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 R2 reveals — in its smallest details — the automaker’s aggressive new focus on keeping costs low.
Let’s get the big news out of the way: The new Rivian cars are very cool. The airy R2 is a two-row SUV that, if released today, would rival anything else on the American electric vehicle market; Rivian claims that its entry level trim will cost $45,000 and that it will get more than 300 miles of range. After including the Inflation Reduction Act’s incentives, that means the starting price for this car — for many Americans — will be $37,500.
Even more exciting are the company’s R3 and performance-oriented R3X, a hot-hatchback-slash-crossover concept that will be even cheaper than the R2 and has “the soul of a rally car,” according to Rivian’s lead designer Jeff Hammoud. It looks at once like a Volkswagen Golf GTI, an AMC Gremlin, and — could it be? — a Yugo. I love it.
It was a good day for Rivian after a disappointing year. Many things about its business are still working well. The brand evokes a fusion of Apple’s and Patagonia’s sensibilities, although it’s historically been priced more like Porsche, and it has become a favorite of high-earning Millennial dads. I saw more Apple Watch Ultras on Thursday than I have ever seen in one place before. RJ Scaringe, Rivian’s chief executive officer, was wearing one of them.
But Thursday, more importantly, signaled a new phase in Rivian’s life. After years of aggressive spending, the Irvine, California-based company is cutting costs and trying to find a financially sustainable — and profitable — footing. It’s one more sign that in the global electric vehicle sector, an industry that will be central to the fight against climate change, the startup phase has definitively ended.
This shift to profitability can be seen in virtually every aspect of Rivian’s business right now — and even in the design of the R2 itself.
Courtesy of Rivian.
If Rivian can make it, its prospects are good. It is one of a handful of American electric-vehicle makers that has a shot at competing with Tesla and surviving for the long term. But that will require it to get through the next few years and cross the “EV valley of death.” This is the period after a company has fully ramped up production and has very high costs, but before its revenue has grown to compensate. Tesla made it across this valley in 2021 and 2022; now Rivian is making its own attempt. This was the deeper message of Thursday’s event: Now is Rivian’s make-or-break moment, and the company’s leadership knows it.
To get across the valley of death, Rivian must become obsessive to the point of maniacal about its costs. The company’s survival is going to be an exceptionally close thing, and every dollar will matter. That’s why possibly the event’s most important news came right at the end, when Scaringe disclosed, almost as an aside, that Rivian is indefinitely delaying work on its new Georgia factory. That will save it about $2.25 billion, a significant sum for a company that burned roughly twice that amount last year. Rivian’s shares leapt 13% on the news.
“Every single thing we do within the business is focused on driving costs on this,” Scaringe told CNBC on Thursday. Other Rivian executives kept the message going: Walking through the R2’s design with reporters, Jeff Hammoud, Rivian’s design chief, mentioned the company’s efforts to cut costs at least six times. (Form follows function, indeed.)
The team kept asking itself “how can we simplify things — and not only simplify things from a design perspective, but also from a cost perspective,” he said, adding that “we’re not trying to make this thing feel or look cheap — that’s not what we do.”
He’s right: The R2 does not look cheap (as for feel, I wasn’t allowed to touch it), but some of the R1 series’s more premium touches are gone. Rivian has moved the R2’s speakers out of the driver and passenger doors and put them in the center console, a cost-saving measure that Hammoud suggested would give people more space for their water bottles. One of the panels in the car’s rear is made of mold-injected plastic, not sheet metal, which Hammoud said will save money and make the car easier to repair after a fender bender.
Then there are changes most drivers will never notice. The R2’s dashboard panels have a wood-like finish, and Hammoud wanted us to know that they are made of actual wood. And unlike other cars, which use wood purely as a decorative element — I assumed he was talking about the BMW i3 here — the R2’s wood is structurally integral to the dashboard. In other words, they look good and save money on underlying structural material. “With our vehicles and the R2, [the wood] literally holds the screen, it creates the shape for the vents,” Hammoud said. “If you were to take it out, literally the panel would fall apart.”
Courtesy of Rivian.
You can see, too, how other business needs are shaping how the vehicle looks and works — and even what kind of vehicle it is in the first place. Rivian only sells vehicles in the United States and Canada now, but wants and needs to expand into global markets in the coming years. It might be most famous for its pickup trucks, and yet Rivian didn’t announce a next-generation pickup on Thursday. Hammoud told me that that’s partly because Rivian is thinking about what will work well abroad, and mass pickup truck ownership remains a profoundly American phenomenon.
The charging port on the new Rivian models is on the rear passenger side, a move that confused many Americans who have come to prefer the charging port on the drivers’ side. (That’s where Tesla and the Rivian R1 put it, and the location is seen as better for home charging.) But think about it, Hammoud said. Many people in left-hand-drive countries charge their vehicles on the street, and a passenger-side setup — which becomes a driver’s side setup — makes more sense for them. The new setup also puts the charger closer to the battery, reducing the amount of high-voltage wires needed in the car. That cuts the car’s weight and — ding ding ding — lowers its cost. (Tesla puts its charger in the car’s rear for the same reason.)
The company hasn’t always been like this. During the first decade of its existence, interest rates sat nearly at zero, and Rivian could spend with abandon. It planned for its sprawling Georgia factory and could plan to sell more expensive cars to consumers who had access to cheap credit to buy them. The R2 carries forward the R1 tradition of having a flashlight in the drivers’ side door, but it lacks the hidey holes and air suspension of its predecessor. “With the R1, it was our premium flagship. We got to say yes to a lot of things,” Hammoud said. With R2, the question was “what do we have to say no to.”
Courtesy of Rivian.
This spring, Rivian will close down its Normal, Illinois, factory for a series of process upgrades. These will speed up its assembly lines and allow it to make its existing vehicles, the R1T and R1S, faster, with fewer internal computers and less wasted material; Rivian expects these improvements to carry it most of the way to profitability.
Even if it achieves its goal of turning a technical profit by the fall, it will still have a long way to go to become an actually sustainable business — and it will have to survive another year with no new products. The R2 is not due to go on sale until the first half of 2026, and the R3, which is built on the same platform as the R2, won’t start deliveries until “after the R2.” (No price or firm release date for the R3 has been announced.) The American EV market will change significantly by then. By the end of this year, some 50 different EV models in the U.S. will get more than 300 miles of range. Hyundai, Kia, Ford, and GM are all capable of bringing new cars to market during that interval that could smoke the R2 or R3, in part because they will be benchmarked off of them. The R2 and especially R3 seem like perfect cars for today’s market — and perfect cars for Rivian’s cash-saving situation. Whether they’ll be as perfect two years from now is anyone’s guess.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
From the notebooks of Heatmap’s reporters and editors.
The three letter acronym I heard the most during New York Climate Week wasn’t EPA, COP, NDC, or GHG. It was PJM. The country’s largest electricity market — the PJM Interconnection, which reaches into 13 states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan — has become the poster child for data center growth, clogged interconnection queues, and political backlash to rising electricity prices. Nearly every conversation I have about PJM includes a preamble about how nerdy and impenetrable the whole field of wholesale electricity markets is. Even so, it’s quickly becoming a central preoccupation of the political system, especially in states like New Jersey, where electricity prices have become a central issue in the gubernatorial campaign. — Matthew Zeitlin
As expected, this climate week featured lots of chatter about artificial intelligence — both the pros and the cons. On Tuesday, I attended an actual debate on the topic hosted by Deloitte, titled “AI for Sustainability: Friend of Foe,” which asked four participants to argue for or against a strongly worded motion: “AI is humanity’s best hope for tackling climate change.” To be frank, I disagreed with the premise before either side launched into their arguments, as did many others in attendance. When the audience was polled ahead of time, 49% disagreed, 36% were undecided, and 15% agreed.
The AI advocates — Riaz Raihan of Trane Technologies and Jen Huffstetler, HP’s chief sustainability officer — did share a few striking figures. Raihan, for instance, noted that Trane’s AI platform can make HVAC systems up to 25% more efficient. If that tech were deployed worldwide, it would save significantly more power than all the world’s data centers currently consume. But it was ultimately David Wallace-Wells of the New York Times who expressed the sentiment that I found most compelling when he cited the very human problems that keep renewable energy projects stuck in interminably long interconnection queues for years.
“What is it that’s stopping that renewable power from getting online. Is it a lack of intelligence? Is it too limited, too scarce intelligence? Or is it the human challenges, the concrete, real-world challenges? How do we deal with politics? How do we deal with land use? How do we prioritize what we’re doing in this world?” Ultimately, the audience appeared persuaded by his arguments, too — as well as those of his co-debater, Sarah Myers of the AI Now Institute. When the debate was over, 78% of the audience disagreed with the motion, 16% agreed, and 6% remained undecided. — Katie Brigham
At this point, I think we’re used to the idea that the artificial intelligence boom is creating more demand for electricity — and that this higher demand is helping renewable developers during what would otherwise be a tough moment. One theme that stuck out to me at New York Climate Week, though, is how much the surge in Big Tech investment is harmonizing what used to be otherwise regional markets.
Because a relatively small number of companies are driving such a large share of electricity capex, utilities across the country — who would normally do business with residential developers or small-to-medium-sized industrials — are now working with the same few tech firms. Those firms have the same sorts of demands everywhere. And because those tech firms are so flush with cash (and so far from achieving their climate goals), they are becoming important buyers for early-stage climate tech products. In that way, the AI boom — whose first-order labor effects have been quite concentrated in the San Fransisco area — is already transforming the U.S. economy. — Robinson Meyer
Here at Heatmap, we promise to bring you the “inside story of the race to fix the planet.” I’m biased, of course, but I think we tend to deliver, and my colleague Emily Pontecorvo certainly did this week with her story on the obscure accounting debate that has the potential to reshape our emissions future for years to come. We’re talking specifically about the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the primary standard-setting body for corporate carbon accounting, which is in the process of revising its guidelines for how companies should report the emissions from the electricity they consumer, otherwise known as scope 2 emissions.
While it hasn’t cracked the headlines in many places, Amazon Director Sustainability Policy told the crowd at our Heatmap House event on Wednesday that it was on everyone’s minds all week — and indeed, it came up over and over again during our “Up Next in Tech” session. I’ll spare you the details of the debate (though you should definitely read Emily’s story), but suffice it to say that it comes down to some pretty profound questions about why we count emissions in the first place. Is it to help consumers make informed choices? Or is it to help decarbonize the global economy? — Jillian Goodman
The administration argued in the name of national defense — but Orsted had receipts.
When the Trump administration ordered work on Orsted’s Revolution Wind offshore wind project to shut down in late August, it cited national security concerns as the reason for the delay.
Within weeks, a federal judge had lifted the stop work order, allowing construction to proceed.
What happened in between matters. In its rush to stop a wind project, the Trump administration exposed the first cracks in its anti-wind policy agenda — a loss that may embolden companies targeted by the crackdown on renewable energy development to fight back.
Orsted, the Danish wind giant, was more than halfway done building Revolution Wind by August 22, the day the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ordered an immediate stop to construction. In a one-page letter explaining the order, the agency dedicated a single paragraph to the rationale behind its decision: “BOEM is seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas,” it said.
Orsted filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government within days and asked for a preliminary injunction against the stop-work order. The Trump administration had acted arbitrarily when it halted construction on Revolution Wind, the company argued, a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which forces the government to have at least some sensible reason for its decision-making.
There were urgent financial stakes to the court’s decision, the company said. On top of strict timelines for completing the project that were laid out in power purchase agreements, the cable installation company working on Revolution Wind has just a brief window before it is booked for other projects through mid-2028. Unless the judge acted quickly, according to Orsted, Revolution Wind could face “project cancellation and termination of the enterprise,” at an estimated cost of more than $1 billion.
After Orsted filed its suit, the attorneys general of Connecticut and Rhode Island — two of the three states designated to receive electricity from Revolution Wind — soon followed course. The Trump administration responded by doubling down on its claims related to national defense. Revolution Wind, officials argued, would negatively impact radar detection and result in dangerous electromagnetic emissions. They also asserted that Defense Department officials were overruled or ignored when they raised concerns about this matter in the review process for the project, which received its final permits in 2023. (It’s worth noting the Trump administration’s legal filings refer to the military as the Department of War, or DOW.)
The Department of the Interior’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals management, Adam Suess, told the court on September 12 in a sworn declaration that Revolution Wind had not fully addressed a host of concerns. Suess elaborated on the stop work order, asserting that it concerned the project’s “continued inability to reach certain mitigation agreements” with the military and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Suess stated Revolution Wind was not in full compliance with the terms of its construction and operations plan, which are subject to government approval. He also said there were outstanding issues with Revolution Wind’s coordination with military operators at sea, and that there was still “risk from distributed optical fiber sensing and acoustic monitoring equipment.
“The Department has been in touch with NOAA and the DOW to gather more information,” the filing said, somewhat cryptically.
Suess also acknowledged that the Trump administration is reconsidering its prior green lights for Revolution Wind, including its approval of the construction and operations plan, linking this to a broader all-of-government review of the offshore wind industry Trump ordered on Day One via executive order.
In response, Orsted called the government’s bluff. The company submitted sworn declarations from top company officials who had worked on Revolution Wind, attesting to the fact that before Trump came into office, the military and NOAA were saying everything looked A-OK.
“Mr. Suess’ declaration makes new allegations against Revolution Wind that were not mentioned in the stop work order,” Orsted’s attorneys wrote in their reply. “These new allegations are factually inaccurate and controverted by Revolution Wind’s compliance with project requirements.”
One of Orsted’s declarations was from Melanie Gearon, the company’s head of northeast permitting. Suess had claimed that Revolution Wind was far from reaching a critical agreement with NOAA’s Fisheries division, known as the National Marine Fisheries Service, to mitigate the effects of sea surveys on fishing vessels. But Gearon painted a completely different picture, detailing years of negotiations with NOAA and BOEM about how to handle the surveys.
These talks had apparently continued months into the Trump administration. Orsted submitted an email from BOEM to the company dated July 9, in which an official explicitly says that agency staff were discussing scenarios where Orsted could just “state that they are continuing to work with [the National Marine Fisheries Service] on a Survey Mitigation agreement, which could still be submitted at a later date.” Gearon said the company had received “updated cost modeling” from the agency as recently as September 9, days before Suess’ comments were submitted in court.
Then came the comments from Orsted’s head of marine affairs, Edward LeBlanc, who served in the military for decades and worked on offshore energy oversight. He told the court that the Navy had never once raised any issues with the project’s export cable and that as recently as July 2025, no military officials had expressed lingering concerns about electromagnetic emissions, vessel collisions or other potential national security problems.
“To date, Revolution Wind has never received a notice or any indication that it has failed to coordinate with DOD regarding its offshore activities, or that the U.S. Navy or DOD has any concerns with the ongoing coordination,” LeBlanc stated.
It was after this filing that the justice overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, approved the preliminary injunction and lifted the stop-work order.
As long as offshore wind has existed there has been tension with the U.S. military over use of the sea, and it is true that turbines could hinder radar detection.
In 2011, the Defense Department established a “clearinghouse” to resolve any potential issues with ocean energy development of any kind, whether oil, gas, or wind power. The clearinghouse reviews more than 5,000 projects every year, and its activities include regular give and take with the Interior Department and Federal Aviation Administration. One of the many pieces of evidence Orsted submitted in the Revolution Wind case was a December 2024 letter from the clearinghouse stating the project “would not have adverse impacts to DOD missions in the area.”
Josh Kaplowitz, an environmental attorney who represents renewable energy companies including offshore wind developers, and who previously worked in the Interior Department solicitor’s office, told me: “There is not a single situation I am aware of where the Defense Department ever requested something and the approving agency said, ‘No, we’re going to do something else.’”
“There are some problems with coming in after the fact and coming up with post hoc national security rationalizations when the process of review was so rigorous,” Kaplowitz said.
Independent analysis has also cleared the military’s consultation with offshore wind permitting agencies of having any serious issues.
Earlier this year the Government Accountability Office — a quasi-independent watchdog under the control of Congress — released a detailed review of the offshore wind industry’s federal permitting process. The review was requested by one of the sector’s biggest adversaries in Congress, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, who has been heavily involved in fighting offshore wind development in his home state.
Smith, a Republican, ultimately celebrated the review’s publication because it pointed out certain ways offshore wind could impact radar detection and military readiness. IIn his public statements, however, the lawmaker left out a key detail of the report — that it raised no issues with interactions between the military and offices involved in greenlighting offshore wind projects. In fact, it went into great detail on the lengths researchers and government officials had gone toward solving these potential problems.
“We didn’t have any recommendations there,” Frank Russo, director of GAO’s natural resources department, told me in an interview. “It seemed like coordination was going well, that DOD was satisfied with what was going on, and if there were concerns they could be mitigated.”
Russo said that Defense officials had for years been involved in offshore wind leasing, meaning that military staff from the Navy and Coast Guard had already weighed in on potential safety and readiness problems before companies even knew where they were allowed to build, and certainly prior to the project-specific permitting stage.
“At the very start of it, they know where their main concerns are,” Russo said of the Defense Department’s role in offshore wind development.
The Interior Department normally declines to comment on pending litigation. But I still wanted to ask Interior to comment on the assertions from Russo that the Interior Department and military were previously not properly handling the security implications of offshore wind. It felt especially important to ask them about this because Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last month explained the Revolution Wind stop work order on national TV by claiming radar interference would leave the country vulnerable to “swarm attacks” from underwater drones.
Interior did not provide comment in time for publication.
Packed hearings. Facebook organizing. Complaints about prime farmland and a disappearing way of life. Sound familiar?
Solar and wind companies cite the rise of artificial intelligence to make their business cases after the United States government slashed massive tax incentives for their projects.
But the data centers supposed to power the AI boom are now facing the sort of swift wave of rejections from local governments across the country eerily similar to what renewables developers have been dealing with on the ground over the last decade. The only difference is, this land use techlash feels even more sudden, intense, and culturally diffuse.
What’s happening is simple: Data centers are now routinely being denied by local governments in zoning and permitting decisions after local residents turn against them. These aggrieved denizens organize grassroots campaigns, many with associated Facebook groups, and then flood city council and county commission hearings.
Just take this past week. Last Thursday, Prince George’s County, Maryland, paused all data center permitting after a campaign against converting an abandoned mall into a data center gained traction online, with a petition garnering more than 20,000 signatures. On Monday, faced with a ferocious public outcry, Google rescinded a proposal to build what would’ve been its second data center in Indiana in Franklin Township, a community in southeastern Indianapolis – a withdrawal requested mere minutes before the township council was reportedly going to reject it.
That same day, the rural Illinois town of DeKalb denied a solar company’s request to build a “boutique data center” on the same site as a previously-permitted solar farm. And on Tuesday, the small city of Howell – located smack between Lansing and Detroit, Michigan – denied a data center proposed by an anonymous Fortune 100 company. Apparently, so many people showed up to voice their opposition to the project that the hearing was held in a high school gymnasium.
Opponents cite many things in their arguments against development, some unique to the sector like energy and water use, and others familiar to the solar and wind industry, like preserving prime farmland or maintaining a way of life.
These arguments are incredibly salient, as polling conducted by Heatmap News has revealed: less than half of Americans would ever support a data center coming near them, and this technology infrastructure is less popular than any form of renewable energy. Digging into the cross-tabs of that poll, data centers are unpopular with essentially all age demographics, and arguments against the facilities – like “they use too much water” or “they consume too much electricity” – get relatively similar agreement from registered Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ben Inskeep, a clean energy advocate in Indianapolis, told me he started fighting data centers last year after he became aware of the total power needed to fuel the rising number of projects in the state. His advocacy organization, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, previously weighed in on rate hikes and electricity generation decisions. Now, they’re tracking more than 40 data center projects they say are proposed in the state and getting involved in the fight on the ground against them.
Inskeep told me that, from his point of view, the primary support for data centers comes from local governments and municipally-funded works like schools and health facilities that are facing slashed budgets. In some cases the projects are being rejected despite representing millions – even billions – in capital investments and potential tax revenues so large that municipal governments are put between a rock and a hard place as they’re pressured by a weakening economy and state funding cuts.
That’s what happened in Indianapolis. Earlier this month the school district that would’ve been funded by the now-rejected Google data center came out in support of the project, declaring it would welcome new tax revenue, and said it would also lead to new educational partnerships with the tech giant. But none of that mattered. Some local officials even lambasted their colleagues' support as unwarranted, a lashing out that reminds me of what happens to pro-solar officials in Ohio.
Heatmap News has been tracking contested data center projects since the spring of this year and has found almost 100 projects under development across the country that are being actively fought by local organizers, citizens advocacy groups, and environmental organizations. The data is preliminary and likely an undercount.
Still, there’s lots to glean from it. Crucially, as we’ve seen with renewable energy development, data center opposition crops up most often in tandem with the number of projects proposed and constructed. This is only logical: the more of something that is built in a place, the more likely people are to say, “We’ve built enough of that.” This is why Virginia is the top state when it comes to data centers being opposed – it’s a hub that’s seen development spike for far longer than elsewhere in the United States.
I believe that as data center project proposals continue to rise across the country, we’ll see in parallel rising hostility to their development – potentially much larger than anything renewable energy has ever faced. It will undoubtedly also be a problem for anyone in solar or wind who is riding on an AI boom to add demand for their projects.