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:
BYD is coming for their marketshare.

On the surface, it should be a triumphant moment for the Big Three, the triumvirate of traditional American automakers made up of Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis.
They survived the pandemic and inflationary surge of the early 2020s, and they settled their labor issues with the United Auto Workers. They even had a pretty good 2023, financially. Even as interest rates reached multi-decade highs, which should normally discourage big-ticket car and truck purchases, Ford and General Motors booked $4 billion and $12 billion in profit, respectively — slightly below 2022’s levels but more than might have been reasonably expected. Stellantis, which owns the Jeep and Dodge brands, posted a record profit.
Consumers and businesses are still buying millions of full-size pickups, SUVs, and vans each year. If interest rates start to fall this summer, and the economy holds out, then 2024 could be even bigger. Yet the companies are clearly increasingly worried. And they have good reason to be. They are entering a critical period: a time when they must make the EV transition, or die trying.
For the past decade, Detroit has supported itself partly off profits earned from selling SUVs, crossovers, and pickup trucks to North Americans. It essentially delegated the market for small cars and trucks to foreign automakers operating in the United States, like Toyota and Honda. You haven’t even been able to buy a Ford-badged sedan or hatchback in the United States since the pandemic, as the automaker has winnowed its car offerings here down to the Mustang.
That model worked in the post-Great Recession period when gasoline was generally cheap and the global auto market was stable and growing. But now those profits are coming under threat. The primary driver of that threat is the rise of Chinese automakers, who are chomping away at the Big Three’s shrinking market share in China and around the world.
In the coming weeks, more and more attention will be paid to this important shift. The Biden administration is reportedly so alarmed at the ability of Chinese-made cars to enter American markets that it is considering hiking tariffs on EVs and other clean-energy products further.
Here are three important aspects of this story to understand:
Each of the Big Three finds itself in a slightly different position in the EV transition than it expected to be — and while none of them is quite as weak as it may look at first, no automaker is doing particularly well.
Ford, for instance, seems to have nailed it with the Mustang Mach E, a family-friendly crossover that has outsold any individual electric model from Kia or Hyundai. But it has struggled to convince truck buyers to try out its all-electric F-150 Lightning, and it has slowed its EV investment plans. The company lost $64,731 on each electric car it sold last year — $4.7 billion on EVs overall — meaning that its electric division only survives because of its ample profits from selling gas-burning SUVs and trucks.
General Motors sells the Chevrolet Bolt, the country’s best-selling EV that isn’t a Tesla. But it has struggled to roll out its new Ultium battery platform, which it hopes will be the basis of all its new electric cars. It recalled the Chevrolet Blazer EV after test units literally left reviewers stranded by the side of the road.
Stellantis — the trans-Atlantic fusion of the Fiat, Dodge, Jeep, and Peugeot brands — is arguably in the best shape of the three, although you could argue that it barely counts as a member of the Big Three anymore. (It is headquartered in the Netherlands.) It turned a profit on its electric cars last year, but almost all of that came from European brands that aren’t offered here. Its American business remains slower and more pickup-dependent.
Since the pandemic, China’s position in the global auto market has completely changed. Last year, the country exported more cars than it imported for the first time ever. Although most of its auto exports are gas-burning vehicles — it has filled a gap in the Russian car market left behind by western automakers’ post-Ukraine withdrawal — electric cars make up a larger and larger share of its production.
The star of China’s EV market is BYD, which passed Tesla last year as the world’s No. 1 producer of electric cars. By leveraging China’s domination of the battery industry and facility with electronics manufacturing, BYD can sell EVs for under $12,000.
While BYD hasn’t started to sell cars in the United States yet, it is getting closer to the market. On Tuesday, the head of BYD’s operations in Mexico told Nikkei that the company is exploring opening a new factory in that country.
That could get BYD’s cars into the U.S. under the umbrella of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. Then, even if the federal government found a way to block the domestic sale of BYD cars, the company could still cut into U.S. automakers’ market share in Mexico and potentially Canada, which are both major markets for American manufacturers.
Even without North American factories, Chinese EVs have started to dribble into the United States. Volvo’s small new electric SUV, the XC30, is manufactured in China and will debut at $34,950 this year. That’s roughly the same price GM hopes to achieve with its American-made Chevrolet Equinox EV, a similarly sized SUV, which is due to go on sale later this year.
That Volvo is able to achieve price parity with General Motors is itself a testament to the Chinese sector’s advantage, as the price factors in the U.S.’s 25% tariff on car imports from China.
What’s tricky is that while China is objectively better than the rest of the world at building electric cars, its companies are also helped by a slowdown in its domestic economy.
China is suffering a multi-year economic slowdown due to the slow deterioration of its real estate and construction sectors. The slower domestic economy means that these products are cheaper. More than 70% of China’s exports have fallen in cost over the past year, according to Nikkei Asia, a phenomenon that economists describe as “exporting deflation.” In part because President Xi Jinping has been so reluctant to adopt policies that would increase domestic consumption, the country’s most sure-fire method of generating economic growth has been to export more products abroad.
Many of those products — such as EVs, solar panels, and batteries — are essential to global decarbonization. As the historian Adam Tooze has written, clean energy is now the primary driver of economic growth in China. As Chinese companies search for foreign markets to sell their climate-friendly products, they are driving prices down for those products globally. That could potentially undercut other automakers’ ability to find a path to making profitable EVs.
This is the difficulty of thinking through this issue: The Big Three have made legitimate missteps, Chinese firms have a legitimate advantage over American and European firms, and Chinese firms can enjoy lower costs due to problems in the Chinese economy. How do you sort through those factors? Whatever path you choose, one message emerges: The Big Three can only be protected from the EV revolution for so long. One way or another — whether by the law of the land or the law of the markets — it’ll come for them.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus, a look into the future of solar and wind tax credits.
Heatmap AM and Daily will be off tomorrow for the July 4 holiday, but we’ll see you back here on Monday.
We’re staring down the barrel of a holiday weekend here in the United States, so I’ll keep it quick. Two things:
July 4 will mark the formal end of the solar and wind tax credits in the United States. These incentives — which date back in some form to 1978 — were repealed by President Trump’s tax cuts and spending law last year. In order to qualify for the last of these subsidies, solar and wind projects must “commence construction” by Saturday and be ready to generate power by the end of 2027.
Although the policies haven’t yet expired, there’s already chatter about bringing them back. Some Democrats want to revive the incentives should they win back Congress and the White House in two or six years. But 2029 or 2032 will likely look different than the earlier years of this decade, when the Inflation Reduction Act was written and passed: Power prices are higher now, the grid more congested, and the federal budget more constrained. So today, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo previews one of the next big questions in climate policy: Should Democrats try to bring back the solar and wind tax credits?
Her story is great, and one disconnect in particular stuck out to me. Among the climate and clean energy wonks Emily interviewed, “everyone” agreed that “in the near term, the most important thing Congress could do to help clean energy is break down some of the non-cost barriers to development through permitting reform.” Permitting reform, after all, has no fiscal cost and could be achieved during this Congress.
But Democratic lawmakers themselves sound far less sure about its importance. “I don’t think Democrats can engage in a serious way with Republicans on permitting reform,” Representative Jared Huffman, the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, tells her. Read the rest of Emily’s story for more on how lawmakers are thinking about this question, which will only get more important as we get closer to ‘28.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
We’ve begun to get Q2 sales data for global automakers — and there’s actually decent news for electric vehicles. Some highlights:
Enjoy your holiday weekend, and remember: We’re now in Q3. Thanks, as always, for reading.
And not for the first time.
The Department of Energy proposed sweeping changes to its rules for updating efficiency standards for household appliances on Thursday. If finalized, they would hamstring future administrations from issuing tighter standards that would save consumers money as higher-performing air conditioners, stoves, washing machines, refrigerators, and the like hit the market.
While the agency portrayed the move as bringing an end to appliance standards writ large, that is not, in fact, what it is doing. The proposal would update the DOE’s so-called “Process Rule,” which governs how the agency develops standards, adding onerous requirements that will make it much more difficult to make any changes at all.
Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the DOE is generally required to review existing standards every six years and assess whether recent technological advances warrant raising the bar for efficiency for any given product category. Updating the standards involves extensive technological and economic analysis, including looking at the cost to manufacturers and payback periods for consumers, as well as several rounds of public comment. After a new standard is issued, products that fail to meet that level of efficiency have to be taken off the market.
The new proposal delivers on the appliance industry’s request that President Trump restore the process he finalized during his first term, which Biden swiftly reversed. The changes include raising the minimum energy savings required to issue a new standard, adding several more steps and requirements to the rulemaking process for new standards, and using industry-developed test procedures to measure the efficiency of new products.
“This obstacle course of restrictions would hinder the department from carrying out its congressional mandate to protect consumers,” Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said in a statement. “We have products that keep getting more efficient and we need to embrace these technological advances, not reject them, especially as data centers strain our electric grid.”
Manufacturers welcomed the announcement. “AHAM applauds the Department of Energy for acting swiftly and delivering a proposed Process Rule that reflects years of constructive engagement with manufacturers, consumers, and other stakeholders,” Kelly Mariotti, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers’ president and CEO, said in a statement. The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute also told me it “strongly supports DOE’s review” of the rules, although both groups said they were still working through the proposal.
The Energy Department issued a request for information last April seeking comments on potential changes to its procedures for revising energy conservation standards. At the time, the industry’s biggest trade groups urged the agency to “return to the 2020 version of the Process Rule.”
Trump has long been sympathetic to the industry’s ire over ever-tightening standards. He’s complained about dishwashers and heating systems that no longer work and showers that slow to a trickle. Now, Energy Secretary Chris Wright has joined in, grumbling about clothes dryers that run for multiple cycles.
The Process Rule changes threaten the potential to create significant consumer savings, however, according to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. The group estimates that based on recent technological advances, the DOE’s next round of standard updates could save the average U.S. household $160 per year on their utility bills, and businesses a collective $15 billion in annual operating costs over 20 years. The group also projects that updated standards have the potential to reduce summer peak electricity demand 34 gigawatts by 2040, which would be like taking New York City off the grid. There are climate benefits, too, of course — an estimated reduction of 800 million metric tons of carbon emissions through 2050.
Even if finalized, Trump’s changes to the Process Rule will not be irreversible, and could continue to ping pong back and forth between administrations, “creating the kind of uncertainty and instability that makes it difficult for manufacturers to plan, invest, and innovate with confidence to the benefit of American consumers,” according to Mariotti of AHAM. The industry’s hope is for Congress to amend the underlying Energy Policy and Conservation act to “lock these reforms into statute,” she said. One such effort, the Don’t Mess With My Home Appliances Act introduced by Republican Representative Rick Allen of Georgia, passed the House in February.
The DOE’s proposal follows a memorandum of agreement the agency reached with the Environmental Protection Agency in March to take over as the lead agency running the EnergyStar labeling program, which identifies the most efficient appliances in a given category. The Process Rule changes will not affect EnergyStar, however.
The DOE is accepting public comments on its proposal for 30 days and will hold a public meeting on July 15.
Cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Toronto will see more days like this — but the effects of chronic not-so-extreme heat also build up.
The map of the Eastern United States has turned purple.
That’s the color used by the National Weather Service to distinguish the most severe category of extreme heat — a “rare and long-duration” event “with no overnight relief” — which spread like a bruise on Thursday morning from Chicago to Detroit and across the entire state of Ohio. From there, the purple splits north toward Toronto — where Portugal and Croatia will face each other tonight in a Round of 32 match — and down across the 13 original colonies, from Boston to New York City to Washington, D.C., Richmond, Charlotte, and Atlanta. An estimated 83 million Americans, or about a quarter of the population, are under the most extreme heat warning, with local temperatures cresting 100 degrees Fahrenheit; in many places, humidity will push the heat index up to 15 degrees higher.
That’s killer heat. Although the United States has a higher deployment of air conditioning than Europe, early tallies from the heat wave on the continent in late June found that some 20,000 people died from “heat-exacerbated causes” like heart attacks. In general, in New York City, an estimated 3% of deaths between May and September are due to the heat, a recent city report found — that’s about 500 deaths a year, close to the number of homicides during the city’s year of peak violence in 1990.
“Extreme heat is a chronic stressor that leads to hundreds of deaths in New York City,” Jeff Schlegelmilch, the director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Columbia Climate School, told me. “I’ve seen models showing the cumulative number of excess deaths over the next several decades could be in the tens of thousands.”
But while heat waves like the one this week bring much-needed attention to the public health crisis, it’s not actually extreme events that are driving those mortality figures. According to the city, about 80% of heat-related deaths in New York occur when temperatures are below 95 degrees Fahrenheit — that is, on hot, but not extremely hot, days. While risk increases with temperature in the way you’d expect, jumping sharply after 90 degrees Fahrenheit is crossed, there are more days in the still-dangerous 82- to 94-degree range on average each summer in New York (74, up from 52 in the 1970s) than extreme heat days like the ones occurring this week (of which there are about 11 per summer).
Schlegelmilch likened the moderate-temperature heat deaths to those during COVID, when it was the frontline workers who were paid hourly, couldn’t take days off, and who lived in more crowded homes who were the hardest hit. “We see those same patterns increasing exposure to heat,” he told me, noting that Latino and Black New Yorkers die from heat stress at rates two to three times higher, respectively, than white New Yorkers.
That said, the majority of people who die from heat-exacerbated causes do so in their homes, which “isn’t necessarily where the totality of the exposure to the heat is,” Schlegelmilch said. In fact, the number of people who die of direct heat stress in New York averages in the single digits per year, by comparison. “If you have to work outdoors, or you have to go back and forth to work and be exposed to the heat, and you go back into a home that is hot, and your body isn’t cooling off at night — this is actually something we’re very worried about tonight and tomorrow night — then the body doesn’t get that break.”
Part of the reason direct heat stress deaths are lower than those caused by chronic exposure is thanks to the agility, urgency, and attention of local governments, which issue heat warnings, promote cooling centers, and take preemptive measures during the worst heat waves — such as Toronto canceling its downtown World Cup watch party this afternoon. In New York this week, kiosks will help direct people to their nearest cooling centers, and local pools will stay open later. Meanwhile, to address more systemic heat impacts on the vulnerable, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has signed an executive order calling for the development and issuance of guidance for protecting outdoor workers and vendors during future heat events.
Because heat-related deaths often take the form of heart attacks, kidney disease, and diabetes, and therefore “don’t fit within the disaster declaration mechanisms” the same way floods or hurricanes do, “we don’t really have good policy to take care of this,” Schlegelmilch added. Particularly in cities with historically colder climates, such as Boston and New York, executive orders like Mamdani’s can be quick fixes, especially when followed by “lengthier and more thoughtful legislation and regulation.” But because the housing stock in such cities is older and, in some cases, even designed to retain heat, saving lives in the long term will require major infrastructure investments, ranging from tree planting to combat the urban heat island effect to expensive retrofitting.
“In the arc of history with disasters, we generally don’t do the things we need to do until it hurts too much,” Schlegelmilch said when I suggested that such a level of investment seems daunting, if not impossible, when spread out over the whole of New York, not to mention the Northeast. “It’s an open question how many people need to die, how many hours of productivity need to be lost, how much strain there is on infrastructure before everybody realizes this is not an abstract problem, that this is happening right now, and that it’s a hell of a lot more expensive to clean up after than to make these investments over the long run.”
An extreme heat wave might not be the primary driver of heat-related mortality in the United States, in other words, but it is certainly an opportunity to push for climate adaptation funding. “It’s not cheap at all,” Schlegelmilch agreed. “But it has to be part of the thinking, because there just isn’t another solution.”