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.
PJM Interconnection has some ideas, as does the state of New Jersey.
We’ve already talked this week about Pennsylvania asking whether the modern “regulatory compact,” which grants utilities monopoly geographical franchises and regulated returns from their capital investments, is still suitable in this era of rising prices and data-center-driven load growth.
Now America’s biggest electricity market and another one of that market’s biggest states are considering far-reaching, fundamental reforms that could alter how electricity infrastructure is planned and paid for over 65 million Americans.
New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill anchored her 2025 campaign on electricity prices, and for good reason — in the past four years, electricity prices in the state have gone up 48%, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, while average bills have risen from $83 per month to $130. On her first day in office, Sherrill issued two executive orders acting on that promise, directing the state to make funds available to freeze rates and declaring a state of emergency to ease the way to building more generation.
Included in that first order was a review of utility business models to be carried out by state regulators. What that review will entail is now coming into focus.
On Wednesday, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities issued a statement announcing that it will look specifically at “whether New Jersey’s century-old utility business model — one that rewards electric distribution companies (EDCs) for capital spending even when cheaper alternatives exist — should be replaced with a framework tied to performance, affordability, and long-term cost stability.” In case anyone was still ambiguous as to what the outcome of said study might be, the board added that it is “expected to drive the most significant restructuring of utility regulation in New Jersey in decades.”
The current system, the board’s president Christine Guhl-Savoy said at a hearing Thursday, “creates a structural incentive to favor capital intensive solutions, even when lower costs, non-wires or demand side alternatives may be available.”
This structure, she said, could help explain why “over the past decade, electric delivery charges in New Jersey have risen steadily.” Within the service territory of PSEG, one of the four major New Jersey utilities, distribution charges alone have risen from $19.24 per month in January 2020 (as far back as the Heatmap-MIT data goes) to $21.84 as of April, while transmission charges have risen from around $20 to just over $29 per month. Many critics of the utility business model point to high levels of local grid spending on distribution as a way that utilities pad their earnings with returns harvested from ratepayers.
In the system regulators explored at the hearing, new projects would get a more skeptical look and ratepayers payouts would be partially determined by utilities hitting pre-defined service goals. NJBPU executive director Bob Brabston also indicated that the review process would take a close look at utilities’ regulated returns on equity — echoing his neighbor across the Delaware River, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who wrote in a letter to his state’s utilities earlier this week that these returns must be “transparent” and “justifiable,” and no longer be based on “educated guesses.”
“We want to make sure that the actual cost of equity and the returns on equity are close,” Brabston said Thursday. “We don’t want there to be a significant gap between the cost of equity that you all experience and the returns that the agencies that the agency awards.”
Meanwhile, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, the framework within which New Jersey’s utilities exist is coming in for its own examination.
PJM Interconnection — the nation’s largest electricity market, which covers not just Pennsylvania and New Jersey but also part or all of 11 other states — released an almost 70-page paper Wednesday, in which the organization’s president David Mills wrote that “the current situation is not tenable.”
PJM has been the poster child for a host of issues plaguing the electricity markets across the country, including fast-rising prices, a failure to quickly bring on new generation, and an inability to assure the market’s preferred level of reserve reliability. This set of challenges, Mills said in the paper’s introduction, “reflects something more fundamental than a design that needs recalibration.” Instead, PJM must consider “whether the foundational assumptions of the market remain valid – and if not, what a valid set of assumptions would require.”
The problem with the electricity market, he argued, can be solved by more markets. Right now, when prices shoot up, governments intervene with price caps, suppressing the market signal necessary to bring on sufficient generation that would bring down prices.
To replace that system, the paper proposes three possible models. The first, which it calls “Stabilized Markets,” would allow capacity to be procured for several years at a time outside of the current auction system, so that utilities could make sure their basic needs were covered before they go into the annual auctions. This would provide long term security for new investment.
The second path would be a more fundamental reform. This “Differential Reliability” approach would do away with the “shared reliability compact,” under which all loads must be served by the system at all times. Instead, PJM would “develop the operational and commercial framework to explicitly differentiate reliability,” incentivizing approaches like bring your own generation or curtailing power for new large sources of demand.
The third path is an “Energy Market Transition,” which might also be called the “Texas option.” Following this path, the capacity market would shrink as a portion of revenues earned by generators, and more revenue would come from real-time or near-real-time electricity sales.
While this path isn’t “full Texas” (ERCOT doesn’t have a capacity market at all), it would mean allowing for higher prices for energy in real-time, a.k.a. “scarcity pricing” which is arguably the defining feature of the ERCOT system (though even that was scaled back when prices got too high).
“The choices embedded in these paths involve genuine trade-offs, and those trade-offs affect different stakeholders uniquely,” the paper says.If PJM has learned anything in the past few years, it’s that it doesn’t get to make decisions on its own. Those stakeholders will get their say, one way or another.
Big fundraises for Nyobolt and Skeleton Technologies, plus more of the week’s biggest money moves.
Following a quiet week for new deals, the industry is back at it with a bunch of capital flowing into some of the industry’s most active areas. My colleague Alexander C. Kaufman already told you about one of the more buzzworthy announcements from data center-land in Wednesday’s AM newsletter: Wave energy startup Panthalassa raised $140 million in a round led by Peter Thiel to “perform AI inference computing at sea” using nodes powered by the ocean’s waves.
This week also saw fresh funding for more conventional data center infrastructure, as Nyobolt and Skeleton Technologies both announced later-stage rounds for data center backup power solutions. Meanwhile, it turns out Redwood Materials is not the only company bringing in significant capital for second-life EV battery systems — Moment Energy just raised $40 million to pursue a similar approach. Elsewhere, investors backed an effort to rebuild domestic magnesium production, and, in a glimmer of hope for a sector on the outs, gave a boost to green cement startup Terra CO2.
Cambridge-based startup Nyobolt has become the latest battery company to reach a $1 billion valuation, with its expansion into the data center market helping fuel excitement around its tech. Spun out of University of Cambridge research in 2019, the company develops ultra-fast-charging batteries based on a modified lithium-ion chemistry. Its core innovation is an anode made from niobium tungsten oxide, which Nyobolt says enables its batteries to charge to 80% in less than five minutes, with a cycle life that’s 10 times longer than conventional lithium-ion, all without the risk of fire.
The company has now raised a $60 Series C, following what it describes as a period of “rapid commercial momentum,” with revenue increasing five-fold year-over-year as customers in the robotics and data center industry piled in. Symbotic, an autonomous robotics company and existing customer, led the latest round. While Symbotic previously relied on supercapacitors to power its robots, Nyobolt’s says its batteries provide six times more energy capacity in a lighter package, allowing its warehouse robots to work for retailers like Walgreens, Target, and Kroger around the clock.
Now the startup is targeting data center customers too, positioning its tech as a fast-acting fix for the sudden power surges common to large-scale artificial intelligence workloads, as well as a temporary backup power solution for outages. While it has no confirmed domestic data center customers to date, it does have a nonbinding agreement with the Indian state of Rajasthan to deploy over 100 megawatts of off-grid AI data center and power management infrastructure, part of a broader push to expand its presence across the country.
Notably, the press release made no mention of plans to sell its tech to electric vehicle automakers, though this appears to have been a central focus previously. As recently as last summer, executive vice president Ramesh Narasimhan told the BBC that he hoped Nyobolt’s batteries would “transform the experience of owning an EV.” But while its tech does enable extremely fast charging, its underlying chemistry is not optimized for long-range driving. A sports car built to test the company’s batteries had just a 155 mile range. So like many of its climate tech peers, the company appears to be betting that data centers now represent a more reliable opportunity.
This week brought additional news from another European player aiming to smooth out data center power surges. Estonia-based supercapacitor startup Skeleton Technologies raised $39 million in what it describes as the first close of a pre-IPO funding round, with a U.S. listing planned for next year. Its core tech is built around a “curved graphene” structure, which the company likens to a crumpled sheet of paper with a high surface area. The graphene’s many exposed surfaces and edges allows it to hold more electric charge, which Skeleton says delivers a 72% improvement in energy density.
Like Nyobolt, Skeleton says its tech offers faster response times and longer cycle life. But supercapacitors are a fundamentally different technology than Nyobolt’s modified lithium-ion solution. Though they offer near-instantaneous response times, they store very little energy — just enough to smooth out microsecond power spikes in GPU workloads. Nyobolt’s batteries, by contrast, aim not only to smooth out data center power spikes, but also to deliver about 90 seconds of backup power in the case of an outage, before a generator or other backup source kicks in.
Skeleton is already mass-producing supercapacitors in Germany and delivering to unnamed “major U.S. hyperscalers for AI infrastructure.” It’s also making moves to expand its U.S. footprint ahead of its pending IPO, opening an engineering facility in Houston and aiming to begin domestic manufacturing of AI data center solutions in the first half of this year.
Last year brought a wave of new climate tech coalitions, with one of the most ambitious efforts known as the All Aboard Coalition. This group of venture firms is targeting the investment gap known as the missing middle, which falls between early-stage venture rounds and infrastructure funding. The model is relatively mechanical: When three or more member firms participate in a later-stage round for a company, the coalition automatically coinvests out of its own fund, matching the members’ combined contribution.
The group made its first investment in January, supporting the AI-powered geothermal exploration and development company Zanskar’s Series C round. This week, it announced its second: a $22 million commitment to low-carbon cement startup Terra CO2, bringing the company’s Series B total to $147 million. Cement production accounts for roughly 8% of global emissions, a figure Terra aims to shrink by making so-called "supplementary cementitious materials” — which can partially displace traditional cement in concrete mixes — from abundant silicate rocks. By grinding and thermally processing these rocks into a glassy powder, Terra’s product mimics the properties of conventional cement. The company says it can replace up to 50% of the cement in typical concrete mixes, lowering associated emissions by as much as 70%.
The new funding will help Terra build its first commercial-scale plant in Texas, exactly the type of first-of-a-kind project that the coalition was designed to support. But the scale of this challenge remains clear. As noted in ImpactAlpha’s coverage, the coalition has raised just $100 million toward its goal of a $300 million fund — already a relatively modest goal considering the capital intensity of novel infrastructure projects. Bloomberg previously reported that the group aimed to raise the full amount by the end of October 2025, raising questions about the willingness of LPs to bet on projects at this crucial but capital-intensive juncture.
When I think about repurposing used electric vehicle batteries for stationary storage, I think of battery recycling giant Redwood Materials, which raised a $425 million Series E in January after moving aggressively into this promising market. But while Redwood’s well-established recycling business certainly provides it with the largest pipeline of used batteries, it’s far from the only company pursuing this business model. A smaller player with a largely similar approach underscored that this week, when it announced a $40 million Series B to scale its gigafactory in Texas and expand its facilities in British Columbia.
That’s Moment Energy, which focuses on using second-life EV batteries to power commercial and industrial sites such as data centers, hospitals, and factories. Like Redwood, it relies on proprietary software to aggregate battery packs with myriad chemistries and design specs into coordinated grid-scale systems. What the company sees as its critical differentiator, however, is its safety standards. Moment has achieved UL certification, a key safety benchmark that it says others in the industry have yet to meet.
In a shot at its competitors, the company described itself in a press release as the “only provider proven capable of deploying second-life battery storage systems in the built environment without special dispensations or regulatory loopholes.” While Moment never names names, Redwood’s first commercial-scale system sits on its own private land in an open air setting, where certification is arguably unnecessary. “What most other second life [battery] companies are now trying to say is, let’s just lobby to make second life UL certification easier, because it is impossible to get UL certification, as it stands,” the company’s CEO, Edward Chiang, told TechCrunch. “But at Moment, we say that’s not true. We got it.”
As I wrote last September, it’s a good time to be a critical minerals startup, because as you may have heard, “critical minerals are the new oil.” These materials sit at the center of modern energy infrastructure — batteries, magnets, photovoltaic cells, and electrical wiring, to name just a few uses — plus their supply is concentrated in geopolitically tense regions and subject to extreme price volatility. It also certainly doesn’t hurt that the Trump administration loves them and wants to mine and refine way more of them in the U.S.
The latest beneficiary of this enthusiasm is Magrathea, which this week raised a $24 million Series A to build what it says will be the only new magnesium smelter in the U.S., in Arkansas. The company has now raised over $100 million in total, including a $28 million grant from the Department of Defense. Its approach relies on an electrolysis-based process that’s able to extract pure magnesium from seawater and brines, which it positions as a cleaner, cheaper alternative to the high-heat, emission-intensive method that China uses to produce most of the world’s magnesium today.
The U.S. military has taken note of this potential new domestic supply. Magrathea’s 2022 seed round coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the military looked to scale domestic defense tech supply chains. Magnesium alloys are often used to help reduce weight in EV components, a benefit equally applicable to military helicopters, drones, and next-generation fighter jets. So while these defense applications represent somewhat of a pivot from the startup’s initial focus, a greener fighter jet is still better than a dirty fighter jet.
Current conditions: A series of tornadoes has flattened entire neighborhoods in central and southern Mississippi, causing what one pastor called “just total devastation” • The heat index across the northern half of the Philippines’ main island of Luzon could feel as high as 122 degrees Fahrenheit, raising the risk of heat stroke • There will be some hot moms in Phoenix this weekend when temperatures in Arizona’s sprawling capital top 108 degrees on Mother’s Day.
President Donald Trump’s attempts to kill the offshore wind industry through regulatory fiat have largely failed to hold up in court. But as the administration finds new success in paying off developers to abandon ocean leases for seaward turbines, it’s attempting the original playbook now on the onshore wind sector, holding up more than 150 projects by refusing to give out once-routine approvals from the Department of Defense. That includes projects that are nowhere near military bases or defense-related infrastructure, and comes despite the fact that U.S. policymakers across the political spectrum agree we need to bring as much new power online as quickly as we can to meet booming demand from data centers and electrification. “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry,” an energy lawyer told Heatmap’s Jael Holzman. “Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.” In other words: The bombardments may fail, but the siege can win..
When French energy giant TotalEnergies became the first offshore wind developer to take up Trump on his offer of $1 billion to abandon two projects back in March, the administration’s effort to kill off an industry Trump has personally opposed since long before he gained political power seemed to finally be catching a foothold following a series of legal retreats. By April, however, blowback to the deal had started building. Reporting from Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo found that the U.S. government’s agreement with Total didn’t actually mandate any new investments in fossil fuels, as the administration strongly implied, and that and that the payment may not have actually met the requirements to be drawn from a federal coffer designed to fund legal settlements. Shortly afterward, House Democrats announced plans to investigate Total’s contract with the government. This week, California regulators launched their own probe into one of two new developments that took up Trump’s offer, a floating offshore wind project that was set to be the first such project on the West Coast. Now one of the largest U.S. pension funds is reconsidering its stake in Total. Citing “significant concerns” over Total’s decision to cancel its two offshore wind leases and double down on fossil fuels, the New York State Common Retirement Fund said it would evaluate selling the $1.6 million stake in the company.
In a letter to Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné that the Financial Times reviewed, Thomas DiNapoli, the New York State comptroller and trustee of the retirement fund, said: “As the fund continually evaluates companies based on credible transition plans, portfolio companies’ backtracking may impact the fund’s risk assessment results and proxy voting decisions.” While “TotalEnergies had sought to be a leader in [the] energy transition,” he added, “now investors are left scratching their heads over how the board came to this decision to abandon that strategy and what it means for the future of the company and our stake in it.” In Total’s home country, the picture for offshore wind looks quite different. While Paris remains committed to expanding its world-leading nuclear fleet, a new floating offshore wind farm off France just started pumping electricity onto the grid.
Occidental Petroleum has once again pushed back the opening of the world’s largest carbon removal facility, with executives warning that they’re uncertain how quickly the delay can be resolved. Construction on the direct air capture megaproject in West Texas, known as Stratos, has been mostly complete for months. Last August, the company revised the start date to the end of the year. In February, Occidental said the operations would begin by the second quarter of this year. But in its first-quarter earnings call Wednesday, Richard Jackson, Occidental’s chief operating officer, who will take over for CEO Vicki Hollub when she retires at the end of this month, told analysts “the technology and process unit operations performed as expected.” He said the company had “identified an issue related to non-process components of the facility, unrelated to the technology” and was “currently evaluating the repair timeline and assessing the impact on the operations schedule,” according to Occidental’s official transcript of his remarks. When I emailed the company to ask for more details on what issues and specific components are holding up the project, a spokesperson responded: “We have nothing to offer beyond what Richard said that it’s non-process and we’ll provide an update next quarter.”
Make no mistake, it’s not all doom and gloom for DAC. Colorado and Wyoming this week signed an agreement to work together on carbon storage infrastructure. And a major breakthrough in Kenya “signals a new era” for geological storage of carbon dioxide, so heralded the Carbon Herald.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

The United States has expanded its sanctions on Cuba, forcing the Canadian miner that had been the Caribbean nation’s biggest foreign investor to flee as the Trump administration ramps up its effort to topple the 67-year-old communist regime and reassert Washington’s suzerainty over the island just 90 miles south of Florida. The new sanctions on Thursday, which came days after Trump broadened the U.S. embargo on Cuba, sent the price of shares in Canada’s Sherritt International Corporation tumbling 41% by the time the market closed in North America. For the past 32 years, the company has operated a nickel and cobalt mining operation on the island, providing one of Cuba’s few commercial lifelines into the global economy. While Sherritt said it had not yet been designated for sanctions, a listing “could occur at any time,” the company warned, and banks and other vendors might be “unable or unwilling” to keep supplying the firm. “In any event, the mere issuance of the executive order itself creates conditions that materially alter the corporation’s ability to operate in the ordinary course, including activities related to Sherritt’s Cuban joint venture operations,” Sherritt said in a statement on its website. “This is a massive blow to an already sinking economy,” Ricardo Torres, a leading Cuban-born economist at the American University in Washington, told the Financial Times.
The internal combustion engine is still the profit motor for Volkswagen. But when the world’s second-largest automaker reported its first-quarter earnings last week, the company said its latest electric vehicles are up to 80% as profitable as gasoline-powered alternatives. That’s according to a nugget InsideEVs highlighted this week from the investor update. Once Volkswagen launches its newest modular blueprint for its electric vehicle offerings — known internally as the Scalable Systems Platform, or SSP — the margins are expected to align more closely, said Arno Antlitz, the German auto giant’s chief financial officer. “We expect the margin to be fully comparable only with our future SSP platform,” he said.
Things are looking sunnier for what has long been the weakest sector of the American solar industry. SEG Solar, a Houston-based manufacturer, has announced plans to add 4 gigawatts of module production capacity to its factory in Texas’ largest city, creating a 6-gigawatt facility. The move comes as Elon Musk has vowed to dramatically scale up Tesla’s solar manufacturing capacity and First Solar builds its own 4-gigawatt facility.