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.
Federal energy regulators directed the country’s largest grid to make its rules make sense.
Federal energy regulators don’t want utilities and electricity market rules getting in the way of data centers connecting directly to power plants.
That was the consensus message from both Republican and Democratic commissioners on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Thursday, when it issued its long-awaited order on co-location in PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest electricity market, covering the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
The question is a holdover from last year, when Amazon struck a deal with independent power producer Talen Energy to co-locate an Amazon Web Services data center with the Susquehanna nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. Amazon eventually amended the deal to a more traditional power purchase agreement after failing to win regulatory approval for a behind-the-meter arrangement. Constellation, which owns a number of nuclear power plants in the PJM territory, had asked FERC to force PJM to adopt co-location rules and prevent what it saw as utilities obstructing co-location projects.
More broadly, though, the dispute is between independent power plants and their owners and utilities who build and operate the transmission grid. The latter want the former to essentially pay full freight for grid services for co-located power plants, even if they are largely or exclusively serving a single customer — such as, let’s say, a data center. Even co-located loads still incur substantial grid costs, utilities have argued, which should be paid for in their entirety.
Co-location has become attractive lately as a way to get data centers online faster and limit expensive grid upgrades that could drive up costs for everyone on the grid. Up until now, though, PJM didn’t really have a way to determine the distribution of costs and responsibilities when some or all of a new demand source is served by a co-located generator — and it wasn’t really in a particular rush to set one up, FERC said.
“The Commission finds that PJM’s tariff does not appear to sufficiently address the rates, terms and conditions of service that apply to co-location arrangements,” FERC said in its order. “The absence of this information may leave generators and load unable to determine what steps they can take to set up co-location arrangements of various configurations, and how to do so in an acceptable way.”
The commission was unanimous in its order, showing that despite the increased partisanship of regulatory politics in Donald Trump’s Washington, FERC is still operating under its traditional consensus-based approach. The consensus also shows the high level of dissatisfaction across the political spectrum with rising electricity prices, and specifically with PJM, which has combined rising prices with a clogged interconnection process and concerns about reliability.
“If a new large load wants to connect directly with a power plant and operate in a way that lowers grid costs, we should let it. If the current rules don’t let this work in a way that’s fair for everyone,” said Commissioner David Rosner, a Democrat. “We should change those rules so we can deliver the savings that consumers need and ensure reliable electricity for everybody.”
In its order, the commission asked PJM to come up with new arrangements that will allow transmission costs to scale with actual usage of the transmission system.
To do so, the new rules will have to reflect the actual usage of the transmission system of a co-located data center or other large load, Rosner explained.
He gave the example of a 1,000-megawatt data center co-located with a new 900-megawatt power plant. Its draw from the grid would be 100 megawatts, but “under PJM status quo rules,” Rosner said, “the data center needs to take the full 1,000 megawatts of front-of-meter transmission service from the grid, despite being directly connected to the co-located power plant.”
With the new options FERC is mandating PJM come up with, “the data center will now have the option to purchase what we call firm contract demand to take just 100 megawatts of firm service,” Rosner said, which will help cut costs across the board, he added.
The order also touches on the other hottest subject in grid policy today: flexibility. Because PJM will no longer be required to plan transmission or assure it has capacity for directly-connected loads, Rosner said, a big customer will have to accept the risk of being curtailed “if its usage exceeds what it’s contracted for in advance.”
The renewables industry cheered the order, especially the message that PJM needs to embrace flexibility and enable new generation and load to get online quickly.
“PJM needs to heed FERC’s message that grid flexibility enables speed, affordability, and reliability. As PJM proposes new rules to enable fast-tracking large load interconnections, it should prioritize the advanced energy technologies that are quickest to build and enable flexibility,” Jon Gordon, policy director at Advanced Energy United, said in a statement.
Independent power producers — i.e. the companies that own that power plants — also seemed happy with what the commission had to say. Talen, Constellation Energy, and Vistra Energy, all of whom have substantial footprints in PJM, saw their share prices rise at least 3% in early Thursday trading.
Thursday’s order comes as “large load interconnection” — i.e. data centers hooking up to the grid — dominates the energy regulatory discussion. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has asked FERC to come up with new rules early next year to speed up interconnection without jacking up consumer electricity prices. At the same time, PJM’s market is under stress, with another capacity auction this week resulting in yet another round of record-setting payments to generators — plus, this time, a failure to secure its typical margin over and above its minimum projected capacity needed to ensure future reliability.
PJM is working on its own new set of rules to connect large loads without large price impacts, a process that has so far resulted in not much, as the market’s board has yet to agree on a proposal to bring to FERC.
Beating up on PJM was a bipartisan affair Thursday morning.
“The order recognizes that PJM existing transmission services are insufficient in that they do not recognize the controllable nature of co-location arrangement’s,” the commission’s Republican Chair Laura Swett said in her statement at Thursday’s meeting.
“Flexible options for co-located load means carving a path for minimizing expensive and time-intensive network upgrades in circumstances where they’re not needed,” Commissioner Lindsay See, another Republican appointee, said.
Rosner’s statement echoed his colleagues’, arguing that the existing PJM rates and contracts are “unjust and unreasonable” because they do not “contain provisions addressing with sufficient clarity or consistency the rates, terms and conditions of service that apply to interconnection customers serving co-located load and eligible customers taking transmission service on behalf of co-located load.”
He also addressed the electricity market’s board directly: “In my opinion, PJM board, tomorrow, once you’ve read this order, would be a great day to file this with us,” Rosner said.
Current conditions: Flooding continues in the Pacific Northwest as the Pineapple Express atmospheric river dumps another 4 inches of rain on Oregon • A warm front with temperatures in the 60s Fahrenheit is heading for the Northeast • Temperatures in Paraguay are surging past 90 degrees.
The Trump administration plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Founded in 1960, The New York Times credited the center with “many of the biggest scientific advances in humanity’s understanding of weather and climate.” But in a post on X late Tuesday evening, Russell Vought, the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, called the institute “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country,” and said the administration would be “breaking up” its operations. It’s just the latest attempt by the White House to salt the Earth for federal climate science. As I wrote in August, the administration went as far as rewriting existing climate reports.
The latest capacity auction in PJM Interconnection, where power generators in the nation’s largest electricity market bid to provide power when the grid is especially stressed, ended at the legally-mandated cap of $333.44 per megawatt. This adds up to some $16.4 billion, a record-setting figure following the past two auctions, which brought in $16.1 billion and $14.7 billion.
This auction covers 2027 through 2028, and is the last that will be subject to the price cap. Despite the dizzying spending, it failed to procure enough power to meet PJM’s preferred 20% reserve margin for a severe demand event. The auction procured 145,777 megawatts of capacity, 6,623 megawatts short of the target, giving the grid a 14.8% margin. Much of that projected demand will come from data centers, which, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote, have stressed the grid operator nearly to the breaking point.

Global coal use is set to start declining over the next five years as renewables and liquified natural gas gobble up its market share, the International Energy Agency projected in its latest annual forecast Wednesday. Demand is on track to inch upward 0.5% this year to a record 8,845 million tons before dropping 3% by 2030. Analysts warned Bloomberg that coal has remained “stubbornly strong” given high levels of consumption in China and India, and the Paris-based IEA cautioned that its five-year outlook “is subject to significant uncertainties that could impact it materially.”
Among the factors that look increasingly certain: That the Trump administration won’t allow any more U.S. coal plants to shut down. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy ordered the 730-megawatt TransAlta Centralia Generation in Washington to remain past its retirement at the end of this month, despite the state’s ban on coal operations. There’s just one big problem with that plan, as Matthew wrote last month. Old coal plants keep breaking down.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Nuno Loureiro, a professor of nuclear science and the director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, died Tuesday after being shot multiple times in his home near Boston the night before. Police statements made no mention of a suspect or motives, but Loureiro’s coveted position as one of the United States’ leading fusion scientists stoked speculation that the killing was politically motivated. Prominent influencers including the Trump adviser Laura Loomer falsely claimed that Loureiro, who was from Portugal, was Jewish and a vocal activist for the Israeli government. But The Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli intelligence officials are investigating potential links between the murder and the Iranian government, though the newspaper cautioned that the assessment “has not yet been verified.” As of now, there is no clear evidence of who killed Loureiro or why. His death shocked the field of research in which he was lauded as a leader. A former colleague in Portugal who started working at the same laboratory with Loureiro years ago in Lisbon and “knew him well” told me, “Everyone here is in shock.”
Back in June, Matthew wrote a good piece explaining why the commonly used metric known as levelized cost of energy was “wrong.” Essentially, LCOE represents the energy output of a given source in terms of its construction and operating expenses — the lower the LCOE, the more efficient it is operationally. But the metric fails to capture all the other things that make an energy source valuable, such as the frequency with which it operates, how long it lasts, or how much infrastructure is required to make use of it. When Ontario Power Generation assessed the cost of building new nuclear reactors at its Darlington station, the LCOE showed solar and batteries costing far less. But a full systems analysis found that nuclear reactors would last longer, require fewer transmission upgrades, and would not need back-up generation. A report published this morning by the consultancy FTI has proposed two new metrics instead: Levelized value of energy, or LVOE, “which reflects the total value a project can create for its owners, and Levelized Net Benefit (LNB), which quantifies the broader value a project can deliver to the overall system.” While the LCOE for solar is roughly 40% lower than nuclear power in both Texas’ ERCOT grid system and PJM, a chart from the report shows that nuclear has an LVOE roughly 10 times greater.

Record rainfall last month has revived an ancient lake in an unusual place. When ice covered the Sierra Nevada between 128,000 and 186,000 years ago, a lake 100 miles long and 600 feet deep sat in what is today the Mojave Desert in eastern California. That lake, called Lake Manly, has returned. As the science site Phys.org reported, “now Death Valley, one of the hottest places on Earth and the lowest point in North America, has a desert lake framed by snow-capped mountains.” But the “marvel” is likely to disappear soon.
With new corporate emissions restrictions looming, Japanese investors are betting on carbon removal.
It’s not a great time to be a direct air capture company in the U.S. During a year when the federal government stepped away from its climate commitments and cut incentives for climate tech and clean energy, investors largely backed away from capital-intensive projects with uncertain economics. And if there were ever an expensive technology without a clear path to profitability, it’s DAC.
But as the U.S. retrenches, Japanese corporations are leaning in. Heirloom’s $150 million Series B round late last year featured backing from Japan Airlines, as well as major Japanese conglomerates Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsui & Co. Then this month, the startup received an additional infusion of cash from the Development Bank of Japan and the engineering company Chiyoda Corporation. Just days later, DAC project developer Deep Sky announced a strategic partnership with the large financial institution Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation to help build out the country’s DAC market.
Experts told me these investments probably won’t lead to much large-scale DAC deployment within Japan, where the geology is poorly suited to carbon sequestration. Many of these corporations likely don’t even plan to purchase DAC-based carbon offsets anytime soon, as they haven’t made the type of bold clean energy commitments seen among U.S. tech giants, and cheaper forestry offsets still dominate the local market.
Rather, contrary to current sentiment in the U.S., many simply view it as a fantastic business opportunity. “This is actually a great investment opportunity for Japanese companies now that the U.S. companies are out,” Yuki Sekiguchi, founder of Startup Navigator for Climate Tech and the leader of a group for the Japanese clean tech community, told me. “They get to work with really high caliber startups. And now everybody’s going to Japan to raise money and have a partnership, so they have a lot to choose from.”
Chris Takigawa, a director at the Tokyo-based venture firm Global Brain, agreed. Previously he worked at Mitsubishi, where he pioneered research on CO2 removal technologies and led the company’s investment in Heirloom. “Ultimately, if there’s going to be a big project, we want to be part of that, to earn equity from that business,” he told me of Mitsubishi’s interest in DAC. “We own large stakes in mining assets or heavy industrial assets. We see this as the same thing.”
Takigawa said that he sees plenty of opportunities for the country to leverage its engineering and manufacturing expertise to play a leading role in the DAC industry’s value chain. Many Japanese companies have already gotten a jump.
To name just a few, NGK Insulators is researching ceramic materials for carbon capture, and semiconductor materials company Tokyo Ohka Kogyo is partnering with the Japanese DAC startup Carbon Xtract to develop and manufacture carbon capture membranes. The large conglomerate Sojitz is working with academic and energy partners to turn Carbon Xtract’s tech into a small-scale “direct air capture and utilization" system for buildings. And the industrial giant Kawasaki Heavy Industries has built a large DAC pilot plant in the port city of Kobe, as the company looks to store captured CO2 in concrete.
During his time at Mitsubishi, as he worked to establish the precursor to what would become the Japan CDR Coalition, Takigawa told me he reached out to “all the companies that I could think about that might be related to DAC.” Most of them, he found, were already either doing research or investing in the space.
Japan has clear climate targets — reach net-zero by 2050, with a 60% reduction in emissions by 2035, and a 73% reduction by 2040, compared to 2013 levels. It’s not among the most ambitious countries, nor is it among the least. But experts emphasize that its path is stable and linear.
“In Japan, policy is a little more top down,” Sekiguchi told me. Japan’s business landscape is dominated by large conglomerates and trading companies, which Sekigushi told me are “basically tasked by the government” to decarbonize. “And then you have to follow.”
Unlike in the U.S., climate change and decarbonization are not very politically charged issues in Japan. But at the same time, there’s little perceived need for engagement. A recent Ipsos poll showed that among the 32 countries surveyed, Japanese citizens expressed the least urgency to act on climate change. And yet, there’s broad agreement there that climate change is a big problem, as 81% of Japanese people surveyed said they’re worried about the impacts already being felt in the country.
The idea that large corporations are being instructed to lower their emissions over a decades-long timeframe is thus not a major point of contention. The same holds for Japan’s now-voluntary emissions trading scheme, called the GX-ETS, that was launched in 2023. This coming fiscal year, compliance will become mandatory, with large polluters receiving annual emissions allowances that they can trade if they’re above or below the cap.
International credits generated from DAC and other forms of carbon removal, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, are accepted forms of emissions offsets during the voluntary phase, making Japan the first country to include engineered credits in its national trading scheme. But to the dismay of the country’s emergent carbon removal sector, it now appears that they won’t be included in the mandatory ETS, at least initially. While a statement from the Chairman and CEO of Japan’s Institute of Energy Economics says that “carbon removal will be recognized in the future as credits,” it’s unclear when that will be.
Sekiguchi told me this flip-flop served as a wake-up call, highlighting the need for greater organizing efforts around carbon removal in Japan.
“Now those big trading houses realize they need an actual lobbying entity. So they created the Japan CDR Coalition this summer,” she explained. Launched by Mitsubishi, the coalition’s plans include “new research and analysis on CDR, policy proposals, and training programs,” according to a press release. The group’s first meeting was this September, but when I reached out to learn more about their efforts, a representative told me the coalition had “not yet reached a stage where we can effectively share details or outcomes with media outlets.”
Sekiguchi did tell me that the group has quickly gained momentum, growing from just a handful of founding companies to a membership of around 70, including representatives from most major sectors such as shipping, chemicals, electronics, and heavy industry.
Many of these companies — especially those in difficult to decarbonize sectors — might be planning for a future in which durable engineered carbon offsets do play a critical role in complying with the country’s increasingly stringent ETS requirements. After all, Japan is small, mountainous, densely populated, and lacks the space for vast deployments of solar and wind resources, leaving it largely dependent on imported natural gas for its energy needs. “We’ll always be using fossil fuels,” Takigawa told me, “So in order to offset the emissions, the only way is to buy carbon removals.”
And while the offset market is currently dominated by inexpensive nature-based solutions, “you have to have an expectation that the price is going to go up,” Sekiguchi told me. The project developer Deep Sky is certainly betting on that. As the company’s CEO Alex Petre told me, “Specifically in Japan, due to the very strong culture of engineering and manufacturing, there is a really deep recognition that engineered credits are actually a solution that is not only exciting, but also one where there’s a lot of opportunity to optimize and to build and to deploy.”
As it stands now though, the rest of the world may expect a little too much of Japan’s nascent DAC industry, experts told me.
Take the DeCarbon Tokyo conference, which was held at the beginning of December. Petre, Sekiguchi, and Takigawa all attended. Petre’s takeaway? “Deep Sky is not the only company that has figured out that Japan is really interested in decarbonization,” she put it wryly. DAC companies Climeworks and AirMyne were also present, along with a wide range of other international carbon removal startups such as Charm Industrial, Captura, and Lithos Carbon.
Overall, Sekiguchi estimated that about 80% of the participants in the conference were international companies or stakeholders looking for Japanese investment, whereas “it should be the other way around” for a conference held in Tokyo.
“I think there’s big potential, Japan can be a really big player,” she told me. But perhaps Americans and Europeans are currently a little overzealous when it comes to courting Japanese investors and pinning their expectations on the country’s developing decarbonization framework. “There’s so much hope from the international side. But in Japan it’s still like, okay, we are learning, and we are going steadily but kind of slowly. So don’t overwhelm us.”