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.
Greenhouse gas pollution could drop by half a percent this year, according to a new analysis.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Back in March of last year, I coined the phrase “Degrowth Donald” to describe President Donald Trump’s accidental environmental impact.
Trump might say that climate change was a “hoax” or “scam,” I said. But when you looked at his actions, a different set of beliefs emerged.
He imposed a 10% tax on Canadian oil — a far more effective deterrent on consuming Albertan crude than a decade of protests against Keystone XL. He taxed foreign car imports and levied new tariffs on single-family-home building materials. You could say he had, I don’t know, rhubarb politics — a MAGA red stalk erupting in big green leaves.
Of course, Trump’s actual environmental politics are far more complicated. He has declared war on wind energy and gutted greenhouse gas rules. As you read in Heatmap AM this morning, the Trump administration announced today it would transform the Endangered Species Act to legalize a much broader range of animal killings.
But every so often, Degrowth Donald rides again. And so it is with the Iran war, which has gone on much longer than Trump initially envisioned, changed the global energy economy, and made China’s distinctive approach to energy security — which relies on electrification and large oil and mineral stockpiles — look more popular globally. It has triggered an energy crisis that is, at the moment, getting worse: Even in the United States, gasoline prices are surging again, and diesel is nearing its post-2022 inflation-adjusted record highs, according to Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. Energy prices are even higher in much of Europe.
One upshot of these higher prices, though? Emissions now seem to be going down. According to a new analysis from Carbon Brief, a U.K.-based nonprofit, global emissions from fossil fuels will fall by half a percent this year because of higher oil and natural gas prices caused by the Iran war and Strait of Hormuz closure. What’s interesting is that coal burning will actually increase — by more than 1% — but it will be swamped by declines from oil and gas consumption.
That’s a change from what authorities once expected. Last year, the International Energy Agency projected that global coal use would decline this year because of Chinese policies. But fuel switching will drive it up.
Of course, emissions declines caused by higher prices (or economic downturns) are the worst type of reductions. What we want to see, instead, is countries switching to lower-carbon forms of energy. But energy crises have a way of pushing every country’s energy policy in new directions. This year’s events have convinced Thailand, for instance, to reduce its liquified natural gas consumption and switch to renewables instead; they have caused Canada to open its market up to cheap Chinese electric vehicles and pursue an “associate membership” with the European Union. The 1970s oil crisis ultimately created the global energy regime of the 1980s and 1990s. What else countries might learn from this crisis is not too hard to guess.
The administration told a federal court that it has a “new analytical methodology,” hence the continued delays.
A federal judge ruled in early August that the Trump administration’s freeze on vertical height clearances for wind turbines was likely illegal. More than a month later nearly all of the wind energy projects remain on pause, as federal officials add new red tape that industry representatives say runs afoul of the court’s edict.
Let’s catch-up quickly on the American wind sector’s existential dilemma: the federal government has control over airspace higher than 200 feet from the ground and wind farm turbines essentially always enter that sphere of control. For at least a year and a half, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration has slowly gummed up what industry and former government officials have said was once a rote, benign bureaucratic process for ensuring turbine rotation didn’t interfere with flight patterns or radar at nearby airports.
So, Trump is delaying key approvals even for wind projects on private land, a worst-case scenario for the industry during his presidency. With support from their respective trade groups, many project developers sued and in August won a preliminary injunction against this de-facto national wind energy freeze. The court ruling said federal law laid out clear deadlines for completing these airspace reviews and the administration was willfully missing them.
“[In] light of DoD’s review freeze that started a year ago and still has no end in sight, the wind developers would naturally look to the same deadlines for relief,” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wrote, stating the administration’s pause violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Immergut also said the Trump administration potentially violated the law by reviewing projects under a new national security “methodology” that was defined by Congress.
But on Thursday, in its first update to the court since the ruling, the Justice Department laid out how essentially all projects remain at a standstill because they were adopting a new kind of comprehensive review process.
The administration claimed that “as a matter of policy” it had “resumed processing wind energy project applications,” but it only described a single instance where a company had heard from the military about moving forward. In addition, that company as well as all others affected by the freeze would still face a “new analytical methodology” for federal agencies reviewing height clearances for all projects, which appears to fly in the face of the ruling. The Justice Department did not provide any more detail about the methodology in its status update to the court.
Nicole Hughes, executive director of lead plaintiff Renewable Northwest, asserted in an interview Tuesday that the agency isn’t complying with the court order. “It appears to me they’re still stalling,” Hughes told me, adding the federal government’s reluctance to proceed is creating “a pretty high risk” for developers of any new wind projects in the United States. She said if nothing changes in the short term, they’re going to “have to go back to the judge and ask for further clarification as to what it means to comply with this order.”
“The lack of compliance by the administration does put into question the credibility [of the courts] and what pieces hold their feet to the fire? What remedies do we have? There’s never been a time an administration flaunts a judge’s orders the way the administration is.”
The Justice Department status update described a multitude of wind energy projects impacted by the freeze. At least 30 projects apparently already signed deals proposed by the military to mitigate radar impacts and were awaiting a counter-signature from the Department of Defense (which Trump calls the Department of War or DoW). Those previous legal agreements are now at risk of being thrown out, according to the Justice Department filing. The new pathway forward for them apparently is: “DoW will either (i) provide a notice that the project presents an unacceptable risk to national security, (ii) re-engage in negotiations with the developer to attempt to ameliorate any unacceptable risks, or (iii) circulate to the project proponent [a] new model mitigation agreement.”
At least 110 projects were in the middle of discussions with the federal government about mitigating airspace impacts when the injunction came down, according to the DOJ filing, which says none of them have heard from officials since the injunction. “As of this filing, developer re-engagements have yet to begin because such discussions need to be informed by the analytical results. Given the number of projects in this category, DoW has been assessing how to resume review and engagement with the developers.”
The DOJ said another 50 projects awaiting initial meetings with the federal government about airspace risk will begin once the administration “finishes with those” 110 projects that were in the middle of the process. That waiting list will also include another at least 40 projects the Justice Department said received “presumed risk” airspace notices from the federal government.
We’ve seen the Trump administration use extralegal means to delay wind energy before, but never to this extent or after a judge ruled against them. The Interior Department had been freezing wind and solar projects on federal lands under a policy requiring Secretary Doug Burgum sign off on routine approvals, but those typical government processes seem like they’ve resumed after a different federal court ruling enjoining that policy.
American Clean Power, the largest utility-scale solar and wind energy trade group, declined to comment. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.
CleanCounts is announcing new hourly matching credits, among other “enhancements.”
Renewable energy certificates, or RECS — the credits that companies buy in order to make claims that their operations “run on renewable energy” — are getting more sophisticated.
CleanCounts, a nonprofit that runs one of the biggest registries for RECs in North America, announced on Wednesday that it now has the capability to issue certificates tied to the exact hour the renewable energy was produced, opening the door to more reality-based clean energy claims. For companies that want to match their renewable energy purchases to the hours when their factories and stores are actually consuming power, “that was a critical piece of infrastructure that was missing,” Benjamin Gerber, the CEO of CleanCounts, told me.
The company also announced “additional enhancements” to its registry that will enable a wider range of new REC products, from certificates tied to “pollinator-friendly solar,” to projects owned by indigenous Tribes, to “low-impact hydropower” projects that mitigate harm to fish. Gerber said he thinks having a system to track and verify these benefits will help companies tell a different story about the infrastructure they are building, and in so doing help turn the tide of public support.
Traditionally, a REC represents a megawatt-hour of electricity that has been generated by a renewable energy source such as wind, solar, geothermal, or moving water. The generator records every megawatt-hour it produces with a registry like CleanCounts, which issues certificates; companies then buy these certificates, either in advance under power purchase agreements or after the fact in the spot market. The registry then “retires” the certificates once the REC buyer chooses to “use” it to make a clean energy claim. Registries ensure that nobody is counting the same megawatt-hour more than once.
Today, a lot of corporations simply match their annual energy consumption with certificates. If they anticipate consuming 100 megawatts, they might buy 100 megawatts of solar RECs — even if their factories operate at night — and then claim they “run on 100% renewable energy.” Critics argue these types of claims mislead the public and tip the scales toward the cheapest renewable sources — i.e. solar and wind — rather than those that can generate energy in the off-hours, such as batteries, geothermal, and nuclear. Many clean energy advocates want to see companies move toward making more specific claims about the number of hours they run on renewable energy.
Google got behind this idea several years ago, pledging to match its consumption with clean energy on a 24/7 basis. CleanCounts piloted a method with Google to issue the company hourly RECs, but to do so it had to basically reverse engineer the certificates, embedding data regarding the time the energy was produced after the fact. That made it complicated to true up a company’s energy consumption data with its REC purchases and say, “we covered X number of hours with clean energy.”
Now, CleanCounts will be able to specifically issue a credit for “1 megawatt-hour produced Wednesday, September 16, at 9:00 a.m.,” for example, making it far easier for companies to adopt an hourly matching strategy.
“Instead of breaking it apart, they're basically issuing it as an already granularized tradable certificate,” Alex Piper, the head of policy at EnergyTag, a nonprofit that advocates for hourly matching, told me. “Which is what is new and exciting, and opens the door for more liquid transactions and a broader and more impactful marketplace.”
Hourly matching is not exactly popular in the corporate sustainability world. A lot of companies and sustainability consultants argue that accounting for their energy on an hourly basis will be too complicated, too expensive, and ultimately crater the corporate clean energy market. Corporations are in a showdown with EnergyTag and other proponents of hourly matching to convince the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that sets standards for corporate carbon accounting, of their case.
The new CleanCounts product solves at least one of those challenges, making hourly clean energy procurement much simpler.
That might also reap benefits in the form of consumer trust. New polling from EnergyTag and YouGov found that Americans tend to agree that companies shouldn’t claim to use solar at night. When asked, “When should a company count as a clean energy user?” 45% of respondents selected “only when their clean energy supply matches the hours they actually use electricity,” while 22% chose “when their clean energy averages out over the year (i.e. daytime solar covering nighttime usage.)” Just under a third of the 1,292 respondents selected “don’t know.”
Even if companies start buying hourly RECs, however, another challenge will be figuring out how to tell their customers, most of whom have no idea what a REC is. For years, companies have simply advertised that they are 100% renewable. What will it take to convince customers that actually, “We use clean energy about half the time we operate” is a more laudable claim?