You’ve reached your free article limit
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.
The proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.