Tesla may be getting ready for one of the biggest solar manufacturing moves in America. Reuters reports that the company is looking at buying about $2.9 billion worth of equipment from Chinese suppliers to make solar cells and solar panels in the United States.
If the plan moves forward, it could help Tesla build up to 100 gigawatts of solar manufacturing capacity on American soil by the end of 2028. That is a huge number. It also shows how serious Elon Musk may be about turning solar into a much bigger part of Tesla’s future.
But the report also reveals a bigger problem for the U.S. clean energy sector. Even when companies want to manufacture in America, they still often depend on Chinese tools, machinery, and supply chains to make it happen.
Tesla’s Solar Dream Is Getting Bigger
According to Reuters, Tesla is in talks with several Chinese companies that make solar manufacturing equipment. Suzhou Maxwell Technologies is one of the main names in the discussion. The company is known as the world’s biggest maker of screen-printing equipment used in solar cell production.
Other possible suppliers include Shenzhen S.C New Energy Technology and Laplace Renewable Energy Technology, Reuters said, citing people familiar with the matter.
Some of the equipment may need export approval from China’s commerce ministry before it can be shipped. Reuters reported that the companies were asked to deliver the machinery before autumn, and two sources said the equipment would likely head to Texas.
These details suggest Tesla’s plan is not just an idea or a long-term goal. The company seems to be preparing for a major manufacturing buildout in the U.S. However, the company has not publicly confirmed the reported order. The Chinese suppliers and China’s commerce ministry also did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment, according to the report.
In January, Musk said solar power could meet all of America’s electricity needs, including rising demand from data centers. Reuters also noted that Tesla job postings said the company wants to deploy 100 GW of “solar manufacturing from raw materials on American soil before the end of 2028.”
The Cost Gap Keeps China in Charge of Solar Supply Chains
After years of heavy investment, China controls most of the world’s solar manufacturing chain. According to Wood Mackenzie, China is expected to hold more than 80% of global polysilicon, wafer, cell, and module manufacturing capacity from 2023 to 2026.
Wood Mac also said a solar module made in China is about 50% cheaper than one made in Europe and 65% cheaper than one made in the United States. That price gap makes it hard for U.S. factories to compete, especially in the early stages.
So even when U.S. companies want to build locally, they still often need Chinese equipment and expertise. Reuters pointed out that the Biden administration excluded solar manufacturing equipment from tariffs in 2024 after U.S. solar companies said they had no real alternative source for the machines needed to launch domestic factories. That exemption has since been extended by the Trump administration.
In other words, America’s solar manufacturing push still depends, at least in part, on Chinese technology.
- READ MORE: Two Solar Stories, Two Different Directions: Why China Builds Faster as the U.S. Hits Pause
Why Tesla May Be Making This Move Now
Tesla’s reported plan is about much more than one company. It highlights a major challenge for the United States as it tries to build a stronger clean energy economy.
U.S. electricity demand is rising again, and solar is growing fast. The Energy Information Administration said U.S. power use hit its second straight record high in 2025. It also expects demand to keep rising in 2026 and 2027.
At the same time, solar is becoming one of the country’s fastest-growing power sources. In its latest outlook, the EIA said utility-scale solar generation in the U.S. is expected to grow from 290 billion kilowatt-hours in 2025 to 424 billion kilowatt-hours by 2027.
The EIA also said nearly 70 GW of new solar capacity is scheduled to come online in 2026 and 2027. That would increase U.S. solar operating capacity by 49% compared with the end of 2025.
Texas Solar Capacity Supports Tesla and SpaceX
Texas is expected to lead much of that growth. Solar generation in the ERCOT grid is forecast to rise from 56 billion kilowatt-hours in 2025 to 106 billion kilowatt-hours by 2027. Battery storage is also growing to help balance solar power throughout the day.
This helps explain why Texas is such an important part of Tesla’s reported plan. The state already plays a big role in Tesla’s manufacturing footprint. It is also one of the hottest solar markets in the country.
For Tesla, building solar equipment or solar products in Texas could support more than just the grid. Reuters said Musk plans to use much of the capacity for Tesla itself, while some could also help power SpaceX satellites.
That would turn solar into a strategic asset across Musk’s wider business empire. It would also tie clean power more closely to Tesla’s long-term growth story, especially as energy demand from artificial intelligence and data infrastructure keeps rising across the country.
Snapshot of US Solar Imports
Even with more local manufacturing, the U.S. solar market still depends heavily on imported parts. Solar Power World reviewed U.S. International Trade Commission data and found that the United States imported 33 GW of silicon solar panels in 2025. It also imported 21 GW of silicon solar cells.
That cell figure is especially important because it shows that U.S. panel assembly is growing faster than domestic cell production. America may be building more panels at home, but it still imports many of the core components needed to make them.
The report said the U.S. has around 50 GW of silicon panel assembly capacity, but less than 5 GW of domestic cell manufacturing output. That means plenty of cells still have to be imported. Notably, most imported cells came from Indonesia and Laos in 2025, while South Korea was also a major supplier.
This is where Tesla could make a difference. If it builds large-scale solar cell and panel manufacturing in the U.S., it could help close one of the biggest gaps in the domestic solar supply chain.
Still, there is an irony here. To reduce America’s dependence on foreign solar products, Tesla may first need to buy Chinese machines.
A Massive Opportunity, But Also a Huge Challenge
If the deal happens, it would be a major win for Chinese solar equipment companies. Many of them have faced weak domestic demand because China has already built too much manufacturing capacity.
For Tesla, the order could lay the foundation for a giant U.S. solar platform. It could support the company’s long-term energy strategy at a time when America needs more electricity, more solar, and more battery storage.
But the challenge is enormous.
Building 100 GW of solar manufacturing capacity in just a few years would be a staggering task. Tesla would need factories, workers, permits, raw materials, logistics, and smooth equipment delivery. It would also need stable trade rules and a supportive policy environment.
The company has already faced supply chain setbacks before. Reuters previously reported that production preparations for the Cybertruck and Semi in the U.S. were disrupted last year after component shipments from China were suspended following higher tariffs on Chinese goods. This history shows how exposed U.S. manufacturing can still be to trade tensions.
If speculations are true, Musk appears to be thinking far beyond electric vehicles, i.e., building a larger clean energy system around solar, batteries, manufacturing, and power demand from new technologies like AI.
For now, Reuters’ report shows a simple reality. The U.S. wants a homegrown solar industry. Tesla may want to help build one. But China still holds many of the tools needed to make that goal real.
The post Is Tesla Building a 100 GW U.S. Solar Giant With Chinese Equipment? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits