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.
Current conditions: After a springy warm up, temperatures in Northeast cities such as Boston and Atlantic City are plunging back into the low 50 degrees Fahrenheit range for the rest of the week • In India, meanwhile, a northern heatwave is sending temperatures in Gujarat as high as 110 degrees today • The Pacific waters off California and Mexico are hitting record temperatures amid an historic marine heatwave.
Last month, following a string of legal defeats over his efforts to halt construction of offshore wind turbines through regulatory fiat, President Donald Trump tried something new: Paying developers to quit. The plan worked: French energy giant TotalEnergies agreed to abandon its two offshore wind farms in exchange for $1 billion from the federal government, with the promise that it would reinvest that money in U.S. oil and gas development. Reporting by Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo later showed that the legal reasoning behind the federal government's cash offer was shaky, and that the actual text of the agreement contained no definite assurances that the company would invest any more than it was already planning to. Last week, I told you that more deals were in the works, including with another French company, the utility Engie. Now the Trump administration has confirmed the rumors.
On Monday, the Department of the Interior announced plans to spend a little under $1 billion — a combined $885 million — to recoup the leasing costs developers already paid from a proposed wind farm off New Jersey and another off California. BlackRock-owned Global Infrastructure Partners “has committed” to reinvest up to $765 million into a U.S.-based liquified natural gas project. In exchange, the Interior Department said it will cancel the firm’s lease for the Bluepoint Wind offshore project in federal waters off New Jersey and New York “and reimburse the company’s bid payment in the amount invested in the LNG project.” As part of the deal, Bluepoint Wind “has decided not to pursue any new offshore wind developments in the United States,” the agency said. Likewise, the floating wind farm developer Golden State Wind agreed to abandon its lease located in the federally designated Morro Bay Wind Energy Area located 20 miles off San Luis Obispo County. The company had hoped to build one of the first offshore wind facilities in California where the continental shelf drops off too steeply for the kinds of wind farms sited on the nation’s Atlantic coast. Under the deal, the developer can recover “approximately $120 million in lease fees after an investment has been made of an equal amount in the development of U.S. oil and gas assets, energy infrastructure, and/or LNG projects along the Gulf Coast.” As part of the agreement, Golden State has opted out of pursuing new offshore wind projects. In a statement, Michael Brown, the chief executive of Ocean Winds North America, credited for “the clarity they have provided with this decision and deal.” The 50% owner of both Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind added: “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners, and shareholders.”
The Department of Energy said Monday it will soon restart talks to pay out nearly $430 million in payments to American hydroelectric projects that were promised under a Biden-era program. The Trump administration paused the negotiations as the agency reorganized its hydro-related programs under the newly named Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright reassessed droves of investments his predecessors made into clean energy projects. The funding aims to support 293 projects at 212 facilities through a program to maintain and enhance the nation’s fleet of dams. “American hydropower is a key component of this Administration’s vision for an affordable, reliable energy system,” Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson said in a statement. “These actions will modernize our hydropower fleet, bolster our domestic workforce, and bring us closer to realizing that vision.”

Hydropower is a renewable power source conservative critics of wind and solar tend to like because it operates 24/7 and provides large-scale, long-duration energy storage through pumped-storage systems. Similarly, commercializing fusion power, the so-called holy grail of clean energy, is another technological goal the Trump administration shares with advocates of a lower-carbon future. On Tuesday morning, Commonwealth Fusion Systems became the first fusion power plant developer to apply to join a major grid operator. By submitting its paperwork to link its generators to PJM Interconnection, the largest U.S. wholesale electricity market, Commonwealth Fusion is showing it’s “on track to connect to the electricity grid in time to deliver power in the early 2030s.” The company also announced that it had named the first 400-megawatt ARC power plant it’s building in Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Fall Line Fusion Power Station. The name is a reference to the geological boundary where Virginia’s elevated Piedmont region drops to the Tidewater coastal plain, creating rapids on the James River that Virginians historically built mills on to harness the power from falling water.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Xpansiv, the startup that manages a global exchange for trading carbon credits and renewable energy credits, has signed a deal to bring credits with precise data that allows buyers to match clean electricity consumption to generation on an hour-by-hour basis. The partnership with the software platform Granular Energy, which I can exclusively report for this newsletter, will allow buyers and sellers to access “high-integrity, time-stamped energy data with registry-issued energy attribute certificates through a single platform” for the first time. The push comes amid growing calls for tighter rules and more transparency to avoid greenwashing carbon credits as voluntary programs such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol draw scrutiny and the European Union’s world-first carbon tariff enters its fifth month of operation. “This integrated solution makes granular renewable energy more accessible and easier to manage for independent power producers, utilities, traders, brokers, and corporate buyers,” Russell Karas, Xpansiv’s senior vice president of strategic market solutions, told me in a statement.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Earlier this month, I told you that SunZia, the nation’s largest renewable energy project ever, had come online. The behemoth project, which included 3.5 gigawatts of wind turbines in New Mexico and 550 miles of transmission lines to funnel the electricity to Arizona’s fast-growing population centers, took just three years to build once construction began in 2023. But “the permitting process took nearly 17 years — almost six times as long,” in a sign of how “a broken permitting system has choked the infrastructure growth that underwrites American strength.” You’d be mistaken for thinking these words came from someone like Senator Martin Heinrich, the New Mexico Democrat and climate hawk who long championed SunZia and more transmission lines to bring renewables online, but told Heatmap’s Jael Holzman last December that he wouldn’t vote for anything that failed to boost renewables. But their author is actually Senator Tom Cotton, the right-wing firebrand Republican from Arkansas. In a Monday op-ed in The Washington Post, Cotton argued that the U.S. “needs more electricity to support data centers, modern manufacturing, defense infrastructure, and economic growth,” in addition to more “domestic access to critical minerals” and processing plants and “a stronger industrial base.” To make that happen, “the country first needs straightforward, enforceable permitting standards and fast, efficient construction,” he wrote. He called for overhauling landmark laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and establishing “a single agency” to “oversee permitting reviews with firm deadlines and a clear, coordinated decision process.”
The push comes as Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives propose restoring tax credits for wind, solar, and other clean energy technologies that were curtailed by One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The American Energy Dominance Act, introduced Thursday, would remove the accelerated deadlines that Trump’s landmark legislation last year placed on the renewable energy production tax credit, known as 45Y, and the 48E investment tax credits. It would, according to Utility Dive, also make similar changes to the 45V clean hydrogen production credit.
Last month, New York utility executives gathered at a luxury hotel in Miami and boasted about banding together to influence a new state policy that would limit when power companies can turn off customers’ electricity during heat waves because of unpaid bills. A day later, Albany unveiled the policy. Ratepayers in New York City in particular “lost meaningful safeguards,” Laurie Wheelock, the head of the watchdog Public Utility Law Project, told The New York Times. Under its previous agreement with the state, ConEdison, the utility that serves the five boroughs and Westchester, was barred from terminating service for non-payment the day before a 90-degree forecast, the day of, and two days after. The new policy prohibits shutoffs only on the day of the forecast.
Meanwhile, in Seattle, residents of King County are bracing for a double-digit rate hike on sewage service. Following years of modest increases, the Seattle Times reported, county officials proposed a 12.75% spike in sewer rates for next year as the municipality looks for ways to pay for $14 billion in infrastructure upgrades over the next decade. The problem? The famously rainy cultural and financial capital of the Pacific Northwest is facing worsening floods from atmospheric rivers.
In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Governor Josh Shapiro is taking yet another step to deal with ballooning electricity costs in PJM Interconnection. In a Monday afternoon post on X, he said he’s appointing a new special counsel for energy affordability to be “our newest watchdog to hold utility companies accountable when they try to jack up Pennsylvanians’ energy bills.” The Democrat, widely considered a top contender for his party’s presidential nomination in 2028, said the appointment “will support our efforts to lower costs and put money back in your pockets.”
Robotaxis are more likely to be EVs, and that’s not a coincidence.
Here in Los Angeles, the hot new thing in parenting is Waymo. One recent article argued that driverless electric vehicles have become the go-to solution for overscheduled parents who can’t be everywhere at once. No time to drive the kid to school dropoff or to practice? Hire a rideshare, preferably one without a potentially problematic human driver.
Perhaps it’s fitting that younger Americans, especially, are encountering electric cars in this way. Over the past few years, plenty of headlines have declared that teens and young adults have fallen out of love with the automobile; they’re not getting their driver’s licenses until later, if at all, and supposedly aren’t particularly keen on car ownership compared to their parents and grandparents. Getting around in a country built for the automobile leaves them more reliant on the rideshare industry — which, it so happens, is a place where the technological trends of electric and autonomous vehicles are rapidly converging.
This isn’t the way most people, myself included, talk about the EV revolution. That discourse typically runs through the familiar lens of our personal vehicles — which, it should be noted, Americans still lease or buy in the millions. In that light, EVs are struggling. Since buyers raced to scoop up electric cars in September before the federal tax credit lapsed, sales have slowed. Automakers have canceled or delayed numerous models and pivoted back to combustion engines or hybrids in response to the hostile Trump-era environment for selling EVs. While the world has carried on with electrification, America has backslid.
While all this was happening, however, the rideshare industry was accelerating in the opposite direction. Waymo’s fleet of autonomous vehicles is all-electric, currently made up of Jaguar I-Pace SUVs. Uber just invested more than $1 billion in Rivian as part of a plan to add thousands of the brand’s new R2 EVs to its fleet of electric robotaxis. Tesla’s moves are particularly telling. Elon Musk is still selling plenty of normal, human-driven Model Y and Model 3 EVs to make some money for the moment, but the company’s future prospects are all-in on the Cybercab, a two-seater robotaxi that would never be driven by a person. Who’d buy such a thing? Rideshare companies — or, perhaps, people see the Cybercab as a passive income machine that shuttles their neighbors around town whenever they’re not riding in it.
Human-driven rideshare fleets are quickly electrifying, too. Uber now allows riders to request an EV explicitly, an option that has been growing in popularity, especially as rising gas prices make electric rides more appealing. The company has been offering thousands of dollars of incentives to drivers who want to buy an EV, a program that expanded nationwide this month. EV-maker Fisker went bankrupt and folded, but its orphaned Ocean vehicles are roaming New York City as rideshare cars. Sara Rafalson of the charging company EVgo recently told me that rideshare already accounts for a quarter of the energy it distributes.
Yes, gasoline carries certain advantages for a taxi service — a gas-burning cab can drive all night with just momentary refueling stops, for example, whereas an EV must go out of commission during its occasional charging stops. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the rideshare industry is going electric.
That isn’t just because EVs have a futuristic vibe. There are technological reasons, too. Tesla and Rivian have designed their vehicles to be effectively smartphones on wheels, which makes them ideally suited for robotaxis. EVs have plenty of battery power on hand to meet all the computational demands of self-driving. Plus, electric power is particularly efficient for stop-and-go urban driving.
On the EV side, the business case for electric robotaxis is particularly compelling. One reason electric cars have struggled with everyday Americans is that it’s more difficult for an individual to stomach the higher upfront cost of an EV to enjoy its longer-term rewards. That’s less true for a business, whose accountants know EVs mean less long-term maintenance.
In the case of the rideshare economy, EVs are becoming the clear choice even though they’re owned by individual drivers. While the EV purchasing tax credit is gone for individuals, drivers can get financial help from a company like Uber to purchase an EV, which allows them to insulate themselves from the volatility of gas prices and reduce their regular maintenance schedule. They can also charge strategically around their taxi trips; robotaxi fleets often concentrate their recharging to the overnight hours when electricity is cheapest.
There is plenty of evidence that the “Gen Z doesn’t want to own cars” narrative is as reductive and oversimplified as you’d think. Younger generations are interested in cars — and in electric cars, in particular — but they’re often put off by the soaring costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle. As EV prices continue to fall, you can expect EV adoption to accelerate among Gen Z and millennial drivers.
In the meantime, those folks don’t have to buy an EV to join the EV age. It’s getting more and more likely that the car that drives you to the airport will be an EV — and more likely that riders will opt for electric if given the choice.
$4 of gasoline will actually get you pretty far these days.
Everyone’s mad about high oil prices, but are they doing anything about it? With around 11 million barrels per day (about a tenth of global production) shut in, and thus missing from the global oil market, someone has to be using less of it. Maybe it’s petrochemical plants that run on tight margins slowing down. Maybe it’s European airlines cancelling flights.
At least so far, it’s probably not American drivers.
“In the U.S. we’re seeing an indifference, in terms of what we can see from consumption numbers,” David Doherty, head of natural resources research at BloombergNEF, told me on the sidelines of the research group’s annual summit last week. The Energy Information Administration’s proxy for gasoline consumption, “product supplied of finished motor gasoline,” shows no dramatic change following the beginning of the war or subsequent spike in oil prices.
Gas prices in the United States sit at $4.11 per gallon according to AAA, compared to $3.15 a year ago. But even in the context of the almost $5 per gallon in 2022 and the $4.11-ish gas hit in the summer of 2008, the impact on actual households is likely more mild.
“$4 now is very different to $4 five years ago. And it's definitely different to $4 in 2008, which is when the last price spikes came through,” Doherty said. “$4 doesn't get you a coffee now. $4 a decade ago got you coffee plus oat milk.”
For one, a dollar is hardly a dollar anymore. There’s been higher than typical inflation since 2022, and a substantial rise in overall prices since 2008. This means that a dollar of gasoline (or even $4) is taking up a smaller portion of American consumer spending than it has in the past.
Looking back even further, the American auto fleet has gotten more efficient, meaning that drivers are getting more miles per gallon — and thus miles per dollar — than they were in the past. And that’s not even taking into account the rise of electric vehicles, which allow drivers to opt out of gasoline price volatility altogether.
Ironically, a big chunk of the credit comes from the now essentially scrapped Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — themselves a response to the 1973 oil shock and designed to ease the American auto fleet’s dependency on fuels with volatile prices set by the global market by ratcheting up fuel economy over time. Then in 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the first major tightening of CAFE standards in nearly 30 years.
“CAFE standards — which have just been neutered — ultimately have helped,” Doherty told me, referring to the Trump administration’s successful efforts to undo further fuel economy progress under the Obama and Biden administrations.
Overall, the U.S. economy has also gotten less “oil intensive” — we simply use less oil per dollar of economic activity than we used to. Since 1970, oil consumption has gone up by about 20%, while the size of the economy as measured in GDP has more than quadrupled.
When it comes to how the changing price of oil, and thereby gasoline, affects drivers, it’s a little trickier. I decided to calculate the “miles per dollar” on an annual basis, and then conservatively estimated how fleet efficiency would have increased by now.
To do this, I looked at the average miles per gallon of the U.S. car fleet and the “all grades” gasoline price for those same years. (“All grades” a little higher than the typical “regular” gas series, but the data goes back further.) The MPG data only goes back to 2024, so I conservatively projected it out to this year. While U.S. drivers are getting less out of their dollar than they did in 2024, they’re also going farther than they did in 2022 and 2008, the last time gas prices spiked dramatically.
I also wanted to get an idea of how much household spending is on gasoline. There’s no perfect way to do this with up-to-date data, but I was able to look at the relative importance of transportation fuel in the Consumer Price Index, which tells you the portion of spending on gasoline among the goods and services tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As expected, the relative importance rose dramatically in the 1970s and early 1980s, and hit a new high in 2007; in 2025, it fell close to its all time lows at just under 3%.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also looks at annual household spending on gasoline. The latest data from 2024 agreed that it had been falling, from $2,805 in 2022, to $2,449 in 2023, and then $2,411 in 2024, but the 2025 data isn’t available yet.
Looking at more frequently updated data, the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee estimated that spending in February on “gasoline and other energy goods” was just over 1.9% of all personal consumption, a more than 0.2 percentage point decline from a year ago. This was, of course, before gasoline prices soared in March and into April.
“If you were to put [gasoline] beside the cost of your rent, for example, it's becoming a much smaller slice of your outlays,” Doherty said. This is the now-abandoned fuel efficiency standards actually working, Doherty said. “It's a different share of your budget. It's a more efficient car, and that’s through design.”
This also helps explain why in the United States, we’re not seeing the “demand destruction” that should accompany a contraction in oil supply, where consumers cut back consumption in response to high prices.
But with lines of empty tankers queuing up at the United States’ Gulf Coast petroleum export complex, looking to bring American crude to markets that can’t get their hands on oil from the Persian Gulf, prices may still have a way to go. Drivers in the United States are now in a barrel-for-barrel competition with the rest of the world.