The Biggest Winners in America’s Climate Law: Foreign Companies

The 2022 climate law unleashed a torrent of government subsidies to help the U.S. build clean-energy industries. The biggest beneficiaries so far are foreign companies.

The Inflation Reduction Act has spurred nearly $110 billion in U.S. clean-energy projects since it passed almost a year ago, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows. Companies based overseas, largely from South Korea, Japan and China, are involved in projects accounting for more than 60% of that spending. Fifteen of the 20 largest such investments, nearly all in battery factories, involve foreign businesses, the Journal’s analysis shows.

These overseas manufacturers will be able to claim billions of dollars in tax credits, making them among the biggest winners from the climate law. The credits are often tied to production volume, rewarding the largest investors.

Japan’s Panasonic, one of the few companies to publicly estimate the impact of the law, could earn more than $2 billion in tax credits a year based on the capacity of battery plants it is operating or building in Nevada and Kansas. The company, which supplies batteries to electric-vehicle maker Tesla, is considering a third factory in the U.S. that would lift that total.

The climate law is designed to build up domestic supply chains for green-energy industries, but the reality is that the technology for building batteries and renewable-energy equipment resides overseas. The incentives are leading these companies to invest in the U.S., often alongside domestic businesses.

“It’s a testament to the fact that we still live in a globalised economy,” said Aniket Shah, head of environmental, social and corporate governance—or ESG—strategy at investment bank Jefferies. “You can’t just out of nowhere put up borders and say, ‘It has to be made in America by American companies.’ ”

The Journal looked at roughly 210 clean-energy projects and company initiatives spurred by the law, including projects tracked by industry groups American Clean Power and E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs); announcements from companies and state and local governments; and media reports. Of those, about 140 disclosed investment amounts totalling roughly $110 billion.

Projects were characterised as either wholly U.S. ventures or foreign if overseas companies are contributing significant investment or technology. Renewable-power facilities and projects already in the works before the law passed were excluded.

Forecasters estimate the climate law could unleash some $3 trillion in total clean-energy investments over the next decade. U.S. companies are also investing heavily, including Tesla, solar-panel maker First Solar and hydrogen producer Air Products and Chemicals.

Full domestic supply chains for batteries or solar panels are still years away because foreign companies dominate nearly every step in the process, from raw materials to sophisticated parts.

Panasonic is considering the addition of a third battery factory in the U.S. that would increase the Japanese company’s tax-credit haul. PHOTO: JACOB KEPLER FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The large investments by overseas businesses have generally been welcomed by U.S. communities, many of which have benefited for decades from spending and jobs created by foreign automakers and other companies. But some investments from Chinese companies have fuelled a backlash as tensions between the two countries escalate.

At least 10 of the projects representing nearly $8 billion in investments included in the Journal’s analysis involve companies either based in China or with substantial ties to China through their core operations or large investors.

Some projects are facing resistance, including two in Michigan: a $3.5 billion battery factory that Ford Motor is building with technology and expertise from China’s CATL; and a $2.4 billion battery-component factory from China-based Gotion. Ford is keeping 100% ownership of the battery factory—in part to sidestep the issue of public funds flowing to CATL, according to a person with knowledge of the deal. Ford is licensing the battery-making know-how and services from CATL, the companies said.

But China hawks say the payments Ford makes to CATL mean the Chinese company reaps indirect benefits from government support.

“What we’re seeing is foreign policy conflict with climate policy and trade policy,” Shah said. “We’re going to have to decide as a country what matters more: our enmity with China or our desire to decarbonise quickly.”

Microvast, a startup that was planning to build a more than $500 million battery-component plant in Kentucky, was named as a potential recipient of a $200 million grant from the Energy Department last year. The department later rejected the application. The move followed criticism from Republicans about the company’s ties to China, which include a China subsidiary that accounts for more than 60% of its revenue.

The Energy Department didn’t give a reason for withdrawing the grant. The department takes a number of factors into account when evaluating such projects, including technology risks and the potential for foreign influence, a spokeswoman said.

Microvast, based in Stafford, Texas, says it is a U.S. company and that Chief Executive Yang Wu is an American citizen. The company recently scrapped plans for the Kentucky plant.

“We must be assured that these taxpayer dollars are not being funnelled to the Chinese,” said Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), chair of the House of Representatives committee on energy and commerce, during a June hearing.

Microvast is committed to its goals of investing in the U.S. through other facilities, a spokeswoman said.

The issue is expected to come to a head when the Treasury Department completes rules for electric-car tax credits. The department has proposed that cars using battery materials that were produced by a “foreign entity of concern” such as a Chinese company wouldn’t qualify for tax credits beginning in 2025.

Many expect Treasury to use a loose standard so that some cars qualify, potentially fuelling criticism from some politicians who crafted the climate law such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), who has argued more lenient criteria go against the intent of the Inflation Reduction Act. Treasury is monitoring shifting markets and supply chains while making rules that advance the law’s goals, a spokeswoman said.

Berkshire began liquidating its big stake in the banking company in mid-July—and has already unloaded about 15% of its interest. The selling has been fairly aggressive and has totaled about $6 billion. (Berkshire still holds 883 million shares, an 11.3% interest worth $35 billion based on its most recent filing on Aug. 30.)

The selling has prompted speculation about when CEO Warren Buffett, who oversees Berkshire’s $300 billion equity portfolio, will stop. The sales have depressed Bank of America stock, which has underperformed peers since Berkshire began its sell program. The stock closed down 0.9% Thursday at $40.14.

It’s possible that Berkshire will stop selling when the stake drops to 700 million shares. Taxes and history would be the reasons why.

Berkshire accumulated its Bank of America stake in two stages—and at vastly different prices. Berkshire’s initial stake came in 2017 , when it swapped $5 billion of Bank of America preferred stock for 700 million shares of common stock via warrants it received as part of the original preferred investment in 2011.

Berkshire got a sweet deal in that 2011 transaction. At the time, Bank of America was looking for a Buffett imprimatur—and the bank’s stock price was weak and under $10 a share.

Berkshire paid about $7 a share for that initial stake of 700 million common shares. The rest of the Berkshire stake, more than 300 million shares, was mostly purchased in 2018 at around $30 a share.

With Bank of America stock currently trading around $40, Berkshire faces a high tax burden from selling shares from the original stake of 700 million shares, given the low cost basis, and a much lighter tax hit from unloading the rest. Berkshire is subject to corporate taxes—an estimated 25% including local taxes—on gains on any sales of stock. The tax bite is stark.

Berkshire might own $2 to $3 a share in taxes on sales of high-cost stock and $8 a share on low-cost stock purchased for $7 a share.

New York tax expert Robert Willens says corporations, like individuals, can specify the particular lots when they sell stock with multiple cost levels.

“If stock is held in the custody of a broker, an adequate identification is made if the taxpayer specifies to the broker having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold and, within a reasonable time thereafter, confirmation of such specification is set forth in a written document from the broker,” Willens told Barron’s in an email.

He assumes that Berkshire will identify the high-cost Bank of America stock for the recent sales to minimize its tax liability.

If sellers don’t specify, they generally are subject to “first in, first out,” or FIFO, accounting, meaning that the stock bought first would be subject to any tax on gains.

Buffett tends to be tax-averse—and that may prompt him to keep the original stake of 700 million shares. He could also mull any loyalty he may feel toward Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan , whom Buffett has praised in the past.

Another reason for Berkshire to hold Bank of America is that it’s the company’s only big equity holding among traditional banks after selling shares of U.S. Bancorp , Bank of New York Mellon , JPMorgan Chase , and Wells Fargo in recent years.

Buffett, however, often eliminates stock holdings after he begins selling them down, as he did with the other bank stocks. Berkshire does retain a smaller stake of about $3 billion in Citigroup.

There could be a new filing on sales of Bank of America stock by Berkshire on Thursday evening. It has been three business days since the last one.

Berkshire must file within two business days of any sales of Bank of America stock since it owns more than 10%. The conglomerate will need to get its stake under about 777 million shares, about 100 million below the current level, before it can avoid the two-day filing rule.

It should be said that taxes haven’t deterred Buffett from selling over half of Berkshire’s stake in Apple this year—an estimated $85 billion or more of stock. Barron’s has estimated that Berkshire may owe $15 billion on the bulk of the sales that occurred in the second quarter.

Berkshire now holds 400 million shares of Apple and Barron’s has argued that Buffett may be finished reducing the Apple stake at that round number, which is the same number of shares that Berkshire has held in Coca-Cola for more than two decades.

Buffett may like round numbers—and 700 million could be just the right figure for Bank of America.

The Biggest Winners in America’s Climate Law: Foreign Companies

U.S. seeks to build domestic supply chains but needs overseas expertise

When will Berkshire Hathaway stop selling Bank of America stock?