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.
Americans paid $217 on average for electricity last month, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
July is typically the season of high electricity bills, and this year is no exception.
Nationally, the average electricity bill spiked to $217, an all-time high, according to new data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. That’s up from $177 in June, and $215 last July. Meanwhile, electricity rates were 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, virtually unchanged from June and slightly higher than July of last year.
Throughout the country, many ratepayers are seeing higher costs and charges in the portion of their bill covering the cost of power generation.
Once again, some of the most notable electricity price and bill trends were seen in the mid-Atlantic region, the heart of the data center boom and the anchor area of the PJM Interconnection. The region also includes Virginia, where Florida utility and energy developer NextEra is attempting to acquire the commonwealth’s dominant utility, Dominion.
In July, Dominion customers saw typical generation charges rise to $155 a month, up from $124 a year ago. Overall bills for Dominion customers were about $259 this past month.
The higher bills are in part due to the “fuel charge rider” that went into effect this past month to help recover about $1 billion in additional generation costs claimed by the utility. Those charges stem in part from higher fuel costs this past winter, when natural gas prices spiked to their highest level since the winter of 2022-23, Dominion officials said in a filing to the state’s utilities regulator. The MIT researchers estimate that the fuel charge added around $53 to July bills, up $12 from July of last year.
In neighboring Delaware, bills were $216 a month in July, a record high, while prices were around 19 cents per kilowatt-hour. Customers of the state’s main utility, Delmarva Power, saw a near 20% hike in the supply charge in their standard service offerings, as prices rose from around 16 cents per kilowatt-hour from last year.
The Delaware Public Service Commission voted at the beginning of last month to allow an interim rate increase of about $3 per month for the typical customer, which went into effect July 9. Soon after, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed a law giving the state’s regulators more discretion to reject putting certain utility costs into the rate base and thus limit subsequent price hikes requested by utilities. The governor’s office described the law as a mechanism “to prioritize prudent spending over unchecked cost recovery.”
The new vehicle — with a price tag just shy of $30,000, all in — represents the storied U.S. automaker’s big swing at winning entry-level buyers.
Ford’s electric moonshot, the mid-size pickup truck that would get it back into the EV race, finally has a name: Fathom.
The Detroit giant announced the name of its long-anticipated, highly mysterious vehicle on Thursday, alongside its price and some of its specs. The Ford Fathom will cost $28,350, not including delivery and destination fees that take its price right up to the 30-grand mark — $29,945, to be precise. Ford says it will start taking reservations early next year and deliver the first pickups later in 2027.
We don’t yet know the battery range or, crucially, what it’ll look like, as Ford is holding back the visual reveal. What we can say is that, as a mid-size pickup, the Fathom should be around the size of the gas-powered Ford Maverick, which has a near-identical starting price. Without getting into dimensions, Ford promises it will have more passenger volume than Toyota’s ubiquitous RAV4 SUV, with a frunk and a truck bed to boot.
Ford says every Fathom will be BlueCruise-capable, referencing the company’s hand-free driving assistant for highway travel. Fathom will also feature bi-directional power capability, enabling the battery to double as home energy storage, as well as embedded Apple Maps on its large touchscreen. Importantly, it will retain compatibility with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, which has become a dealbreak for many drivers.
Fathom will be the first EV produced on Ford’s Universal EV Platform, the technology setup that has been under development at the company’s skunkworks operation in Long Beach, California. I visited there this spring to see the team that was, far from the glare of the suits in Detroit, trying to reinvent the company’s EV manufacturing strategies so it could make better and more affordable electric cars. Even then, though, I couldn’t get a look at the Fathom — or any other car designs that may or may not be under way there, as they were all still under wraps.
The skunkworks project is all about process. Ford was losing billions on its previous generation of EVs, led by the Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E, despite the relatively high sticker price of those cars. Engineers tried to mimic some of the stripped-down, iterative strategies of smaller firms and startups — such as stripping miles of wiring out of the vehicles — to work faster and simplify manufacturing, thereby cutting costs.
That work has allowed Ford to start the Fathom at effectively $30,000, placing it smack within the range of America’s most affordable electric vehicles. Its most obvious competitor would be the Slate EV truck, which has just begun to take reservations. Slate starts at about $25,000, but that price gets you a bare-bones pickup with roll-up windows and a plain gray exterior. Add enough a la carte features to make the truck technologically competitive with something like the Fathom and it, too, would cost around $30,000.
At the price, the Ford Fathom is also directly competitive with entry-level EVs like the new Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf. But as a mid-sized truck, Fathom would be more spacious and practical than a vehicle like a Bolt, while coming in well below the $35,000 starting cost of a bigger crossover like the Chevy Equinox EV.
Ford, in its announcement, ruminated on the meanings behind the “Fathom” moniker. The company wanted its crucial new EV to have a name, not an alphanumeric code like the Ford F-150. Fathom was chosen because of its twin meanings: the classical unit of measure for water depth, and the verb meaning to deeply and fully understand something.
The implication is that the Fathom EV is meant to comprehend the customer and what they want out of an electric truck. How Ford’s pickup measures up to their aspirations depends greatly on details about this vehicle that are not yet known. But just putting out a battery-powered pickup truck for under $30,000 is a great start.
Current conditions: The heat dome in the American Southwest is worsening, with temperatures in Phoenix set to climb as high as 110 degrees Fahrenheit • The wildfires in Greece have killed at least five people as thermometers in Athens near the triple digits • Sri Lanka’s sprawling capital of Colombo is in the midst of a week of intense thunderstorms.
The Department of Defense halted reviews of onshore wind projects in May on national security grounds, a move that my colleague Jael Holzman described at the time as “extrajudicial” and that would ultimately “murder an American industry.” Now the judiciary is getting involved. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, indicated that she would likely find in favor of a coalition of renewable energy groups that sued the Trump administration to restart reviews. At the start of a two-hour hearing, Courthouse News Service reported from the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, Immergut said there was “strong evidence the government had violated statutory and regulatory deadlines” when the Pentagon stopped carrying out routine reviews needed to progress federal permits for wind turbines to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Trump administration is preparing to impose new tariffs and minimum import prices on polysilicon in a bid to prop up a domestic supply chain for the primary ingredient in semiconductors and solar panels. The decision, due out after the market closes today, will set a tariff of at least 15% on imported polysilicon and set baseline prices for each component in the supply chain, from the raw material derived from purified quartz to solar wafers, cells, and modules, sources familiar with talks told me, confirming broad details first reported by Reuters and Bloomberg. The Department of Commerce plans to delay implementation to allow domestic manufacturers that rely on imported components time to adjust, and provide offsets to companies that make major investments in the U.S. The policy will serve as a key lifeline to solar manufacturers, who lost one of their main incentives to buy made-in-America panels when the investment and production tax credits for solar effectively ended last month. But industry sources told me that the new trade restrictions would likely fall short of incentivizing new manufacturing, and would require more support on the demand side. The dynamic mirrors what my colleague Matthew Zeitlin called the “paradox of Trump’s critical mineral crusade,” whereby the administration pulled out all the stops to boost mining of rare earths and lithium while eliminating the landmark electric vehicle tax credit that ensured a domestic market for those metals.
It’s hardly the only protectionism the Commerce Department is attempting this month. On Thursday, the agency plans to publish a temporary final rule that would block exports of battery scraps and tungsten waste without a special waiver from the Bureau of Industry and Security. Producers of the materials, E&E News reported, would be required to sell in the U.S. for one year. The move comes a week after President Donald Trump signed a memo blocking exports of mineral-rich waste as the White House seeks to shore up supplies of metals for weapons production. Tungsten, as the Bloomberg “Odd Lots” podcast explained nicely in a recent episode, has a very high melting point, making it ideal for artillery and ammunition. While it’s typically in demand in low amounts during peace time, soaring interest is a sign of widening global conflicts.
For retail investors, Oklo emerged as the face of the small modular reactor industry in 2024 after the Silicon Valley nuclear darling debuted on the stock market. But the company hadn’t yet split atoms. Last night, the company’s low-power test reactor in Texas sustained a reaction for the first time. The milestone makes Oklo the fifth company in the Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program to achieve criticality, but the first to do so on private land. Oklo boasted that the company had erected the facility at a previously undeveloped greenfield site in less than a year, demonstrating that “American nuclear deployment timelines can be measured in months rather than years,” the company said in a press release.
The move comes five months after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which notoriously rejected Oklo’s first attempt at gaining approval for its power plant reactors, approved the company’s plans to produce medical isotopes from low-powered reactors, as I exclusively reported in this newsletter at the time.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Two House Democrats formally referred Secretary of Energy Chris Wright to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution, accusing him of lying to Congress when asked whether the agency canceled green grants for partisan reasons. In a letter published Wednesday in The Hill, Representatives Zoe Lofgren of California and Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, alleged that Wright lied when he testified his blocking of billions in climate spending had nothing to do with the money going to states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. In a federal lawsuit related to the same award terminations, Energy Department lawyers admitted that “the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state” Wright previously testified that politics had no role in the decisions. “Secretary Wright lied to the Committee with his statements, which sought to prevent us from learning the truth: that the October award terminations were an act of political retaliation,” Lofgren and Amo wrote in the letter, addressed to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “In doing so, he violated 18 USC §1001, which bars individuals from making ‘any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation’ to Congress. We have no choice but to refer Secretary Wright to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution in this matter.”
In 1978, the U.S. used millions more tons of coal than today. Yet miners in Appalachia are facing rates of pneumoconiosis — the incurable, fatal disease known as black lung — at exactly the same levels today. That’s the finding of new data published Wednesday in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Miners in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia who had spent at least 25 years working underground had by far the worst rates, with one in three testing positive in X-rays conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a federal agency. “I’m disgusted,” Scott Laney, a NIOSH research epidemiologist who is the lead author of the research letter, told NPR. “This is not going to get better because of all the disease that’s already in the pipeline. These guys are being treated like disposable widgets, not human beings. … We’re watching them die right before our eyes.”
Your humble correspondent is due for a series of flights this afternoon. I lose little sleep over my personal carbon footprint; I don’t find it a useful metric, and even if I did, I live in New York City, so my family’s life in dense housing and reliance on public transit already places me well below most Americans. But I can’t help but think of it when I’m riding multiple planes in one day. Which makes this new Bloomberg feature so exciting. In Brazil’s Minas Gerais state, more than 200 researchers are working to commercialize jet fuel made from the oil-rich fruit of the macauba palm tree. Across 356,000 acres, the Abu Dhabi-based biofuels producer Acelen Renováveis plans to start processing macauba oil as part of a $3 billion project. The effort is meant to help the push to reduce airlines’ carbon intensity, but — as with biofuels in general — it’s worth considering the climate benefits with healthy doses of skepticism until detailed analyses come out.