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.
Clean energy stocks were up after the court ruled that the president lacked legal authority to impose the trade barriers.
The Supreme Court struck down several of Donald Trump’s tariffs — the “fentanyl” tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China and the worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs ostensibly designed to cure the trade deficit — on Friday morning, ruling that they are illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The actual details of refunding tariffs will have to be addressed by lower courts. Meanwhile, the White House has previewed plans to quickly reimpose tariffs under other, better-established authorities.
The tariffs have weighed heavily on clean energy manufacturers, with several companies’ share prices falling dramatically in the wake of the initial announcements in April and tariff discussion dominating subsequent earnings calls. Now there’s been a sigh of relief, although many analysts expected the Court to be extremely skeptical of the Trump administration’s legal arguments for the tariffs.
The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF was up almost 1%, and shares in the solar manufacturer First Solar and the inverter company Enphase were up over 5% and 3%, respectively.
First Solar initially seemed like a winner of the trade barriers, however the company said during its first quarter earnings call last year that the high tariff rate and uncertainty about future policy negatively affected investments it had made in Asia for the U.S. market. Enphase, the inverter and battery company, reported that its gross margins included five percentage points of negative impact from reciprocal tariffs.
Trump unveiled the reciprocal tariffs on April 2, a.k.a. “liberation day,” and they have dominated decisionmaking and investor sentiment for clean energy companies. Despite extensive efforts to build an American supply chain, many U.S. clean energy companies — especially if they deal with batteries or solar — are still often dependent on imports, especially from Asia and specifically China.
In an April earnings call, Tesla’s chief financial officer said that the impact of tariffs on the company’s energy business would be “outsized.” The turbine manufacturer GE Vernova predicted hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs.
Companies scrambled and accelerated their efforts to source products and supplies from the United States, or at least anywhere other than China.
Even though the tariffs were quickly dialed back following a brutal market reaction, costs that were still being felt through the end of last year. Tesla said during its January earnings call that it expected margins to shrink in its energy business due to “policy uncertainty” and the “cost of tariffs.”
Current conditions: More than a foot of snow is blanketing the California mountains • With thousands already displaced by flooding, Papua New Guinea is facing more days of thunderstorms ahead • It’s snowing in Ulaanbaatar today, and temperatures in the Mongolian capital will plunge from 31 degrees Fahrenheit to as low as 2 degrees by Sunday.
We all know the truisms of market logic 101. Precious metals surge when political volatility threatens economic instability. Gun stocks pop when a mass shooting stirs calls for firearm restrictions. And — as anyone who’s been paying attention to the world over the past year knows — oil prices spike when war with Iran looks imminent. Sure enough, the price of crude hit a six-month high Wednesday before inching upward still on Thursday after President Donald Trump publicly gave Tehran 10 to 15 days to agree to a peace deal or face “bad things.” Despite the largest U.S. troop buildup in the Middle East since 2003, the American military action won’t feature a ground invasion, said Gregory Brew, the Eurasia Group analyst who tracks Iran and energy issues. “It will be air strikes, possibly commando raids,” he wrote Thursday in a series of posts on X. Comparisons to Iraq “miss the mark,” he said, because whatever Trump does will likely wrap up in days. The bigger issue is that the conflict likely won’t resolve any of the issues that make Iran such a flashpoint. “There will be no deal, the regime will still be there, the missile and nuclear programs will remain and will be slowly rebuilt,” Brew wrote. “In six months, we could be back in the same situation.”
California, Colorado, and Washington led 10 other states in suing the Trump administration this week over the Department of Energy’s termination of billions in federal funding for clean energy and infrastructure projects. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, the states accuse the agency of using a “nebulous and opaque” review process to justify slashing billions in funding that was already awarded. “These aren’t optional programs — these are investments approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit, according to Courthouse News Service. “The president doesn’t get to cancel them simply because he disagrees with them. California won’t allow President Trump and his administration to play politics with our economy, our energy grid and our jobs.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:

If you’re looking for a sign of the coming geothermal energy boom in the U.S., consider this: There is now a double-digit number of next-generation projects underway, according to an overview the Energy Information Administration published Thursday. For the past century, geothermal energy has relied upon finding and tapping into suitably hot underground reservoirs of water. But a new generation of “enhanced” geothermal companies is using modern drilling techniques to harness heat from dry rocks.

If you’re looking for a thorough overview of the technology, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote the definitive 101 explainer here. But a few represent some of the earliest experiments in enhanced geothermal, including the Fenton Hill in New Mexico, established in the 1970s, which was the world’s first successful project to use the technology.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
When Exxon Mobil announced plans in December to scale back its spending on low-carbon investments, the oil giant justified the move in part on all the carbon capture and storage projects poised to come online this year that would vault the company ahead of its rivals. This week, Exxon Mobil started transporting and storing captured carbon dioxide at its latest facility in Louisiana. The New Generation Gas Gathering facility on the western edge of the state’s Gulf Coast is the company’s second CCS project in Louisiana. Known as NG3, the project is set to remove 1.2 million tons of CO2 per year from gas streams headed to export markets on the coast. The Carbon Herald reported that two additional CCS projects are set to start up operations this year.
CCS got a big boost in October when Google agreed to back construction of a gas-fired power plant built with carbon capture tech from the ground up. The plant, which Matthew noted at the time would be the first of its kind at a commercial scale, is sited near a well where captured carbon can be injected. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are reportedly probing the Trump administration’s decision to redirect CCS funding to coal plants.
In 2019, Maine expanded its Net Energy Billing program to subsidize construction of commercial-scale solar farms across the state. “And it worked,” Maine Public Radio reported last July when the state passed a law to phase out the funding, “too well, some argue.” In 2025 alone, ratepayers in the state were on the hook for $234 million to support the program. Solar companies sued, arguing that the abrupt cut to state support had unfairly deprived them of funding. But this week U.S. District Judge Stacey Neumann denied a motion the owners of dozens of solar farms filed requesting an injunction.
That isn’t to say things aren’t looking sunny for solar in Maine. On the contrary, just yesterday the developer Swift Current Energy secured $248 million in project financing for a 122-megawatt solar farm and the Poland Spring water company went on statewide TV to show off the new panels on its bottling plant. The federal outlook isn’t as bright at the moment. As Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported in December, the solar industry was begging Congress for help to end the Trump administration’s permitting blockade on new projects on federal lands.
The Trump-stumping country music star John Rich is continuing his crusade against the Tennessee Valley Authority. Months after blocking construction of a gas plant in his neighborhood, Rich personally pressed TVA CEO Don Moul to reroute a transmission line, posting a video Thursday of farmers who opposed the federal utility’s use of the right of way process to push through the project. Rich said Moul “personally told me as of this morning” TVA will put the effort on hold. The left-wing energy writer and Heatmap contributor Fred Stafford summed it up this way on X: “MAGA NIMBY rises, Dark Abundance falls. TVA ratepayers will be paying more for a rerouted transmission project because this country music star threw his support behind a local farmer who refuses to allow the transmission line to cross his land.”
Rob talks about the consumer response to fuel economy with Yale’s Kenneth Gillingham, then gets the latest Clean Investment Monitor data from Rhodium Group’s Hannah Hess.
It hasn't attracted as much attention as you might expect, but President Donald Trump has essentially killed all fuel economy rules on cars and trucks in the United States.
By the end of the year, automakers will face virtually no limits on how many huge gas guzzlers they can sell to the public — or what those purchases will do to domestic oil prices. But is the thinking driving this change up to date?
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of environmental and energy economics at Yale. They chat about how the economics profession changed its mind about fuel efficiency rules for cars and trucks — and then recently changed its mind again. They also debrief about what the Trump rollback gets right and wrong in its key economic assumptions and how that might affect its reception.
Then Rob chats with Hannah Hess, an associate director from the Rhodium Group about new Clean Investment Monitor data that shows the U.S. clean energy economy was a “tale of two industries” in Q4 2025.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: Let’s just roll the clock back to 2015 or 2016. At that point, the Obama-era standards had been in effect for some time. Where was the field of economics thinking about the efficiency gains from efficiency-based regulation in cars?
Kenneth Gillingham: That’s a great question. A series of papers came out in the early 2010s, either as working papers initially, and then they were published in those subsequent years. So if you were asking even me around 2015, I would have said, well, it does appear that consumers do value a lot of the future fuel savings and perhaps nearly all of the future fuel savings. If that is the case, that pulls out one of the key motivations for fuel economy standards or vehicle greenhouse gas standards that save fuel: It makes it harder for those standards to look to have positive net benefits.
Meyer: And I should say that neither the CAFE standards, which are from the Department of Transportation and regulate fuel mileage, nor the EPA greenhouse gas standards, which regulate the number of the amount of tons of carbon that come out of the car, like the truck tailpipe — they’re not cost free, right? They cost — I mean, at least as of the time of the first Trump administration — they cost like, they added to the cost of vehicles by about a thousand dollars or $1,200 dollars a vehicle on average. Now, consumers saved that over the life of the vehicle many times over. But if consumers are already taking into account those efficiency gains, then that tradeoff that the rules kind of forced consumers in maybe weren’t worth it.
Before we move on to where we are now, just staying in this 2015 zone, how did the literature reach this conclusion? What methodology were economists using to say, actually, consumers take all the fuel savings into account when they make a purchasing decision?
Gillingham: It’s a great question. So conceptually, they were looking at prices and quantities of vehicles. And they were looking at cases where you had, for some reason, the efficiency was improved, so there was some way, some exogenous way that efficiency was improved. And then looking at how the prices on the market re-equilibrated. And in particular, this was used for used cars. So much of the early 2010 literature that we’re talking about here brings in used cars and new cars. But importantly, it is including used cars and looking at how used car prices change with efficiency changes. Some of the literature was new cars as well, but they were generally finding relatively high valuation ratios.
Meyer: Give us an example. Is this like consumers, when they were buying a Prius, took into account all the fuel savings from that Prius as compared to like, say, a Toyota Tacoma, like the Prius price included this premium for fuel efficiency?
Gillingham: That’s exactly right.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
From Heatmap: Trump’s One Big Beautiful Blow to the EV Supply Chain
Clean Investment Monitor’s U.S. Q4 2025 Update
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Explore the 10-month Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Use referral code HeatMap26 and get your application in by the priority deadline for $500 off tuition to one of Yale’s online certificate programs in clean energy. Learn more at cbey.yale.edu/online-learning-opportunities.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.