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.
A group of energy researchers have a three-part prescription for Washington, D.C.’s exploding energy costs.
Washington, D.C. has earned an unwelcome distinction: the largest one-year electricity price increase of any state (or equivalent geographic distinction) in the U.S. Prices there are up 87% over the past five years and 26% in the past year alone, according to new data from MIT and Heatmap News’ Electricity Price Hub. The average D.C. household is now paying $55 more for power each month than it did five years ago.
In the face of this crisis, local officials have done little but blame regional markets, emphasizing the parts of recent rate increases they don’t fully control — generation charges — rather than any proactive measures they could take to offer relief to D.C. households. Meanwhile Exelon, the parent company for Pepco, D.C.’s local utility, has used the crisis to lobby state policymakers across the region for something worse — a return to utility-owned generation, which could leave consumers holding the bag for projects that run over budget or that are built for demand that never materializes.
As residents of Washington, D.C. and energy researchers who helped put together the Electricity Price Hub, we are well aware that the District cannot remake the regional electricity market on its own. But it has meaningful tools to protect ratepayers now.
To be sure, the problems D.C. faces are not entirely of its own making. Rising demand and constrained supply across the Mid-Atlantic have created a wholesale market pressure cooker.
Capacity market prices in the Pepco region, which are set through a regional auction scheme designed to ensure the grid can reliably deliver power when demand peaks, increased more than fivefold in 2025. Those costs are passing through to retail bills. As capacity has come under increasing strain, generation charges in Pepco’s standard supply service have gone up 119% — 33% in the past year alone, with yet another rate increase set to kick in on June 1.
That regional dynamic is real. But it does not absolve local officials.
Roughly 30% of Pepco’s average residential bill is made up of charges that fall squarely under D.C. jurisdiction. Distribution charges, the largest of those local components, have risen 57% over five years, and account for 20% of the total rate increase. The D.C. Public Service Commission regulates utilities in the District and must approve Pepco’s rates before they take effect. The commission, in turn, answers to the D.C. Council, the District’s legislature, which confirms its commissioners and oversees its work. These bodies should be examining every dollar of Pepco’s proposed increases. Instead, a D.C. court recently struck down the commission’s most recent rate-hike approval, finding that it had failed to sufficiently scrutinize Pepco’s request.
When a regulator is doing such a poor job that judges have to step in, that is a five-alarm signal. Yet there is a workable action plan for the Council and the PSC to rein in costs and ease the burden on D.C. households.
First, scrutinize distribution charges aggressively — that is squarely within their jurisdiction. As Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro argued in his public letter to utility leaders last month, the PSC should require Pepco to justify every additional dollar of revenue requested in plain language. That means using transparent, replicable data and analysis to show why it’s needed, the alternatives considered, and how the proposed spending will concretely benefit consumers. To support this, the D.C. Council should ensure that the PSC, the Office of the People’s Council, and relevant state agencies are adequately resourced and positioned to engage with and probe Pepco’s arguments in rate proceedings.
Second, force transparency into how Pepco procures power. The public has remarkably little visibility into what makes up generation charges for the utility. For example, how much of the total cost is attributable to capacity prices, energy procurement, administrative costs, and compliance with the District’s Renewable Energy Portfolio standard? And what changes could D.C. consider to the competitive procurement process or RPS eligibility requirements to mitigate costs? Officials can’t manage what they can’t measure.
Third, attack demand by making it easier for customers to generate their own supply. High and unpredictable interconnection fees, process delays, and other administrative hurdles add unnecessary costs and contribute to the above-average cost of solar in D.C.. The D.C. Council and PSC can incentivize distribution-level solar battery deployment by cutting permitting and interconnection costs and improve cost transparency and streamline interconnection reviews to speed up the process of installing solar and storage.
None of these moves alone will reverse five years of rate increases. But together they would put real downward pressure on bills and signal that the city is serious.
What officials should reject — across the region — is Exelon’s push for utility-owned generation. In practice, it could create a generation subsidiary tomorrow. The reason it wants its rate-regulated distribution utility to do so instead is that this would let it earn a guaranteed return on costs it currently just passes through, while shifting the risk of cost overruns, schedule slips, and overbuilt capacity from shareholders to ratepayers. It would also hand the utility an information advantage over independent power producers, suppressing the competition the market relies on to keep prices honest. More profit, less risk, less competition. A great deal — for the utility.
The D.C. Council recently passed emergency legislation pausing utility disconnections for residents with unpaid balances under $1,000. That is a humane stopgap as we head into summer, but it is not a strategy. Neither is anything that has been proposed during the current mayoral race, in which leading candidates have attacked each other’s records instead of offering a plan to lower bills.
D.C. residents do not need more blame-shifting. The choice in front of the council and the PSC is concrete: Scrutinize what is in their jurisdiction, force the transparency they have the authority to require, accelerate the cheapest sources of new supply, and refuse to subsidize a Pepco business model that turns ratepayers into the underwriters of utility risk. That is the test of whether they meet this moment seriously.
On Thea Energy’s $100 million Series B, plus more of the week’s big money moves.
Nuclear is once again a dominant theme this week, with fusion startup Thea Energy landing a $100 million Series B that will help it expand its magnet manufacturing capabilities. While $100 million is nothing to scoff at, it somehow sounds modest alongside some of this year’s other deals, which include a $450 million Series A for Inertia Enterprises and $240 million for Shine Technologies. This week also brought the news that small modular reactor startup Newcleo plans to go public via SPAC later this year, bringing to mind the exuberance of the 2021 SPAC boom, in a deal expected to net a cool $429 million.
Elsewhere, gridtech company Utilidata raised fresh capital after (surprise!) pivoting to the data center market, while a standalone battery storage developer and operator is betting there’s still plenty of money to be made in the increasingly crowded ERCOT market.
Thea Energy officially joined the growing ranks of fusion companies to surpass $100 million in total funding this week, raising a $100 million Series B round led by the U.S. Innovative Technology Fund to scale its magnet manufacturing operations as it targets a demonstration reactor by 2030. Thea is a part of the Department of Energy’s Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program, which seeks to accelerate efforts for commercial fusion power. In January, the DOE certified Thea’s preconceptual pilot plant design, making it the first of the program’s eight awardees — who will split $46 million in federal funding — to see its reactor architecture validated.
Unlike many top-funded fusion startups, which are building donut-shaped tokamak reactors, Thea Energy is betting on a stellarator design. Traditional stellarators resemble a helical tokamak, which require manufacturing and installing dozens of huge, twisted magnets, but Thea’s approach deviates from the norm. Instead, it relies on hundreds of small, planar magnets arranged in the more familiar donut-shaped configuration, which the company’s artificial intelligence software controls individually. That enables Thea to create the same complex magnetic field within a far simpler and more manufacturable shell.
Thea plans to use the new capital to build a second facility in New Jersey to complement its existing lab and to double its headcount as it seeks a site for its demo reactor later this year. The startup is aiming to bring its subsequent commercial pilot online by 2034, on par with the timeline laid out by fusion industry leader Commonwealth Fusion Systems. According to Gaetano Crupi, USIT founder and billionaire investor Thomas Tull “believes the stellarator is the right architecture for commercial fusion, and Thea Energy is the company that makes it commercially viable.” As Crupi put it in a press release, that’s because “Thea Energy’s breakthroughs shift complexity from precision mechanical fabrication to software-defined controls.”
Newcleo is the latest small modular reactor startup seeking a quick pathway to the public markets via a SPAC merger, announcing plans to list on the Nasdaq in the second half of the year after merging with a blank-check firm. The deal values the European fuel and reactor developer at $2.4 million, and is expected to deliver about $429 million in fresh capital. It comes just months after Newcleo raised $88 million in a growth financing round as the company expands into the U.S. market while continuing to fund projects across Europe.
Newcleo stands out in the crowded SMR field through its fuel and cooling strategy. It plans to run its 200-megawatt reactors on recycled fuel made from nuclear waste products like recovered plutonium and depleted uranium, and cool its reactors with liquid lead rather than water. Because liquid lead has such a high boiling point, lead-cooled reactors can operate at atmospheric pressure, reducing the need for the complex, high-pressure systems used in conventional nuclear plants and potentially improving safety along the way.
The company has already raised over $760 million to date, and CEO Stefano Buono told the Wall Street Journal that the pending SPAC could carry it through 2028 or 2029. Even that won’t be enough, however, for Newcleo to reach its target of opening a fuel factory by 2031 and bringing a commercial reactor online the following year. Not to mention that SPACs — a once rare go-to-market strategy — have a checkered history in the SMR industry. After NuScale went public via SPAC in 2022, its flagship project collapsed, taking its stock down with it and underscoring the risks that pre-revenue companies face when their early failures unfold in the public markets. On the other hand, shares of Sam Altman-backed startup Oklo’s have surged since it went public via SPAC in 2024, reaching a market cap over $11 billion, though it also has yet to build a reactor.
Newcleo’s capital push may also be tied to its strategic partnership with Oklo, as it has preliminary plans to invest up to $2 billion to develop advanced nuclear fuel facilities in the U.S. in partnership with the SMR pioneer. Earlier this week, the DOE selected Oklo — and by extension, Newcleo — to enter “advanced negotiations” to receive surplus weapons-grade plutonium for use in reactor fuel.
What’s that I hear? Another climate tech company has pivoted to the data center market? While Utilidata — an artificial intelligence-powered gridtech company — initially set out to give utilities granular insight into household-level electricity usage and grid data, it’s now raised a $40 million extension round to accelerate its shift into the data center market. As I wrote following last year’s initial $60 million tranche of Series C funding, Utilidata initially set out to get its hardware module inside residential smart meters — which it managed to do at pilot scale — to enable faster fault detection and eventually even automate load management at the household level.
Now, Utilidata is taking this same principle and applying it to the booming data center market, where so many climate tech companies are finding their first customers. The company developed its AI platform in collaboration with Nvidia, installing its modules on server racks to help data centers optimize power allocation across its facility. The company says it measures power consumption a million times per second, such that if usage on one rack is low, it can reroute electricity to parts of the data center that need it. Much like electric grids, data centers also overbuild their capacity to ensure they can handle sudden spikes in demand or hardware failures. Utilidata wants to tap into that headroom by managing power flow in real time.
Utilidata’s first commercial data center deployment is set to go live next month in Montreal in partnership with European AI cloud provider NexGen Cloud, with the startup targeting a 50% increase in the data center’s usable processing power. It also plans to use this latest funding to increase headcount by 25% this year as it builds out operations at its new Ann Arbor headquarters, which opened in February.
In some later-stage funding news, battery energy storage developer, owner, and operator Goshe Energy Storage just secured up to $40 million in strategic financing from S2G investments. As I wrote last week, S2G recently raised a $1 billion fund aimed at helping growth-stage companies commercialize, though this latest commitment actually comes from a different arm of the firm — its Special Opportunities team. This division focuses on non-dilutive financing, in this case providing Goshe with a HoldCo loan backed by the company’s portfolio of energy storage projects. Rather than lending to a specific project, a HoldCo loan gives Goshe flexible capital that can be used to fund its broader growth.
Founded in 2022, Goshe specializes in acquiring late-stage battery storage projects and getting them over the finish line by securing capital and managing the construction process into commercial operations. Thus far, all of its announced projects are in Texas’ ERCOT electricity market. Alongside this financing announcement, Goshe said that its first project — a 100-megawatt battery storage plant in Bexar County, Texas — is now fully operational after securing $288 million in project financing. The company also expects to bring its second project, a 180-megawatt storage facility, online in the following few months, with two additional ERCOT projects slated to begin construction later this year.
This funding is the latest sign that infrastructure investors have grown comfortable backing battery energy storage projects, with a record 24.3 gigawatts of new battery storage capacity projected to come online in the U.S. this year alone. The wholesale ERCOT market, however, is no longer the guaranteed moneymaker that it was just a few years ago. Between January 2024 and January 2026, ERCOT more than tripled its battery storage capacity, driving battery revenues down as the market has become increasingly crowded. In this landscape, there may be a growing number of stranded projects for Goshe to acquire, though it’ll also have to be increasingly selective.
The American climate movement is beginning to look a lot like AI doomers versus the techno-optimists. It’s a dynamic that is winning local bans – and very little else for now.
On one side, you’ve got the left-leaning insurgent grassroots movement against data centers. In many cases this push is in the name of climate action and environmental justice, with activists citing the risks of pollution from gas-fired power and the potential for strain on existing electricity supplies. But in many, many other cases, this movement is decidedly not about climate action; instead it’s a movement addressing everything from energy prices and power over large corporations to AI use generally.
Or, perhaps the anti-data center movement’s big tent is best summarized in this quote from comedian and activist Ilana Glazer: “The thing that is genuinely waiting for us on the other side of AI and data centers is the collective.”
On the other end of the spectrum, you have a raft of data center-curious centrists, liberals, and, for lack of a better term, capitalists. This diametrically oppositional political force wants to ensure data centers continue being built as states and the federal government figure out how to make policy surrounding them. Yes, they want regulations, but they’ll have to qualify even supporting the idea of a single full state – any state – pausing data centers.
“I tend to find myself in the middle of all of this AI and data center policy, because I don’t think a heavy-handed approach in either direction is smart or productive,” said Tre Easton, vice president of public affairs for the Searchlight Institute, a policy think tank geared toward pushing Democrats into positions more broadly popular in the general electorate. “If you’re doing moratoria in one state and Meta says, okay, fine, they’ll go to a different state where they’ll run roughshod.” He added: “This buildout is happening. Let’s just make the rules. Put out rules of what this should look like.”
I spent weeks talking to activists fighting data centers to better understand their end goals. Right now what folks want to talk about most is moratoria, until industry-specific regulation is in place governing all things energy, water, noise, and labor.
“Our motto is ban, legislate, regulate,” said Ben Dziobek, founder of Climate Revolution Action Network, which is fighting data center expansion in New Jersey. Dziobek’s organization is one of roughly five dozen in the Garden State that have called on newly-elected Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherill to institute a moratorium on data centers, including state representatives from The Nature Conservancy and ACLU.
When I asked Dziobek what he’d like to see after a moratorium, the answer was clear: he wants to see Big Tech pay for the energy transition. “It would be beneficial if we could get companies who are using more load than entire states to build out the clean energy future. Someone’s gotta pay for this. The largest companies in the world have to come in.”
Undoubtedly this movement is increasingly influential and rooted in a now bipartisan concern about data centers founded in valid concerns about data center impacts and the rise of AI. But at least right now, In New Jersey, and so many other Democrat-controlled states, this movement has won little ground outside the local level and no statewide Democratic leader (e.g. governor) has made a data center moratorium their raison d'être. Neither have I seen the push for a moratorium pick up steam in any state known as a deep blue bastion for climate policy. Its greatest achievements by the numbers are the cancellation rate of projects that have faced local pushback (37%, according to Heatmap Pro), the city-wide moratoria in large left-leaning bastions like Denver, and the sheer existence of a federal data center moratorium bill led by progressive celebrities like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
In fact, what I am seeing is Democratic statewide leaders rejecting efforts to curtail their development or regulate energy and water usage. In California last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill requiring data center developers to report their water use. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul has so far shrugged off a push for her to back a three-year moratorium on new data centers. In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey supports continuing to foster the state’s data center buildout and the state is preserving its data center sales tax exemption at a time when GOP leaders in other states want to repeal similar subsidies. Colorado legislators abandoned a push to regulate data centers earlier this month, after Washington state did the same.
Perhaps infamously in Maine, the Democrat-led state legislature nearly enacted a two-year moratorium on data center development only to be vetoed by Gov. Janet Mills. Democrats then failed to override the veto.
Some Democratic leaders are taking up the light-touch approach. On Wednesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro released long-awaited principles for data center developers seeking fast-track permitting processes with state agencies. Under these policies, companies can get permitted more quickly if they abide by a number of energy, water, and labor standards.
On a granular level, even this policy quietly represented a disappointment for climate activists. One of the principles called for data centers to get at least one third of their power from “clean” sources by 2035 – which sounds nice until you realize Shapiro only two years ago was calling for utilities to get at least half of their electricity from carbon-free sources by then. Food & Water Watch, a national group calling for country-wide data center moratoria, blasted a press release going after Shapiro to the media after the principles were released: “[This] is a naive effort to placate widespread data center opposition. It won’t work.”
For climate activists, the best case scenario right now may be blue states taking up bills to regulate the sector as opposed to a blanket moratorium, where the push for a pause functions as leverage. Often these bills are focused on energy costs for consumers, not environmental protection, like in Oregon where last year legislators enacted a measure requiring data center companies to pay for their share of electricity demand. In Vermont this week, the state legislature passed a similar bipartisan data center bill focused on energy affordability, with some restrictions on fossil fuel generation. (Republican Gov. Phil Scott is expected to sign it.)
Indeed, the climate movement’s smartest play could be to push legislation requiring facilities not only pay for their power but ensure it is zero-carbon emissions. So far, Democrat-led bills that would accomplish this goal gained steam this year in other states but struggled to become law before the end of the legislative session too (Washington, for example).
In Illinois, the bill is known as the POWER Act, but despite lots of Democratic support behind it, it’s languishing in committee limbo ahead of the end of legislative session this week. One can imagine Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker getting a bill like the POWER Act into law and then running for president as The Guy Who Made Data Centers Cleaner. Heaven knows that’s why folks like Hannah Flath, climate communications manager for the Illinois Environmental Council, are so bullish on the bill. “I think it’ll eventually become law. Just not this session.”
I asked Flath why her organization was so focused on this bill as opposed to a data center moratorium. “We just don’t think it is politically feasible. Especially given how attractive these things are to our governor and some state lawmakers,” she said. “Currently, I view climate work as harm reduction work. This is perhaps a cynical view to have but that’s unfortunately where we’re at. How can we ensure changes happening in the world bring more benefits than they do harms?”
But Flath said that as a push for moratoria grows, it provides pressure on state policymakers to act: “What we’re offering state legislators now is a middle ground solution.”
I suppose for now, we’ll have to see if this side can come together on any solution – let alone a middle ground.