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:

Tesla already looked beleaguered last week as a tumbling stock price tied to public anger at CEO Elon Musk wiped out more than a half-billion dollars in value. The slide erased all the gains the company had garnered since new Musk ally Donald Trump was reelected as president. On Monday the stock went into full freefall, losing 15% of its value in one day. By Tuesday, Trump had to pose with Tesla vehicles outside the White House to try to defend them.
With a crashing market valuation and rising rage against its figurehead, Tesla’s business is in real jeopardy, something that’s true regardless of Musk’s power in the federal government. If he can’t magically right the ship this time, this self-sabotaging MAGA turn will go down as one of the great self-owns.
Musk’s heel turn has also upended EV culture and meaning. Tesla ownership, once a signal of climate virtue for those who bought in early, has been rebranded as a badge of shame. I’m annoyed that a vehicle I chose for the purpose of not burning fossil fuels has become a political albatross, and that many drivers are resorting to self-flagellating bumper stickers in the hopes it will stop vandals from spray-painting their doors. I wish I knew then what we know now, of course. But what would have become of the EV revolution if we had?
When, exactly, we should have seen Elon’s true self is a question that will inspire countless arguments amid the wave of Tesla hate. Signs were there early. By 2018, before the Model 3 even hit the road, Musk had been hit by so much criticism of his bad tweets and weird behavior that the magazine I worked for at the time felt the need to publish a contrarian defense of him as just the kind of risk-taking innovator the world needs.
That angle aged like milk, but within it lay a few grains of truth. Tesla truly did the bulk of the work in transforming the image of the electric car from a dumpy potato that only climate advocates would ever own, like the original Nissan Leaf, into a desirable consumer product. This is the company’s signature achievement, one that kickstarted the widespread adoption of EVs.
As I’ve written before, Musk wasn’t exactly untainted by 2019, when I bought my own Model 3. The Tony Stark luster of the new space age entrepreneur had worn off as the man sullied himself with pointless “pedo guy” accusations leveled at a rescuer in the Thailand cave incident. But the man had the best electric vehicle on the market, and more importantly, the best charging network. Having just moved to Los Angeles and in need of a vehicle, I wanted an EV to be my family’s only car. Without a home charger in the apartment, I simply couldn’t have lived with a Chevy Bolt or Hyundai Kona EV and the inferior charging networks they relied on at the time.
Millions of people who bought Teslas between then and now made the same choice. Some did it because a Tesla became a status symbol; many others were like me, simply interested in the most practical EV they could get. The ascendance of the Model Y to the world’s best-selling car of any kind in 2023 — a fact that feels astonishing in this flood of horrible vibes and MAGA antagonism just two years later — turned countless people into EV drivers.
After Musk’s far-right reveal, sales are tanking in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and other places that just saw a Tesla boom. Many owners, at least those with the financial wherewithal to buy a new car based on the prevailing political winds, are trying to unload their Musk-affiliated vehicles.
All those people in search of a new ride have a much better selection of electric vehicles to choose from than I did in 2019, which, weirdly, is thanks to the legacy carmakers and new EV startups that raced to catch up to Tesla. If I hadn’t bought a Model 3 in 2019, I would’ve had to get a hybrid and keep burning gasoline. If you want to avoid Musk in 2025, there are great Hyundai, Chevrolet, and other EVs waiting for you.
This isn’t to say there’s no alternate history where electric vehicles take off without Tesla. It didn’t invent the EV. Other automakers were experimenting with EVs before Musk’s company took off and conquered the market, and government environmental goals pushed carmakers toward electrification. Yet it’s hard to argue we’d be where we are now, with tens of millions of EVs on the world’s roads, without the meteoric rise of Musk’s car brand.
It stinks, simply put, to say anything nice about Tesla now, even if one is stating facts. Yes, Musk’s success buoyed electrification on multiple fronts: selling tons of EVs, forcing the other automakers to get serious about their electrification goals, and building a charging network that let his vehicles go just about anywhere a gas car would go. It also made him the world’s richest man, giving him the resources to buy and ruin Twitter and then help Trump get re-elected and undo federal policy support for the very cars he helped popularize. He made the world a better place for a moment, then ruined it because he could.
As an EV advocate, I can’t ignore the fact that Tesla got us to here. But as a human, I eagerly await the time Musk’s company no longer dominates the market it created. Thank goodness, that time seems to be coming soon.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Not going to lie, I didn’t see this coming.
Tesla just finished its strongest showing in years. In the second quarter of 2026, the company sold about 480,000 vehicles around the world — well over stock market projections of about 400,000 EVs. Tesla’s sales mark a full 25% year-over-year increase from the second quarter of last year.
If you’re surprised by this news, you’re not alone. Sales of Elon Musk’s EVs had been trending downward over the past few years following a series of self-inflicted wounds. The Cybertruck was a bomb. Tesla appeared to be interested only in building the self-driving cars and autonomous robots of the future, not the electric vehicles of today. Musk’s associations with President Trump and off-putting online politics alienated potential customers everywhere.
Yet here we are. So what happened?
European gas prices, for one thing. Tesla sales actually continued to fall in the U.S., where the electric car market as a whole still hasn’t recovered from tariffs confusion, the loss of federal subsidies, and other chaotic conditions over the past year. Tesla’s rally came instead from China and, interestingly, Europe: Registrations rose 39% in Denmark, 56% in Sweden, and 43% in Portugal and Italy.
It wasn’t so long ago that Musk’s politics had reportedly cratered interest in his cars in those countries. But European gas prices, which are typically much higher than those in the U.S., have also soared because of oil shocks related to the Iran War. EV interest, then, is up — so high that lots of buyers are willing to look past the personality of Tesla’s chief. (It doesn’t hurt that Tesla introduced less-expensive versions of both Model 3 and Model Y, with remarkably cheap leases and loans, to Europe this year to help overcome its struggles there.)
In China, meanwhile, Tesla has had something else up its sleeve to buoy sales. We’ve repeatedly noted the contraction of the company’s EV lineup: With the failure of the Cybertruck as well as the outright cancellation of the older and slow-selling Model S and Model X — the electric cars that pushed Tesla into the mainstream in the 2010s — the brand gets nearly all of its sales (more than 97% in Q2) from just two cars, the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover. And there are no signs it has an all-new mass-market car coming soon.
Instead, Tesla cobbled one together by making a new version of an existing car. In China, Musk has been selling the Model Y L, a version of his crossover with its platform stretched out by 6 inches to cram in an extra row of seats. (Tesla has offered a seven-seat version of its ordinary Model Y, but the two little seats in the back had just 25 inches of legroom compared to the 31 inches in this new version.) As a three-row SUV, the longer Model Y lets Tesla compete in a space that it vacated when it killed off the giant, expensive, gullwing-doored Model X. And as of last week, Model Y L is available in the U.S. Tesla hopes the vehicle can lead to a reversal of its sinking fortunes here, where its EV sales shrank by 20% in the second quarter.
Truthfully, the car is a bit of a kluge. Rear seats often require a compromise on comfort and space. In the case of the Model Y L, Jalopnik notes that even with the 6 inches added to the wheelbase, Tesla’s signature sloping roof doesn’t leave much headroom for the occupants of the way-back. Boxier EVs that were built to be three rows to begin with, like the Hyundai Ioniq 9, Kia EV9, and Rivian R1S, are more pleasant for the fifth and sixth passengers. Nevertheless, those who wanted a bigger Tesla at a starting price of around $60,000 can now get one, and that counts.
Model Y L is also a testament to the power of the platform. Yes, building a new vehicle from the ground up would have provided Tesla with a better all-around vehicle than what it got by hacking the Model Y. But the modified Model Y was much faster and cheaper to deliver, providing an entry into a popular segment of the car market just at the moment Tesla needed to right the ship.
Doing more with less, like creating a three-row EV on the platform of your two-row car, looks primed to become a big part of the future of electric vehicles. That’s particularly true when it comes to growing adoption in America, where legacy automakers and startups alike are trying to simplify manufacturing to bring down costs. The solution to get to market for a company like Honda was simply to borrow General Motors’ EV platform and build its first EV on top of it. Rivian has said it has no plans to sell a pickup truck on its new R2 platform the way it has with its original vehicle, but it absolutely could — and arguably should — if market conditions suddenly made such an EV pickup a hot item.
On half-full glasses, Omani polysilicon, and U.S. vs. Chinese nuclear
Current conditions: Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are carrying out damage assessments after Super Typhoon Bavi made landfall Monday as the equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane • A wildfire has scorched more than 11,000 acres in the French Pyrenees, forcing thousands to evacuate • Heavy rain from Typhoon Maysak has killed at least 15 people in China this week.
The governors of 11 states across the American West signed onto a pact to speed up permitting and increase coordination on the regional electrical grid. The agreement, brokered at the Western Governors’ Association’s annual meeting last week, unites Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming behind the Western Transmission Expansion Coalition, or WestTEC. The interstate effort to build out the grid across America’s western half published a study in February that found the region needed 12,600 miles of new transmission lines over the next decade, at a cost of roughly $60 billion. Even the energy adviser to Utah Governor Spencer Cox — a Republican who has positioned himself as a vocal champion of “fiscal responsibility” — called the investment “just common sense” for the West. “Getting energy to where it’s needed, when it’s needed, is just as important as generating it in the first place,” Emy Lesofski, who also serves as the director of the Utah Office of Energy Development, said in a statement. “Think of the grid like the roads and highways connecting our communities — it doesn’t matter how much is produced if you can’t move it to where people actually live and work.”
It’s a sign, perhaps, of the counterintuitive but optimistic conclusion of a new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Entitled “Glass Half Full,” the report — which my colleague Robinson Meyer published as an exclusive — compared the tax and spending laws passed under the Biden and Trump administrations and also analyzed each administration’s environmental rules. The analysis concludes that 74% of new clean energy capacity that would have gotten built under the Biden administration’s policy by 2035 will still get built under Trump’s policies by that same year. Those new renewables and nuclear plants will generate about 71% of the electricity that would have been expected had Biden’s policies remained law. Roughly 67% of the climate pollution that would have fallen under Biden’s policies will still drop under the trajectory Trump set. “The glass is substantially full,” Lily Bermel, the report’s author and a visiting fellow at the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, told Rob. “It’s not barely half full. It’s like three-quarters full.”
The U.S. grid needs to increase its supply of reliable electricity as quickly as possible. But regulators are stretched so thin racing to approve new projects that they can’t risk diverting attention to fast track last-minute design changes to a $2 billion gas-fired plant in the nation’s largest and arguably most stressed grid system. On Monday, Utility Dive reported that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided last week to reject a request for a waiver to allow Advanced Power Services’ Chestnut Run project in eastern Ohio to hook up to the PJM Interconnection system while bypassing certain rules. PJM included the plant — the parent company of which is ArcLight Capital Partners, which in turn sold itself in May to the data center developer DigitalBridge for $1.1 billion — in the initial 51 projects designated under the Reliability Resource Initiative, a program to fast-track roughly 12 gigawatts of additional generation from new and existing power stations.
In a dynamic that echoes what went wrong with Westinghouse’s buildout of two AP1000s at Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle, the process for the program barred any changes to a project’s size and capacity in its interconnection rights. With gas turbines in short order, Advanced Power couldn’t get critical equipment. The Boston-based independent power producer told FERC it had found alternative turbines, but that the new units would change the plant’s configuration, shaving off a modest 55 megawatts from its maximum output of more than 1.2 gigawatts of electricity. It’s barely a 4% difference. But FERC said that “studies resulting from the equipment changes would introduce substantial delays” and “have a ripple effect” on other projects in the queue.

Back in February, Oman’s United Solar opened the Middle East’s largest polysilicon plant. At full capacity, the facility will churn out 100,000 metric tons of polysilicon per year, enough to produce 40 gigawatts of solar panels. That makes the plant the largest of its kind outside China. Initially backed by Oman’s sovereign wealth fund, United Solar has already received $30 million in backing from Waaree Solar Americas, the U.S. subsidiary of an Indian solar giant that Semafor reported was championed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in recent trade talks in Muscat. On Monday, the Oman Observer reported that United Solar had closed a $1.6 billion deal with the International Finance Corporation, the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. In a statement, the company described the investment as an endorsement of United Solar as a supplier of material that can comply with mounting American and European trade restrictions on Chinese solar panels.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Cuba’s entire power grid went offline Monday as the Caribbean nation’s energy crisis devolves into catastrophe amid Washington’s blockade on fuel shipments. Energy Minister Vicente de la O Levy told CNN that officials were working to restore energy and that they’ve already activated emergency “microsystems” that supply electricity to critical services. In a plea to the United Nations in May, Francisco Pichón, the highest ranking officer in the Havana office of the U.N.’s Development System, said “time is running out, we need fuel now to save lives.” As in neighboring Puerto Rico, the ongoing grid disaster has spurred a boom in rooftop solar. But NBC News reported that Cubans are also turning to dirtier energy sources such as charcoal to cook indoors, subjecting themselves to dangerous smoke.
I find the comparison to Puerto Rico particularly poignant. Both islands were colonized around the same time, forming the beachhead of Spain’s early empire in the Americas, and rebelled against Madrid’s rule around the same time. Both fell under Washington’s suzerainty after the Spanish-American War of 1898, although the Americans granted Cubans self rule while seizing Puerto Rico as a colony. After the Cuban Revolution, the U.S. invested in Puerto Rico as a manufacturing hub and a symbol of the American system’s superiority. But as the memory of the Cold War faded into the 1990s, the U.S. cut key support for Puerto Rico, flipping over the first domino in a process that ultimately led to the island’s bankruptcy and the total collapse of its electrical system. The islands had opposite experiences of the so-called American Century. Neither one can keep the lights on.
In the early hours of July 4, the microreactor developer Aalo Atomics split atoms at its test reactor for the first time, becoming the fourth company in the Trump administration’s reactor pilot program to go critical. Criticality, on its own, is not a huge deal. But the program supported 10 companies to build test reactors that could generate data that the developers can use in their applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Department of Energy, which administered the program, set a July 4 deadline for at least three companies to split atoms for the first time. First came Antares Nuclear, whose microreactor — designed for the military and space — went live at the Idaho National Laboratory early last month. Two weeks later, the gas-cooled microreactor maker Valar Atomics fired up its test reactor at the San Rafael Energy Lab in Utah. A week ago, as I told you, Deployable Energy went critical with its “nuclear battery,” also at the Idaho National Lab. In a statement, Aalo Atomics CEO Matt Loszak called reaching criticality “our most significant milestone to date, as it paves the way for the deployment of” the full-scale power units by smoothing the pathway to NRC approval.
I hope you were soothed by that chaser, because here’s the acrid shot: While we split atoms at test reactors, China just hooked up a whole new gigawatt-scale reactor to its grid. Last week, I told you that the second of six new Hualong One reactors — essentially China’s standardized version of the American AP1000 with an all-domestic supply chain — had hit a critical juncture. Well, now it’s hit the most critical juncture of all: It’s officially supplying power to the grid. Onto the next one.
The offshore wind industry may be in retreat in the U.S., but it’s just picking up in Europe. On Monday offshoreWIND.biz reported that the Netherlands’ 760-megawatt Hollandse Kust West VI offshore wind farm has officially connected to the grid. The 52-turbine plant is expected to reach full capacity by the end of this year.
Any version of the future — even one under Trump — includes bits of the Inflation Reduction Act.
We passed a major milestone over the weekend: the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That piece of legislation — which curtailed the wind and solar tax credits, ended incentives for electric vehicle buyers, and terminated a lot of green industrial policy — was signed into law on July 4, 2025. It also formally ended the era of decarbonization and climate policy experimentation that began when the United States passed the Inflation Reduction Act roughly three years earlier.
Now we’re far enough out to begin assessing the Trump law’s impact. And a fascinating new report, published today by the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, argues that the damage … is not as bad as one might fear — at least in the electricity sector.
The power sector has retained most of the quantifiable benefits associated with Biden’s climate law and Environmental Protection Agency rules, the new report asserts, and about two-thirds of the reductions in heat-trapping pollution expected under Biden’s policies will still happen under Trump’s. The report is called “Glass Half Full,” but its author, Lily Bermel, told me that her own conclusions went even further: “It’s not barely half full,” she said. “It’s like three-quarters full.”
We had the exclusive on the new report at Heatmap — check out our full story for more coverage, including interviews with critics of the analysis. Bermel also joined me on our Shift Key podcast to discuss her findings and what they suggest for the future of climate policy.
But in this more discursive space, I want to address head-on a question I think Bermel’s report raises: Was the Inflation Reduction Act worth it? If two-thirds of the emissions cuts expected under President Biden's policies are going to happen anyway (at least from the power sector), what was the point of those policies?
I posed this question directly to Bermel. She pointed me to a different source of MIT data: the Clean Investment Monitor, which tracks clean energy and industry investment in the United States across a range of sectors. That data shows that wind, solar, and storage investment did increase in the United States after the IRA passed, she said. “What the IRA did for wind and solar was good and impactful, but ultimately no longer necessary and worth the bang for buck,” she told me. (She added that the law’s other policies — such as its incentives for “clean firm” power plants such as geothermal that can run all day — did not go far enough.)
Ben King, a director at the Rhodium Group (which collaborates with MIT on the Clean Investment Monitor data), made another point when we chatted about the MIT report over the weekend. The new report compares visions of what the energy system will look like after Trump’s policies and Biden’s policies. But both of those scenarios contain a lot of the IRA’s policies, he said, because the solar and wind tax credits remain available in some form until the end of this decade. There simply is no version of the future that doesn’t have a lot of the IRA in it.
And that should, perhaps, reframe how we compare the emissions trajectories under Trump’s and Biden’s policies. It might sound like good news that 67% of the emissions cuts expected under Biden’s policies could still materialize under Trump’s. But it might also invite a certain nihilism — if most of the cuts were going to happen anyway, why did we have a big political fight over climate policy in the first place?
So it’s worth stating clearly that any fight over emissions or climate policy is partly about the emissions cuts that have not happened yet. Had the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits — or the EPA’s climate rules — been preserved, then emissions cuts might have gone even deeper than we once anticipated. In this way, there is always something proleptic about discussing emissions policy — really, you are trying to secure additional emissions reductions.
To put this another way, Bermel’s model suggests that the United States will build the same amount of offshore wind under Trump’s policies as it would under Biden’s (about 6 gigawatts). That happens, she said, because offshore wind is driven by state policy as much if not more than federal policy — and the state policy environment was souring even before Trump took office. But had Kamala Harris won in 2024, then Trump’s war on wind would never have happened, and states may have worked harder to salvage their offshore wind investments — or gone on to build even more.
There is no world, in other words, where Biden’s policies would have stood alone. Their success was always provisional, and their potential victory was always an invitation to further gains.