US solar PV companies are not waiting for FEOC guidance – Crux survey

“This proactive stance indicates that many companies intend to begin 2026 with preparation well underway, even as regulatory clarity remains incomplete,” explained Crux.

The survey collected responses from 50 companies covering the solar and energy storage industry, including utility-scale and community solar developers, independent power producers, O&M service providers, battery and inverter manufacturers and utilities, among others.

Moreover, Crux’s analysis indicates that the majority of companies (80%) do not have ownership by a specified foreign entity (SFE) or foreign influenced entity (FIE), while 20% do have some level of ownership. However, less than 10% of companies have reported that SFE/FIE owners can appoint officers or directors. Crux added that firms with such ownership arrangements reported a variety of mitigation measures, including liquidating ownership by SFIE/FIE or working with entities to resolve governance issues.

“In some cases, resolving ownership issues is not enough. Some SFE/FIEs retain effective control provisions related to contracts with tax credit–eligible project owners. These contracts have also been a significant subject of review for most companies in 2025,” added Crux.

The majority of respondents (54%) reported no effective control payments to Prohibited Foreign Entities (PFEs) following contract reviews, while an additional 32% said they were actively conducting assessments.

According to Crux, this shows that the early audits demonstrate that the industry is moving quickly to understand and reduce exposure risk, ahead of the compliance deadline, by “systematically identifying and addressing potential FEOC linkages”.

Companies that have reported effective control payments to PFEs in certain contracts were actively revising contract terms to exclude effective control provisions. This includes negotiations as to insert ownership attestations, transparency clauses and FEOC-compliant payment structures into new and renewed agreements.

Mapping out the supply chain

Furthermore, nearly all the respondents had at least begun the process of mapping out supply chains, with 70% indicating that their supply chain was partially mapped. The remaining 30% had managed to fully map the supply chain of their products. This is despite the fact that developers and manufacturers continue to face gaps in tracking key materials and components to their source of origin, according to Crux.

A good chunk of surveyed participants (42%) intend to use independent or third-party verification audits, rather than just an internal verification process, as most equipment suppliers are currently doing.

“The trend is clearly toward more verifiable supplier data, but a standard methodology or approach has not been adopted,” added Crux.

Overall, only 38% of companies described themselves as “fully prepared” for 2026, according to Crux’s survey. Many have started building frameworks for compliance,  even in the absence of thorough guidance from Treasury.

Nearly 70% of respondents supported a standardised supplier certification template or model forms, while 40% favoured industry-wide verification registries.

“Challenges are increasingly concentrated in data quality and regulatory uncertainty regarding the scope of compliance,” concluded Crux.

Visibility on ownership structures

According to PV Tech Research, PV module suppliers have employed a variety of creative ways in which to address their FEOC compliance. Some of them really commit to fastidious transparency with supporting documentation, relocation of headquarters, etc., and some seek to obfuscate any ownership stakes (historical or present) with non-FEOC compliant countries.

The issue that US module buyers are facing is gaining true visibility on the ownership structures of these suppliers to confidently determine their likely FEOC exposure. PV Tech Research has been producing their PV ModuleTech Bankability Ratings report for 6 years now, which determines the risk profile of suppliers through a rigorous analysis of financial health, component sourcing, technology and ownership structure – all markers that help US buyers identify which suppliers have insolvency risk, AD/CVD, UFLPA and Section 232 exposure; but it’s the independent, detailed analysis of each supplier’s ownership structure which is helping buyers get ahead of FEOC.

To view the report, please click here.

The article was updated on Monday, 15 December 2025, to include comments from PV Tech Research.