Ivanpah Solar Plant to Close in 2026 After $2.2 Billion Investment Fails to Deliver

The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California’s Mojave Desert is headed for closure in 2026, ending a project that cost about $2.2 billion to build and never delivered the promised level of solar power. The plant began operations in 2014 and was once the world’s largest solar facility, a striking trio of 459-foot towers surrounded by thousands of heliostats.

Located near the California-Nevada border, about 65 miles southwest of Las Vegas, Ivanpah’s three towers and about 173,500 heliostats were designed to concentrate sunlight and generate steam to drive a turbine. The project was financed in part by federal support; in 2011 the U.S. Department of Energy issued $1.6 billion in loan guarantees. Despite early fanfare, the plant has struggled to produce energy at the scale projected, and operators have relied on natural gas to stay online. "Ivanpah stands as a testament to the waste and inefficiency of government subsidized energy schemes," said Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute. "It never lived up to its promises, producing less electricity than expected, while relying on natural gas to stay operational."

When Ivanpah began operating in 2014, it ranked as the world’s largest solar plant. It sits on five square miles of desert near the California-Nevada border. The plant’s five-square-miles were covered with some 173,500 heliostats, adjusted via computer to catch maximum rays. The mirrors can reflect light from the sun at temperatures that can reach 1,000 degrees in parts of the installation. The idea was that you could use the sun to produce a heat source, said Edward Smeloff, an alternative energy consultant. "The mirrors reflect heat from the sun up to a receiver, which is mounted on top of the tower. That heats a fluid. It creates steam [that spins] a conventional steam turbine. It is complicated." But as the market evolved, the technology could not compete with newer, cheaper solar photovoltaic options.

A statement from NRG Energy, the Texas-based partner and largest investor, echoed the broader market shift. "When the power purchase agreements were signed in 2009, the prices were competitive, but advancements over time have led to more efficient, cost effective and flexible options for producing reliable clean energy," the company said.

The project’s fate has been intertwined with wildlife concerns. The Association of Avian Veterinarians has said the plant is believed to be responsible for at least 6,000 bird deaths each year, as birds are fried in the intense rays while traveling through the area. Smeloff noted the risk to wildlife and the broader sustainability debate around concentrating solar power.

Private investors versus government-backed schemes also figure into the debate about Ivanpah’s fate. A World Economic Forum report published earlier this year noted that private markets can sometimes move more quickly to adopt transformative technologies. "Unlike public market investors, private equity firms can implement transformative changes through hands-on management and aligned incentives," the report stated.

Steven Milloy, a senior fellow at the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute and a former member of the Trump EPA transition team, offered a sharp assessment. "No green project relying on taxpayer subsidies has ever made any economic or environmental sense," he said, arguing that taxpayer support should be redirected away from what he terms the Green New Scam.

As 2026 approaches, Ivanpah’s closure underscores the challenges of scaling certain solar-thermal technologies in a rapidly evolving energy market. Supporters of photovoltaic solar argue that panels are cheaper and easier to deploy at scale, while opponents point to the risks of subsidies and the importance of ongoing innovation. The shuttering of Ivanpah does not erase California’s broader climate goals, but it serves as a reminder that the path to clean power remains uneven and contingent on technology, economics and ecological considerations.