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:
An exclusive interview with the Rivian CEO about the future of electric vehicles.

It has been an astonishing year for the electric vehicle industry. In the past 12 months, the world’s three largest car markets — the United States, the European Union, and China — have unveiled aggressive new subsidies or ambitious new targets to accelerate EV adoption. Even automakers that have long sat out the electric revolution, such as Toyota, are now getting in the game.
That might be good news for R.J. Scaringe, the founder and chief executive of Rivian Automotive. Rivian is angling to use the EV revolution to become one of a handful of new American entrants to the automotive space. You can think of its high-end trucks and SUVs, the R1T and R1S, as the Patagonia meets Apple meets Jeep of the vehicle space. But the company, which designs and manufactures its trucks in America, has struggled with scaling issues and delivered only 42,000 electric vehicles since 2021.
I recently had the chance to sit down with Scaringe and chat about what’s next for Rivian and the broader electric vehicle industry. Our conversation has been lightly edited for concision and clarity.
It seems like over the past year — between the Inflation Reduction Act, between things we’ve seen internationally — the entire electric-vehicle market has undergone a number of shifts that the wider world still hasn’t caught up to yet. Could you give us a snapshot of the sector right now, as you see it?
I think we have seen these really large-scale shifts. You could almost look at it across every vantage point.
You have it from the vantage point of policymakers. If you'd told me just a few years ago that Europe would be committing to 100% of new vehicles being electric, you know, within the next 10 years. That California would be making that commitment in the same way. That the United States, through EPA regulations, is going to be 60% EV of new sales by 2030, I don't think I would have believed it. It’s awesome to see that — literally the reason I started the company is to help drive and instigate that change.
But in parallel with that, we see a shift in how consumers are looking at it. The performance envelope and the drivability of an electric vehicle makes it so much more desirable than an alternative. Buying a non-EV just feels very old. Aside from carbon emissions and environmental responsibility, it's just not interesting.
And then I think the third element is the way that the manufacturers have responded. Up until not too long ago, electrification was sort of a thing you had to do to generate some credits and to look responsible as a company, but they weren't really committed to it. Now, most big vehicle manufacturers have begun to really lean into their electrification strategies.
So with all those things happening, then the question becomes like, what does five years from now look like? What does 10 years from now look like?
I think policy is going to ping-pong around a little bit, unfortunately. Electrification and sustainability have become politicized — it makes no sense at all that it has been, but unfortunately it is. So as a result of that, you will see a little bit of variation there.
But I don't think, at a macro level, [the trend] is going to change. The slope of the curve is going to continue to be policy that drives toward electrification, policy that drives toward moving off of fossil fuels. I think consumers have made the switch and it's a diode-like switch — it's one directional.
I don't think we're going to see consumers have any reignited interest in combustion-powered vehicles. You're going to see a lot of entrenched things try to switch that. But the reality is consumers have made it clear that shift is going to come. It’s not as if everyone has reached that decision [today]. But you can see the slope of the curve.
Once you drive an electric vehicle, again, you can't go back. So for example, for us, more than 75% of our vehicles are sold to first-time EV customers, which is really cool, which means our brand is creating new EV customers. We're helping to drive that change. But once you're in a vehicle, you just can't imagine, like, going back to the pump or dealing with the sound of an engine.
And manufacturers now are all working towards both creating supply of vehicles, but also making sure that the products that they offer are interesting enough to generate demand.
The big question is: There's new brands like us, and then there's existing brands, and which of those brands emerge as the sort of stronger pools of demand — that because of their product attributes, the way those attributes are combined together, the way those are put in under a brand position, which of those offerings, create sort of breakaway interests from consumers?
Do you see consumers deciding my next vehicle will be electric? Or at this point, are consumers still being like, I'd like to go electric, but I want these different attributes. And I'm looking around.
Yeah, both. I think the vast majority of customers are now at least asking themselves the question, "Should I be thinking about electric?"
That doesn't mean they're going to decide on electric, either because of concerns around charging infrastructure or price, or the vehicle that they're looking for doesn't exist — "I want a minivan, but there's no electric minivan that's out there.” There may not be a form factor that fits your desire to see convertible electric vehicles today. So like you may end up in a non-EV choice, because it doesn't exist yet on the supply side. But everyone is asking the question. Or a lot of people are.
And I think what will happen over the next 10 years is those questions today that may not get answered with something that leads to an electric vehicle purchase, that will change. The vehicle that I want, that form factor will be available in an electric offering. And the infrastructure is getting solved too.
Then I think the reality of buying a combustion powered vehicle, in light of the policy that's coming, is sort of like building a horse barn in 1910. Like, imagine buying a Chevy Suburban in 2030. Like, what are you going to do with that, right? In 10 years? Yeah, like gas stations will be slowly disappearing. It's just weird.
It's also, like, your second largest asset.
You're buying this thing that absolutely has no future in our society. And will just increasingly become more and more of a relic of the past. But I think the anticipation of that is leading people to say I don't want to be buying a relic of the past.
I think we're one product cycle away from that really driving consumer demand.
What year do you see?
I think towards the end of this decade. This swing is nonlinear because once you get to that point, whether you're thinking about residual value, or just thinking about standing out as, like, the weird person who still drives a combustion powered vehicle, it's just gonna swing really fast.
What’s the biggest obstacle to electrification right now — to consumers making that decision? Is it just acceptance? Is it charging? Additional policy that needs to happen?
There's a number of them. But I think the biggest is customer choice.
Until recently, there were very, very few choices. Even today, I'd say there are very few good choices, especially across all price bands. So if you want to spend $20,000, you just don't have a good choice to make. You want to spend $35,000 or $40,000, there's a couple of choices. But there's still not a lot of choices. And we've seen that manifest in the extreme market share that Tesla has, because of the lack of choice from other manufacturers.
It's funny, because there aren't that many sub $25,000 new vehicles, period. Do you think we'll get back to that place in a few years in EVs? Or that we might have, you know, a Model 3 that gets there with local incentives, but everything will be nominally above $25,000.
$25,000 starts to get pretty low. I mean, the average selling price, or ASP — like, across the industry now — the average selling price of a new vehicle in the States is about double that, right? It’s like $50,000.
Also, I remember when I could buy a new car for less, but, like, inflation is happening.I bought a new car back in the day for less than $10,000. You can't do that anymore.
What does Rivian need to do to be ready for that moment, five years from now, when consumers are ready to make that leap?
This is the really exciting part for us.
The objective of our R1 program was to serve as our handshake to the world. I often say, it's like it opened the brand umbrella for us as a company and it communicated from a brand point of view and values point of view.
We have vehicles that, we say, enable adventure. They can take your kids to the beach, they can take you to the theme park, they can go to your folks' house for the weekend, you can go mountain biking — just these vehicles that enable life.
And we did that at a premium price with a flagship set of products, the R1T and R1s, that have led to the R1 vehicles being the best-selling electric vehicles over a $70,000 price point. Within that range there, they are the best selling vehicles in the premium segment today, the best-selling electric vehicles.
So as we now look at R2, we need to take that same brand excitement that we've generated, and apply it to a smaller form factor and a much lower price point, and therefore a much bigger addressable market, and carry with it the essence of what was embodied in R1, but make it accessible to so many more people.
So the timing of that program fits beautifully with what we see as this big shift, as a lot of people ask themselves, Am I gonna get an electric car? Well maybe the next one.
So we hope that the R2 platform helps pull a lot of customers across that jump where I want to spend $45,000 or $40,000 in a vehicle. It needs to fit my life. So it's my kids, my pets, my gear — it needs to be able to go places and get dirty and go down a rough road. Our brand fits that so well, but today, a lot of customers just can't afford it, or don't want to spend $70,000-plus, so that's where R2 comes in. I couldn't be more excited about what's coming with that program. Because it just fits so nicely into the market.
What’s the timing on R2?
Beginning of '26. So that vehicle will be produced in our second plant and in Atlanta.
I want to talk about factories for a second. I think Rivian was early to what we would now call reshoring — although, of course, for Rivian, it wasn't really "re," it was just locating manufacturing in the United States with engineering talent located here as well. Lots of other companies are now joining that for various policy and political risk reasons. I think for Rivian, the ramp up has been challenging. What advice would you have to other firms looking to, you know, stand up a manufacturing line and a new factory in the United States?
Yeah, well, we launched our R1T, the R1s, and then our two different variants of our commercial van. In any vehicle, a launch is tough, you’ve got thousands of components coming from hundreds of suppliers that have to ramp in unison and be beautifully synchronized. Any one of those parts can throw it off — there's a whole host of things that can go wrong from a quality or production process point of view. And so we were doing that for the first time. New workforce, new supply chain, new plant, new product, new technology.
And we weren't only doing the first time, we were doing it the first time times three, so it's just really challenging.
And then the operational backdrop was far worse than what we could have ever imagined. So the supply chain catastrophe that was 2022 was our launching ramp here. And then managing the build out of a large 5,000-plus person workforce to produce vehicles in our first plant, in the middle of a pandemic, was also really hard.
It was a hard launch and hard ramp. I don't think you could have designed a more complex environment to do that in. And the strategy we had of those three vehicles happening at the same time, in hindsight, knowing what we know now about what the environment was, we would have created more separation.
In 2017, someone should have come to you and been like, there's going to be a global pandemic.
If somebody only told us that.
So as we think about R2, we're simplifying the launch, we have one product that we're launching, it's a new product, leveraging a lot of the existing technology topology that we have in R1. So there's less technical risk, obviously. There’s also dramatic focus on part simplification, joint simplification and manufacturability. So it’s a very, very different vehicle architecture than what we did in R1. All the scars from ramping R1 are informing and driving this deep focus on manufacture building as we go into R2.
Would that have happened anyway or because of the needs of the R2 platform?
I think it's sometimes the pains of the present that enable the skills of the future. I look at like all the pain we've gone through on R1, created this proximity and an appreciation for manufacturing simplicity that, one, everyone would have agreed that that's necessary for R2, but two, embody that in such a deep way because you've lived through it is really powerful. And it's not like a whole different team is doing R2, it's the team that had to go through the R1 launch.
We’re coming off that — there's still people that are involved with the ramp, but a lot of the people that were on that are now moving to our or have moved, I should say, to R2, and so they're directly talking about stuff like, Hey, that was a real big challenge when we had to attach the C pillar trim on this part because the clips do this, this and this. Let's rethink that. Heck, let's get rid of all the clips. Those types of big questions are now coming up.
How do you see and how you think about vehicle weight right now?
Weight or wait? We get asked about both.
Ha, that’s true. Weight — W E I G H T. Rivian has obviously made two very big vehicles right now, and that increases the material needed for them — the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the battery, the bigger the mineral needs. At the same time, consumers seem to prefer larger motor vehicles. So I'm curious, like, do you think we're gonna find a sweet spot on vehicle weight? Do you think there's a trade-off between consumer demand, consumer tastes, and vehicle size? And if so, what does that mean for profitability? Because if vehicles are getting bigger, and it also means less safe for other people, not vehicles?
Yeah. There's a lot of questions.
First of all, our R1 vehicles are and will be our biggest consumer vehicles. They’re the flagship vehicles, as you'd expect — we have a three row SUV and, like, call it a large truck. And as a result of their physical size, their weight is also high, as a result of batteries, and drive train, chassis architecture, all this stuff. R2 will be a much lighter product, inherently.
And that's, I think, where you start to see where the vast majority of demand is going to be — that mid-size or smallish crossover and SUV space, where the vehicles are themselves smaller and therefore require less materials. This goes back to before the start of the company.
We also have to recognize that in order to drive electrification and to drive this transition, we have to be building products that are both just deeply desirable, but also respond to what customers want. So I talked before about what are the things that would block EV adoption? If we told customers the only way you can get an EV is if it's a small sedan, we're not going to sell a lot of EVs, you're going to see low penetration because customers want a vehicle that can fit all their kids, the gear, their stuff, they want larger SUVs —
And for energy density reasons, actually, the smaller the vehicle, the more likely it is to be fossil.
There's a lot of challenges. So I think what we're seeing is customers do want things that fit a form factor that applies what they've grown accustomed to. And we started with the large truck and largest SUV to do that.
The other thing just to note, and I think this is often missed, but if you're to pick the vehicles on the road, that from a carbon emissions point of view, you wanted to reduce carbon emissions by the largest percentage, you wouldn't pick the smallest vehicles in the road to replace, you'd go to the biggest, the least efficient. A 17 mile-per-gallon, 3-row SUV being replaced with a 80 to 90 mile-per-gallon equivalent R1S is a far better trade than a 45 mile-per-gallon ICE Vehicle being replaced with a 100 mile per gallon equivalent EV. Those deltas are really important.
And then I think the last part is — and this is something that I sort of lightly referenced — but there's so much amplified noise around the imperfections of electrification today that is creating a bunch of misinformation around the sustainability of an electric vehicle. No one, including ourselves, is saying an electric vehicle has zero footprint. Everything we do in our industrialized society has a footprint. If you use a light switch in your house, you have footprint. If you buy anything, or eat anything, for that matter, it has a footprint.
So the question is how do we approach a world that can be sustainable for generations upon generations, which means it needs to be a world that's powered by the sun. So that's either direct with photovoltaics or indirect with wind but either way it's sun powered. And that relies on us shifting off of an overall industrial economy that's running on fossil fuels.
And core to that is the things that need to move through stored energy. I think the vast majority [of that stored energy] will likely be in the form of batteries. There are hard problems like planes, but by the end of my lifetime, very few things on the planet will move with propulsion coming from fossil fuels.
And so the world is going to have a diverse set of needs. You're going to see everything from large trucks to buses, to large SUVs, to minivans to station wagons to hatchbacks to sports cars to — everything needs to be electrified.
And that means our vehicles are going to be a little heavier across the board because you know, the average vehicle weight is going to go up because everything's carrying a battery as opposed to a plastic fuel tank.
But you also get into a world where this becomes very circular. So we could talk about raw material extraction and some of the challenges with that. But in my lifetime, we'll also see a world where the source of our lithium is old lithium-ion batteries. And so you get this closed loop and it's why every lithium manufacturer, lithium processor in the world is focused, very focused on access to recycled content, and recycling becomes a really key feedstock as this system starts to reach scale.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Agricultural equipment largely runs on diesel, and with the harvest season coming up, that spells bad news for farmers.
Gas prices are climbing again.
As the United States and Iran confusingly engage following the end of a 60-day “memorandum of understanding” between the two warring countries, the fuel market has begun to readjust yet again, continuing the volatility that has confounded analysts since mid-February. While the gasoline most drivers buy has seen its price increase — the national average gas price now sits at $4.09 a gallon, according to AAA, compared to $4 a month ago and $3.13 a year ago — the most dramatic increase has been in diesel. The price of that fuel — a crucial input to the agricultural economy, as well as an important heat source in certain parts of the U.S. — now sits at $5.50 a gallon, up around 14 cents on the week and close to its peak price for the year in June. It’s also dramatically higher than the $3.70 a gallon it was selling at a year ago.
“Diesel is probably the most important product when it comes down to the global economy in particular,” Tom Kloza, chief energy advisor for Gulf Oil, told me.
While there’s probably never a good time for fuel prices to spike, the increase in diesel prices right now will likely translate to increased costs for farmers as they rev up their equipment for the harvest season. If the price stays high, New Englanders who depend on fuel oil for heat will face increased costs.
“In the U.S., we’re looking at just stunning, stunning numbers with the harvest season coming up and the heating season maybe 60 days from now,” Kloza told me.
The continued disruption could mean record setting costs.
“We’re looking — without question — at the most expensive harvest season on record.”
The federal government’s response to these price spikes, to the extent it has one almost six months after the United States and Israel attacked Iran, has been to talk up oil exports that avoid the Strait of Hormuz and to encourage increased production and refining. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told reporters on Monday that he had met with refiners to figure out what the government could do to boost output, but didn’t announce any specific next steps.
Congressional Democrats have seized on the high prices — and specifically the threat to farm country — to criticize the Trump administration.
“With global fuel supplies now severely disrupted, [farmers’] situation has been made even worse. And when farmers are forced to pay more for diesel, the prices at the grocery store go up for everyone,” Emmanuel Cleaver, a Democratic congressional representative from Missouri wrote on X.
The Farm Bureau, the agriculture industry’s biggest lobbying group, has warned for months of the effect of high input prices on fuel and fertilizers derived from hydrocarbons, writing in July, “Fertilizer and fuel costs were already elevated heading into 2026, and the conflict with Iran has added further pressure to those markets.”
The high price of diesel and the attendant strain on farmers and truckers has translated to high margins for refineries. The margin between diesel and crude prices has grown to over $100 a barrel, an all-time high, according to data collected by Bloomberg. Before this year, the previous high was under $90.
Even going into this new stage of the U.S.-Iran war, oil companies were already running their refining operations flat out, to record or near-record profits in the most recent quarter. Shell even reported that it was able to operate its refineries at beyond 100% of their capacity, something its chief executive Wael Sawan attributed to the Wall Street Journal to removing “bottlenecks.”
Overall refinery utilization in the U.S. has hit 97%, according to Patrick De Haan of GasBuddy, marking three consecutive months of utilization over 95%, a record.
It’s not just the widely documented strangulation of the Strait of Hormuz that’s driving up diesel prices. The Russian government has instituted a ban on diesel fuel exports through the beginning of next year due to persistent Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries.
“My routine now starts with checking the overnight wires to see if there were any drone strikes on refineries. That’s what this business has come down to,” Kloza told me (drones hit a Russian refinery in Bashkortostan on Wednesday).
The United States faces this new stage of the Iran energy crisis having already boosted both its own exports of oil and authorized the release of over 170 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Stockpiles of diesel and fuel oil in the United States currently stand at around 106 million barrels. Those inventories have fallen by 1.5 million barrels in the past week and “are about 13% below the five-year average for this time of year,” according to the EIA. Meanwhile, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is holding just under 300 million barrels of crude oil, after releasing about 115 million barrels since the war began.
SPR releases will likely continue through September, Arnab Datta, the director of policy implementation at the Institute for Progress, told me. The effect those releases have on prices will largely depend on what forces they’re trying to counteract. A full, persistent closure of the Strait of Hormuz would likely overwhelm SPR releases, as could China deciding to rebuild its oil stockpiles.
“You get a Hormuz-level disruption of that size, no single stockpile really is going to be able to overcome that,” Datta said. “It depends on how much is coming out of Hormuz.”
On electrolyte factories, Josh Shapiro's flip, and Canadian clean power
Current conditions: Firefighters are encircling Belgium’s largest fire on record, just the latest blaze in Europe as historic heat waves roast the continent • The Canadian wildfire smoke that billowed into Michigan this summer cost the state nearly $6.7 billion • The string of storms that now includes the habagat, or southwest monsoon, hammering the Philippines has displaced 5.2 million Filipinos so far.
The Trump administration is barreling forward with a plan to open close to 45 million acres of wilderness in national forests to road construction and logging, removing protection The New York Times said has been in place for a quarter century. The U.S. Forest Service’s proposal would rescind a Clinton-era rule enacted in 2001 to bar roadways from routing through certain areas. The repeal is a major victory for Republican states and industry groups that lobbied for years to revoke the protections, and even unsuccessfully sued more than a dozen times to strike down the so-called roadless rule.
The new push comes a day after Customs and Border Protection paused work on a border barrier in Big Bend National Park after a flurry of videos showing bulldozers marring the protected landscape drove what the public lands-focused news site Public Domain called “a furious backlash.”
You know those thin white lines that trail behind airplanes? If you’re among the hordes of internet-poisoned conspiracy theorists, you may be certain these are called chemtrails, deliberately sprayed aerosols containing some secret mind control substance. In reality, these are condensation trails, or “contrails,” clouds of vapor that condense around soot particles from jet engine exhaust. Though they are not spreading any nefarious biochemical agents, contrails do take a climate toll, trapping outgoing infrared radiation like a blanket and adding to the greenhouse gas effect. Now Google is stepping in with a new program called Operation Blue Skies, in which the tech giant will partner with the British government and airlines to deploy its artificial intelligence technology to help create a zone in the North Atlantic free of any contrails. “While they may seem harmless, these warming contrails account for roughly one third of aviation’s total climate impact,” the two program managers in charge of effort, Paul Hodgson and Chaim Langermann, wrote in a blog post. “Our AI-powered forecasts have enabled flight crews and air traffic controllers to make targeted adjustments that avoid contrail-sensitive regions while remaining within normal flight operations. Now, we’re taking the next major step: expanding beyond individual airline trials to coordinated contrail mitigation across an entire flight corridor.”
The technology could, in theory, lay the groundwork for solar radiation management. Some conspiracists, without real evidence, suggest that contrails are, in fact, already a furtive government experiment to modify the atmosphere with aerosols that reflect the sun’s light back into space, a leading concept for how to artificially cool the planet and buy more time to tackle the causes of climate change. Those efforts are inching closer to reality — just read my colleague Robinson Meyer’s reporting on the world’s first major private geoengineering company’s fundraising or my reporting on when the startup revealed its proprietary reflective particle. Technology that could help coordinate flights to spray aerosols in the atmosphere, or can deliberately keep planes out of certain airspace, may prove central to deploying geoengineering at any real scale. Perhaps a public effort to explain contrails and deal with their actual downsides will earn more trust to experiment with things like solar radiation management. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Solid-state technology could revolutionize batteries by making them charge faster, last longer, and pack more energy into less space. But the electrolytes needed for the ceramic or polymer interior that store and deliver the battery’s charge are not widely produced in the U.S. On Tuesday, the startup Anthro Energy broke ground on a new factory in Louisville, Kentucky, that is designed to produce enough battery materials for more than 300,000 electric vehicles. The facility is scheduled to start production in 2028, and will provide a definitive domestic source of materials that are otherwise largely sold by Chinese companies, David Mackanic, co-founder and CEO of Anthro Energy, told TechCrunch. The plant itself is a testament to the success of the Biden administration’s two landmark laws. It received $24.9 million from the Department of Energy under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and another $18.4 million in investment tax credits under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Back in February, I told you about Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s middleground approach on data centers. Instead of advocating a full-on moratorium on building the facilities, as progressives Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed a month later, the centrist Democrat laid out “selective” new conditions for large data centers seeking Harrisburg’s approval, including recycling of cooling water, as the state became a hotbed for projects. Now Shapiro is making an about face. In what The Philadelphia Inquirer called “a major shift from his initial embrace of the increasingly unpopular projects,” the governor signed a sweeping executive order Tuesday requiring local approval for data centers to receive state permits. The move is not a moratorium. But the extent of the backlash — seven in 10 Americans now oppose data centers in their backyards, per Heatmap Pro’s polling — may mean the need for a local green light serves as an effective ban. The order also removes Amazon’s controversial $20 billion data center complex between Luzerne and Bucks counties from the state’s fast-track permitting program, which is now unavailable to any such projects. “I have no other choice than but to take this executive action to protect the good people of Pennsylvania from these predatory developers and from these projects that would negatively impact our communities,” Shapiro said after signing the order.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans Monday to invest roughly $50.2 billion into upgrading the nation’s hydroelectric fleet and building new wind turbines, part of the Liberal government’s effort to build “a stronger, more independent, and more sustainable country.” Under the pact with provincial governments, Ottawa will upgrade and expand the behemoth hydroelectric Churchill Falls Generating Station, develop another hydroelectric project on Gull Island in Labrador, build onshore wind turbines, and construct new transmission lines. “Canada is extending its unique advantage in clean, reliable, and affordable power. Because when we master energy, we master our destiny,” Carney said in a statement. The investment comes as Canada is refurbishing and expanding its fleet of CANDUs, a natively-designed type of pressurized heavy water reactor that can run on raw uranium, as I previously reported here.
Romania, one of only seven countries with a pressurized heavy water reactor as part of its fleet, is struggling to generate electricity from its nuclear plants as the rivers Europe depends on for cooling water run low amid the latest heat wave. On Monday, the country’s Ministry of Energy brought a giant coal plant back online to meet surging demand as the nuclear stations idle, according to the Romanian news site Economedia.
Octopus Energy is, by its own press release’s pun, “stretching its tentacles beyond the home and onto the open road.” The U.S. subsidiary of the British renewable energy giant is making Octopus Charge, Europe’s largest electric vehicle charging platform, a public network in the U.S. The company’s app will allow drivers to chargers on the go. “Driving electric should be simple, wherever the journey leads,” Nick Chaset, chief executive of Octopus Energy U.S., said in a statement. “Drivers shouldn’t have to juggle multiple apps and accounts just to charge their cars.”
The last week of Wisconsin’s politics show the risks of the data center issue for Democrats — and decarbonization.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
That was my takeaway after last week’s Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary, where the liberal candidate David Crowley edged out a victory over the progressive insurgent Francesca Hong.
Hong, a socialist, had run an aggressively anti-data-center campaign, pledging to pause their development across the state and then “control-alt-delete” them with regulations. Yet as my colleague Jael Holzman recently detailed, Hong lost many of the state’s jurisdictions that have fought data centers the hardest. Port Washington, the site of an acrimonious battle over a $15 billion Oracle and OpenAI facility, went for Crowley by eight points. Hong could not even secure a majority in the small town of Wrightstown, even though voters passed a data center ban by referendum on the same night.
I found the result illuminating. I’ve spent much of the past few months covering the size and scale of the data center backlash. Yet viewed at a remove, the Hong-Crowley result looked like nothing so much as a traditional post-2016 Democratic map, with Hong taking progressive college towns like Madison and Crowley winning more moderate black and rural voters. You would have to squint hard to locate an emergent anti-AI axis in the results. And more critically, you would find little evidence that the data center backlash is changing how voters define themselves ideologically. If Americans hate data centers — and polling shows that they do — then the results suggest that there are limits to their antipathy.
I stand by that conclusion. Yet since then, data centers have become an even bigger issue in Wisconsin state politics, dominating the first week of the general election. In doing so, they’ve demonstrated the risk that the data center backlash poses for Democrats — as well as for decarbonization.
The saga began when Crowley, newly victorious, told NBC News that one of the issues where he “disagreed most” with Hong was data centers: He wanted stronger guardrails on new and existing data centers but didn’t support a moratorium, he said, because he didn’t want to forbid communities that want them from accepting the facilities. Tom Tiffany, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, pounced, sharing a deceptively cut clip of the interview (to put it generously) and framing Crowley as both pro-corporate and tragically woke. If Crowley most disagreed with Hong about data centers, Tiffany asked, does he agree with her about “abolishing the police or prisons?”
Tiffany followed up with a TV ad labeling his opponent “Data Center David Crowley.” “My priority is protecting Wisconsin families, taxpayers, farmland, and water, not turning our state into a data center hub for the 'entire globe," Tiffany said.
This move succeeded in splitting the left. The socialist influencer Hasan Piker — who endorsed and campaigned for Hong — criticized Crowley for not endorsing an outright moratorium on data centers. “david crowley i know you hate me but please don’t do this!” he said [sic].
Let us interject here to say: Crowley and Tiffany have many overlapping policies about data centers — and as we shall see, Crowley’s policies would be more restrictive. Neither candidate supports a data center moratorium, but both say that they would allow communities to veto a local proposal, ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in data center development, and require data centers to cover the cost of their grid upgrades. One of their most salient divisions is on tax policy: Tiffany now supports ending a state tax carveout for some data center equipment, while Crowley would preserve it.
Where the two candidates really disagree is not about data centers at all — it’s about clean energy. Tiffany has argued that data centers are, like renewables, a form of industrial development overtaking agricultural land. He wants to restrict them accordingly.
“We should not be converting our beautiful farmland here in Wisconsin to industrial-scale wind, solar, or data centers,” he posted on Facebook in June. “As the next governor of Wisconsin, I’m going to make sure we stop the conversion of our beautiful farmland in Wisconsin to these industrial sites.”
Tiffany has attacked Crowley, in fact, for saying that data centers should use 100% renewable energy, because that will require the conversion of even more farmland to energy development.
This isn’t a new hangup for Tiffany: He has long sought to block renewables from getting built on farmland. Since 2022, he has repeatedly sought to end federal tax incentives for solar and wind projects built on private agricultural land, and he has opposed individual solar projects in the state that he claimed used too much farmland. (The Trump administration, as part of its broader war on clean energy, has also cut some subsidies for solar on “prime farmland.”)
In other words, Tiffany is using data centers as a kind of trojan horse to restrict clean energy development. By appearing to seem more anti-data-center than Crowley in theory, he is going to be more anti-solar in practice. The stakes here are real for the clean energy industry and for decarbonization more broadly. As governor, Tiffany could implement his longstanding preferences by naming new members to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, which oversees the state’s utilities. In a letter sent last year, he urged the commission to look more favorably at coal.
What remains notable about this story — and lost in much of the commentary — is that Crowley is not even a moderate on data centers. On some fronts, he would regulate data centers more aggressively than the Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed would, even though the former has been branded as a pragmatist and the latter as a progressive.
Crowley, of course, wants data centers to use 100% renewable electricity and cover their full grid and infrastructure upgrade costs. El-Sayed hasn’t made the same commitment on clean energy. Crowley says data center developers “must build … with union labor,” while El-Sayed would require only that the facilities must be built by contractors with state-registered apprenticeship programs. I even think Crowley’s insistence on local control over data centers is a more expansive commitment than El-Sayed’s demand that communities must get a “meaningful say.” (El-Sayed’s language around water, by comparison, is more specific and binding, requiring data centers to use “closed loop systems.”)
You could say this is all a function of framing: It is Crowley who has declined to endorse a data center moratorium, while El-Sayed railed against data centers repeatedly on his campaign. On a vibes basis, El-Sayed is the more anti-data-center candidate. But policies are not made by atmospherics alone. And it is notable that socialists like Piker have endorsed El-Sayed’s approach while begging for Crowley to go further — when Crowley had the stricter policy all along.