On May 28, 2025, the United States Court of International Trade in New York ruled that the U.S. government's executive order to impose additional tariffs on multiple countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was an overreach and illegal, and prohibited the enforcement of the related executive order. The rationale was that the president does not have the authority to levy comprehensive tariffs on almost all trading partners. Granting the president "unrestricted tariff power" by Congress was deemed unconstitutional, and Congress had set limits in the IEEPA to restrict the president's power to impose tariffs. However, Trump indicated that he would appeal the ruling further, so there remains significant uncertainty regarding the changes in U.S. tariffs on China.
Nevertheless, according to the current energy storage tariff measures being implemented, there are three time points: May 14, 2025, August 13, 2025, and January 1, 2026, with tariffs set at 40.9%, 64.9%, and 82.4%, respectively.
This article is the first in the series, aiming to analyze the price impact of Chinese-produced energy storage cells exported directly, transshipped via Malaysia, and the hypothetical scenario of local production of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) energy storage cells in the U.S. from May 14 to August 13. Some of the data used are theoretical, which may make the results appear on the higher side. The author will explain the reasons for each data point in detail to allow readers to replace the relevant data and obtain more targeted conclusions. Follow-up articles (II) and (III) will analyze the price impact due to different tariffs at the subsequent two time points.
Taking the domestically produced 280Ah lithium iron phosphate energy storage cell as an example:
(1) Direct export from China to the U.S., with the data sources and changes for each stage shown in the table below：
(2) Transshipment from China to the US via Malaysia, with the data sources and changes for each stage shown in the table below:
(3) Local production of cells in the US using imported raw materials, with the data sources and changes for each stage shown in the table below:
Note: Given China's extremely high global market share in the lithium iron phosphate and artificial graphite anode segments, it is considered impractical for the US to bypass China and directly import the relevant raw materials. Therefore, the following materials will also be subject to corresponding tariff changes.
In summary of the above calculations, considering the current direct export price of Chinese cells at 0.52 yuan/Wh, the transshipment via Malaysia offers a 9.8% price advantage. Meanwhile, the cost of directly producing energy storage cells in the US remains 8.6% higher than that in China.
The above content is summarized as follows:
Note: Some of the calculated data were obtained by the author through communication and processing in the market, while more data originated from the average prices of various stages on the SMM official website. In addition, in the current actual operations, the increased costs resulting from the U.S. tariffs on China are mainly borne by overseas clients. Therefore, the results calculated in this article may be higher than the actual transaction prices. Any improper aspects are welcome to be criticized and corrected by everyone.
SMM New Energy Industry Research Department
Cong Wang 021-51666838
Xiaodan Yu 021-20707870
Rui Ma 021-51595780
Disheng Feng 021-51666714
Yujun Liu 021-20707895
Yanlin Lü 021-20707875
Zhicheng Zhou 021-51666711
Haohan Zhang 021-51666752
Zihan Wang 021-51666914
Xiaoxuan Ren 021-20707866
Jie Wang 021-51595902
Yang Xu 021-51666760
Boling Chen 021-51666836
