In January, China announced an end to export subsidies for solar panels and a phased end to value-added tax rebates on batteries. The cuts, which took effect on April 1, have raised concerns for renewable energy markets globally, including African countries, which rely heavily on Chinese imports.
With solar increasingly becoming a reliable power source across the African continent, it has seen a boom in imports of related technology, mostly from China. The first decisive evidence of a solar take-off in Africa was recorded in 2025 when imports of solar panels from China to Africa rose sharply over 12 months, adding 60% more potential electricity generation capacity than in the previous year.
Energy think-tank Ember found that the growth was led by countries that have suffered widespread power cuts like South Africa, Nigeria and Zambia, where solar panels are increasingly appealing to businesses and households seeking reliable power without having to use expensive fossil fuel generators.
But experts fear this explosive growth could be affected by the cut in tax rebates for clean technology from China – and because of the Iran war, the prices of these technologies could rise even higher, making the transition unaffordable for many Africans.
Climate Home News spoke to Karl Boyce, Chief Executive Officer of ARC Power, a renewable energy developer that works in Africa, about what these subsidy cuts could mean for the continent, how it can prepare for price and demand shocks, and what must be done to bridge Africa’s energy access gap.
Q: How will the recent export subsidy cuts by China affect the growth of clean energy usage in Africa where it’s increasingly becoming a reliable source of power for communities?
A: China’s removal of the export subsidy will certainly impact this sector in Africa, but probably not as extensively as we might first think. Solar pricing has dropped significantly in recent years, so this might just level it out to a more realistic and stable price in the longer term.
A product shortage in the near term could be a possibility, as rushed procurement might occur to secure products ahead of the next phased rebate drop in 2027. In parallel, we have already seen shipping pricing increasing from some of our recent orders, due to the war in the Middle East.
Regarding battery storage, various potential manufacturing opportunities are being explored, but these are still nascent, despite Africa having significant amounts of the critical minerals needed for battery manufacturing.
African leaders seek investments in ailing grid infrastructure to achieve energy goals
Q: About 600 million people still lack access to electricity in Africa. What are some of the barriers to bridging this gap?
A: One reason is a lack of access to funding at scale across the sector. Another is that regulations in some African countries are still evolving and changing, which makes the process slow.
With mini-grids, it’s quite challenging because most of the connections in a community will be households who are probably paying [about] $3 a month for their power, which makes it really difficult for developers or investors to actually get their money back. It might take 10 years.


A lot of funding has gone into these solar home systems, which is great just to give people lights for the first time. But we’ve seen with all the communities where we’re working that people want more than that. They want to be able to set up their business, and they don’t just want to be able to charge their phone and have a few lights – they actually want the ability to have appliances and things like that.
I think the risk appetite for investments in solar mini-grids seems to be changing, hopefully for the better. Also we seem to be seeing more and more investors focusing on impact as well, which is so nice and so positive to see.
Q: We’re less than four years away from the deadline for the UN’s universal energy access target and the gap is still far from being bridged in Africa. Can the continent meet the 2030 target and how are initiatives like Mission 300 helping?
A: Last year at an event in Kenya, the secretary-general of Sustainable Energy for All, Damilola Ogunbiyi, was talking about the fact that the last few years were the first time energy access was actually reduced because it hasn’t kept up with population growth.
Funding gap threatens next round of IPCC climate science reports, chair warns
But, while I would confidently say that we’re not going to achieve the Mission 300 target of connecting 300 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa to electricity by 2030, I think they’ll go a long way towards it.
Even though there are only about three-and-a-half years left, with the funding that’s being focused on it, I think the World Bank seems to have made it kind of a priority now [through Mission 300]. I am hoping that there will be a big step towards it. Even if they achieve half of their target, that would be such a significant step forward.
To go further towards achieving the 2030 target, there has to be a really big push on improving regulations in the countries so they become less bureaucratic. It just speeds up the process, because that’s the thing we have seen firsthand, where even if you have funding and you have the ability to do it, things are still being slowed down by regulations.
It’s hard because you’ve got so many different countries with totally different kinds of business environments and business cultures, different regulations. This is the challenge. Obviously there’s not going to be one thing that just fixes everything across the continent.
Also, I think that the approach to funding definitely has to change. We need more concessional funding to support other funding to come in, to de-risk it slightly. Access to capital has been one of the biggest barriers. And it always frustrates me, because they always say there’s so much capital out there, but not enough good projects. But when you speak to any developer, they’re always saying the same thing: it’s just trying to access capital.
Q: ARC Power operates a model called FUSE and, with support from the World Bank under the Mission 300 initiative, you are helping fund energy access in some African countries. How are models like yours helping to move the needle in areas that lack access?
A: We were building mini-grids in Rwanda and the government changed their strategy and decided they wanted everyone connected to the national electricity grid, which is obviously very ambitious. But they basically said, we don’t want any more mini-grids in Rwanda.
Some other developers left and pulled out of the market – and it forced us to rethink how we work, and this is where we developed the FUSE model. It’s a public-private collaboration with the utility company and the government, but we’re bringing in private investment to build out their energy infrastructure.
So we’ll sign a FUSE agreement with the utility company. We will then finance, design and construct grid expansion, so this is still first-time energy access, it can still be real rural areas, but we will basically build out an extension to the national grid. We put in solar, we’ll see what’s connected and how to connect everyone.
Our strapline as a company is “to power” and we are very clear with the utility companies and governments that when we go into an area we want to connect everyone. We’ll connect everyone and then once it’s all constructed and built, and the utility company has ensured it’s to their standards and they sign off, then they pay us over, say, 10 years.
What this is allowing us to do is really accelerate energy access. So, for each dollar invested, we can probably do five times as many connections as we would have been able to do if we were building just a mini-grid, just because we get our capital back quicker.
It’s also good for households because one of the challenges you have is often that you might have a utility company and a mini-grid developer almost competing for a site.
The other thing is the tariffs. You have to have this kind of cost-reflective tariff as a mini-grid operator to get your money back, which means it could be five times the price of the national grid tariff. In Rwanda, we saw houses connected to the national grid probably 500 metres away from a house that’s connected to a mini-grid and the house connected to the mini-grid is paying five times the price.
To meet Africa’s clean energy goals, investors urged to tolerate higher risk
Q: Which would serve Africa better – is it mini-grids, utility-scale renewables that can be fed into the grid, or smaller-scale rooftop installations that serve households?
A: In Rwanda, the FUSE model definitely works. Because it’s a small country, nowhere is more than probably a few kilometres from the grid. In some of the larger countries like Mozambique – which is a great example where we’re operating – I think there will always be a requirement for mini-grids, but they complement each other.
In places where you’ve got the national grid infrastructure and it’s growing slowly, we would go to the utility company and say: “You obviously have your plan of where you would like to expand the grid, and all of these tens of thousands of houses that you’d like to connect – let us do it, and we will bring in funding from the private sector”, and then it makes it much more affordable and we can accelerate it.
India sets achievable green electricity and emissions intensity targets
West Africa is absolutely on our radar, it’s where we will be definitely targeting. At the moment we are in Rwanda, Mozambique and Zambia, we’re targeting another eight countries in East and Southern Africa in the next six months, and then our plan is to go and start pitching to West African countries.
The World Bank and its International Finance Corporation arm have clearly said to us that they’ve seen the FUSE model can be one of the key solutions in this Mission 300 because it’s so scalable.
This interview was shortened and edited for clarity.
The post Q&A: Will subsidy cuts for Chinese clean-tech exports hurt Africa’s solar boom? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Q&A: Will subsidy cuts for Chinese clean-tech exports hurt Africa’s solar boom?
Climate Change
Nearly One-Fifth of Americans Are Consuming Water With High Levels of Nitrates
Nitrates, largely from agricultural runoff, are linked to cancers and birth defects. Research says areas with factory farms have higher levels of risk.
Close to 20 percent of Americans are exposed to water polluted with high levels of potentially cancer-causing nitrates, known to come mostly from agricultural runoff, according to new research published this month.
Nearly One-Fifth of Americans Are Consuming Water With High Levels of Nitrates
Climate Change
WATCH: ‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Watch the hearing:
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
WATCH: ‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry
Climate Change
Greenpeace Australia Pacific settles in lawsuit against Woodside
SYDNEY, Wednesday 22 April 2026 — A settlement has been agreed in a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace Australia Pacific against fossil fuel multinational Woodside, being heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific filed the lawsuit against Woodside in December 2023, alleging the fossil fuel giant had misrepresented both its prior emissions reductions, and its emissions reductions targets for 2025, 2030, and 2050.
Greenpeace alleged, among other things, that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets will achieve substantial reductions in its actual scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, when in fact Woodside will rely heavily on offsets to achieve a decrease in net emissions.
Greenpeace also alleged that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets are consistent with what the most recent climate science sets out as necessary to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement when in fact Woodside’s emissions reduction targets do not include Woodside’s scope 3 emissions (which account for over 90% of Woodside’s emissions) and Woodside has plans to significantly expand its oil and gas production and processing and thereby the sum of its actual scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions would not materially decrease by 2030 and may increase past 2030.
Greenpeace filed expert evidence which it alleges supported its claim and demonstrated why Woodside’s claims were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
Woodside has since changed how it represents its strategy to respond to climate change. For example, initially, Woodside displayed a ‘Net zero by 2050 or sooner’ banner on its website, but around July 2025, Woodside removed the banner from its website.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific cares about transparent and accurate climate disclosures, and in December 2023, took Woodside to court challenging its claims.
“During the course of the case, Woodside changed how it was presenting its plans on carbon emissions from what they had said prior to us bringing this case. We take that as a win and have decided to continue the fight against fossil fuel corporations outside of the courts.
“Settling this case does not signal the end of our fight against Woodside’s climate and nature-destroying gas projects. While we may have agreed to resolve our court action against Woodside, in which we alleged it made misleading and deceptive claims to investors regarding its climate plans, the fact is the court of public opinion will judge Woodside for the harm it inflicts on our climate.
“Woodside’s greed-driven appetite to expand fossil fuel production is accelerating the climate crisis, putting the environment and communities at risk.
“Greenpeace strongly supports public interest litigation as a crucial tool in democratic engagement to protect our planet and holding large corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change.
“Investors and the public deserve accurate information about a company’s true climate impact and strategy, especially when those strategies are presented as ‘Paris-aligned’ — an absurd claim for a company responsible for one of the largest LNG export terminals in Australia, and now the United States.
“The expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with a 1.5C-aligned world — Greenpeace will continue to campaign to fast-track the transition to homegrown, clean, affordable wind and solar energy, the only solution to the energy crisis we are currently all facing globally.”
Greenpeace and Woodside agreed for the proceeding to be dismissed on the basis that each party bears its own costs.
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Kimberley Bernard on 0407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
Greenpeace Australia Pacific settles in lawsuit against Woodside
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits




