You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.
This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.
Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.
Clearly the idea didn’t stop the bleeding. Democrats trounced Trump’s party in the midterms on a message that was heavy on attacks against data centers. But that still doesn’t explain why direct payments did so little to move the American public.
A Heatmap Pro poll conducted in early-to-mid October, right before the midterm elections, gives us an answer. As part of a broader survey of 2,500 registered voters, we asked about the idea — what we believe to be the first independent poll on direct payments for data centers by a news organization. We asked respondents whether there was a specific dollar amount they’d accept as a one-time cash payment in exchange for a data center being built near them. We also gave them the option to say no amount of money was sufficient.
Shockingly, a majority of people surveyed said they’d reject the data center cash payment in any amount. Among those who said they’d actually take the money, the median figure was around $10,000. The average was a whopping $146,000, skewed by the number of people who wrote $999,999, the maximum allowed by the survey.
This tracks what we’re seeing play out in communities where developers have tried this idea. In Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, NorthPoint — developer of an Amazon-linked data center project — proposed $10,000 cash payments to residents, no catch. Residents compared it to a bribe. In De Soto, Kansas, data center developer Digital Realty is offering annual $1,000 tax credits for a decade to neighbors of its proposed data center project. That proposal has been reportedly met with mixed reviews, too.
Clearly one of the problems here is that data centers not only face public perception issues around their local impacts, but are also more broadly associated with systemic inequality in the U.S. economy. The same Heatmap Pro survey found that a majority of voters believed AI companies have more control over the government than the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or other large industries.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Democratic-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, told me that during the campaign season they found that residents often associated the dividends with bribes, and that the president’s support for direct payments ultimately fed into voter sentiments about the tech sector controlling the government and society.
“People don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth disconnected from a conversation about distribution of power,” Thomas said. “Specifically because Trump was saying that, we started hearing from voters in focus groups that it didn’t work for them. They’re hearing it as a bribe. They’re hearing they may get some sort of short-term economic or financial incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them.”
The Heatmap Pro survey results about cash payments ultimately reveal how emotionally driven the data center debate has become, said Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. I asked Lyman to respond to the results because I thought they called into question the political effectiveness of the proposal we’d discussed months earlier. Lyman stipulated that he thinks the one-time payment nature of the question may have undermined the results, saying he prefers the dividends be paid out “in perpetuity.” But he acknowledged they also show “there’s still a lot of education to be done on data centers, what they do, and the impacts they have on the places where they’re built.”
“I think there’s a lot of Americans out there who have legitimate concerns that the future economy doesn’t include them. That’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Lyman, who said he laid part of the blame on what he called “irresponsible rhetoric” from AI industry executives about their technology’s impacts on society. “With data center dividends, the idea behind this policy is to help Americans understand the AI economy includes them. To give them a very material stake in that economy as it gets built out, especially in the rural communities that make data centers possible in the first place.”
Congressional seats were more likely to flip in states where bills rose fastest, according to our partners on the Electricity Price Hub.
The rise in household electricity costs over the past couple of years followed elected officials to the ballot box last week. But the pattern didn't hold evenly: Congressional seats flipped most often in states where bills rose fastest, while governors and regulators, the officials closest to rate decisions, were judged on very different terms.
No analysis can account for exactly why someone voted the way they did. Still, polling just before and after the election has made clear that soaring utility bills and the cost of living were at the forefront of voters’ minds. It’s easy to imagine that a South Carolina voter who backed Trump in 2024 and is now paying about $20 per month more for electricity might have been more inclined to vote for Annie Andrews for Senate than the president’s pick, Darline Graham. While we can’t yet make a causal claim about how increases in voters’ average monthly bills influenced their decisions, we can look at where bills rose and where seats changed hands.
To do that, we use data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub to unpack the correlation between rising electricity bills under the second Trump administration and the electoral swings of this year’s midterms. Nationally, average electricity bills are up 10% since the start of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the House popular vote swung 15 points toward Democrats compared to 2024’s presidential results, according to data from The New York Times.
A swing that size would have flipped many seats regardless of bills. The more telling question is whether seats flipped beyond what the swing predicts. Among seats where the incumbent party was vulnerable (those won by less than 15 points in 2024), states with above-average bill growth matched or exceeded the expected losses. States with below-average growth flipped fewer seats than a uniform 15-point swing would predict.
Further, nearly two-thirds of the 44 House seats Democrats flipped were in states where the average electricity bill grew faster than the national average over the past year, and one in five were in states where bill growth was double the national average. If Democrats flip the Senate seat in Alaska, then seven out of the nine Democratic pickups in the Senate will be in states with above national average one-year bill growth.
States with fast-rising bills differ in other ways, from their mix of competitive seats to their exposure to broader economic trends. Our bill growth figures are also statewide averages, and bills can vary widely within a state. The overall trend is in line with expectations, but the relationship between rising bills and electoral outcomes goes deeper.
Elections for governor or other statewide positions are historically less nationalized than their federal counterparts. That makes them a weaker test of national frustration with bills, but allows for additional analysis on how local conditions shape voters’ choices.
State races are not fully isolated from national trends. The Blue Tsunami flipped five gubernatorial seats, with zero pickups in the reverse direction so far. (Alaska is still undecided.) But those flips weren't concentrated in high-growth states. Three of the five (Georgia, Iowa, and Texas) came in states with some of the lowest bill growth over the past year. Meanwhile, the incumbent party held governorships in high-growth states at a higher rate than the national environment would predict, though Alaska could affect these results.
A few moderate Republican governors even held on in otherwise blue states. Incumbency certainly played a part, but the holds also demonstrate where voters targeted their backlash. In the Northeast, New Hampshire re-elected Governor Kelly Ayotte by four points, despite the Democratic Senate candidate carrying the state by 14 points. Vermont voters re-elected Phil Scott by six points. Both states had double-digit bill growth since President Trump took office, with average bills increasing by 18% and 15%, respectively.
On the other end, Democratic candidate Rob Sand flipped an open governorship in Iowa, outperforming the Democratic Senate candidate on the ballot. Statewide average bills in Iowa have grown at some of the slowest rates nationally; however growth rates vary across the state. Governor-elect Sand ran furthest ahead of his party’s Senate candidate in counties where bills rose the most.
The lessons of state-level races are less clear than federal ones. In states with popular incumbents, affordability backlash may have focused on a Republican-controlled Congress, while voters most affected by rising costs within a state sought new leadership in their state capital.
Another set of key players in electricity affordability, state energy regulators, were also on the ballot in these midterm elections. The general election mostly spared these races from the anti-incumbent party fervor, with only one state out of nine (Georgia) flipping control of their commission. These races, which were in more predominantly Republican states, largely followed partisan voting shares of other races in these states, with the greatest fervor around unseating establishment officials occurring during the primaries or last year’s off-cycle elections. That is not the end of the story, however: Utility commissioners are appointed, rather than elected, in most states, meaning there is more turnover to come.
The lack of electoral backlash toward the regulators who sign off on rate increases may indicate a lack of voter awareness of how different policymakers influence their bill. It may also highlight how national coverage has focused on rising generation costs, such as the Mid-Atlantic’s capacity cost spike, which pushes greater blame towards federal officials than state regulators that have less purview over generation prices that pass through to residential customers.
Utility costs alone didn’t produce this year’s Democratic wave, and the data can’t tell us precisely how much they contributed. But a below-the-hood look at the data shows a consistent pattern: the party broadly in power in Washington lost the most ground where bills rose fastest, while governors and regulators were judged on local circumstances, from incumbency to long-running rate fights. With new majorities in both chambers and rate cases pointing to more increases, there is an opportunity for this new Congress to meet voters’ demands and bring costs down.
On Meta’s green materials, China’s SMR wave, and Alaskan crude
Current conditions: The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declared the ongoing El Niño a “super” version of the weather patterns that could be the most intense ever recorded • Storm Charles deluged Madeira, Portugal’s island exclave, as hundreds of flights were canceled to and from the Iberian country • Temperatures in New York City are set to drop as low as 39 degrees Fahrenheit as a nor’easter pummels the American Northeast ahead of what’s forecast to be a brisk but sunny weekend.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang stepped down Thursday amid a ballooning scandal over his extramarital affairs with a Chinese spy and at least two employees of the world’s top designer of microchips for artificial intelligence, according to press reports. His departure, and the controversy left in his wake, poses a test for AI stocks, which took a battering last week after Democrats’ blue wave victory in Congress, and of what The Wall Street Journal called “the great-man theory that the course of history is often determined by singular individuals.” SpaceX Elon Musk (who said it “would be an honor” to hire Huang) is plowing ahead with plans to invest more than $74 billion at two supercomputing campuses in Texas and Arizona that are designed to train frontier AI models, Investor’s Business Daily reported. While the company says it plans to work with local generators to power the Arizona site, the Texas campus is expected to run on behind-the-meter natural gas-fired generation. Such huge new sources of demand for natural gas risk driving up prices for regular consumers, Sonia Aggarwal and Jamie Van Nostrand wrote yesterday in a piece for our Ideas section that called for a Gas Customer Protection Pledge. “It’s simple supply and demand.”
Meta, meanwhile, struck a series of deals to make the physical material that builds its data centers greener. In back-to-back partnerships announced on Thursday, the Facebook owner agreed to buy low-carbon cement from the Massachusetts startup Sublime Systems and green steel from Sweden’s Stegra. While the supply of green steel has not yet caught up with demand, Meta said it would fulfill its contract with environmental attribute certificates that “let us act on those emissions now, with third-party verification, and direct demand toward production that is still coming online. That is how the market for green steel gets built.”
I cannot think of any New York Times editorial board endorsement that swung a race in last week’s midterm elections. But the paper’s opinion section leaders made a splash Thursday morning by giving the Senate’s permitting reform deal its full-throated backing. “Anyone who cares about climate change should cheer this bill,” the paper wrote. “And a party that just won an election on affordability should not pass up a chance to start delivering immediately.” The headline pointedly read: “Democrats, take the deal.”
But the argument has a glaring omission: It does not address the most potent source of opposition to the bill. “Unsurprisingly, the Time’s [sic] Editorial Board says nothing about tribes, even while tribal issues are central to negotiations,” Julian Brave NoiseCat, the Academy Award-nominated documentarian and writer and member of the Canim Lake Band Tsq’escen in British Columbia, wrote in a post on X. “It is absolutely outrageous how little American cultural, political, and economic elites know about Indigenous peoples and our concerns.”
China is building more nuclear reactors at home than any other country. Nearly all 30-plus of them — created by two state-owned nuclear giants — are large-scale conventional reactors. But more than 20 startups in the country are now racing to develop small modular reactors, according to a tally published Thursday in the South China Morning Post. Founded last year, Weilan NuEnergy, a Shanghai-based startup looking to develop water-cooled SMRs, said the push by private companies to build out an SMR industry to compete with the sector emerging in the U.S. is relatively recent. “There were no similar domestic competitors when we launched,” Hu Po, Weilan’s chief executive, told Hong Kong’s English-language newspaper of record. “This allowed us to successfully recruit a cohort of outstanding engineers from the industry with extensive practical experience. Building a high-caliber team is our greatest competitive advantage at present.” While the commercialization of SMRs has only just begun, Hu said he expected the technology to spread overseas. “Just like China’s other large-scale energy projects, while we will fully secure and meet domestic energy needs, we will certainly actively pursue a global footprint,” Hu said.
Just look at renewables. At the United Nations COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Turkey, China signed a $15 billion deal to sell 7 gigawatts of solar and wind to the host country, along with battery storage capacity and 4 gigawatts of transmission infrastructure. “This cooperation will not only increase our renewable energy capacity but also facilitate technology transfer, making a very significant contribution to the production of wind turbine equipment in our country and the development of our domestic industry,” Alparslan Bayraktar, Turkey’s minister of energy and natural resources, wrote in a post on X.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
California’s energy regulators ordered the state’s three major investor-owned utilities to jointly propose a common framework for coordinating distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar and home batteries. The proposal, announced late last month and reported by Utility Dive on Thursday, sets a deadline of next October to show how the DER load can be orchestrated and dispatched. “Our decision gives families and businesses more options to charge a car, electrify a home, or expand operations while reducing the need for costly upgrades,” the California Public Utilities Commission’s Christine Harada said in a statement. “Those options need to be easy to understand and easy to use, people shouldn’t need an engineering degree to benefit.”
In New York, meanwhile, the state took what it called “a significant step in its effort to develop at least 1 gigawatt” of new nuclear power upstate. On Thursday, the New York Power Authority approved 10 developers’ requests to qualify as potential vendors. “In qualifying 10 major players in the nuclear industry, NYPA has strengthened its ability to directly advance the development of the first nuclear facility in New York in generations,” NYPA CEO Justin Driscoll said in a statement.

It’s been exactly 6,645 days since then-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stood on stage at the 2008 Republican National Convention and vowed to “drill, baby, drill.” The three-word slogan — still widely used in American politics today — has far outlasted the former Republican vice presidential nominee, whose relevance faded years ago. But Alaska is, indeed, drilling. New analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows a projected 13% uptick in crude production in the state next year. That’s more than double the 6% increase in 2026. “If realized, these annual production increases will be the largest since the 1980s, when Alaskan crude production peaked at 2.0 million barrels per day,” the agency wrote.

China’s electric vehicle champion has unveiled a new integrated charging system powered by solar panels. Built in the Abu Dhabi desert, the new station — which looks like a gas pump — features panels, batteries, ultra-fast charging, and a robotic arm that automatically plugs into the vehicle. “We are providing clean energy generation, energy storage and ultra-fast charging together, and we are making the charging experience smarter, simpler and more seamless for drivers around the world,” Stella Li, BYD’s executive vice president, said in a statement.