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 areset 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.
On Musk’s next move, earnings calls, and Earth Day EOs
Current conditions: The windiest April in 50 years is causing problems for farmers in the Midwest and Southern Plains • New Delhi marked its hottest day of the year so far, with temperatures breaking 106 degrees Fahrenheit • It was mild and sunny in Tokyo’s Yoyogi Park today, where tens of thousands celebrated Earth Day.
Elon Musk is “ready to exit” the government because “he is tired of fielding what he views as a slew of nasty and unethical attacks from the political left,” The Washington Postreports. Though a timeline isn’t clear, much less confirmed, Musk’s special government employee status expires at the end of May.
Musk has dramatically reshaped the federal workforce during his short tenure of influence. His Department of Government Efficiency has been responsible for deep cuts to agencies like the Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as we’ve covered at Heatmap. The efficiency agency’s work is not expected to cease if or when Musk exits, the Post adds. The Tesla CEO has repeatedly rubbed political insiders the wrong way by “failing to coordinate” with President Trump’s Cabinet and making embarrassing mistakes in his accounting of his team’s success, The New York Timesnotes.
Image: David Ryder/Getty Images
Speaking of Musk, in a week jam-packed with first-quarter earnings calls, none is more anticipated than Tesla’s on Tuesday. Dan Ives, an analyst for Wedbush Securities and one of Tesla’s most devoted bulls, has warned that CEO Elon Musk is staring down a “code red” moment due to his unpopular dallying in federal policy. “Anyone that thinks the brand damage Musk has inflicted is not a real thing, spend some time speaking to car buyers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia,” Ives wrote in a report to clients per CNN. Musk is also expected to face questions on “volume sales for 2025, progress on autonomous driving and plans for a robotaxi network, and how tariffs will impact profitability,” Bloombergwrites.
Here’s a look at other key Q1 earnings calls happening this week:
Environmental groups are bracing for executive orders aimed at rescinding their nonprofit status — orders that may be timed to coincide with Earth Day, Bloomberg and Inside Climate News report. Trump has suggested he’d soon be making statements about groups that are “so rich, so strong, and then they go so bad.” Although the available information is still largely based on rumors, insiders have suggested that nonprofits involved in legal work may be particularly vulnerable to targeting by the Trump administration. On Monday, however, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told the press that he does not support the government “broadly” reconsidering the tax-exempt status of climate groups, journalist Antonia Juhasz shared on Bluesky.
On Monday, the U.S. finalized tariffs on solar imports from Southeast Asia, setting duties as high as 3,521%. The decision follows a “year-old trade case brought by American manufacturers that accuse their overseas rivals of flooding the market with unfairly cheap goods,” Reuters reports, though PV Magazinecalled the numbers released by the Commerce Department “unexpectedly high.” The four countries targeted in the decision include Vietnam, which faces rates as high as 395.9%; Thailand, with rates as high as 375.2%; Malaysia, as high as 34.4%; and Cambodia, with 3,521%, inflicted partially because of “the country’s decision to stop participating in the investigation,” Bloombergreports. The American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee celebrated the decision, with lead counsel Tim Brightbill saying, “It’s been a big day for U.S. solar manufacturing. We’re really happy with the results.”
Saudi state-owned oil company Aramco announced Monday that it has partnered with Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer BYD to collaborate on “the development of innovative technologies that enhance efficiency and environmental performance.” The decision will enable Aramco to broaden its investments in clean energy alternatives and support BYD’s global expansion, according to OilPrice.com. The agreement also includes “access to extensive R&D and operational infrastructure in the Middle East” for the EV-maker. BYD opened its first store in Saudi Arabia in February 2024; the Saudi government, meanwhile, has stated its intent to hit a 30% target for new energy vehicle technologies by 2030.
New England recorded its lowest ever electricity demand on its six-state regional grid on Sunday, thanks in part to the region’s many “behind-the-meter” rooftop solar resources.
A conversation about perovskite, scale, and “soft costs” with Tandem PV CEO Scott Wharton.
What happens after solar modules get cheap? The relentless cost declines for solar technology driven by mass production and steady innovation — largely in China — has resulted in a commercial ecosystem where pricing is dominated by everything but the solar panels themselves.
In this world, a more efficient panel is not necessarily one that costs less to buy from a supplier, but rather one that can optimize on these “soft costs,” getting more energy out of the given time and money spent on installing the panel. This will come to matter more and more as solar costs inevitably plateau — and especially if Congress decides to eliminate clean energy incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act, which, combined with high tariffs on solar imports from Asia, could take away solar’s cost advantage over new natural gas-fired power.
At least that’s the thesis of Tandem PV, which uses so-called perovskite technology to build solar panels that, the company says, are already more efficient than existing silicon panels, and could become almost twice as efficient as existing panels as the technology improves. Perovskite refers to a group of minerals that share a similar structure and which, when stacked with silicon, can absorb a broad range of light, maximizing the efficiency of converting light to electricity.
I spoke with Tandem PV chief executive Scott Wharton about why he thinks that even in this era of rock bottom costs, greater performance will still win the day. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Why does it not matter so much that your solar panels are a little more expensive than other ones?
Well, I would say, for the whole history of solar panels, the cost of it was really high. There was this move to get the cost down, reduce the green premium, etc. We’re now in a world where that view is, I would say, antiquated.
And by cost, you mean the cost of the physical module.
The cost of the panel itself, yeah. The reason why is that for utility scale, which is where we’re focused on, only 20% of the cost is the panel. So 80% of the actual cost of a solar deployment — which is what matters, right? The cost of deploying it — labor, land, the balance of systems, the construction loans. It’s typical, I would say, of engineers — everything’s about the commodity. Whereas from my experience, it depends on the total cost. What we’re doing is, we’re saving the cost where it matters: on the labor.
So I guess the argument you’re trying to make is that even if the upfront cost of the panel is higher, the higher efficiency actually does make the kind of physical cost over time go down — and then all the soft costs, I imagine, are basically the same. Or is there any argument why the soft costs would be different, too?
First of all, I’m not sure that we will charge a premium. We want to be the same or cheaper. But even if we did, the point is that most of the cost is in those other things: labor, land, and installation. So if our panel has 30% more power in a single panel — a 28% [efficient] panel is about [third] more [efficient] than a 21% panel — then you need 30% fewer panels.
The other thing I learned recently is that people think that, oh, you just have this huge parcel of land and everything is equal. But a lot of times, when you’re deploying solar, you can’t actually fit everything on one parcel. So there’s a savings from having more density.
There’s also an issue where a lot of the best solar locations are taken, or you don’t have a ton of choice, necessarily, about where you put your panels because co-location matters so much. So it’s even more important to have efficiency in how you use that land.
Where is Tandem PV on the trajectory from lab to mass deployment?
We just announced a $50 million [Series A funding round], and we’re building out the first significant commercial perovskite factory in the United States. Conventional wisdom for manufacturing is, you put it as far away as possible. I think when you’re trying to do something really new, it’s probably the same story: It seems cheaper, but it’s not. Because if it takes you six more months because you’re flying back and forth and people don’t understand each other, then that actually costs you money and time and delay. We’re going to emphasize quality and speed over cost.
If we do this right, then the theory is, we’ve become the next, First Solar — that’s our intention. We want to take back solar leadership from China, which is a bold statement, but I think we’re on the journey. I tell the team, it’s like a bicycle race, where you go slowly, slowly, slowly, and then there’s a point where you need to break out. Well, I think we’ve broken out. Whether we fall flat on our face because we’re exhausted or we jump out ahead, we’ll see what history writes.
Obviously a big story in the solar industry is cost declining so much, and that’s tied to, a very specific technological stack. What do you guys have to do besides demonstrating results to tell the story that a different technology might be necessary?
So number one, there’s a reason why people are interested in perovskites. It’s 200 times thinner than traditional silicon panels — no rare earth minerals or metals, no mining.
What people don’t know about silicon solar is, you’ve got to heat this up to, like, 2,000 degrees Celsius to purify it, and it’s very, very expensive. We’re using the same glass and basically putting on a 1 micron-thick layer of ink. So we’re adding a little bit of cost, but you get a lot more energy for it than what you add.
The second thing is, we’re not actually competing with silicon so much as we’re building on top of it. As silicon technology gets better and cheaper, our product gets better and cheaper. And then the third thing is, see point number one, where we started. If you have a 28% or 30% [efficient] panel — by the way, silicon hits its physics limits at 26%. It can never get better than that. So we’re already better than where silicon is. And as labor and land become more expensive in the United States and around the world, it actually is cheaper to make something that focuses on where all the costs are.
I know you’re not in mass production yet, but are you going out to utility scale developers? Do they want a more efficient panel, or are they just comfortable working with the stuff they normally work with?
It’s both. They like what they have, but their feedback is — especially given all the supply chain risks that are going on around the world — if you can build it, we’ll buy it. We’re basically building something that is the same thing they already have, for a market that we already know. And is there a market for electricity? Yeah, there’s going to be a huge shortage of it with the AI boom. So we feel pretty confident that if we can build this, they will come.
Putting aside public policy issues, what’s to stop one of the big Chinese solar manufacturers from using this technology? People have been talking about it for decades.
It’s like any hard thing. It’s not a secret that people want to have rockets and go to space, it’s just a very, very hard technology. It’s the same thing as, why did Google and Apple win back the mobile phone war from the Japanese and the Germans and others? It’s a leapfrogging thing. I think the market’s up for grabs.
On LNG exports, Pope Francis’ legacy, and Schedule F
Current conditions: U.K. park rangers warn of a potentially “catastrophic” fire season after one of the driest springs on record • As many as nine tornadoes may have hit North Texas over the weekend • It’s expected to be a “nearly perfect” 43 degrees in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, today for the start of the 129th Boston Marathon.
China has “completely stopped” imports of liquified natural gas from the U.S., having last received a shipment from a tanker from Corpus Christi on February 6, the Financial Times reports. A second China-bound tanker rerouted to Bangladesh after Beijing imposed a 15% tariff on U.S. LNG in retaliation for President Trump’s initial tariffs; that duty has since increased to 49%, and imports of U.S. LNG have ceased altogether.
As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo has written, China had been a “relatively small buyer” of U.S. LNG, with only about 5% of American exports heading to the country last year. That number had been “set to rise rapidly over the next few years, however, as Chinese companies have signed a number of long-term contracts with U.S. LNG projects that are about to come online.” China, meanwhile, has turned to Russia — which has been selling gas for cheap since Europe’s boycott following the invasion of Ukraine — to meet its needs.
Nearly half of the U.S.’s LNG exports went to Europe last year, but some analysts on the continent have also begun to warn against relying on American gas due to Trump’s disregard for U.S.-EU trade norms. “We are going from one problematic dependency — on Russian pipeline gas — to another, on U.S. LNG,” Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, chief analyst and head of research at Denmark’s Global Risk Management, told Gas Outlook.
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Pope Francis, who raised awareness of climate change and called for it to be addressed with “swift and unified global action,” died on Monday, the Vatican announced. Francis had been in poor health, having been hospitalized for five weeks earlier this year, but he managed to appear for crowds on Easter Sunday for the traditional blessing from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica.
Central to Francis’ legacy are his consistent and urgent calls to protect the environment. In 2015, he published his 184-page Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home, in which he described climate change as “a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political, and for the distribution of goods,” and “one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.” In 2019 he called “ecocide” a sin and a crime against peace, and in 2023 he published a 15-page rebuke of the continued “resistance and confusion” over addressing the climate crisis, writing, “Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over, or relativize the issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident.” Poor health prevented Pope Francis from attending COP28 in Dubai that year to deliver a companion speech, but in 2024, the Vatican arranged a three-day conference on the climate, at which the pope warned political leaders to examine whether “we are working for a culture of life or for a culture of death.”
On Friday, the Office of Personnel Management filed proposed regulations to bring back Schedule F, which would reclassify and strip civil service protections from an estimated 50,000 federal workers. Now renamed “Schedule Policy/Career,” the proposal has been tweaked from the original Schedule F plan that Trump implemented at the end of his first term “to make it more legally palatable, including moving the final decision-making authority regarding the conversion of jobs to the president, rather than the OPM director,” Government Executive writes.
As I’ve written before, the Trump administration designed its reclassification of federal employees to “make it easier to replace ‘rogue’ or ‘woke’ civil servants and would-be whistleblowers, a.k.a. ‘the deep state,’ with party-line faithful.” Daniel Farber, the director of the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley, warned me that “What we’re going to end up with is an executive branch that’s just uninformed.”
The Department of Health and Human Services has eliminated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s firefighter health program, including research by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health into how to protect first responders from the dangers of electric vehicle fires, E&E News reports. The cuts were part of an 18% reduction in the HHS workforce and the nearly complete elimination of NIOSH in the name of government efficiency. The research was critical, advocates say, because EV batteries release harmful chemicals and toxins when they burn, necessitating different safety measures than those for other types of fires.
“In firefighting, it’s always, ‘Guess what, this is bad,’ after you’ve been exposed to it for 40 years,” Tim Ferretti, a CDC researcher who was recently laid off, told E&E News, adding, “But with electric cars, NIOSH was trying to be ahead of the game and stop a potential problem before it becomes a chronic issue.”
Chinese media reported on Friday that the country has successfully reloaded fuel into a working thorium molten salt reactor, making it the world’s first stable, operable reactor of its type. The experimental unit, located in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia, reportedly generates 2 megawatts of thermal power, according to Interesting Engineering.
MSRs use molten salt as a fuel carrier and coolant (instead of water) and thorium — an abundant radioactive element — as their fuel source. Many consider MSRs to be a safer form of nuclear power because they don’t use uranium, which can be “weaponized,” and they have far less risk of a meltdown because “salts can carry greater loads of thermal energy at much lower pressure” than water, Futurism writes. Due to the technical hurdles of creating an operable MSR, research by U.S. scientists tapered off after the 1940s and 1950s, was “assumed obsolete,” and had been made publicly available — reportedly serving as the backbone of the breakthrough by China. As the project’s chief scientist Xu Hongjie said in his closed-door announcement of the MSR’s success to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, “Rabbits sometimes make mistakes or grow lazy. That’s when the tortoise seizes its chance.”
“The cameras are staying on.” —A spokesperson for New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul on the state’s decision to continue charging cars a toll for entering Lower Manhattan past Sunday, the Trump administration’s deadline for ending congestion pricing.