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:
See also: federal policy, batteries, and electricity demand.
The clean energy industry is beginning to report to investors and the public on its first brush with Donald Trump’s trade policy. While earnings season has only just begun, already some broad themes are emerging across the sector: Tariffs hurt. Batteries are getting more expensive. And there’s big demand for power, especially natural gas.
Four big clean energy companies that have reported results so far — inverter and battery maker Enphase, turbine manufacturer GE Vernova, electric vehicle giant Tesla, and developer and utility NextEra — mentioned tariffs prominently in either their earnings reports or their analyst calls. GE Vernova said that tariffs would result in $300 million to $400 million of additional costs. Enphase said that tariffs would take off two percentage points from its margin in the second quarter and six to eight points of gross margin in the third quarter. Tesla said that “increasing tariffs may cause market volatility and near-term impacts to supply and demand.”
Tesla’s executives — including chief executive Elon Musk — expanded on that market volatility later in a call with investors and analysts, with Musk saying that he was an “advocate of predictable tariff structures, free trade, and lower tariffs.” Musk added that economic uncertainty could continue to weigh on Tesla’s auto sales, which notably declined in the first three months of the year. “When there is economic uncertainty, people generally want to pause on doing a major capital purchase like a car,” he observed.
NextEra chief executive John Ketchum said the company had “dramatically diversified where we source our solar panels” and was not affected by the recent announcement of high tariff rates on solar panels from Southeast Asia. He also specified to analysts that “we source our wind turbines from the U.S., with manufacturing in Florida.” The company estimated that it has “$150 million in tariff exposure through 2028, on over $75 billion in expected capital spend,” Ketchum said.
Enphase chief executive Badri Kothandaraman attempted to tread delicately on the tariff issue. “While the global policy environment remains fluid with tariffs, with interest rates and subsidies constantly evolving, we are moving quickly to realign our supply chain to minimize downside across a range of scenarios,” he said. “While we cannot control the macroeconomic conditions, we can absolutely control our response.” GE Vernova chief financial officer Ken Parks described tariffs as a “continued increase in the cost base,” and said that the combined tariffs on steel plus various imports from Canada, Mexico, China — which is facing import duties of 145% or more, depending on the product — affect about a quarter of its spending.
A lot of that tariff impact comes from the battery supply chain, which China dominates. For Tesla, that means its fast growing energy storage business is particularly at risk. While the company has made some efforts to onshore stationary storage battery production, its chief financial officer, Vaibhav Taneja, said that domestic production would ultimately account for only a “fraction” of its battery needs, and even that would “take time.”
Enphase was similarly upfront about the impact on its battery supplies. “We are no exception. We use Chinese sources for the cell packs,” Kothandaraman said. He explained that thanks to the tariffs, making batteries domestically with Chinese cells “therefore turns out for us that whether we make it domestically or whether we make it outside the U.S., our costs are becoming approximately the same. And the cost impact is significant.” In other words, the tariffs make domestic battery production less appealing than it was before. Kothandaraman said that the company is working on establishing a non-Chinese supply chain, which will take six to nine months.
NextEra’s Ketchum said that the company had made “arrangements” to buy batteries made in the U.S. “for a significant portion of our backlog,” and that its contracts for non-Chinese-sourced batteries required the supplier to cover any tariff-related costs. Ketchum did say that the domestic batteries meet local content requirements for tax subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, however “there are certain components that come in from outside the United States.” Overall, Ketchum said, “our tariff exposure on batteries is expected to be negligible.”
All four companies are heavily exposed to various energy regulatory and subsidy plans that may or may not survive the double-whammy of the congressional Republicans’ budget-making priorities and the Trump administration’s desire to roll back environmental regulations.
Tesla’s revenue from emissions credits that other carmakers buy to comply with California’s fleet emissions standards was $595 million in the first quarter of this year, compared to $409 million of net income — implying that the company would have lost money if not for the credits. This Trump administration has already attempted to take away California’s ability to set emissions standards, as it did the first time around. Then it was not successful, and this time it might not have to be — the Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that it would be open to a lawsuit from the fossil fuel industry challenging California’s limits.
Kothandaraman said that “the lack of certainty” around the fate of the Inflation Reduction Act, which is currently being hashed out in Congress, “is definitely a factor” in explaining what one analyst described as “a bit of paralysis on the customer side.” He was hopeful that “demand will be unlocked” once there’s “clarity” on IRA tax credits.
Meanwhile, GE Vernova said that offshore wind orders had fallen by 43%, “as a result of ongoing U.S. policy uncertainty and permitting delays.” It also took a $70 million charge related to the cancellation of a deal to supply 18-megawatt turbines in New York.
Musk bragged that Tesla’s Megapack utility storage system “enables utility companies to output far more total energy than would otherwise be the case,” and that “utility companies are beginning to realize this and are buying in our Megapacks at scale.” While the company deployed almost 40 gigawatt-hours of battery storage in the past 12 months — an impressive amount based on the current level of grid battery storage in the U.S. — Musk predicted that Tesla could end up deploying “terawatts” of storage on an annual basis.
NextEra has a large renewables development business, and Ketchum sees the uptick in demand for electricity as a boon: “When I look at the demand and the outlook in the renewable sector going … we just continue to see strong demand across the board, with hyperscalers being a nice sized part of that.”
GE Vernova competed with NextEra for the most investor-friendly demand growth story — though its is not a particularly climate-friendly one. The company says it has a backlog of 29 gigawatts of natural gas turbine orders, with an additional 21 gigawatts of reservations that will turn into future production. Its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization for its power business jumped from $345 million in the first quarter of last year to $508 million in the first quarter of this year, while its margins grew from 8.6% to 11.5%.
About a third of its reservations for turbines are for data centers, Scott Strazik, the company’s chief executive said. Some more were to provide baseload power. And the rest? “A healthy amount of these are also F-class gas turbines to just strengthen the durability and the resiliency on the grid,” he 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.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.