanguard, BlackRock, and Mexican magnate Carlos Slim, who owns the largest telecom operator in Latin Americaand superior technology, it needs to execute dozens of launches. This confidence in the technology explains why the stock has skyrocketed 333% in a year, but the doubts about potential execution problems also explain why the stock experiences wild swings. With every news of a launch or a delay of a launch, the stock can swing 10% or 20% up and down. Thats why the market treats AST as a high-risk, high-reward battleground. It can be a trillion-dollar business or explode on the launchpad if the company doesnt put all those satellites up in 2026. The coup de grāce This technological and philosophical divergence has not gone unnoticed by Elon Musk. Seeing a direct threat to his ambitions, he has engaged in a campaign to undermine AST SpaceMobile with baseless accusations, claiming that its satellites are a danger in low Earth orbit because of their size. At the same time, Musk is battling his own problems in low Earth orbit. China has already denounced two near misses with Starlink satellites that triggered its space station to perform emergency evasive maneuvers. On January 2, SpaceX was forced to move 4,000 satellites to a lower orbit after new research by Chinese scientists highlighted the companys recklessness and the very real risk of collision. Moreover, Musk desperately tried to stop the Federal Communications Commission from granting AST access to the necessary spectrumthe range of radio frequencies it needs for its satellites to connect with cellphones on Earthclaiming it would be catastrophic for his service because the powerful signals from AST’s large satellites could interfere with Starlink’s user terminals. In response, AST SpaceMobile asserts that its system is designed to coexist with other networks and operates fully within the internationally agreed-upon limits established to prevent such interference. The FCC agreed and allowed AST to use the spetrum. And that move, if every logistical aspect executes to plan, gives AST an absolute slam dunk against Musk. Think of the radio spectrum as a giant highway in the sky with a limited number of lanes. Carrying data back and forth, ASTs trucks have the rights to travel through a huge number of these lanes thanks to partners like AT&T and Verizonroughly 35 MHz of what the industry calls the “golden low-band spectrum. It also acquired an extra 45 Mhz low-band spectrum from a bankrupted communications company called Ligado. Thats a massive 80 MHz. And remember the companys patented magic sauce we mentioned earlier? Thats ASTs secret weapon to make this highway work: a chip that glues the different radio bands together into one massive pipe, capable of delivering peak speeds of 120 megabits per second to phones (comparable to your typical 5G connection). [Rendering: AST SpaceMobile] SpaceX and its partner T-Mobile have very few lanes available right now: only 5 MHz. Thats like comparing an 80-lane superhighway to a 5-lane street. To try to fix that, Musk has spent $17 billion to acquire 50 more lanes: 50 MHz of S-band spectrum from another bankrupt communications company, EchoStar. The problem is that physics dictates that higher-frequency radio waves, those that SpaceX is operating on, do not penetrate solid objects as effectively as lower-frequency waves. Thats why Starlinks space-to-cell service will require line of sight to work. Meanwhile, AST claims its system will work indoors and outdoors, penetrating buildings in a similar way to a regular cell signal. Wisniewski claims that a phone will connect through one wall and work through your cars roof because of two factors: It uses a low-frequency radio connection, and its satellites are big enough to listen and talk to the phones on the ground, even behind obstacles. This scenario has yet to be proven by AST or a third party. Only line-of-sight broadband with regular phones has been tested successfully. However, if it works inside cars and buildings like Wisniewski claims, the user experience will be seamless. A phone will have service where it didn’t before, delivered through an existing provider like AT&T or Vodafone. Should we really do this? But what if were looking at this cell-to-space race the wrong way? “I hear from friends who go hiking in faraway places, look up at the sky, and say, ‘Wow, you just never see an empty sky anymore, McDowell tells me with a hint of sadness and worry. Musk, Bezos, Wisniewski, the Europeans, and the Chinese would argue that we need ubiquitous cheap internet everywhere in the world, for civilian and military applications. Sure, there’s a lot of money to be made and there’s a genuine need to serve communities in remote places without having to invest in ground infrastructure. But do we really need to stream TikTok from space? “I don’t necessarily have a position on that,” McDowell says. “My position is that even if that’s the case, it shouldn’t be just the U.S. that decides that. It should be decided by all of the countries in the world, because they’re all affected whether they’re space powers or not.” Hes right. And if we all decide that we do need this, we should also all agree on the best solution to minimize the impact on humanity. The smarter solution. The most technologically advanced.
Category:
E-Commerce
A year after President Trump took office, clean energy is still growing in the U.S. In 2025, nearly all new power added to the grid came from solar, wind, and batteries. In September, for example, solar made up 98% of new capacity. And in 2026, the U.S. Energy Administration projects that all net new generating capacity will come from renewable energy and batteries. Thats despite obvious policy challenges. On his first day in office, after declaring an energy emergency, Trump paused permitting for some wind projects and promised to boost fossil fuels. A few months later, the administration ordered an offshore wind project to stop construction; other stop-work orders followed. In July, Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which phased out a longstanding tax credit for building clean energy projects. The EPA ended the Solar for All program, designed to bring solar power to low-income homes and reduce electric bills. After a memo from the Department of Interior that effectively paused permitting for wind and solar projects on public land, the DOI cancelled a massive solar project in Nevada that would have powered 2 million homes. The administration also pulled grants for R&D on new clean energy tech. Some states and developers have fought back and won lawsuits, but the attacks keep coming. Revolution Wind, a large offshore wind farm that’s under construction off the coast of Rhode Island and nearly complete, was issued a stop-work order in August by the Trump administration; a preliminary injunction from a judge in September let the work continue, but a second stop-work order came again in December. This week, the developer got another preliminary injunction to continue construction. Unsurprisingly, the policy uncertainty has hurt clean energy businesses. “We saw some smaller companies go under because financing became challenging,” says Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy at the Solar Energy Industries Association. Offshore wind developments are struggling to survive the administration’s repeated attacks. By some estimates, as much as 117 gigawatts of solar and battery storage projectsenough to power nearly 100 million homesare at risk of not coming online in the next couple of years because of new challenges in getting federal permits. But at the same time, many clean energy developers are fully booked with new projects. The demand from data centers is “unabated,” says Jim Spencer, president and CEO of Exus Renewables North America. “As much as we can deliver, they’re buying it.” Last week, the company closed a $400 million credit facility to build out new solar and wind projects$150 million more than it initially expected to get from banks. Like other developers, Exus is rushing to begin new solar and wind projects before July, the deadline to still be able to qualify for the tax credit. Projects also need to be completed by 2030 to qualify. To grandfather in developments that are still in the planning stage, Exus and others are buying equipment like solar panels earmarked for specific projects. Ending the credits is creating a temporary surge in new clean energy projects. “Particularly after the bill was enacted, you saw a lot of activity as people tried to accelerate projects to take advantage of the tax credits that were remaining,” says SEIA’s Spencer. An analysis from S&P Global suggests that the deadline could boost new solar capacity in 2030 by 35% compared to what would have happened otherwise. Still, “while a surge in the near term is likely, how long that tail lasts and to what degree is still highly uncertain,” says Mike O’Boyle, policy team director at Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan energy and climate think tank. Developers are also looking for ways to cut costs and make projects economic without the tax credit. “In two years, we’re going to be living in a different environment,” Spencer says. “Okay. “And I think that there’s a lot of creative minds working on how to ensure that that growth continues.” It’s also theoretically possible that the political environment will shift in elections in 2026 and 2028 and that incentives could be put in place again. Some large companies have slowed investment, but say that they still have a long-term commitment to renewable energy in the U.S. Engie, a France-based electric utility company that has invested between $2-4 billion in the U.S. in recent years, told Fast Company in a statement that its current investment strategy is more selective. “We expect materially lower annual investment in response to continued permitting, trade and policy uncertainty which impact large long-term investment in wind, solar and battery projects,” the company said. But long term, it sees “strong opportunity” driven by the driven by rising electricity demand from data centers and AI. That enormous demand is one more argument for the Trump administration to support renewable growth. “Energy prices are going up, despite rhetoric from the administration,” Spencer says. “And the rise in energy prices is directly tied to policies that the administration’s implementing. They have the ability to enable, rather than restrict, addition of new supply to the grid, which would reduce prices and improve customers’ lives.”
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||