You’ve reached your free article limit
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.
Current conditions: Churning off Mexico’s west coast, Tropical Storm Vance is strengthening into the 11th major hurricane to hit the eastern Pacific this year • A magnitude 7 earthquake that struck a remote corner of northeast Tibet killed at least 18 people and injured dozens more • A series of offshore storms in the Atlantic are hammering the East Coast with dangerous swells.
President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Thursday declaring that imported wind turbines and their parts “threaten to impair the national security of the United States,” affirming the findings of an investigation the Department of Commerce opened last summer. But the White House stopped short of imposing the tariffs the agency recommended. It’s tempting, of course, to interpret the White House’s decision to punt on tariffs as a concession to win Democratic votes in Congress for the bipartisan infrastructure deal. In keeping with Trump’s famously chaotic negotiating style, the Department of Justice in the past week reopened permitting decisions on two major offshore wind farms while the Pentagon advanced two of the droves of onshore wind projects amid the bureaucratic blockade that has stymied the sector for months.
But a source with direct knowledge of the White House’s thinking told me Trump made his proclamation Thursday to meet a statutory 90-day deadline between the release of the Commerce Department’s findings in its Section 232 investigation. If Trump failed to acknowledge the conclusions of the probe within that three-month notice period, the source said, the president would lose the legal right to act on the findings. Instead, the proclamation represents what the source called “the minimum viable product” to maintain the option to impose tariffs based on the Commerce Department investigation at a later date. Trump followed a similar approach in July, when he declined to impose tariffs on imported aircraft parts despite the threat the administration warned the foreign dependence posed.

Chinese turbine companies already dominate the global wind industry. But as firms such as Goldwind and Mingyang Smart Energy make a push into the European market, where countries are increasingly building out turbines to ease demand for fossil fuels, Beijing is ordering its Chinese companies to stick to Chinese-made parts. Until now, Chinese turbine companies relied on components made in Europe and elsewhere. But an investigation published this week by Poland’s state-backed Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich found that Chinese utilities are racing to replace foreign technology with domestic alternatives in hundreds of operating wind farms. The Warsaw-based think tank, known in English by the acronym OSW or as the Centre for Eastern Studies, analyzed 1,686 wind-sector procurement documents issued by Chinese utilities and their subsidiaries, “and found 293 that call for foreign technology to be replaced with Chinese alternatives, or impose domestic-localization requirements on new installations.” Of these, 251 covered replacements for wind farms that are currently online, and 42 imposed domestic requirements on new installations. That “localization drive,” OSW noted, includes grid equipment, solar panels, batteries, and coal-fired power plants.
The localization drive doesn’t stem from any one government mandate, “It works through a collection of opaque administrative measures, which is why procurement records are the place to uncover it,” OSW wrote. “But those records sit on fragmented platforms and older notices are often deleted, so what follows is the visible portion of something likely larger. Wind is also one area among many.” So, why focus on wind? “Europe has not yet decided how to treat Chinese suppliers in this sector,” the organization argued. “Chinese manufacturers are just beginning to establish a presence in the European market, while Europe is actively debating the conditions that should apply to their access. China’s treatment of foreign suppliers therefore has direct relevance for European debates over the future of the economic and trade relationship.” While Poland is internally divided in a culture war that many Americans would find recognizable, the country has long found unity in its skepticism of Europe’s embrace of Russian gas throughout the opening decades of this century. That proved to be keen foresight, as we all learned when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine in 2022. So when a country that’s rapidly building out wind power both on and offshore raises concern over Beijing’s grip over a supply chain, it’s worth paying attention.
Last year, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense established new programs to help startups developing novel nuclear reactors build prototypes and run tests, with several companies splitting atoms for the first time earlier this year. Now the data collected from those trial runs can count on the companies’ formal applications for commercial licenses. On Thursday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission finalized a rule allowing reactor developers who took part in those programs to apply their results, saving potentially millions of dollars by avoiding steps already approved by other federal experts. While the rule amends two of the main licensing pathways for reactors — known as Parts 50 and 53 — to allow information gathered at the Energy Department and the Pentagon to count, companies must “still demonstrate compliance with NRC requirements” and point out the differences between the demonstration project and a proposed commercial plant. Describing it as an “expedited path” for alumni of the other agencies’ programs, NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said “high-quality applications showing how DOE and DOW results apply to NRC requirements will help us review them more efficiently.” The move is part of a shift at the NRC that began before Trump returned to office. Former President Joe Biden signed the ADVANCE Act into law in 2024, explicitly directing the NRC to broaden its mission to include weighing both the risk of building nuclear reactors and not constructing them. Trump accelerated the change with executive orders calling on the NRC to speed up approvals for new reactors. He also tightened his control over the agency by successfully challenging the traditional interpretation of the agency’s independence to mean that presidents can appoint new commissioners but not fire existing ones in the middle of their terms.
Finland, meanwhile, just permitted the world’s first permanent repository for nuclear waste. I visited the facility in western Finland, known as Onkalo, back in 2022. Dug more than 1,300 feet into the bedrock that geologists say hasn’t moved in billions of years, the site has already inspired Sweden and Canada to pursue similar projects. The U.S., on the other hand, is moving away from its long stalled plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Instead, it’s embracing technology to reprocess spent fuel into fresh fuel. That isn’t to say there aren’t some key links between nuclear industries on opposite sides of the Atlantic. A subsidiary of Canada’s Ontario Power Generation, the state-owned utility in the country’s most populous province that’s building the first small modular reactor in North America, just inked a deal to develop that same technology in the United Kingdom, World Nuclear News reported. All good news for Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former California governor and clean energy advocate told the Financial Times on Thursday that he wants more nuclear power to “terminate pollution.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Copper is hitting record highs as the U.S. stockpiles the metal and Chile’s mine output contracts. Aluminum is dealing with the shock of the Iran War shutting down a key smelter. Nickel is facing new export restrictions from Indonesia, the world’s top supplier. The lithium shortage is driving demand for hundreds of billions in new investment. That’s the backdrop of the global mineral market right as the artificial intelligence boom is adding new demand, according to a report the consultancy Wood Mackenzie published Thursday. “Data centers represent an economy-wide power infrastructure challenge, but the bigger story is the collision between accelerating demand and increasingly complex supply delivery,” Lindsay Grant, Wood Mackenzie’s vice president of metals and mining research, said in the report. “High prices should trigger investment, yet project sanctioning remains below expectations. Without faster approvals and investment commitments, the industry cannot deliver the mine supply needed to support future growth.”

Market chaos is driving long- and short-term shortages abound. U.S. refineries are working overtime to meet soaring gas prices. The facilities averaged more than 95% of capacity from May to September, the highest output for those months since 1998, according to an analysis the U.S. Energy Information Administration published Thursday. During a speech in Iowa on Thursday night, Trump said he would direct $150 million in Defense Production Act money toward beefing up refineries further.
The Commerce Department is investing $175 million into the fusion startup Helion. The company — which the Financial Times described as a “speculative” venture backed by Josh Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law; conservative tech billionaire Peter Thiel; and OpenAI founder Sam Altman — will receive the funding from a pool of money the agency had leftover from the CHIPS Act. In exchange, the U.S. government will take an equivalent non-voting equity stake. The deal marks the Commerce Department’s largest commitment yet to a single company in the sector.
The Israeli government, meanwhile, is looking to ramp up its investments into fusion. On Thursday, Israel’s Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure published what The Jerusalem Post described as a strategic report detailing the opportunity to invest now in a fusion market that could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades. Israel has long eschewed fission energy, as establishing a traditional civilian nuclear program would invite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scrutiny of the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal, which Jerusalem has long refused to confirm. But the decision by U.S. regulators to treat fusion reactors like research and medical reactors rather than fission power plants could set the stage for laxer global oversight of the technology in the future.
With war tragically raging on between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon’s south, financing utility-scale solar and wind projects has proven difficult. The first large solar farm is poised to begin construction before the end of the year. But Lebanon’s small-scale distributed solar is booming. In 2020, Renewables Now reported, the country had less than 100 megawatts of peak solar generating capacity installed. Now that figure has risen to 1.5 gigawatts, the Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation told the trade publication. Even before the war, Lebanon’s grid repeatedly failed, spurring Lebanese to install more rooftop solar panels and batteries to keep the lights on.
Jason Fenske loved his Lucid. Or at least, the idea of it.
Fenske is the proprietor of the influential Engineering Explained channel on YouTube, which digs into the mechanical minutiae of both combustion and electric vehicles. While he regularly test-drives all sorts of cars, Fenske last year bought himself a Lucid Air, the big, beautiful sedan from the California EV startup.
The choice was no surprise. Fenske called the Air “one of the most impressive feats of engineering in the automotive world.” Technologically, it is indeed a car without compromise. Despite delivering 600-plus horsepower and a 0-60 mph time of barely more than 3 seconds, it was also the most efficient car in America, a fact that helped push its driving range above 400 miles per charge. But after a year of Fenske’s Air struggling with seemingly incurable software glitches, the company bought back his car and gave him a long-term loan of the Gravity, its new electric SUV. When that, too, suffered software bugs, he finally moved on to a Ford.
The episode encapsulates what has been a trying time for the automaker. Alongside Tesla and Rivian, Lucid looked to be the third successful EV startup to spring out of California. Tesla, once it overcame the trials of “manufacturing hell” to produce the Model 3 and Model Y, seized control of the American EV market and has yet to let go. Rivian, buoyed through the bad years by investments from the likes of Volkswagen and Amazon, appears poised to reach a sustainable future now that the more affordable R2 is out and thriving. Lucid, though, is stuck in an earlier stage in startup evolution — reportedly burning through cash as it struggles with both the software side of its vehicles and with the state of the U.S. EV market. The mood grew so grim this summer that the company announced a full operational reset to try to restore investor confidence, which included CEO Peter Rawlinson, formerly the man in charge of the Tesla Model S, stepping down.
Things started off much more promising in 2021, when the Air established Lucid as the efficiency nerd’s EV. Today, the rear-wheel-drive version gets the equivalent of 146 miles per gallon — tops in the U.S., and good enough for the Air to get 420 miles of range. The most expensive Air, with a supersized battery to match, delivers an eye-popping figure of 512 miles.
The obvious next step for the American market is to build an SUV, which Lucid has done with the Gravity. We tested it this past weekend in a seven-seat configuration, ferrying five people and three dogs up to Oak Glen, California, the mountain town of apple orchards and pumpkin patches where Angelenos come to cosplay autumn. (Bibi, one of the four-legged passengers who doesn’t care for cars, loved the Lucid). Despite its length, which gives it the proportions of a svelte minivan, the Gravity’s ample power makes it drive like a lighter vehicle. And despite its size, the Lucid’s efficiency obsession gives the car 400-plus miles of range, allowing us to drive a three-hour round trip and still have half the battery capacity left over. I can’t tell you how luxurious that feels compared to everyday life in a standard-range Tesla Model 3.
Inside, the Gravity is truly deluxe and inviting. Where Tesla embraced a fully minimalist interior and Rivian projects more of an REI, gentrified outdoorsy aesthetic, Lucid tilts more toward being the electric black car. The sprawling curved screen across the dashboard and secondary large touchscreen in the central console, combined with the elegant approach to its UI, is just so much more sophisticated than what you’d see in a legacy carmaker’s EV.
The setup offers a refined way to use all the car’s basic functions like climate, music, and navigation, as well as search for charging stations and view all of the car’s energy and efficiency stats. The array of settings and options allows an EV enthusiast to tweak a thousand things about their car. Take charge planning on road trips, a sore spot I often gripe about: In the Lucid, a bevy of options lets you select and deselect whichever charging networks you want, tell the computer whether to prioritize total time versus number of charging stops, and lots more. Then there are the premium extras meant to justify the Gravity’s price, which starts at $80,000 and rises from there. Wellness and relaxation programs can take over the digital displays and lighting, transforming the cabin into a little spa on wheels for as long as you’d like. The car simply feels like Silicon Valley affluence.
Within that user experience lies the problem, though. Lucid’s EVs are unquestionably mechanically excellent. But in the age of the software-defined car, all the software has to be excellent, too. Fenske’s Air wasn’t the only Lucid beset by bugs. This is an unavoidable fact of life in the 21st century — Tesla and Rivian have certainly had their share — but Lucid appears to have struggled more to cleanse them. Even my test unit would erroneously flash a momentary warning while I was rolling down the freeway (close latch before driving!) that disappeared just as quickly. It made no real difference to the driving experience, yet it’s one of those tiny glitches that saps one’s confidence in a car whose software is also responsible for keeping you safe.
Set aside software woes, and the timeline is troublesome for Lucid, too. Tesla established a pattern for EV startups: it built the very expensive Model S and X first, making just enough revenue from those pricey halo cars to survive until it could build the more affordable Model 3 and Y and generate a reliable revenue stream. Rivian took a similar path, selling R1 pickups and SUVs that cost $70,000, and sometimes much more, before introducing the R2 this year. Lucid’s smaller and cheaper EVs would be called the Cosmos and Earth, but we’ve yet to see those vehicles, and they won’t arrive until at least next year. When they do show up, they’ll have to compete with an improving set of luxury EVsfrom the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Once those $50,000 Lucids exist, far more drivers will be exposed to all the things that the brand does right. And maybe — as long as there’s enough investment cash to get there — that will establish Lucid as a brand that is here to stay. Until then, the sticker price of these dream machines means that Lucid is competing in a small slice of an already small market, since not even a year of expensive gas has been enough to tip Americans toward EVs for good.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has a fascinating story today about Net Power, an energy and power development company whose technology once seemed key to decarbonizing the country’s electricity grid.
When Net Power went public in 2023, it was working on a natural gas-burning power plant that would generate little to no emissions in part by using carbon capture and storage. Its invention seemed to have big implications, and not just for the company’s bottom line: Back then, the Environmental Protection Agency was drafting climate rules that would have required new natural gas plants built in the 2030s to capture their carbon dioxide emissions. Net Power’s technology seemed like one of the best available ways to meet that standard.
Cut to 2026, and the world looks different. Thanks to the artificial intelligence boom, electricity demand is surging. But Net Power hasn’t successfully commercialized its proprietary power plant technology. Even if it had, few companies are willing to pay the high premium required by Net Power’s technology, especially when cheaper options are available. And the government certainly isn’t going to require it. Emily’s story reveals what happened next.
When I helped start Heatmap more than three years ago, I never thought I would write this much about data centers. I believed that electricity demand growth was inevitable, sure, and I thought the U.S. power grid had to expand for the country to decarbonize. But I didn’t foresee such a staggering near-term surge in electricity demand. (To be fair, even long-time students of the computing industry’s energy use didn’t see the coming increase, either.)
What I didn’t anticipate — or understand — were two fast-moving trends. The first was that the AI models were responding to scale: the more text or images they consumed, or training they received, or (crucially) computational power they had access to, the better they got. The second was that Wall Street was happy to pay to continue that speedy scale-up. As long as models kept getting better, investors were willing to keep lending or investing more money to the companies making them. Through the power of those two scaling functions, the data center boom became one of the biggest infrastructure buildouts in American history.
In recent days, the second of those trends has started to falter. After a surprisingly hot inflation report last week, and a disclosure on Wednesday evening that Meta has gone free cash flow negative to finance its ongoing AI buildout, stocks with any proximity to AI or data centers stumbled on Wall Street today. The data center developer Coreweave and independent power producer Vistra were each down about 10%, while Microsoft, Alphabet, and Nvidia all fell in daily trading. Meta’s stock lost almost 7% of its value; GE Vernova, which produces gas turbines, was down 10%.
These declines look more significant when you zoom out. Since late June, a good chunk of the AI portfolio has sagged into the red. Coreweave’s stock is down 54% over the past six months. Alphabet and GE Vernova have also posted declines since the summer. (The trend isn’t uniform: Nvidia and Microsoft are still very much in the green.)
None of this, to be sure, guarantees that the AI boom is ending or even slowing down. But this finance-applied friction is what such a slowdown could look like. Investors aren’t (yet) saying that AI is a business dud, to be clear, just that companies perhaps don’t need to go and construct all this stuff so fast. And given what the data center buildout has meant for energy construction — not to mention greenhouse gas emissions — that’s a trend nobody in climate or energy can ignore.
Editor’s note: This article originally misstated Vistra’s core business. It has been corrected. We regret the error.