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.
With wars going on in Ukraine and the Middle East, margins for fuel producers have gotten “insane.”
It’s never been a better time to turn oil into gasoline and diesel, and the United States refining industry is processing every drop it can.
America’s refineries are currently running at over 97% utilization, up slightly from the week prior, according to the Energy Information Administration, and at their highest rate since 2018. In the Gulf Coast refining complex specifically, refining capacity has been above 95% for 19 straight weeks, well surpassing the previous record of 15 weeks in 2022, according to Gulf Oil advisor Tom Kloza.
Meanwhile, refiners are putting off whatever maintenance they can. But refineries may have to undertake the large-scale, prescheduled “turnaround” operations that happen in the fall, and can take facilities offline for months.
The reason? It pays to wait. The “crack spread” — which measures the margin of refining three barrels of oil into two barrels of gasoline and one of diesel — sits at over $72.
“This is historically unprecedented,” Kloza told me, referring to both the continuously high levels of utilization for American refiners and the margins they’re receiving for running so continuously. “It’s insane.”
The insanity is the result of not one but two overlapping crises in the global fossil fuel industry. And while one (the protracted closure of the Strait of Hormuz) is in superposition between deterioration and resolution, the other (the relentless Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries) shows no sign of letting up. Both crises contribute to the increasing unavailability of refined products like gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel, the scarcity of which has sent prices soaring.
Russia has banned diesel exports at least through September, leaving a hole that can be filled, at least in part, by American exports to the rest of the world. Diesel exports stand at around 1.8 million barrels per day, up from around 1.2 million a year ago.
One major refinery in New Brunswick, Canada that helps supply the Northeastern U.S. — which relies on diesel as a heating fuel in winter — is due to shut down for maintenance for over two months starting in September. Other refineries, however, have “basically every incentive right now to defer maintenance as long as they can,” considering the high profits they can get, Patrick DeHaan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told me.
While refineries are designed to run up to (and maybe even slightly above) 100% utilization, “occasionally when you do run really hard, there can be some issues that come up from time to time,” DeHaan said. “Not all maintenance can be pushed.”
Even if U.S. refineries are operating as, uh, well-oiled machines, there’s another risk at this time of year beside mechanical issues: hurricanes.
While meteorologists expect this to be a below average hurricane season due to the above average El Niño stalking the Pacific, big storms can still knock out refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, where around half of the U.S. refining industry is located.
“If there’s a hurricane, they’re going to have to throttle back, and that will push the prices right up even more,” DeHaan said. A “perfect storm,” he said, could send those crack spreads up by another $20 to $30 a barrel. And yet he also noted that “it’s looking less and less likely that we’re going to see a perfect storm. El Niño is doing a great job mitigating risk for us.”
Even without adding a hurricane to the mix, fuel prices are high enough for anyone who uses diesel or heating oil — including truckers, farmers, and, eventually, New Englanders — to constitute a predicament.
“What we’re seeing now is extraordinarily rare to see,” DeHaan said, referring to the high level of output from U.S. refineries.
Nationwide, average diesel prices are $5.62 a gallon, according to AAA, up from $5.30 a month ago and $3.71 a year ago. In California, the number one agricultural exporter among the 50 states, diesel is $7.21 a gallon, hitting farmers (and eventually consumers) hard, as grapefruit, peaches, plums, apricots, avocadoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, apples, and figs (to name just a portion of the state’s bounty) are harvested in August and September.
The high level of exports has helped drive down inventories of distillate fuel, which are at their lowest level for this time of year since the EIA started keeping records in 1982.
The tightness of the market means that refineries are likely to be pushed near their limit. If any one goes off line — whether for maintenance or weather or anything else — it will likely mean a windfall for everyone else who can stay online.
On rare earth recycling, Africa’s solar boom, and Thailand’s LNG addiction
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Dolly formed in the Atlantic and is heading toward the Caribbean, threatening the Lesser Antilles with heavy rains and winds • Temperatures topped 110 degrees Fahrenheit in Las Vegas as the heat heads east to the Mississippi Valley • In Nepal, survivors of the catastrophic flood near the border with Tibet are swimming in debris-laden waters to fish out fuel cans as supplies run short.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration brokered yet another deal to pay a developer to, as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer put it bluntly, “not build wind farms.” The German energy giant RWE took the $1.2 billion deal to kill off three already-stalled projects in New York and New Jersey. Turns out the bulk of that will go to a billionaire who owns a mansion on a private island in Florida near President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, and who personally donated nearly $1 million to the president’s inaugural committee. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that the roughly $900 million from the settlement that RWE pledged to invest into liquified natural gas would go to a facility under construction by the company founded and run by Michael Dorrell, an Australian native with U.S. citizenship who has boasted of hobnobbing with his neighbor, the president. The White House said it had nothing to do with RWE’s decision to invest in the project, and called the newspaper’s story “a brazen attempt to insinuate a conflict-of-interest that does not exist.” But Representative Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said “fake ‘settlements’” that “were already an insane waste of taxpayer funds and a ridiculous charade that seems to be blatantly illegal” now also carry “the stench of corruption.”
Cue the record scratch: We’ve got a narrative violation. A utility in the industrial Midwest portion of PJM Interconnection, the nation’s largest and most infamously stressed grid system, says that all the money it’s making off data centers will justify lowering the price of electricity for everyone else. Fort Wayne-based Indiana Michigan Power asked state regulators to reduce the base rate by enough to shave roughly $100 off annual bills. If the savings apply to the average customer using 1,000 kilowatts a month, the total combined savings in 2027 could come out to $59 million, according to The Journal Gazette, a family-owned newspaper published six days a week in Indiana’s second-largest city. The utility said it expects the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to decide on its proposed plan next June, meaning savings would kick in during the summer. The utility also asked to freeze rates at a lower amount for three consecutive years as part of what it called “one of the nation’s largest base rate reduction plans,” which it said was “made possible thanks to load growth and increased revenue from large customers including data centers.”
Since 2021, electricity prices statewide in Indiana spiked by more than 30%, according to data from Heatmap and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Electricity Price Hub. But Indiana Michigan Power’s prices hiked by less than half the statewide average in that same period. When bills went up nearly 7% statewide last year, customers in the northeastern Indiana region that the utility serves saw a nearly 2% drop. All of which is to say: This particular case may not be as indicative of a potential trend as many might hope.
A pair of back-to-back funding deals on Thursday show just how much investors have warmed to geothermal and critical minerals, two domestic industries that — until recently — had spent decades either stagnant or in decline. Quaise Energy, the geothermal startup developing technology to drill to new depths in pursuit of super-hot rocks, just raised $180 million in its Series B. That includes a $35 million investment from Nabors Industries, owner and operator of one of the world’s largest fleets of drilling rigs. The money brings the Houston-based startup’s total fundraising to date to $280 million. “We are unlocking the most powerful clean energy source on Earth, and the Series B signals deep conviction across a wide range of investors,” Quaise CEO Carlos Araque said in a statement.
Meanwhile, metals recycler Cyclic Materials raised $75 million in a strategic financing round, bringing its total equity funding to date to $237 million. The latest funding was led by accounts advised by T. Rowe Price Associate, which had previously invested in the startup last year. The company’s first commercial facility in Arizona is expected to come online this year, and the funding will support the “advancement” of an integrated rare earths campus in South Carolina. “Our continued investment reflects our confidence in the company’s ability to scale domestic rare earth recycling and production infrastructure for use across critical U.S. industries and technologies,” Vineet Khanna, an investment analyst at T. Rowe Price, said in a press release.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Even before the world outside feels like it’s burning, big chunks of the real-life human economy just stop churning. It seems self evident enough to be worthy of a rhyming truism (forgive me, I’m a recent recruit to the corny dad club). What’s alarming is that it’s starting to show up in data. A new Barclays survey of British businesses and consumers found that this year’s heat waves kept shoppers at bay, construction crews idled, and farmhands still. Temperatures above 77.2 degrees Fahrenheit were deemed too hot for shopping. Shave off just 2 degrees and Britons no longer wanted to commute. The construction and farming sectors took what Bloomberg called a “particularly hard hit” this summer when temperatures surpassed 100 degrees in the United Kingdom. But the newswire noted that the “intense heat also laid bare the extent to which much of Britain’s critical infrastructure is unprepared for rapidly rising temperatures, as schools, hospitals and public transport suffered under the strain.” As such, 60% of businesses reported that they are “now investing in or plan to invest in technologies to help them adapt to extreme heat.”

Exactly one year ago, I told you about new data showing that Africa’s purchases of Chinese solar panels had skyrocketed by 60%, with 20 countries setting new import records. Sierra Leone alone brought in enough panels to match more than 60% of its entire 2023 electrical output. What wasn’t clear is whether the equipment was going to warehouses or actually being deployed. Now Ember, the clean energy research firm behind last year’s analysis, is out with new numbers quantifying Africa’s solar boom. The continent installed record capacity of 17 gigawatts in 2026 so far, up 45% year-over-year. Chinese exports of solar panels to Africa soared in the 12 months leading up to June. Ember’s new analysis found that, including the Middle East and Latin America, around 73% of Chinese imports have been installed, with an average six-month delay. Across Africa, roughly 100,000 panels were installed every day in the past year.
Of Africa’s 54 countries, 36 are on track to install record amounts of solar in 2026, and 19 are exceeding 100% growth compared to the same period last year. The Democratic Republic of the Congo saw a 544% spike. Zimbabwe’s solar sector soared by 282%. Egypt’s by 176%. For Zambia, it’s 117%. Not too far behind is Sierra Leone, at 97%.
Thailand is famously one of only a handful of modern nations never colonized by European empires. Some debate that distinction, since the kingdom once called Siam did, in fact, lose a lot of territory to French and British conquest. Today, however, Thailand is undeniably at the mercy of foreign energy powers. The country generates more than 60% of its electricity from natural gas, of which it produces little. Instead, it imports from Australia, Qatar, the U.S., Malaysia, and Oman. Maybe not for long. Bangkok has announced plans to shift away from gas and embrace renewables and nuclear power in the wake of the Iran War energy shock, Bloomberg reported. The country now aims to swap to producing 60% of its electricity from carbon-free sources in 25 years — more than double the previous goal.
The seed-stage startup is eyeing a Series A after successfully enriching lithium and hydrogen isotopes.
While most coverage of the buzzy fusion energy industry — including my own — tends to focus on the startups promising to build commercial reactors within the next decade, a whole host of supporting industries will also need to mature in order to make that long-held scientific dream a reality. Isotope production is one of the biggest. No matter a company’s technical approach to fusion, it likely demands hydrogen and lithium isotopes — the former to fuel reactors, and the latter to breed more of that fuel.
That’s where Marathon Fusion comes in. The San Francisco-based seed-stage startup is developing isotope separation technology for two key purposes: recycling tritium — an extremely rare hydrogen isotope — from reactor exhaust so it can be reused as fusion fuel, and enriching lithium-6, which is needed to breed new tritium. On Thursday, the company announced that it succeeded in using its plasma centrifuge technology to enrich lithium-6 and hydrogen isotopes in the lab. (It can’t yet test the tech on actual tritium, which is expensive, radioactive, and tightly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so Marathon is validating its separation physics using the non-radioactive proxies deuterium and protium.) Marathon now plans to raise a Series A based on the results.
“People have wondered for a very long time when fusion is going to come, and everyone’s waiting on the big scientific announcements,” Marathon’s CEO Kyle Schiller told me. But while the industry waits for those breakthroughs, he argued, it’s high time to start commercializing the infrastructure fusion will need to become an actual commercial industry. “Ultimately, what we’re doing is reactor agnostic. Everyone’s going to need it.”
In the near term at least, most fusion companies plan to use deuterium-tritium plasmas to power the fusion reaction. But the process is inherently inefficient — only a small fraction of the fuel actually fuses in the reaction, while the rest gets expelled, even though it still contains valuable, unburned tritium that can be captured and reused.
Today, neither tritium nor the lithium-6 needed to make more of it are produced at anything close to the scale even a single commercial fusion reactor would require to get up and running. And existing isotope separation technologies — largely designed for small-volume defense programs and experimental reactors — aren’t sufficient to bridge the gap.
“When you have a single fusion power plant, that’s going to need about 1,000 times more lithium than anyone is producing today in any country,” Schiller told me, referring to lithium-6. “It would be totally prohibitive to build a fusion power plant at those economics.”
And while it’s at least possible to produce enough of this isotope to supply a future fusion industry by enriching lithium mined from rock, tritium presents a more fundamental problem. Because it’s radioactive and decays relatively quickly, it doesn’t occur naturally in meaningful quantities. Today it’s produced commercially as a byproduct of some fission reactors, but that supply amounts to just a few kilograms per year. A single 1-gigawatt commercial fusion reactor, by contrast, would need an estimated 56 kilograms annually. Meeting that demand will require fusion companies to breed their own tritium inside the reactor, a process that involves fusion-generated neutrons hitting lithium-6 nuclei, splitting them into tritium and helium.
It will also necessitate recycling the substantial amount of tritium that passes through the reactor without burning up. That’s where Marathon’s plasma centrifuge comes in. Centrifuges themselves are nothing new — engineers have used them for decades to separate uranium isotopes for nuclear fuel, spinning the gas at such high speeds that isotopes with different masses separate. Plasma centrifuges work on the same principle and have been studied since the Manhattan Project, but no one has yet successfully commercialized the approach for lithium and hydrogen.
Part of the reason is that, until recently, there simply wasn’t much demand for these isotopes. But the raw materials also present a physics challenge: Lithium and hydrogen isotopes have very similar masses. Separating them thus requires spinning the plasma so rapidly that, historically, the resulting heat has undermined the separation process itself. To address this, Marathon’s proprietary centrifuge tech uses a “partially ionized” plasma, in which some atoms have been stripped of their electrons while others remain neutral. The company says this configuration allows the centrifuge to operate at lower temperatures.
The materials testing lab Covalent has certified Marathon’s lithium-6 enrichment. The company hasn’t had its hydrogen separation results independently verified, though an MIT nuclear engineering professor has reviewed the device’s design. As a participant in ARPA-E’s Vision OPEN program, which solicits and supports ambitious energy projects, Marathon has also presented its hydrogen separation methodology and results at the ARPA-E fusion programs meeting in June.
Now, Schiller told me, the challenge is scaling up the technology’s core systems. “We need bigger magnets, better cooling, bigger power systems, and so that’s a buildout that’s going to take time and more capital,” he said. “But as far as the science is concerned, we feel like it’s at the point where we’re ready to make those kinds of commitments.”
Marathon is now looking to raise capital to build its first commercial pilot facility, with the goal of reaching full-scale production by 2029. Schiller told me the company expects its first full-scale facility to produce tens of tons of lithium-6 per year — enough, he says, to fuel a new gigawatt-scale fusion plant roughly every two years. Marathon also plans to recover and repurpose about 560 kilograms of tritium annually — roughly the amount that cycles through a 1-gigawatt reactor’s fuel system each year, most of which exits in the reactor’s exhaust without ever fusing.
Once fusion reactors are operating at scale, Marathon has a few other tricks up its sleeve. The startup also plans to build an “isotope production” business, using the copious volume of high-energy neutrons generated by fusion to manufacture valuable isotopes. The company made headlines last year with its claim that fusion-generated neutrons could transmute mercury into an unstable isotope that eventually decays into gold — potentially doubling a fusion reactor’s economic output (and proving the old alchemists right). But that work is still theoretical, based on computer simulations rather than peer-reviewed or experimentally validated work.
Marathon certainly has plenty to keep it busy in the near term, though. “There is a really amazing opportunity right now to say, look, the fusion supply chain is ready to go. We can start scaling up,” Schiller told me. “The science will progress in parallel, and we really want to land this together — not wait another 10 years after scientific results come in.”