California Takes the Lead in Electric Vehicle and Charging Station Adoption

Tesla Q2 2020 earnings highlight resilient electric vehicles as production and deliveries outpace legacy automakers, while Gigafactory Austin advances, solar installations slump, and energy storage, Megapack, and free cash flow expand despite COVID-19 disruptions.

Key Points

Tesla posted a fourth consecutive profit, strong cash, EV resilience, solar slump, and rising energy storage.

✅ Fourth straight profit and $418M free cash flow

✅ EV output and deliveries fell just 5% year over year

✅ Solar hit record low; storage rose 61% to 419 MWh

Tesla survived the throes of the coronavirus pandemic relatively unscathed, chalking up its fourth sequential quarterly profit for the first time on Wednesday.

On the energy front, however, things were much more complicated: Tesla reported its worst-ever quarter for solar installations but huge growth in its battery business, amid expectations for cheaper, more powerful batteries expected in coming years. CEO Elon Musk nevertheless predicted the energy business will one day rival its car division in scale.

But today, Tesla's bottom line is all about electric vehicles, and the temporary halt of activity at Tesla's Fremont factory due to local health orders didn’t put much of a dent in vehicle production and delivery. Both figures declined 5 percent compared to the same quarter in 2019. In contrast, Q2 vehicle sales at legacy carmakers Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler declined by one-third or more year-over-year, even as the U.S. EV market share dipped in early 2024 for context.

The costs of factory closures and a $101 million CEO award milestone for Elon Musk didn’t stop Tesla from achieving $418 million in free cash flow, a major improvement over the prior quarter. Cash and cash equivalents grew by $535 million to $8.6 billion during the quarter.

Musk praised his employees for “exceptional execution.” 

“There were so many challenges, too numerous to name, but they got it done,” he said on an investor call Wednesday.

Musk also confirmed that Tesla will build a new Gigafactory in Austin, Texas, five minutes from the airport. The 2,000-acre campus will abut the Colorado River and is “basically going to be an ecological paradise,” he said. The new Texas factory will build the Cybertruck, Semi, Model 3 and Model Y for the Eastern half of North America. Fremont, California will produce the S and X, and make Model 3 and Model Y for the West, in a state where EVs exceed 20% of sales according to recent data.

Return of the Tesla solar slump

This was the first entire quarter affected by the coronavirus response, which threw the rooftop solar industry into turmoil by cutting off in-person sales. Other installers scrambled to shift to digital-first sales strategies, but Tesla had already done so months before lockdowns were imposed.

Q2, then, offers a test case on whether Tesla’s pivot to passive online sales made it better able to deal with stay-at-home orders than its peers. The other publicly traded solar installers have not yet reported their Q2 performance, but Tesla delivered its worst-ever quarterly solar figures: Installations totaled just 27 megawatts. That’s a 7 percent decline from Q2 2019, its previous worst quarter ever for solar.

Musk did not address that weak performance in his remarks to investors, opting instead to highlight the company’s late-June decision to offer the cheapest solar pricing in the country. “We’re the company to go to,” he said of rooftop solar. “It’s only going to get better later this year.”

But the sales slump indicates Tesla’s online sales model could not withstand a historically tough season for residential solar.

"Every single residential installer in the country is going to have a bad Q2 because of the initial impacts of COVID on the market," said Austin Perea, senior solar analyst at Wood Mackenzie. "It's hard to disaggregate the impacts of COVID from their own individual strategies."

Tesla's 23 percent decline in quarter-over-quarter solar installations was not as bad as the expected Q2 decline across the rooftop solar industry, Perea added.

On the vehicle side, Tesla’s sales declined less than did those of major automakers. It’s possible that the same pattern will hold for solar; a less severe drop than those seen by Sunrun or Vivint could be claimed as a victory of sorts. But this quarter made clear that Q2 2019 was not the bottom for Tesla’s solar operation, which once led the residential market as SolarCity but significantly diminished since Tesla acquired it in 2016.

Tesla currently stands in third place for residential solar installers. But No. 1 installer Sunrun said this month that it will acquire No. 2 installer Vivint Solar, making Tesla the second-largest installer by default. That major consolidation in the rooftop solar market went unremarked upon in Tesla's investor call.

Solar and energy storage revenue currently equate to just 7 percent of the company's automotive revenue. But Musk reiterated his prediction that this won’t always be the case. “Long term, Tesla Energy will be roughly the same size as Tesla Automotive,” he said on Wednesday's call.

The grid storage business offered more reason for optimism: Capacity deployed grew 61 percent from the first quarter, rising to 419 megawatt-hours. The prepackaged, large-format Megapack product turned its first profit that quarter.

"Difficult to predict" performance in the second half of 2020
Tesla withdrew its financial guidance last quarter in light of the upheaval across the global economy. It refrained from setting new guidance now.

“Although we have successfully ramped vehicle production back to prior levels, it remains difficult to predict whether there will be further operational interruptions or how global consumer sentiment will evolve, given risks to the EV boom noted by analysts, in the second half of 2020,” the earnings report notes.

The company asserted it will still deliver 500,000 vehicles this year regardless of externalities, a goal that aligns with broader EV sales momentum in 2024 trends. It already has sufficient production capacity installed to reach that, Tesla said. But with 179,387 cars delivered so far, Tesla faces an uphill climb to ship more cars in the second half.

Wall Street maintained its buoyant confidence in Tesla's share price, despite rising competition in China noted by rivals. It closed at $1,592 before the earnings announcement, rising to $1,661 in after-hours trading.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. EV Manufacturing Expansion accelerates decarbonization as Ford and SK Innovation invest in lithium-ion batteries and truck assembly in Tennessee and Kentucky, building new factories, jobs, and supply chain infrastructure in right-to-work states.

Key Points

A rapid scale-up of U.S. electric vehicle production, battery plants, and assembly lines fueled by major investments.

✅ Ford and SK build battery and truck plants by 2025

✅ $11.4B investment, 11,000 jobs in TN and KY

✅ Right-to-work context reshapes union dynamics

One theme of this newsletter is that the world’s physical infrastructure will have to massively change if we want to decarbonize the economy by 2050, which the United Nations has said is necessary to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis. This won’t be as simple as passing a carbon tax or a clean-electricity mandate: Wires will have to be strung as the power grid expands; solar farms will have to be erected; industries will have to be remade. And although that kind of change can be orchestrated only by the government (hence the importance of the infrastructure bills in Congress), consumers and companies will ultimately do most of the work to make it happen.

Take electric cars, for instance. An electric car is an expensive, highly specialized piece of technology, but building one takes even more expensive, specialized technology—tools that tend to be custom-made, large and heavy, and spread across a factory or the world. And if you want those tools to produce a car in a few years, you have to start planning now, as the EV timeline accelerates ahead.

That’s exactly what Ford is doing: Last night, the automaker and SK Innovation, a South Korean battery manufacturer, announced that they were spending $11.4 billion to build two new multi-factory centers in Tennessee and Kentucky that are scheduled to begin production in 2025. The facilities, which will hire a combined 11,000 employees, will manufacture EV batteries and assemble electric F-series pickup trucks. While Ford already has several factories in Kentucky, this will be its first plant in Tennessee in six decades. The 3,600-acre Tennessee facility, located an hour outside Memphis, will be Ford’s largest campus ever—and its first new American vehicle-assembly plant in decades.

The politics of this announcement are worth dwelling on. Ford and SK Innovation were lured to Tennessee with $500 million in incentives; Kentucky gave them $300 million and more than 1,500 acres of free land. Ford’s workers in Detroit have historically been unionized—and, indeed, a source of power in the national labor movement. But with these new factories, Ford is edging into a more anti-union environment: Both Tennessee and Kentucky are right-to-work states, meaning that local laws prevent unions from requiring that only unionized employees work in a certain facility. In an interview, Jim Farley, Ford’s CEO, played coy about whether either factory will be unionized. (Last week, the company announced that it was investing $250 million, a comparative pittance, to expand EV production at its unionized Michigan facilities.)

That news might depress those on the left who hope that old-school unions, such as the United Auto Workers, can enjoy the benefits of electrification. But you can see the outline of a potential political bargain here. Climate-concerned Democrats get to see EV production expand in the U.S., creating opportunities for Canada to capitalize as supply chains shift, while climate-wary Republicans get to add jobs in their home states. (And unions get shafted.) Whether that bargain can successfully grow support for more federal climate policy, further accelerating the financial-political-technological feedback loop that I’ve dubbed “the green vortex,” remains to be seen.

Read: How the U.S. made progress on climate change without ever passing a bill

More important than the announcement is what it portends. In the past, environmentalists have complained that even when the law has required that automakers make climate-friendly cars, they haven’t treated them as a major product. It’s easy to tune out climate-friendly announcements as so much corporate greenwashing, amid recurring EV hype, but Ford’s two new factories represent real money: The automaker’s share of the investment exceeds its 2019 annual earnings. This investment is sufficiently large that Ford will treat EVs as a serious business line.

And if you look around globally, you’ll see that Ford isn’t alone. EVs are no longer the neglected stepchild of the global car industry. Here are some recent headlines:

Nine percent of new cars sold globally this year will be EVs or plug-in hybrids, according to S&P Global. That’s up from 3 percent two years ago, a staggering, iPhone-like rise.

GM, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, BMW, and the parent company of Fiat-Chrysler have all pledged that by 2030, at least 40 percent of their new cars worldwide will run on a non-gasoline source, and there is scope for Canada-U.S. collaboration as companies turn to electric cars. A few years ago, the standard forecast was that half of new cars sold in the U.S. would be electric by 2050. That timeline has moved up significantly not only in America, but around the world. (In fact, counter to its high-tech self-image, America is the laggard in this global transition. The two largest markets for EVs worldwide are China and the European Union.)

More remarkably (and importantly), automakers are spending like they actually believe that goal: The auto industry as a whole will pump more than $500 billion into EV investment by 2030, and new assembly deals are putting Canada in the race. Ford’s investment in these two plants represents less than a third of its planned total $30 billion investment in EV production by 2025, and that’s relatively small compared with its peers’. Volkswagen has announced more than $60 billion in investment. Honda has committed $46 billion.

Norway could phase out gas cars ahead of schedule. The country has one of the world’s most robust pro-EV policies, and it is still outperforming its own mandates. In the most recent accounting period, eight out of 10 cars had some sort of electric drivetrain. If the current trend holds, Norway would sell its last gas car in April of next year—and while I doubt the demise will be that steep, consumer preferences are running well ahead of its schedule to ban new gas-car sales by 2025.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Wind farm reliability services now compete in wholesale markets, as FERC and NERC endorse market-based solutions that reward performance, bolster grid resilience, and compensate ancillary services like frequency regulation, voltage support, and spinning reserve.

Key Points

Grid support from wind plants, including frequency, voltage, ramping, and inertial response via advanced controls.

✅ Enabled by advanced controls and inverter-based technology

✅ Compete in market-based mechanisms for ancillary services

✅ Support frequency, voltage, reserves; enhance grid resilience

American Wind Energy Association CEO Tom Kiernan has explained to a congressional testimony that wind farms can now compete, as renewables approach market majority, to provide essential electric reliability services. 

Mr Kiernan appeared before the US Congress House Energy and Commerce Committee where he said that, thanks to technological advances, wind farms are now competitive with other energy technologies with regard to reliability and resiliency. He added that grid reliability and resilience are goals that everyone can support and that efforts underway at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and by market operators are rightly focused on market-based solutions to better compensate generators for providing those essential services.

AWEA strongly agreed with other witnesses on the panel who endorsed market-based solutions in their submitted testimony, including the American Petroleum Institute, Solar Energy Industries Association, Energy Storage Association, Natural Resources Defence Council, National Hydropower Association, and others. However, AWEA is concerned that the Department of Energy’s recent proposal to provide payments to specific resources based on arbitrary requirements is anti-competitive, and threatens to undermine electricity markets that are bolstering reliability and saving consumers billions of dollars per year.

“We support the objective of maintaining a reliable and resilient grid which is best achieved through free and open markets, with a focus on needed reliability services – not sources – and a programme to promote transmission infrastructure.”

Kiernan outlined several major policy recommendations in his testimony, including reliance on competitive markets that reward performance to ensure affordable and reliable electricity, a focus on reliability needs rather than generation sources and the promotion of transmission infrastructure investment to improve resilience and allow consumers greater access to all low-cost forms of energy.

The CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has recently testified that the state of reliability in North America remains strong and the trend line shows continuing improvement year over year. Technological advances and innovation by over 100,000 US wind workers enable wind farms today to provide the grid reliability services traditionally provided by conventional power plants. NERC’s CEO emphasised in its testimony at last month’s hearing that “variable resources significantly diversify the generation portfolio and can contribute to reliability and resilience in important ways.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV Adoption Limits highlight that electric vehicles alone cannot meet emissions targets; life cycle assessment, carbon budgets, clean grids, public transit, and battery materials constraints demand broader decarbonization strategies, city redesign, and active travel.

Key Points

EV Adoption Limits show EVs alone cannot hit climate targets; modal shift, clean grids, and travel demand are essential.

✅ 350M EVs by 2050 still miss 2 C goals without major mode shift

✅ Grid demand rises 41%, requiring clean power and smart charging

✅ Battery materials constraints need recycling, supply diversification

Today there are more than seven million electric vehicles (EVs) in operation around the world, compared with only about 20,000 a decade ago. It’s a massive change – but according to a group of researchers at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, it won’t be nearly enough to address the global climate crisis. 

“A lot of people think that a large-scale shift to EVs will mostly solve our climate problems in the passenger vehicle sector,” says Alexandre Milovanoff, a PhD student and lead author of a new paper published in Nature Climate Change. 

“I think a better way to look at it is this: EVs are necessary, but on their own, they are not sufficient.” 

Around the world, many governments are already going all-in on EVs. In Norway, for example, where EVs already account for half of new vehicle sales, the government has said it plans to eliminate sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2025. The Netherlands aims to follow suit by 2030, with France and Canada's EV goals aiming to follow by 2040. Just last week, California announced plans to ban sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2035.

Milovanoff and his supervisors in the department of civil and mineral engineering – Assistant Professor Daniel Posen and Professor Heather MacLean – are experts in life cycle assessment, which involves modelling the impacts of technological changes across a range of environmental factors. 

They decided to run a detailed analysis of what a large-scale shift to EVs would mean in terms of emissions and related impacts. As a test market, they chose the United States, which is second only to China in terms of passenger vehicle sales. 

“We picked the U.S. because they have large, heavy vehicles, as well as high vehicle ownership per capita and high rate of travel per capita,” says Milovanoff. “There is also lots of high-quality data available, so we felt it would give us the clearest answers.” 

The team built computer models to estimate how many electric vehicles would be needed to keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100, a target often cited by climate researchers. 

“We came up with a novel method to convert this target into a carbon budget for U.S. passenger vehicles, and then determined how many EVs would be needed to stay within that budget,” says Posen. “It turns out to be a lot.” 

Based on the scenarios modelled by the team, the U.S. would need to have about 350 million EVs on the road by 2050 in order to meet the target emissions reductions. That works out to about 90 per cent of the total vehicles estimated to be in operation at that time. 

“To put that in perspective, right now the total proportion of EVs on the road in the U.S. is about 0.3 per cent,” says Milovanoff. 

“It’s true that sales are growing fast, but even the most optimistic projections of an electric-car revolution suggest that by 2050, the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent EVs.” 

The team says that, in addition to the barriers of consumer preferences for EV deployment, there are technological barriers such as the strain that EVs would place on the country’s electricity infrastructure, though proper grid management can ease integration. 

According to the paper, a fleet of 350 million EVs would increase annual electricity demand by 1,730 terawatt hours, or about 41 per cent of current levels. This would require massive investment in infrastructure and new power plants, some of which would almost certainly run on fossil fuels in some regions. 

The shift could also impact what’s known as the demand curve – the way that demand for electricity rises and falls at different times of day – which would make managing the national electrical grid more complex, though vehicle-to-grid strategies could help smooth peaks. Finally, there are technical challenges stemming from the supply of critical materials for batteries, including lithium, cobalt and manganese. 

The team concludes that getting to 90 per cent EV ownership by 2050 is an unrealistic scenario. Instead, what they recommend is a mix of policies, rather than relying solely on a 2035 EV sales mandate as a singular lever, including many designed to shift people out of personal passenger vehicles in favour of other modes of transportation. 

These could include massive investment in public transit – subways, commuter trains, buses – as well as the redesign of cities to allow for more trips to be taken via active modes such as bicycles or on foot. They could also include strategies such as telecommuting, a shift already spotlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“EVs really do reduce emissions, which are linked to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local studies, but they don’t get us out of having to do the things we already know we need to do,” says MacLean. “We need to rethink our behaviours, the design of our cities, and even aspects of our culture. Everybody has to take responsibility for this.” 

The research received support from the Hatch Graduate Scholarship for Sustainable Energy Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

NC WARN Solar Case tests third-party solar rights as North Carolina Supreme Court reviews Utilities Commission fines over a Greensboro church's rooftop power deal, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly, onsite electricity sales, and potential rate impacts.

Key Points

A North Carolina Supreme Court test of third-party solar could weaken Duke Energy's monopoly and change utility rules.

✅ NC Supreme Court weighs Utilities Commission penalty on NC WARN

✅ Case could permit onsite third-party solar sales statewide

✅ Outcome may pressure Duke Energy's monopoly and rates

North Carolina's highest court is taking up a case that could force new competition on the state's electricity monopolies.

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Utilities Commission's decision to fine clean-energy advocacy group NC WARN for putting solar panels on a Greensboro church's rooftop and then charging it below-market rates for power.

The commission told NC WARN that it was producing electricity illegally and fined the group $60,000. The group said it was acting privately and appealed to the high court.

If the group prevails, it could put new pressure on Duke Energy's monopoly, which has seen an oversubscribed solar solicitation in recent procurements. State regulators say a ruling for NC WARN would allow companies to install solar equipment and sell power on site, shaving away customers and forcing Duke Energy to raise rates on everyone else.

#google#

That's because if NC WARN's deal with Faith Community Church is allowed, the precedent could open the door for others to lure away from Duke Energy, as debates over how solar owners are paid continue, "the customers with the highest profit potential, such as commercial and industrial customers with large energy needs and ample rooftop space," attorney Robert Josey Jr. wrote in a court filing.

Losing those power sales would force the country's No. 2 electricity company to make it up by charging remaining customers more to cover the cost of all of its power plants, transmission lines and repair crews, a dynamic echoed in New England's grid upgrade debates as solar grows, wrote Josey, an attorney for the Public Staff, the state's official utilities consumer advocate.

The dispute is whether NC WARN is producing electricity "for the public," which would mean it's intruding on the territory of the publicly regulated monopoly utility, or whether the move was allowed because it was a private power deal with the church alone.

NC WARN installed the church's power panels in 2015 as part of what it described as a test case, amid wider debates like Nova Scotia's delayed solar charge for customers, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly position to generate and sell electricity.

North Carolina was one of nine states that as of last year explicitly disallowed residential customers from buying electricity generated by solar panels on their roof from a third party that owns the system, even as Maryland opens solar subscriptions more broadly, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. State law allows purchased or leased solar panels, but not payments simply for the power they generate.

NC WARN's goals included "reducing the effects of Duke Energy's monopoly control that has such negative impacts on power bills, clean air and water, and climate change," the church's pastor, Rev. Nelson Johnson, said in a statement the same day the clean-energy group asked state regulators to clear the plan.

Instead, the North Carolina Utilities Commission ruled the arrangement violated the state's system of legal electricity monopolies and hit the group with nearly $60,000 in fines, which would be suspended if the church's payments were refunded with interest and the solar equipment donated. The group has set aside the money and will donate the gear if it loses the Supreme Court case, NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said.

NC WARN's three-year agreement saw the group mount a rooftop solar array for which the church would pay about half the average retail electricity price, state officials said. The agreement states plainly that it is not a contract for the sale or lease of the $20,000 solar system, the church never owns the panels, and the low electricity price means its payback for the equipment would take 60 years, Josey wrote.

"Clearly, the only thing of value (the church) is obtaining for its payments under this agreement is the electricity created," he wrote.

In court filings, the group's attorneys have stuck to the argument that NC WARN isn't selling to the public because the deal involved a single customer only.

The deal "is not open to any other member of the public ... A private, bargained-for contract under which only one party receives electricity is not a sale of electricity 'to or for the public,' " attorney Matthew Quinn wrote to the court.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Whooping crane migration near wind turbines shows strong avoidance of stopover habitat within 5 km, reshaping Great Plains siting decisions, reducing collision risk, and altering routes across croplands, grasslands, and wetlands.

Key Points

It examines cranes avoiding stopovers within 5 km of turbines, reshaping habitat use and routing across the Great Plains.

✅ Cranes 20x likelier to rest >5 km from turbines.

✅ About 5% of high-quality stopover habitat is impacted.

✅ Findings guide wind farm siting across Great Plains wetlands.

As gatherings to observe whooping cranes join the ranks of online-only events this year, a new study offers insight into how the endangered bird is faring on a landscape increasingly dotted with wind turbines across regions. The paper, published this week in Ecological Applications, reports that whooping cranes migrating through the U.S. Great Plains avoid “rest stop” sites that are within 5 km of wind-energy infrastructure.

Avoidance of wind turbines can decrease collision mortality for birds, but can also make it more difficult and time-consuming for migrating flocks to find safe and suitable rest and refueling locations. The study’s insights into migratory behavior could improve future siting decisions as wind energy infrastructure continues to expand, despite pandemic-related investment risks for developers.

“In the past, federal agencies had thought of impacts related to wind energy primarily associated with collision risks,” said Aaron Pearse, the paper’s first author and a research wildlife biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown, N.D. “I think this research changes that paradigm to a greater focus on potential impacts to important migration habitats.”

Some policymakers have also rejected false health claims about wind turbines and cancer in public debate, underscoring the need for evidence-based decisions.

The study tracked whooping cranes migrating across the Great Plains, a region that encompasses a mosaic of croplands, grasslands and wetlands. The region has seen a rapid proliferation of wind energy infrastructure in recent years: in 2010, there were 2,215 wind towers within the whooping crane migration corridor that the study focused on; by 2016, when the study ended, there were 7,622 wind towers within the same area.

Pearse and his colleagues found that whooping cranes migrating across the study area in 2010 and 2016 were 20 times more likely to select “rest stop” locations at least 5 km away from wind turbines than those closer to turbines, a pattern with implications for developers as solar incentive changes reshape wind market dynamics according to industry analyses.

The authors estimated that 5% of high-quality stopover habitat in the study area was affected by presence of wind towers. Siting wind infrastructure outside of whooping cranes’ migration corridor would reduce the risk of further habitat loss not only for whooping cranes, but also for millions of other birds that use the same land for breeding, migration, and wintering habitat, and real-world siting controversies, such as an Alberta wind farm cancellation, illustrate how local factors shape outcomes for wildlife.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News