You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
For a while First Solar looked like a “Liberation Day” winner. Now its first quarter results suggest otherwise.
When Donald Trump unveiled his now-infamous chart of “reciprocal” tariffs, most of the stock market shuddered — but there were a few exceptions, including the American solar manufacturer First Solar. While the market in the days following “Liberation Day” was on a hunt and destroy mission for stocks of renewables companies known to be heavily exposed to Asia or independent power producers, First Solar stayed roughly flat.
It’s not flat anymore. The company reported first quarter earnings on Tuesday that were short of analysts’ expectations and lowered its expected revenue and profit for the rest of the year citing disruptions from tariffs. The stock has fallen more than 9% on Wednesday, and is down a third so far this year.
“While FSLR” — a.k.a. First Solar — “is the US solar manufacturing bellwether, they are not immune to the far-reaching tariff environment,” Andrew Perocco, a Morgan Stanley analyst, wrote in a note to clients. He also estimated that almost half of First Solar’s manufacturing capacity is in Asia.
The company’s sobering results and warnings about how tariffs could affect their business is a sign that the entire green energy business is likely at risk from uncertain trade policy, even the companies thought to be insulated.
First Solar and other companies’ tariff-affected financial results also show that the Inflation Reduction Act has only been partially successful at boosting American production of green energy technology, and that the country’s green industries are still deeply intertwined with Asian and Chinese production.
“We had been expecting negative effects from tariffs for First Solar, but the impact was greater than we expected,” Brett Castelli, an analyst at Morningstar, wrote in a note to clients.
First Solar chief executive Mark Widmar said that the uncertainty about the reciprocal tariffs — set to back into effect in July absent new trade deals — “has created a challenge to quantifying the precise tariff rate that would be applied to our module shipments into and beyond the second half of this year.”
Widmar said the company expects to move its manufacturing facility in India “away from exports to the U.S.,” and instead will have it produce solar panels for the domestic Indian market. Its factories in Malaysia and Vietnam may see reduced production due to “potentially reduced U.S. demand environment for non-domestic product.”
Widmar also called out the ever-evolving policy around Chinese solar imports into the United States. Solar panels from China itself, as well as four Southeast Asian nations face punitive import duties as high as 3,521% after the federal government determined Chinese companies were “dumping” panels on the U.S. market and trying to circumvent tariffs by moving production to neighboring countries. Widmar said there had been a “surge” of cells and modules from Laos and Indonesia.
“We have no doubt that these Chinese manufacturers are also seeking to establish production and other regions around the world, such as Saudi Arabia, forcing us into a continued game of whack-a-mole,” Widmar said.
Several analysts downgraded the company, with Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith writing in a note to clients that there were questions about “about the profitability of its core business.”
That the tariffs have affected First Solar, long held out as a kind of American solar manufacturing national champion, bodes poorly for much of the rest of the renewable industry, which is still often tightly linked to Asian nations and especially China.
There have been some hints that there’s no safe ground from tariffs in the U.S. clean energy industry. The most vertically integrated green technology company in the United States, Tesla, has flagged repeatedly to investors and the public that it’s at risk from tariffs, whether for certain parts of its cars or, especially, for its stationary storage batteries — which, like much of the rest of the storage industry, relies on a Chinese supply chain.
“Given the majority of the [battery electric storage systems] components with some dependency on Chinese supply chain, solar-plus-storage projects in particular may face significantly increased costs,” Widmar said. Morgan Stanley’s Perocco described Widmar’s comments on solar-plus-storage as a “negative read-through for other utility-scale solar and storage exposed stocks,” such as Array Technologies, Shoals Technology Group, and Fluence. Array and Shoals are down 10% and 3% respectively, while Fluence is about flat on the day.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.