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:
“Rapidly evolving trade policy” could weigh on demand, according to the company’s first-quarter earnings report.

Tesla’s fastest growing business is its energy storage products — which also happens to be the part of Tesla’s business that’s most affected by the onslaught of new tariffs, especially on China.
“While the current tariff landscape will have a relatively larger impact on our Energy business compared to automotive, we are taking actions to stabilize the business in the medium to long-term and focus on maintaining its health,” the company said in its first quarter earnings report, released after the market closed on Tuesday. The report also credited “rapidly evolving trade policy” for creating supply chain and market uncertainty. “This dynamic, along with changing political sentiment, could have a meaningful impact on demand for our products in the near-term.”
“The impact of the tariffs on the energy business will be outsize” since it sources battery cells from China, Tesla’s chief financial officer Vaibhav Taneja said on the company’s earnings call. While it’s in the process of commissioning equipment to make its own battery cells, Taneja said, that facility will only be able to service a “fraction” of the company’s needs. The company is also working on building out a non-China battery supply chain, “but that will take time,” Taneja said.
The company’s overall revenues of $19.3 billion and profits of $3.1 billion were 9% and 15% lower, respectively, than they were a year ago, and short of what analysts expected. Total automotive revenues fell by 20% to $14 billion.
Tesla’s energy generation and storage revenue of $2.7 billion, meanwhile, was notably lower than the $3 billion it reported from the three months prior, although it was also 67% percent higher than the first quarter of 2024.
The energy segment — which includes the company’s battery energy storage businesses for residences (Powerwall) and for utility-scale generation (Megapack) — has recently been a bright spot for the company, even as its car sales have leveled off and declined. Energy revenues grew from $1.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2023 to just over $3 billion a year later, a more than 100% gain, while overall revenue fell 8% in the same time period.
“The energy business is doing very well,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on the company’s earnings call, and predicted that the business would eventually deploy terawatts of capacity per year. (It deployed over 36 gigawatts in the past year.)
Some analysts consider Tesla’s energy business to be nearly as valuable as its auto business. Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas valued the energy business at $67 per share earlier this week, compared to $76 per share for the company’s core auto business.
Tesla declined to give any specific growth outlook for the rest of 2025. “The rate of growth this year will depend on a variety of factors, including the rate of acceleration of our autonomy efforts, production ramp at our factories and the broader macroeconomic environment,” the company said, adding that it would revisit its growth guidance in the second quarter.
While Tesla has made huge efforts to onshore its vehicle supply chain, including its batteries, in pursuit of maxing out tax credits available under the Inflation Reduction Act, its stationary energy storage business is closely linked to China, thanks to its use of lithium iron phosphate technology, a.k.a. LFP, whose supply chain is almost entirely Chinese.
All existing policies combined add up to a 156% surcharge on battery imports from China. Before Trump’s early-April tariff announcements, energy analysts at BNEF had forecast that battery prices would drop 13% this year. They now project that prices for stationary storage batteries will rise by 58%, to $322 per kilowatt-hour.
Early last year, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was working on using old equipment from Chinese battery giant CATL at a new factory in Nevada to build cells for its Megapack storage product. The facility’s initial capacity was reported to be some 10 gigawatt-hours, though it could “eventually” be responsible for 20% of Tesla’s battery production in the region, which already features a Megapack facility in Lathrop, California with 40 gigawatts of capacity.
That other facility, Iola Hughes, head of research at Rho Motion, told me, “is entirely reliant on CATL cells.”
“CATL does not have LFP production outside of China, so it leaves [Tesla] in a position of either having to pay this higher tariff level, which would cut into Tesla’s energy storage margin, or potentially considering using another player,” Hughes said.
This would not be the first time that Tesla’s relationship with China tripped it up. Some Tesla Model 3s were briefly ineligible for the full electric vehicle tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act, likely due foreign content in their battery. (All Model 3s are now eligible for the full credit.)
The tariffs on China come on top of a previously scheduled tariff increase on lithium storage batteries. Those lithium-storage-specific tariff rates are set to jump to 25% from 7.5% in 2026, thanks to increases in tariffs on a range of Chinese goods put in place by the Biden administration in 2024. While other tariff hikes were immediate, the battery tariffs were set to go into place in 2026.
“The reason that exemption was put in place was because the chemistry of choice for storage is LFP, and the LFP supply chain is almost entirely concentrated in China,” Hughes told me. “Last year, 99% of LFP sales produced were made in China.”
Under the maximum possible tariff scenario — where all the current Trump tariffs stay in place, the battery tariffs go into effect, and Trump-threatened tariffs for buyers of Venezuelan oil (China bought 55% of Venezuela’s oil exports last year) become reality — tariffs on lithium batteries could approach 200%.
Across the storage industry, “we saw quite a big pre-buy” in late 2024 and early this year, Hughes said. “People were essentially stockpiling cells and systems to get ahead of the tariffs, because there was some anticipation these would come.” But the effects can only be delayed so long. “Towards the end of 2025 is when we expect to see a bigger impact,” Hughes said.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The August Electricity Price Hub data is in.
It’s another hot and expensive summer.
Across the country, average household electricity bills are up 2.7% in the first eight months of the year, according to the latest update to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, tacking on $4 per month to the typical bill. This level of rise is consistent with the pace set in 2024 and 2025, but faster than 2021 and 2023.
As we’ve discussed before, some of the fastest growth in prices comes either in the Atlantic Seaboard — with Washington, D.C., Virginia, and New Jersey all having year over year growth rates of at least 7.5% — thanks largely to increased demand and capacity payments in the PJM Interconnection marketplace. Another standout so far this year is Hawaii, which is uniquely dependent on imported oil to power its grid and has seen its 12-month trailing average prices rise by over 8% so far this year.
California, which is well known for seeing especially sharp price increases in recent years largely due to wildfire-related costs, has seen somewhat restrained bill growth so far this year across the state, with the 12-month-rolling average bill rising just 3% in the past 12 months and prices going up 4%. (That price level is still quite high, however, at almost 32 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to a national average of around 19.)
Rates charged by Southern California Edison, one of the state’s big three investor-owned utilities, are up almost 15% in the past year, averaged across its baseline regions. The MIT researchers attribute this increase to two major factors: one, a decrease in the California Climate Credit, which is paid out to electricity customers from the state’s emissions cap-and-invest program. This year, the credit for Southern California Edison ratepayers is $72, applied to bills in July and August in tranches of $36. Last year, by contrast, Southern California Edison handed out $112 in two tranches, April and October.
The second factor in Southern California Edison’s inflated bills is an increase in the fixed charge portion of the bills ratepayers receive. Following changes in California state law designed to distribute the cost of the grid more equitably, SCE revamped its rate structure at the end of last year to include a “Base Services Charge” of $24 per month for customers not enrolled in any special rate program. At the same time, SCE instituted a roughly 10% decrease in its per-kilowatt-hour electricity rate in order to protect lower-income ratepayers (who would pay a fixed charge substantially lower than the baseline $24). PG&E moved to a similar system earlier this year.
When it introduced the new rates in November of last year, SCE said that “medium energy users” would likely see little change in their bills. Price Hub data suggests, however, that the typical household has seen a bill increase from the new service charge of 13%, even before accounting for the smaller climate credit.
A new policy proposal argues that large load tariffs on their own aren’t enough.
Earlier this year, I attempted to draw up a web diagram about energy affordability. My head was spinning from reading social media threads of experts arguing over the reasons electricity rates were so high, the best strategies to lower them, and how the data center explosion fit into the picture. I wanted to see all of the ideas laid out in one place. Here’s what I sketched out at the time:

That was in March. Looking back at it now, a few things stand out. Of course, Washington hasn't gotten anywhere meaningful yet on permitting reform. Also, the BYOP, or “bring your own power,” idea has in some cases become a justification to build huge off-grid natural gas power plants. Amazon, for example, defended backing what may become the largest fossil fuel plant in the country by saying that it “believes in paying the full costs of powering our operations,” and that the Texas data center project is “powered by new on-site generation that won’t raise electricity costs for Texas families.”
On the other hand, there have been some promising developments in deploying virtual power plants and “grid edge” technologies like rooftop solar, to the benefit of both tech companies and regular folks. In July, New Jersey passed a law to incentivize data center developers to fund virtual power plants that can create more capacity on the grid. The program could ultimately help residential customers get solar panels and batteries, which would bring down their energy bills. Just today, Google announced a partnership with the California utility PG&E to offer residential customers discounts on heat pumps combined with battery energy storage in Alameda and Santa Clara counties. The first 25 homeowners to sign up will get $10,000 off; after that the discount is $5,000.
Get Heatmap Daily in your inbox.
One strategy I didn’t jot down back in March was the “large load tariff.” This is when utility regulators create a new electricity rate class for large energy users that helps isolate the costs of serving these customers. A growing number of states have gone one step further and developed data center-specific tariffs, with requirements like charging data centers a minimum fee regardless of how much energy they use, and, in some cases, creating incentives for them to build new renewable energy projects.
A policy paper that came across my desk this week argues that this approach doesn’t go far enough. It says that states have an opportunity to fund the modernization of the electric grid by adding a surcharge on top of large load tariffs.
The paper is from the State Support Center, a nonprofit that provides clean energy policy recommendations and technical assistance to states. It was co-founded by Sam Ricketts, one of the founders of the climate group Evergreen Action and a significant voice in shaping the Inflation Reduction Act. Initially, the Center helped states figure out how to take advantage of all of the new federal funding that came out of that law. Now, like the rest of us, Ricketts is thinking about data centers.
“State policymakers are looking for ways to meet the load growth that is predominantly being driven by data centers,” he told me. “There hasn't been a thorough-enough discussion about capturing investments that large data center loads are making and using those revenues to drive investment into key barriers for the clean grid expansion that the electricity system in the U.S. now needs.”
Traditional large load tariffs are about cost assignment, Ricketts said: Regulators determine the cost of network and operational upgrades required to serve big customers and require utilities to pass those on directly rather than spreading them across the entire customer base. This is just the baseline of what data center developers should do to pay their “fair share,” though, Ricketts argued. Even if large load tariffs help cover the cost of new power plants, they don’t necessarily help solve the interconnection bottlenecks that are preventing generators — especially renewables — from joining the grid, for example.
By adding a simple per-megawatt surcharge to the rates data centers pay, states could raise revenue to accelerate interconnection. They could fund additional staff and invest in new software solutions to help move through the queue of projects waiting to connect faster. They could also put the money toward financing grid upgrades, such as installing grid-enhancing technologies that create more capacity on existing power lines. Alternatively, they could use the money to reward cities and towns for permitting projects more quickly, or to support siting and permitting at the state level, the paper suggests.
Ricketts told me that many state utility commissions have the power to do this today, and those that don’t would require just a simple bit of legislation to empower them. New York could become the first to adopt the idea. In June, Governor Kathy Hochul directed the state’s Department of Public Service to consider requiring data centers to invest in a “grid acceleration fund.”
Several states have already levied similar fees on data centers — they just haven’t dedicated the money toward grid upgrades. A new $0.01-per-kilowatt-hour surcharge on loads larger than 100 megawatts in Oregon will fund efficiency and distributed energy projects that reduce costs for residential customers. Virginia enacted a $0.011 per kilowatt-hour data center electricity consumption tax that will raise money for the state’s general fund. It’s expected to generate $600 million per year.
The paper doesn’t pitch the surcharge as a cure-all, nor does it touch the issue of public opposition or federal permitting obstacles. “The surcharge as envisioned and proposed here is pretty modest,” Ricketts told me. “It is trying to attend to a gap, which is like, hey, there's an opportunity here to capture reinvestment into the grid needs that are truly necessary.”
Under the sheet metal it’s basically a Toyota — but maybe that’s okay.
I’ve seen these cupholders before. The same goes for the pair of wireless phone charging mats in this Subaru EV, the wheel that spins to select drive or reverse, and the storage cubby between the driver and shotgun seat with its awkwardly positioned “open” button. Even the big central touchscreen and its software are fundamentally identical to the ones I remember — right down to the navigation system’s voice-activated assistant represented by a weird on-screen bubble.
It’s no coincidence the interior of the new Subaru Trailseeker feels so familiar: I just saw it a couple of months ago while test-driving the Toyota CH-R. The two Japanese carmakers have been co-developing the bones of their electric cars together for several years now. Their dueling lineups of new models are, to a large degree, the same vehicles under the sheet metal: The Toyota CH-R and Subaru Uncharted small crossovers are effectively twins. So, too, are the Subaru Trailseeker I drove this week and the Toyota Bz Woodland, the stretched, outdoorsy version of Toyota’s EV.
Sharing parts and even platforms is nothing new. Car companies have partnered with their rivals in the past to split research and development costs. Subie and Toyota have been following this playbook since the gasoline era; in the 2010s they created a lovely small sports car badged as either the Subaru BRZ or the Scion FR-S (back when Toyota used the Scion brand to sell sportier, more “youthful” cars in America).

But sharing has become a more pressing issue in the era of electric driving, as the legacy car companies look for ways to save money as they spend billions learning how to transition their businesses toward battery power. Honda, the other Japanese auto giant, borrowed the General Motors platform to build the Prologue, its most recent attempt at an EV for America. That car sold competitively with the other non-Tesla EVs in the U.S., demonstrating there were some Honda drivers hungry for their brand to make a new EV. But that approach only got Honda so far. The company’s attempts to build a better EV from the ground up have stalled, and it has now canceled an ambitious slate of planned vehicles.
As for Toyota and Subaru, there is much to be gained from this tactic. If you’re a driver simply pondering whether to switch from the gas-powered Outback to the Trailseeker with your next Subaru purchase, you might not care that electric Subarus are just Toyotas on the inside. Still, sharing technology also raises the question: If a Subaru is just a Toyota under the skin, then is calling the car a Subaru enough for the brand’s devotees? The answer, I think, is a possibly surprising “yes.”
At the simplest level, Subaru’s electric cars do succeed in feeling like distinct vehicles. In this clip, one of Toyota’s lead engineers explains some of the philosophical differences that lead the two companies to build different products on top of the same bones. To simplify: Subaru builds with acceleration and sportiness in mind, while Toyota is more focused on braking and safety.
You can feel the difference. Toyota scales up the power depending on how much you pay, from 168 horsepower in the entry-level Bz to 375 horsepower for the outdoorsy Bz Woodland.

Subaru offers all-wheel-drive and 375 horsepower with every trim level of the Trailseeker, and the car is zippy and eager. The high ground clearance and road trip-ready roof rack certainly makes the EV feel appropriately Subaru. While the other vehicles that came out of this partnership were built at Toyota factories in Japan, Trailseeker (and its Toyota twin) were built at a Subaru factory.
And for a long vehicle with lots of storage space in the back, Trailseeker is pretty efficient. I made a decent 3.5 miles per kilowatt-hour on a highway drive from L.A to Santa Barbara, and the Subaru would top 4 miles per kilowatt-hour at city speeds. That efficiency is important, as it stretches the EV’s real-world range above 250 miles, giving it the legs it needs to visit the far-flung outdoorsy destinations Subaru drivers like to visit.
The trouble with co-development is that Subaru’s EVs, though they are fun and capable vehicles, are stuck with the same problems as Toyota’s. The Subaru also doesn’t feature fun or game-changing EV features like a frunk or one-pedal driving. Owners complain that there’s no way to, say, change the charging maximum to from 80% to 100% once a charging session has started, a simple task that can be accomplished with a tap on a phone app in other vehicles.
The car’s built-in navigation system, meanwhile, can list nearby EV chargers if you know where to ask, but it doesn’t incorporate them into its route planning like a Tesla, Rivian, or even Hyundai would do. This is more annoying than you might think, especially in this muddled moment in charging. Trailseeker, having adopted the Tesla NACS plug that is now becoming the industry standard, can charge at some Superchargers — but Tesla doesn’t allow other brands’ EVs at all of its stations, and you have to check their app to see which are okay. Lots of older third-party charging stations, meanwhile, still use the CCS plug that used to be common on EVs, so you’d need an adapter to plug in the Subaru there. That means that in the Trailseeker, you need either a charging strategy in advance or a co-pilot in the passenger seat checking multiple phone apps for you. (These issues can be solved somewhat by using one’s own apps through Apple CarPlay.)
What the Trailseeker is not, most fundamentally, is a Rivian. When that company teased the R2 and R3 a couple of years ago, we said it had the opportunity to dominate an outdoorsy, all-wheel-drive space in the car market that was more or less vacant because Subaru had dragged its feet on electrifying, having released only the disappointing Solterra. R2 is finally available, and compared to Trailseeker, the Rivian is much closer to the Tesla model of what an EV should be — its interface is far more sophisticated, and foundationally, it just feels so much more like a vehicle that was built from the ground up to be electric, not a car built by a legacy automaker still trying to figure out what an EV should be.
But here’s the thing: A lot of drivers, including plenty of Subaru lifers, don’t want the Tesla model. This Reddit post nicely captures the tension: EV-focused reviewers like me invariably notice what’s missing in a vehicle like Trailseeker compared to other electric cars. When you compare the Subie to gas-powered vehicles, though, you notice what’s there — the basic competencies like off-road ruggedness, roof racks, and honest-to-goodness door handles that make people love Subarus in the first place.
The price doesn’t hurt, either. Trailseeker’s key performance features — all-wheel drive, 375 horsepower, 280 miles of maximum range — are available on the simplest version that starts at $39,995, while the top-of-the-line $46,555 version gets more creature comforts. Toyota doesn’t sell an entry-level version of the Trailseeker’s twin, the Bz Woodland, only a fully-decked out edition that’s more than $45,000. Rivian’s fancier versions of R2, by contrast, cost well into the $50,000, with a $45,000 base model due in 2027.
Trailseeker, in other words, is a reasonably affordable, good EV that just works — and that you can buy at the same dealership across town that sold you your last two Outbacks. Which is all a lot of Subaru drivers ever really wanted.