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:
Making sense of two seemingly opposite Tesla stats.

It’s a bad sign when they won’t tell you the exact numbers.
On Thursday, Tesla released final production figures for 2024, which saw the EV maker post a rare year-over-year decline in sales growth. It’s likely that a slow start for the Cybertruck, Tesla’s only new model in recent memory, was a big cause of the slowdown. But we can’t tell you exactly how well or poorly the big truck is doing because the company won’t tell us.
Tesla delivered 1,789,226 total vehicles to customers last year. The popular, reasonably affordable Model 3 or Model Y EVs made up more than 95% of those sales. The remainder were lumped into a group called “other models,” meaning Cybertruck and the long-in-the-tooth, expensive Model X and Model S, a move that has the same flavor as a Friday afternoon news dump. The “other models” accounted for just 85,133 deliveries, or 4.8% of Tesla’s total.
If you’ve been following Heatmap’s coverage then this comes as no surprise. Elon Musk & Co. sold just shy of 17,000 Cybertrucks during the third quarter of last year (July to September). That made the shiny metal beast the third-best-selling EV in America after Tesla’s two volume sellers. But Cybertruck was a distant third behind those two EVs. In the fourth quarter of 2024, Tesla delivered 23,640 “other models,” meaning that’s the maximum number of Cybertrucks it could have sold.
The writing for Tesla’s sales slump has been on the wall for years. A recent design refresh helped bump Model 3 sales, and the company is still working on a rumored update to the Model Y, the world’s best-selling EV, that might give Tesla a shot in the arm. But with Tesla’s future prospects resting with the Cybercab and other autonomous aspirations, the Cybertruck is the brand’s only current opportunity to boost its bottom line with a new vehicle.
Except that the stainless steel war rig was never a good candidate for high-volume sales. Cybertruck starts at $80,000. It has suffered embarrassing viral moments where the vehicle failed at basic truck tasks such as getting out of snow or sand. It comes with some cool amenities, such as the ability to back up one’s home power supply via bidirectional charging. It also serves as the avatar of everything Elon, making the car a polarizing hard pass for anyone who doesn’t want to be publicly profiled as a Musk fan.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox each day.
Cybertruck endured a slow start dogged by production delays and nagging, frequent recalls. Soon it became evident that demand for the vehicle wasn’t exactly red-hot. Musk at one point has claimed that a million people put their names down for a Cybertruck, but doing so cost only $100, so the length of that list doesn’t mean much. More telling was the report that Tesla was scrubbing the badging off the limited-edition Foundation series, which wasn’t selling, so it could offer the vehicles as ordinary Cybertrucks.
As The Verge notes, how you’d grade the Cybertruck depends entirely on what you believe its potential to be. As a competitor to EV pickup trucks like the Rivian R1T, Ford F-150 Lightning, and Chevy Silverado EV, the Tesla is the king — Cybertruck is outselling all those models. But electric truck sales have been sluggish all along, making the Cybertruck the big fish in a pretty small pond.
If the Cybertruck’s raison d'etre was simply to bring Musk’s Mad Max daydream to life, then it has succeeded. But if the goal of the Cybertruck was to sell lots of cars, then it’s hard to argue it has been anything but a boondoggle.
The automakers nipping at Tesla’s heels in the EV market, including GM and Hyundai/Kia, have every reason to see a path to more growth, even with the lingering uncertainty of an unfriendly new era of American government. They’re rolling out new models and posting record sales. If they can continue to bring down the starting price of their electric models, lots of their customers could be ready to ditch fossil fuel engines.
But, at least for today, Tesla’s status it tethered to the Cybertruck, which doesn’t have a lot of room to grow. Once upon a time, Tesla teased a high-end version of the vehicle that would have 500 miles of range, as well as an entry-level Cybertruck that could start in the neighborhood of $50,000. Realizing either of those goals could make many drivers — at least those not immediately turned off at the thought of owning this thing — take a long look at the Cybertruck. Neither appears imminent.
Musk’s reaction to all this might be a shrug. Rather than rounding out his stable of cars with an affordable EV with the potential to sell in huge numbers, he has bet the farm on Tesla winning the autonomous vehicle race and tossed out the Cybertruck as a treat to his hardcore devotees. Now he must hope enough of them buy it to keep Tesla’s cratering stock price afloat while he chases the future.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Hawaii is bracing for flooding from its third kona storm this year after the other two dumped a combined six feet of rain on some parts of Maui’s mountains • A major landslide on Italy’s Adriatic coast has severed the A14 highway • Heavy rain in Azerbaijan deluged the capital city of Baku.
Arizona’s biggest public utility, the Salt River Project, just held an election for the seats on its board — and liberal champions of clean energy swept. A slate of candidates campaigning under the name Clean Energy Team will now hold an eight-to-six majority at the utility that serves power and water to millions of customers. The race drew national attention, and proved, according to The New York Times, “surprisingly contentious.” On one side were the Sierra Club and Hollywood climate activist Jane Fonda. On the other were local business leaders and Turning Point USA, the conservative group Charlie Kirk founded. While two candidates from the latter slate won seats, proponents of renewable energy will dominate policymaking at the utility for the first time. “We can show that the utility can be successful and profitable and still support renewable energy,” Randy Miller, a former board member who backed the clean energy slate and now serves on an advisory council for the board, told Politico. “It’s no longer a question about whether it’s possible.”
We have all seen the viral photos of eye-popping numbers on price signs at Southern California gas stations. But the exact cost to American drivers nationwide hadn’t yet been quantified. Until now. Researchers at Brown University gave Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer a sneak peak at their new Iran War Energy Cost Tracker, a hub for the team’s analysis and data. The war has cost the U.S. economy about $17 billion solely by increasing prices for gasoline and diesel fuel, the estimates show. The higher prices amount to a hike of $129 per household so far. “If you think about an individual paying $1 or $1.50 more for gasoline, that’s often just a nuisance,” Jeff Colgan, an author of the analysis and a political science professor at Brown University, told Rob. “But as a country, we consume 370 million gallons of gasoline per day. So when you add that all up, this is more than just a nuisance for the country. This is a major cost.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
When the Trump administration became the biggest shareholder in MP Materials last summer, Biden-era officials admitted to Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin that they were jealous of their Republican successors who marshalled the political will to experiment with quasi-nationalization. But at least one former official from President Joe Biden’s White House has a different take. “Bottom line: the MP deal is both too much & not enough,” Brian Deese, the former director of the National Economic Council, wrote in a post on X, announcing the findings of a new paper he co-authored at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The deal delivers unprecedented support to one firm, creating new risks without long-term resilience.”
Uranium Energy Corp., meanwhile, has started up production at its Burke Hollow mine in Texas. It’s the first new mining operation using in-situ recovery, a process that includes chemical leaching out of ore. It’s the first new facility of its kind in the U.S. in more than a decade, World Nuclear News reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Volkswagen is shifting production at its Chattanooga plant from the ID.4 electric SUV to the large Atlas SUV. The ID.4 will remain available throughout the U.S., and “future models are planned,” but the German automaker said it’s “exploring pathways for a new vehicle model to be assembled.” Instead, the facility will focus on churning out the Atlas, Volkswagen’s second-most popular vehicle. EVs “continue to challenge” the industry, requiring what the company called measured decisions. “The Chattanooga plant has been, and will continue to be, a cornerstone of Volkswagen’s strategy in the United States,” Volkswagen Group of America President and CEO Kjell Gruner said in a press release. “This strategic shift underscores the company’s commitment to Chattanooga and its workforce as we position the plant for long-term success and future product opportunities.”

A team of scientists at Princeton University and the University of Arizona produced what the Los Angeles Times called “the most extensive estimate of the country’s groundwater to date.” The researchers took data from about 800,000 wells and applied a machine-learning model to project the depth of the water table in each location. The findings, published in Nature, could help local policymakers decide how to handle overpumping from stressed aquifers. “Groundwater is out of sight and out of mind for most people,” Reed Maxwell, a hydrologist at Princeton and co-author of the study, told the newspaper. “Knowing how much we have will be helpful in knowing how to use it wisely.”
The population of Antarctic fur seals, the smallest of the polar seals which live almost exclusively on the island of South Georgia, halved over the last 25 years, from 2.2 million adults in 1999 to 944,000 in 2025, Mongabay reported. Global experts now say half of the population loss is due to reduced food availability as warmer temperatures and shrinking sea ice spur large schools of krill, the seal’s main prey, into deeper and colder waters. To boot, the seals are facing more competition for their food. High-quality krill now appears in tins at supermarkets in New York City. But really demand is surging for use in fish farming.
“It’s coming right out of your pocket.”
The Iran war has sent fuel prices surging nationwide — and those higher prices are beginning to impose significant costs on the American economy, according to a new analysis from researchers at Brown University.
The war has cost the U.S. economy roughly $17 billion solely by increasing prices for gasoline and diesel fuel, the estimate finds. These higher prices have cost each household about $129 on average, researchers say.
“If you think about an individual paying $1 or $1.50 more for gasoline, that’s often just a nuisance,” Jeff Colgan, an author of the analysis and a political science professor at Brown University, told me.
“But as a country, we consume 370 million gallons of gasoline per day. So when you add that all up, this is more than just a nuisance for the country. This is a major cost,” he said.
The team has published a new website, the Iran War Energy Cost Tracker, to share their analysis and monitor the war’s rising costs over time.
“Of course, the most horrible costs are the casualties, the deaths,” Colgan said. “And there’s been discussion in the media of the fiscal cost and the new Department of Defense funding. But there is this other cost, and it’s coming right out of your pocket,” he said.
Many of the higher costs in their analysis come from surging diesel prices, which have risen nearly 48% since the war began. Although Americans consume almost twice as much gasoline as diesel every day — diesel is mostly used by things like trucks and trains in the U.S. — the cost of diesel has risen so significantly that it drives nearly half of the total price shock.
The analysis finds that Americans have paid an additional $8.8 billion for gasoline and an extra $8 billion for diesel fuel that they would not have had to spend otherwise. Those diesel costs will eventually work their way into prices paid by consumers by increasing shipping costs or packaging costs.
The higher costs haven’t been borne evenly across the country. Although much of the attention has focused on states where nominal prices are highest — such as California, where a gallon of gasoline now costs $5.93 — those states have not seen the sharpest increases since bombing started, Colgan said.
Utah has seen its gas prices rise by more than $1.50 per gallon since the war began, the tracker finds. Arizona and Kentucky have seen prices rise by more than $1.40.
“Utah used to have very cheap gasoline compared to the rest of the nation, and now it doesn’t,” he said.
The tracker doesn’t look at other commodities that have risen in price due to the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz — such as jet fuel, naphtha, fertilizer, and petrochemical inputs — but Colgan said they want to do so over time.
“We wanted to show that what we’re seeing right now is a delta — an increase in what [the gas price] would have been if we hadn’t made this decision to go to war,” Colgan said.
To estimate where gas and diesel prices would be today had the war never happened, Colgan worked with John Perdue, a Brown student, to look at how gasoline and diesel prices have changed over the past five years to account for normal fluctuations and seasonal variation. They compared those average price increases both to average gas and diesel prices in February and to the price level on February 28, when bombing began.
“The truth is it doesn’t much matter” which of the two methods you use to calculate the counterfactual, Colgan said. (Viewers to the website can look at both estimates.) “The numbers are big either way.”
The costs will continue rising, even if the ceasefire that the United States and Iran announced earlier this week holds.
As long as Iran keeps the Strait of Hormuz closed, oil prices will keep rising as a large share of the world’s fossil fuels remain stuck behind a blockade. Even after the Strait is reopened, oil prices could remain elevated for months as the system accommodates the permanently lost supply, the analyst Rory Johnston told me on Heatmap’s podcast Shift Key on Thursday.
“The economic consequences of the decision the U.S. government has made will continue for Americans,” Colgan agreed. He contrasted the war’s $17 billion cost in gasoline and diesel prices with billions that the Department of Government Efficiency has claimed to save taxpayers — or the $6 billion annual budget for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the anti-HIV/AIDS program that Trump zeroed out last year.
“What else could we have spent that $16.7 billion on?” he asked. “Turns out there’s a lot.”
Rob talks through what could happen next in the Strait of Hormuz with Commodity Context’s Rory Johnston.
The United States and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire in Iran, and energy markets responded with jubilation — at least initially. Every major Wall Street index surged on Wednesday, and U.S. oil prices fell.
But the actual situation on the ground is far more ambiguous, huge questions remain about the truce, and the Strait of Hormuz is as closed today as it has been since the beginning of the war.
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Rory Johnston, a longtime oil analyst, repeat Shift Key guest, and the author of the Commodity Context newsletter. We talk about why Iran gains from extending the ceasefire, where the pressure in the global energy system is building up, and what could happen next. We also talk about why the Midwest has the cheapest gasoline in the world right now.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Rory Johnston: For a lot of emerging markets, again, the areas that would be hit hardest by this, they also typically end up having some of the highest fossil fuel subsidies for, let’s say, pump prices. So if the governments don’t relax those subsidies, this transforms, in the initial phase, from a consumer crisis of disposable income erosion — kind of recessionary pressure — to a full-blown governmental fiscal crisis as the pressure gets borne by public balance sheets. So I imagine that as this continues, you’re going to see governments increasingly need to roll back these subsidies, even though all the political incentives are going to go the other way, but no one’s going to afford it. So I think it’s another thing we need to watch.
Robinson Meyer: When you talk about these countries having very high consumer subsidies, what countries are we talking about? Because the countries I think about as having the highest oil side consumer subsidies are the Gulf states. Is that kind of what you’re thinking about?
Johnston: Gulf states, but also, for instance, like, you know, India and Bangladesh have controls on petrol prices that are meant to kind of shield consumers from the volatility in these markets. And whether or not that’s allowed to continue that, you know, you’re going to need to allow price signals to do their work. Otherwise, you’re just going to not allow the system to kind of heal itself. And that’s how you in the same way as like if we rewind our memories back to the 1970s, when Nixon instituted price controls on gasoline. That was the main reason that you ended up getting gas lines, was that these markets weren’t able to incentivize the necessary barrels to where they were going.
Meyer: In North America, the fuel that we’ve seen the most pressure on is diesel so far. Diesel prices are extremely high in a way that gasoline prices are high, but they’re not that bad. It’s funny, going back to your previous comment, I have been looking at maps and thinking, I wonder if Iowa or Illinois has the cheapest gasoline in the world right now? And it sounds like it actually does. Pretty close.
But with diesel, we’re beginning to see really eye-watering prices. And one comment I’ve heard from people in the oil industry is, it’s kind of surprising the Department of Energy hasn’t started to at least talk about plans for rationing this yet because we are getting to a price level where you would see physical shortages or at least diesel not making it to places where it would normally be making it. Do you think that it’s premature to be talking about the federal or Canada national response to these high diesel prices? Or should we actually be starting to plan for what a continued world of very high diesel prices that requires some degree of rationing and some degree of kind of physical allocation to certain geographies looks like?
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Why the Real Oil Crisis Hasn’t Started Yet
Iran’s planned toll for the Strait of Hormuz is a $2.33 per ton carbon tax
China Is the Big Winner of the Iran Ceasefire
Rory’s previous appearance on Shift Key: Why Trump’s Oil Imperialism Might Be a Tough Sell for Actual Oil Companies
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Lunar Energy is building the technology to turn homes into active participants in the power system. Learn more about Lunar’s vision of the future at lunarenergy.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.