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:
The all-American EV startup is cutting costs to survive.

America’s most interesting electric-vehicle company is about to have the defining year of its life.
On Wednesday, the company reported that it lost $1.58 billion in the fourth quarter of last year, bringing its net annual losses to $5.4 billion. It announced that it is laying off about 10% of its salaried employees, but — at the same time — promised that it has a plan to achieve a small profit by the end of this year.
Rivian does not seem to be in trouble — not quite yet, at least. But the earnings made clear what electric-vehicle observers have known for a long time: Either the company will emerge from this year poised to be a winner in the EV transition, or it will find itself up against the wall.
That’s partially because Rivian has a stomach-turning number of corporate milestones coming up. Over the next 11 months, it plans to unveil an entirely new line of vehicles, shut down its factory for several weeks for cost-saving upgrades, break ground on a new $5 billion facility in Georgia, and — most importantly — turn a profit for the first time. It also expects to manufacture and deliver roughly another 60,000 vehicles to customers.
Any one of these goals would be difficult to achieve in any environment. But Rivian is going to have to execute all of them during a time defined by “economic and geopolitical uncertainties” and especially high interest rates, its CEO R.J. Scaringe told investors on Wednesday. Since 2021, Rivian’s once robust stockpile of cash has been cut in half to about $7 billion; at its current burn rate, the company will run out of money in a little more than two years.
Although Rivian’s situation is dire, it’s not experiencing anything out of the ordinary. As I’ve written before, the electric truck maker is crossing what commentators sometimes call “the EV valley of death.” This is the challenging point in a company’s life cycle where it has developed a product and scaled it up to production — thereby raising its operating expenses to eye-watering levels — but where its revenue has not yet increased too.
During this vulnerable period, a company essentially burns through its cash on hand in the hope that more customers and serious revenue will soon show up. If those customers don’t arrive, then it either needs to raise more cash … or it runs out of money and goes bankrupt.
It’s a frightening time, but once a company crosses the valley of death, it can reach an idyll. Not so long ago, Tesla found itself in something like Rivian’s position as it prepared to launch the Model 3. Seven years later, it is the most valuable automaker in the world.
Once Rivian’s revenue exceeds its costs, its problems will get easier, or at least more straightforward: Instead of fighting for its survival and watching its cash reserves dwindle, Scaringe will be able to make more strategic trade-offs. Should the company cut costs to expand its profit margin and reward investors, or should it pass the savings along to customers in the form of lower prices, thus growing its market share? Scaringe can’t make these types of decisions until his firm is safely out of the valley.
Claire McDonough, Rivian’s chief financial officer and a former J.P. Morgan director, has a plan for crossing that canyon — an aptly if strangely named “bridge to profitability” that it will attempt to build this year. Rivian’s survival, she said, will depend above all on cutting the unit costs of producing its vehicles, including by using fewer materials to make every car. Other savings will come from making more vehicles faster. That’s what makes the shutdown plan, though it might seem extreme, worth it; McDonough said those improvements alone will get the company about 80% of the way to profitability.
Another 15% will come from marketing more “software-enabled products” to Rivian drivers and by selling air-pollution credits to other carmakers, whose vehicles are not as climate-friendly. This is a tried-and-true technique; Tesla first turned a profit in 2021 by selling regulatory credits needed to comply with federal and California state-level rules to other, dirtier automakers. But that same year, Tesla also debuted an entirely new vehicle: the Model Y crossover, which quickly became its top seller in the United States. Tesla, in other words, finally started to make money by cutting costs, finding new revenue sources, and releasing new products.
New products, however, are becoming a weak point for Rivian. The company says that high interest rates will keep demand for its vehicles flat this year. It expects to make about 60,000 of them, about 20,000 fewer than what it had once anticipated. The Rivian R1S, a three-row S.U.V., has become the company’s flagship; it is selling better and is cheaper to manufacture than Rivian’s pickup, the R1T. It also costs at least $75,000, or nearly $600 a month to lease. The highest-tier models can cost $99,000. Turns out, it’s difficult to sell a lot of $70,000 trucks when even the cheapest new-car loans hover around 6%.
Rivian once had a first-to-market advantage in the electric three-row SUV market, but that may be fizzling out, too. Kia is now selling its own all-electric three-row SUV, the EV9, for $18,000 less than the R1S; in fact, the Kia EV9’s most expensive trim costs $76,000, which is only slightly more than the cheapest R1S. The Kia SUV can also charge faster than the Rivian under ideal conditions. It remains an open question how many rich suburbanites are still interested in buying Rivians, especially now that the Tesla Cybertruck and Ford F-150 Lightning are competing directly with Rivian’s pickup truck.
The company’s hopes, in other words, rest on its next product line: the R2, which it will launch on March 7. We know almost nothing about the R2 line, except that it will probably include an SUV, that it will go on sale in 2026, and that it will fall somewhere in the $45,000 to $55,000 price range. (The median new car transaction in the United States now costs $48,200.) Last year, Scaringe told me that the R2’s timing was perfect because it would fit “beautifully with what we see as this big shift” in the American EV market. In today’s market, he said, “a lot of people ask themselves, Am I gonna get an electric car? Well maybe the next one.” He better hope they’ll start buying that next one in 2026.
Even if they do, Rivian may still have to confront the problem that Tesla has changed the EV market before Rivian could get there. When the first Tesla Model 3s were delivered in 2017, the sedan was instantly one of the best EVs on the market — because it was one of the only EVs on the market. Now every automaker in the world has plans to compete at the Model 3’s price point.
Rivian’s fortunes don’t rest entirely on American consumers; it also sells vans to commercial fleet operators, as well as delivery trucks to Amazon. (Amazon owns about 17% of Rivian.) But that business can be lumpy. Rivian’s vehicle growth slowed down last quarter, for instance, almost entirely because of a near pause in sales to Amazon, which sets up fewer new vehicles in the fourth quarter. If Amazon is willing to bail out Rivian, in other words, it’s not yet clear in the data.
None of this is to say that the company’s outlook is dire. Rivian was always going to find itself at a moment like this, when its expenses exceeded its revenue by such a large amount. The automaker already has devoted fans, and many people — myself included — are interested in the R2 as a potential first EV purchase.
And the company has shown that it can make strides in a single year. Twelve months ago, I had never seen a Rivian on the road before; today, one is regularly parked on my block. The company rocketed from a standing start to become the No. 5 best-selling electric car brand in America last year. What the company has done so far is impressive. But now it must prove that it can be great.
Editor's note: This story has been updated to correctly reflect Rivian's cash burn rate.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Any version of the future — even one under Trump — includes bits of the Inflation Reduction Act.
We passed a major milestone over the weekend: the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That piece of legislation — which curtailed the wind and solar tax credits, ended incentives for electric vehicle buyers, and terminated a lot of green industrial policy — was signed into law on July 4, 2025. It also formally ended the era of decarbonization and climate policy experimentation that began when the United States passed the Inflation Reduction Act roughly three years earlier.
Now we’re far enough out to begin assessing the Trump law’s impact. And a fascinating new report, published today by the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, argues that the damage … is not as bad as one might fear — at least in the electricity sector.
The power sector has retained most of the quantifiable benefits associated with Biden’s climate law and Environmental Protection Agency rules, the new report asserts, and about two-thirds of the reductions in heat-trapping pollution expected under Biden’s policies will still happen under Trump’s. The report is called “Glass Half Full,” but its author, Lily Bermel, told me that her own conclusions went even further: “It’s not barely half full,” she said. “It’s like three-quarters full.”
We had the exclusive on the new report at Heatmap — check out our full story for more coverage, including interviews with critics of the analysis. Bermel also joined me on our Shift Key podcast to discuss her findings and what they suggest for the future of climate policy.
But in this more discursive space, I want to address head-on a question I think Bermel’s report raises: Was the Inflation Reduction Act worth it? If two-thirds of the emissions cuts expected under President Biden's policies are going to happen anyway (at least from the power sector), what was the point of those policies?
I posed this question directly to Bermel. She pointed me to a different source of MIT data: the Clean Investment Monitor, which tracks clean energy and industry investment in the United States across a range of sectors. That data shows that wind, solar, and storage investment did increase in the United States after the IRA passed, she said. “What the IRA did for wind and solar was good and impactful, but ultimately no longer necessary and worth the bang for buck,” she told me. (She added that the law’s other policies — such as its incentives for “clean firm” power plants such as geothermal that can run all day — did not go far enough.)
Ben King, a director at the Rhodium Group (which collaborates with MIT on the Clean Investment Monitor data), made another point when we chatted about the MIT report over the weekend. The new report compares visions of what the energy system will look like after Trump’s policies and Biden’s policies. But both of those scenarios contain a lot of the IRA’s policies, he said, because the solar and wind tax credits remain available in some form until the end of this decade. There simply is no version of the future that doesn’t have a lot of the IRA in it.
And that should, perhaps, reframe how we compare the emissions trajectories under Trump’s and Biden’s policies. It might sound like good news that 67% of the emissions cuts expected under Biden’s policies could still materialize under Trump’s. But it might also invite a certain nihilism — if most of the cuts were going to happen anyway, why did we have a big political fight over climate policy in the first place?
So it’s worth stating clearly that any fight over emissions or climate policy is partly about the emissions cuts that have not happened yet. Had the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits — or the EPA’s climate rules — been preserved, then emissions cuts might have gone even deeper than we once anticipated. In this way, there is always something proleptic about discussing emissions policy — really, you are trying to secure additional emissions reductions.
To put this another way, Bermel’s model suggests that the United States will build the same amount of offshore wind under Trump’s policies as it would under Biden’s (about 6 gigawatts). That happens, she said, because offshore wind is driven by state policy as much if not more than federal policy — and the state policy environment was souring even before Trump took office. But had Kamala Harris won in 2024, then Trump’s war on wind would never have happened, and states may have worked harder to salvage their offshore wind investments — or gone on to build even more.
There is no world, in other words, where Biden’s policies would have stood alone. Their success was always provisional, and their potential victory was always an invitation to further gains.
On energy inefficiency, global green H2, and New Hampshire’s guerrilla solar
Current conditions: Super Typhoon Bavi is slamming into Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands as the equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane, with sustained wind speeds topping 178 miles per hour • The record-shattering heat dome over the central and eastern United States is easing and shifting westward until mid July • In Europe, however, the heat is continuing, with temperatures hitting 108 degrees Fahrenheit in southern Spain over the weekend.
America’s next nuclear reactor is coming to life via resurrection. For the past two years, Holtec International has been working to bring the single reactor at the decommissioned Palisades nuclear plant in western Michigan back into service. It would be the first time in U.S. history that a permanently shuttered nuclear plant came back online. If successful, a growing list of projects are lining up to follow in Palisades’ footsteps. On Friday, Holtec announced that the Palisades crew had completed “the last of the major projects,” marking a “watershed moment” in the restoration effort. “We’re now focused on safely executing the remaining testing, verification, and operational readiness activities required before startup,” Michael Schultheis, Holtec’s vice president of the plant, said in a statement. “The plant is coming back together, and the professionalism and dedication demonstrated by our workforce continue to move the project forward.”
The news came just days after the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed a lawsuit challenging the procedure by which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Palisades’ restart. Started under the Biden administration, the revival project was one of the first the Trump administration allowed to move forward after taking office, part of a broader effort by the Department of Energy to spur a resurgence of reactor construction in the U.S.
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked a challenge to California’s rules on emissions from industrial boilers, the latest legal victory for local regulations on planet-heating pollution from buildings. In 2024, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the air pollution agency in charge of broad swaths of Southern California, set new restrictions on smog-causing nitrogen oxide from industrial boilers, appliances that either burn a fossil fuel such as gas or oil or use electricity to heat up water. The policy — which would slash the equivalent of half the nitrogen oxide produced by every car in Los Angeles combined — is part of the state’s long-standing effort to curb pollution. It’s not the only win for the fight to curb emissions from buildings. Since 2024, federal courts have repeatedly upheld local and state authority to regulate pollution from buildings in New York, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
On Thursday, meanwhile, the Trump administration proposed a new rule to gut money-saving standards for appliances nationwide. “While the agency portrayed the move as bringing an end to appliance standards writ large, that is not, in fact, what it is doing,” Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote last week. “The proposal would update the DOE’s so-called ‘Process Rule,’ which governs how the agency develops standards, adding onerous requirements that will make it much more difficult to make any changes at all.” When I spoke to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy about the changes, the advocacy group told me the proposal would set minimum savings thresholds below which the new rule wouldn’t find federal support. It would also add a mandatory 180-day waiting period between before proposing new appliance standards based on novel testing procedures, require the Energy Department to show deference to industry-established standards, and force regulators to carry out extra analyses and rulemaking processes before enacting new rules.
Senator Angus King, the independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, has urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject the proposed utility megamerger between NextEra Energy and Dominion Energy. In a letter last week to the agency, King said the combination of the two giants risked putting too much power in the hands of one company. “The combination would create the largest electric utility in the United States, concentrating an unprecedented mix of merchant generation, rate-based generation, and transmission assets in the hands of a single company with a documented record of using its market position and political resources to suppress competition that threatens its merchant revenues,” King said in the letter, according to Utility Dive. Specifically, he cited NextEra’s lobbying to derail the New England Clean Energy Connect project in 2021, a transmission line to connect the Northeast’s grid to the almost entirely renewable hydroelectric system in Quebec.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency put out new regulatory guidance on the president’s “freedom to fix” agenda, reminding automakers of their “long-standing legal obligation to release the service information, training information, and tools necessary to diagnose and repair vehicles,” even if the driver could use what they learn to tamper with the emissions controls. Meanwhile, on Friday, President Donald Trump announced that he’d pardoned six people “who were persecuted by the Biden administration” and were either in prison or headed there for violating Clean Air Act prohibitions against rigging the vehicles’ emissions control systems. “While I know this sounds ridiculous, it is nevertheless a fact, and part of the Weaponization and Stupidity that our Country had to endure during four long years of Sleepy Joe Biden,” he wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “I AM SETTING THEM ALL FREE, RIGHT NOW!”
In non-emitting vehicle news, Rivian is eyeing a better sales year than expected. While the electric automaker previously said it would ship between 62,000 and 67,000 vehicles this year, it told investors on Thursday that it now expects to deliver between 65,000 and 70,000 vehicles, in what TechCrunch called “a small but potentially meaningful bump.” The announcement came the same week BYD crushed Tesla’s deliveries yet again, as I told you in my last newsletter.

Back in March, I told you that Chile’s most right-wing president since the fall of dictator Augusto Pinochet could take the country’s budding green hydrogen business in a different direction. Now President José Antonio Kast is doing just that. Last week, Chile’s state-owned Production Development Corporation, known by its Spanish acronym CORFO, announced plans to refocus the country’s strategy for green hydrogen on domestic use rather than exports, Hydrogen Insight reported.
China, as I have reported for you many times before, is going hard on green hydrogen, especially since the Iran War forced Beijing to ramp up efforts to find alternatives to imported fossil fuels. Here’s yet another data point: China just laid out plans to build the world’s largest green hydrogen plant using solid-oxide electrolyzers, which operate at higher temperatures. The facility will also produce, methanol, which uses hydrogen as a key ingredient. At peak capacity, the facility in rural Gansu province will produce 100,000 metric tons of renewable methanol per year for use in international shipping. Meanwhile, Spain is investing nearly $21 million into grants for hydrogen projects as the country seeks to make use of its booming solar industry. As I wrote last week, the surge in solar panels is creating problems for Spain, since its grid can’t handle all that power during peak daytime hours. Funneling that electricity into electrolyzers to make molecules that can be cleanly burned later may offer a solution.
Last month, I told you about a catchier term for the very small-scale solar panels being legalized to go on windowsills and balconies, opening the door to more apartment dwellers generating a small share of electricity themselves. That term, which I first read in Inside Climate News, is “guerilla solar.” Well, that solar rebel mindset is coming to the “Live Free or Die” state. On Thursday, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, put out a list of 74 bills she signed into law before Fourth of July weekend. Among them was SB-540, legalizing plug-in solar panels. The law will take effect on July 27, according to PluginSolarUS, an advocacy group.
Rob talks with Columbia’s Lily Bermel about where climate policy should go next.
Wait, is the climate policy landscape … in better shape than it looks?
Just over a year ago, President Trump passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It repealed many of the Biden administration’s most aggressive climate policies, including tax credits for solar and wind energy.
Although those policies are gone, the emissions cuts they achieved remain largely intact — at least in the power sector, according to a new study that we’re covering exclusively at Heatmap. Lily Bermel, the report’s author and a visiting fellow at the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, argues that at least where energy generation is concerned, the glass is more than “half full.”
On this episode of Shift Key, Lily joins Rob to discuss what we learned from Biden’s big climate law, why it likely never would have achieved its projected emissions declines (at least not without a tremendous transmission buildout), and how studying its legacy changed her mind about policy going forward.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: Given that the IRA, in retrospect, in the power sector, kind of resolved any economic issue you would have making a project pencil out and revealed all these non-economic issues that actually constrain development, we are now looking at a political environment where we’re switching from mourning the IRA to saying, okay, what should happen next? And my colleague Emily Pontecorvo recently wrote a story about this question. But I think one of the big questions going forward, especially if Democrats take Congress at the end of this year is, well, should they fight to restore the tax credits? I can even see a world where restoring the tax credits becomes something people insist on to get permitting reform or something.
After writing this report, did you come to the conclusion that Democrats should restore the wind and solar tax credits? Is that the most urgent priority for climate policy?
Lily Bermel: In writing this report, I became quite confident that I don’t think it’s worth the bang for buck in restoring those wind and solar tax credits, and instead that the supply side constraints are the real issue that we need to focus on. I did this lag analysis where if you take a given year, say 2031, and you see that the IRA trajectory would have deployed like more than 300 gigawatts of solar, how many years later would the [OBBBA] scenario do that? There’s only a two and a half-year lag, or gap. And so in restoring the clean energy tax credits, you are only buying back two and a half years’ worth of deployment, which, at least for me, was a lot smaller than I had thought.
Meanwhile, both scenarios have a literal cap in them about how much they can build and how fast they can build it. So even if you buy back that little two and a half-year average annual lag, you’re going to run up to the exact same ceiling. So restoring the tax credits brings you closer to that ceiling, while permitting reform will completely lift the ceiling and be a rising tide that lifts all boats.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
The “Glass Half Full” report
More from Rob on Lily’s findings
From Heatmap: The Wind and Solar Tax Credits Are About to Expire. Will They Come Back?
Heatmap’s cheat sheet on how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed America’s clean energy law
Previously on Shift Key: What Has All This Back-and-Forth Climate Legislating Bought Us?
Jesse Jenkins’ paper on transmission’s role in achieving the IRA’s goals
Brendan Duke’s policy affordability framework
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.