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:
On the fall of a storied automative event.
I had high hopes for this year’s Detroit Auto Show. Open to the media last week and running through Sunday, the Big Three automakers’ premier event came hot on the heels of big announcements from GM, Ford, and Stellantis on their plans for bringing electric car chargers to the masses. With a new late summer slot in a renewed downtown Detroit, what better time could there be to showcase the exciting new models that could usher in our electric future?
But I was wrong. This year’s Detroit Auto Show was concerningly underwhelming. The Big Three only revealed four new models, down from the six it had said it planned to show off and about half of what it debuted last year. Three of the four models weren’t even really new. They were just revised versions of existing gas-powered models on sale: the Jeep Gladiator, Cadillac CT5, and the Ford F-150. The only all new model was the GMC Acadia, a gas powered mid-sized crossover.
It was a missed opportunity. Auto shows are important not because they serve journalists but because they serve the public. They’re one-stop shops where ordinary people, no matter how car-inclined, can get information on the entire automotive industry and interact with direct representatives of the automaker, not dealers. Regular citizens can ask questions and try vehicles without pretense.
Yet the Detroit Auto Show was desolate. An industry colleague described its central Huntington Place as an “empty bingo hall.” It was a far cry from, say, 2007 when the hall had nearly 50 new model debuts and concepts.
This isn’t (just) sour grapes. Examine this year’s auto show with a wide-angle lens and it becomes clear the Big Three are stunningly half-hearted about electrification.
Now, to be clear, there was some EV presence at the show — it was just minor. Attendees perusing the Detroit AutoMobili-D area of small vendors and startups could encounter plenty of noble ideas about batteries, charging, and automotive technology. They could also ride in aspirational cars like the Tesla Model S Plaid or GMC Hummer EV. But riding shotgun in a $100,000 EV rocketing to 60 MPH in less than three seconds is like being driven to school in a Ferrari. Cool experience, but how relevant is it to your life? In an ideal world, the Big Three would show off a fleet of reasonably priced EVs — or at least new concepts that suggest the electric future is just around the corner for everyone.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
But, they didn’t. Stellantis had the RAM 1500 REV EV pickup tucked away in a corner of its display. It showed off the Chrysler Airflow EV concept, but that model was canceled a few months ago. Ford had examples of the Mach-E and F-150 Lightning, but aside from a couple of special editions, there were no substantial changes to either model. The Chevrolet Equinox and Blazer EV were there, but they were unveiled a year ago and there was no news about either model. Instead, the two examples on the showroom floor were non-working preproduction models quarantined on top of plexiglass turntables not meant to be looked at too closely by the general public. If you were a consumer in search of a reasonably priced, compelling EV model, it’s clear that Detroit didn’t have much to offer.
That’s a striking contrast to what’s happening overseas. This month, both China’s Chengdu Motor Show and Germany’s IAA in Munich featured model debuts and concepts that previewed a more egalitarian EV future. Both shows had EVs across many price points, not just super expensive luxury cars and big trucks that cost well into the six-figure range. IAA had keynote speakers from big companies like Continental and LG that outlined their roles and promised innovation in the EV future.
Detroit had none of that.
This might be partly explained by auto shows’ increasing irrelevance. Even before the COVID pandemic, auto show attendance had been in decline as individual automakers preferred to atomize, opting for their own big, highly curated press events full of hand-picked journalists and influencers. For example, last year’s Paris Auto Show only had a handful of similarly irrelevant debuts. One of the biggest unveilings — that of Mercedes-Benz’s fully electric EQE SUV — wasn’t even affiliated with the show; it happened at the prestigious Musée Rodin, the night before the event’s official press days.
But here’s the thing: When the traditional automakers skipped Paris, someone else jumped in: Chinese automakers like BYD, Great Wall Motors, Leapmotor, and more. They stunned the Parisians, much to the chagrin of the Western automakers. These automakers came with fully realized EV model lines that felt impressive and undercut their European competitors.
The Detroit Big Three should count their stars that tariffs and an increasingly precarious geopolitical situation make Chinese vehicles unpalatable in the United States. Ordinary people are increasingly becoming EV curious, and they’re hungry for models beyond an oversized pickup truck or a hyper-expensive luxury sedan. The lack of new EV model debuts or even concepts tells the public that Detroit’s Big Three don’t have much to say about electrification for anyone that isn’t wealthy.
The Detroit Auto Show should be the crown jewel of the American auto industry. It should be a place where the Detroit area automotive giants can show off their latest tech, flashiest concepts, and newest models amid an ever-competitive automotive market. It should be where automakers vie for the public’s attention via innovation and technology. Instead, it was a boring show where executives tried to shake the impending threat of a labor strike. Where were our reasonably priced electric cars?
GM, Ford, and Stellantis claim that managing labor costs is imperative to investing in EVs. But given the lack of progress at the Detroit Auto Show, it seems like something else is going on.
Read more about electric vehicles:
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 Loan Programs Office is good for more than just nuclear funding.
That China has a whip hand over the rare earths mining and refining industry is one of the few things Washington can agree on.
That’s why Alex Jacquez, who worked on industrial policy for Joe Biden’s National Economic Council, found it “astounding”when he read in the Washington Post this week that the White House was trying to figure out on the fly what to do about China restricting exports of rare earth metals in response to President Trump’s massive tariffs on the country’s imports.
Rare earth metals have a wide variety of applications, including for magnets in medical technology, defense, and energy productssuch as wind turbines and electric motors.
Jacquez told me there has been “years of work, including by the first Trump administration, that has pointed to this exact case as the worst-case scenario that could happen in an escalation with China.” It stands to reason, then, that experienced policymakers in the Trump administration might have been mindful of forestalling this when developing their tariff plan. But apparently not.
“The lines of attack here are numerous,” Jacquez said. “The fact that the National Economic Council and others are apparently just thinking about this for the first time is pretty shocking.”
And that’s not the only thing the Trump administration is doing that could hamper American access to rare earths and critical minerals.
Though China still effectively controls the global pipeline for most critical minerals (a broader category that includes rare earths as well as more commonly known metals and minerals such as lithium and cobalt), the U.S. has been at work for at least the past five years developing its own domestic supply chain. Much of that work has fallen to the Department of Energy, whose Loan Programs Office has funded mining and processing facilities, and whose Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains hasfunded and overseen demonstration projects for rare earths and critical minerals mining and refining.
The LPO is in line for dramatic cuts, as Heatmap has reported. So, too, are other departments working on rare earths, including the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains. In its zeal to slash the federal government, the Trump administration may have to start from scratch in its efforts to build up a rare earths supply chain.
The Department of Energy did not reply to a request for comment.
This vulnerability to China has been well known in Washington for years, including by the first Trump administration.
“Our dependence on one country, the People's Republic of China (China), for multiple critical minerals is particularly concerning,” then-President Trump said in a 2020 executive order declaring a “national emergency” to deal with “our Nation's undue reliance on critical minerals.” At around the same time, the Loan Programs Office issued guidance “stating a preference for projects related to critical mineral” for applicants for the office’s funding, noting that “80 percent of its rare earth elements directly from China.” Using the Defense Production Act, the Trump administration also issued a grant to the company operating America's sole rare earth mine, MP Materials, to help fund a processing facility at the site of its California mine.
The Biden administration’s work on rare earths and critical minerals was almost entirely consistent with its predecessor’s, just at a greater scale and more focused on energy. About a month after taking office, President Bidenissued an executive order calling for, among other things, a Defense Department report “identifying risks in the supply chain for critical minerals and other identified strategic materials, including rare earth elements.”
Then as part of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, the Biden administration increased funding for LPO, which supported a number of critical minerals projects. It also funneled more money into MP Materials — including a $35 million contract from the Department of Defense in 2022 for the California project. In 2024, it awarded the company a competitive tax credit worth $58.5 million to help finance construction of its neodymium-iron-boron magnet factory in Texas. That facilitybegan commercial operation earlier this year.
The finished magnets will be bought by General Motors for its electric vehicles. But even operating at full capacity, it won’t be able to do much to replace China’s production. The MP Metals facility is projected to produce 1,000 tons of the magnets per year.China produced 138,000 tons of NdFeB magnets in 2018.
The Trump administration is not averse to direct financial support for mining and minerals projects, but they seem to want to do it a different way. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has proposed using a sovereign wealth fund to invest in critical mineral mines. There is one big problem with that plan, however: the U.S. doesn’t have one (for the moment, at least).
“LPO can invest in mining projects now,” Jacquez told me. “Cutting 60% of their staff and the experts who work on this is not going to give certainty to the business community if they’re looking to invest in a mine that needs some government backstop.”
And while the fate of the Inflation Reduction Act remains very much in doubt, the subsidies it provided for electric vehicles, solar, and wind, along with domestic content requirements have been a major source of demand for critical minerals mining and refining projects in the United States.
“It’s not something we’re going to solve overnight,” Jacquez said. “But in the midst of a maximalist trade with China, it is something we will have to deal with on an overnight basis, unless and until there’s some kind of de-escalation or agreement.”
A conversation with VDE Americas CEO Brian Grenko.
This week’s Q&A is about hail. Last week, we explained how and why hail storm damage in Texas may have helped galvanize opposition to renewable energy there. So I decided to reach out to Brian Grenko, CEO of renewables engineering advisory firm VDE Americas, to talk about how developers can make sure their projects are not only resistant to hail but also prevent that sort of pushback.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Hiya Brian. So why’d you get into the hail issue?
Obviously solar panels are made with glass that can allow the sunlight to come through. People have to remember that when you install a project, you’re financing it for 35 to 40 years. While the odds of you getting significant hail in California or Arizona are low, it happens a lot throughout the country. And if you think about some of these large projects, they may be in the middle of nowhere, but they are taking hundreds if not thousands of acres of land in some cases. So the chances of them encountering large hail over that lifespan is pretty significant.
We partnered with one of the country’s foremost experts on hail and developed a really interesting technology that can digest radar data and tell folks if they’re developing a project what the [likelihood] will be if there’s significant hail.
Solar panels can withstand one-inch hail – a golfball size – but once you get over two inches, that’s when hail starts breaking solar panels. So it’s important to understand, first and foremost, if you’re developing a project, you need to know the frequency of those events. Once you know that, you need to start thinking about how to design a system to mitigate that risk.
The government agencies that look over land use, how do they handle this particular issue? Are there regulations in place to deal with hail risk?
The regulatory aspects still to consider are about land use. There are authorities with jurisdiction at the federal, state, and local level. Usually, it starts with the local level and with a use permit – a conditional use permit. The developer goes in front of the township or the city or the county, whoever has jurisdiction of wherever the property is going to go. That’s where it gets political.
To answer your question about hail, I don’t know if any of the [authority having jurisdictions] really care about hail. There are folks out there that don’t like solar because it’s an eyesore. I respect that – I don’t agree with that, per se, but I understand and appreciate it. There’s folks with an agenda that just don’t want solar.
So okay, how can developers approach hail risk in a way that makes communities more comfortable?
The bad news is that solar panels use a lot of glass. They take up a lot of land. If you have hail dropping from the sky, that’s a risk.
The good news is that you can design a system to be resilient to that. Even in places like Texas, where you get large hail, preparing can mean the difference between a project that is destroyed and a project that isn’t. We did a case study about a project in the East Texas area called Fighting Jays that had catastrophic damage. We’re very familiar with the area, we work with a lot of clients, and we found three other projects within a five-mile radius that all had minimal damage. That simple decision [to be ready for when storms hit] can make the complete difference.
And more of the week’s big fights around renewable energy.
1. Long Island, New York – We saw the face of the resistance to the war on renewable energy in the Big Apple this week, as protestors rallied in support of offshore wind for a change.
2. Elsewhere on Long Island – The city of Glen Cove is on the verge of being the next New York City-area community with a battery storage ban, discussing this week whether to ban BESS for at least one year amid fire fears.
3. Garrett County, Maryland – Fight readers tell me they’d like to hear a piece of good news for once, so here’s this: A 300-megawatt solar project proposed by REV Solar in rural Maryland appears to be moving forward without a hitch.
4. Stark County, Ohio – The Ohio Public Siting Board rejected Samsung C&T’s Stark Solar project, citing “consistent opposition to the project from each of the local government entities and their impacted constituents.”
5. Ingham County, Michigan – GOP lawmakers in the Michigan State Capitol are advancing legislation to undo the state’s permitting primacy law, which allows developers to evade municipalities that deny projects on unreasonable grounds. It’s unlikely the legislation will become law.
6. Churchill County, Nevada – Commissioners have upheld the special use permit for the Redwood Materials battery storage project we told you about last week.