The Keep China Out of Solar Energy Act of 2025 would block the federal government from purchasing solar panels manufactured or assembled by entities tied to China. The prohibition would be implemented within 180 days via standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget in consultation with the General Services Administration, covering contracts, subcontracts, grants, and subgrants, as well as the use of government purchase cards.
The bill also requires a FAR amendment to enforce the prohibition for federal contracts.
Beyond the initial ban, the act creates a waiver mechanism, requires quarterly reporting to Congress on waiver requests, and commissions ongoing oversight. It also mandates a Comptroller General report on current procurement from covered entities and an independent study by a federally funded research center to assess domestic solar manufacturing, technological progress, and global supply chains.
The package seeks to curb reliance on Chinese-linked solar supply chains while mapping costs, feasibility, and policy trade‑offs for future action.
At a Glance
What It Does
Within 180 days of enactment, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Administrator of General Services must develop standards to prohibit Federal funds and government purchase cards from being used to procure solar panels manufactured or assembled by a covered entity.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies, contract officers, and solar-panel suppliers—especially those with ties to PRC-linked supply chains—will face new procurement rules and compliance processes.
Why It Matters
This sets a security-focused refurbishment of the federal solar supply chain, signaling a shift toward domestic-sourced PV manufacturing and greater oversight of how federal funds buy solar technology.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill targets the procurement of solar panels tied to China by the federal government. It requires standards within six months to stop federal funds from going to contracts, subcontracts, grants, or subgrants for panels made by covered entities, and it bans purchase-card purchases for those panels.
The standards would be implemented through the FAR and apply to all federal solar procurements. The legislation also creates a waiver route if no viable domestic alternative exists, with joint approval from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security and a requirement to notify Congress about waiver requests.
Additionally, the bill orders a quarterly reporting regime on waiver requests and a 275‑day Comptroller General report detailing how many solar panels were procured from covered entities. It directs OMB to fund an independent study by a federally funded research center to evaluate the domestic solar market, technology progress, and the global supply chain, with findings due to Congress within a defined window.Definitions set the scope: a covered entity is PRC-domiciled or controlled by PRC government/Communist Party; an executive agency means agencies defined in 41 U.S.C.; and a solar panel covers crystalline silicon PV cells and modules.
Taken together, the bill creates a security-focused push to re-shape the federal solar procurement landscape toward domestic supply and tighter oversight.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill blocks federal procurement and government-purchasing-card use for solar panels from covered entities within 180 days.
FAR amendments are required within 180 days to implement the procurement prohibition for contracts and subcontracts.
Waivers can be granted if the entity is the only viable source and receive joint approval from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
A Comptroller General report is due within 275 days detailing the amount of solar panels procured from covered entities.
An independent study, funded through an FTC‑style federally funded center, will assess domestic solar manufacturing, tech progress, and the global supply chain, with the study submitted to Congress within 30 days of receipt.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on procurement from covered entities
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, must develop standards and guidelines to prohibit federal funds from being awarded by contract, subcontract, grant, or subgrant for the procurement of solar panels manufactured or assembled by a covered entity, and to prohibit the use of government-issued purchase cards for such panels. The prohibition covers the federal procurement lifecycle and direct purchasing channels.
Exemption waiver process
Agency heads may request a waiver if the covered entity is the only viable source for the needed solar panels. Waivers require joint approval from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The head of the requesting agency must notify the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director must relay quarterly waiver decisions to Congress.
Comptroller General reporting
Not later than 275 days after enactment, the Comptroller General must report to Congress on the total solar panels procured from covered entities by federal departments and agencies, detailing volumes, sources, and any deviations from established standards.
Independent study
Within one year after enactment, the Director of OMB must seek a contract with a federally funded research center to study the domestic solar panel market, the pace of technological progress, and the global supply chain and workforce. The study must be submitted to the specified congressional committees within 30 days of receipt by the Director.
Definitions
Covered entity means any entity domiciled in the PRC or subject to influence or control by the PRC government or the Communist Party. Executive agency has the definition in 41 U.S.C. 133. Solar panel means crystalline silicon PV cells and modules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal procurement officers gain clearer compliance paths and risk controls for solar purchases.
- U.S.-based solar panel manufacturers and assemblers could gain new federal demand and market access as procurement shifts away from Chinese-linked suppliers.
- National security and energy policy teams benefit from improved transparency and reduced exposure to foreign supplier risks.
- Congress and oversight bodies gain data on procurement volumes and the policy's effectiveness through quarterly waiver reports and the GAO study.
Who Bears the Cost
- Chinese-linked solar panel suppliers lose access to a significant federal market and may need to pivot to non-restricted products.
- Federal agencies incur compliance, training, and administrative costs to implement the new standards and maintain oversight.
- Domestic manufacturers may incur transition costs to scale up production or adapt supply chains to meet federal standards.
- Taxpayers could shoulder higher procurement costs if domestic manufacturing is more expensive than foreign sourcing, potentially affecting project economics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Should the federal government prioritize secure, domestically sourced solar supply even if it raises costs and delays deployment, or should it accept greater securities risk for faster, cheaper access to solar energy—and rely on exemptions and reporting to mitigate risk?
The bill’s core aim is to reduce federal exposure to PRC-linked solar supply chains by banning procurement of solar panels from covered entities and mandating standards for enforcement. It leans on a waiver mechanism to preserve supply when no viable domestic alternative exists, which introduces a built-in flexibility that could undercut the blanket effect if invoked frequently.
The quarterly waiver reporting and the GAO audit add transparency and data to inform future policy, but they also create ongoing administrative burdens for agencies. The independent study promises a long-range view of domestic capability and supply chains, yet its timing and outcomes may lag behind rapid shifts in global markets.
The central policy tension is whether security gains justify short-term cost increases and potential delays in federal solar deployment. The definitions of “covered entity” and “influence or control by the Government or the Communist Party” could invite disputes about which suppliers are restricted.
Finally, the balance between prohibition and exemptions rests on the assumption that domestic alternatives can scale quickly enough to meet federal demand, a premise that warrants close scrutiny as the law unfolds.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.