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:
With the federal electric vehicle tax credit now gone, automakers like Ford and Hyundai have to find other ways to make their electric cars affordable.

We finally know what Tesla means by an “affordable” electric vehicle. On Tuesday, the electric automaker revealed the stripped-down, less-fancy “Standard” version of its best-selling Model Y crossover and Model 3 sedan. These EVs will sell for several thousand dollars less than the existing versions, which are now rebranded as “Premium.”
These slightly cheaper Ys and 3s aren’t exactly the $25,000 baby Tesla that many fans and investors have anticipated for years. But the announcement is an indication of where the electric vehicle market in the United States may be headed now that the $7,500 federal tax credit for purchasing an EV is dead and gone. Automakers have spent the past few months rejiggering their lineups and slashing prices as much as they can to make sure sales don’t crater without the federal incentive.
The impending end of the tax credit on September 30 helped propel Tesla to record sales numbers in the third quarter of 2025. It was a stark reversal from months of disappointing sales stemming from factors like increased competition and Elon Musk’s political antics that alienated potential buyers. Money talks, of course; Tesla sent me a blitz of emails to make sure I didn’t forget what a good deal I could get before September’s end. But now, with the deadline passed, Musk’s company needed a new shot in the arm to stop sales from falling off a cliff.
The budget Teslas are, indeed, lesser vehicles. They have simpler headlights, less power, and less range than the now-Premium versions. They even come in fewer colors. But the prices — $40,000 for a Model Y Standard and $37,000 for a Model 3 Standard — effectively mirror what those cars would have cost if the tax credit were still in place. In other words, you can still buy a Tesla in the $35,000 to $40,000 range. It just won’t be as good a Tesla as you used to be able to get for the money.
The tax credit deadline had looked like one that would demarcate two distinct EV eras, with October 1 acting as the beginning of new, less-affordable time. But it turns out things aren’t quite so black and white. Lots of automakers are experimenting with ways to soften the financial blow for those who still want to get into an EV. After all, there’s always a loophole.
For example, as the September tax credit deadline approached, Reuters reported on a scheme orchestrated by Ford and General Motors to allow the American car giants to keep the good times going by buying their own cars. It goes like this: Before the September 30 deadline, the financing arms of these big corporations began the process of purchasing a host of their own vehicles from their dealerships. By making the down payment before the end of September, Ford and GM qualified these vehicles for the federal tax benefit. (They even checked with the IRS to make sure this plot was legitimate, Reuters said.) They plan to pass on the savings by leasing those vehicles back to everyday Americans.
According to Car and Driver, a number of citizens did something similar to what the corporations devised — that is, some buyers made their first payments on EVs that won’t be delivered to them for weeks or months in order to qualify for the tax break. These shenanigans are for the short term, though. Ford and GM could pre-purchase only so many of their own vehicles, and Ford said this deal effectively extends the tax credit only another quarter, through the end of December.
The bigger question is whether the automakers can — or will — simply cut prices on their EVs to make the loss of federal incentives sting a little less.
That’s the plan at Hyundai. The Korean giant has announced an enormous price cut on its successful Ioniq 5, one that more than makes up for the vanishing federal incentive. The most basic version of that car will fall from $42,600 to $35,000, putting it on par with the Chevy Equinox EV that’s been a hit at that price. Fancier versions of the Ioniq 5 will fall by more than $9,000 for the 2026 model year. Hyundai and its partner Kia are offering some of the best October lease deals, too.
Other car companies have begun to follow suit. BMW will simply offer a $7,500 discount on its electric models for those who take delivery by the end of October. Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, and others, will do the same for electric sales through the end of the year. No word yet on what happens after these deals expire.
Incentives like the federal tax credit for EVs aren’t meant to last forever, of course. In theory, their purpose is to lift up a new technology until it can compete at scale with the tech that has been around forever.
Whether electric cars have reached that point is a contentious question. Ford has only just announced a roadmap to overhaul its entire EV production system in order to stop losing billions on electric vehicles. Hyundai’s EVs are profitable — or, at least they were before the Trump administration began monkeying with tax incentives and tariffs. A batch of more affordable EVs are on the way, though the ever-changing map of tariffs makes it unclear exactly how much they’ll cost when they finally arrive.
The short-term picture may well be that electric cars continue to be a loss leader for some automakers still trying to find their footing in the space. Whether their shareholders will tolerate this long enough for the margins to become sustainable — well, that’s the real question.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Party orthodoxy is no longer serving the energy transition, the Breakthrough Institute’s Seaver Wang and Peter Cook write.
President Trump has announced a dizzying array of executive branch led critical mineral policies since taking office again last year. While bombastically branded as new achievements, many elements from critical mineral tariffs to strategic stockpiling to Defense Production Act financing trace back to bipartisan recommendations and programs spanning the past several administrations.
Many Democrats in Congress, however, are stuck on the defensive. During a recent House Natural Resources hearing, for instance, Washington Representative Yassamin Ansari singled out the SECURE Minerals Act, a bipartisan proposal for a strategic minerals reserve, as “a framework ripe for fraud, corruption, and abuse.” Yet the draft bill actually contains strong safeguards: Senate confirmation of board members, annual independent audits, public tracking and annual reporting to Congress, conflict-of-interest prohibitions, and more.
In another House oversight hearing considering the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, California’s Maxine Waters expressed concern over President Trump’s mere contact with mineral producing countries in Africa, asking simply, “What is he doing?” The President of EXIM responded by reminding Waters of the bank’s charter to engage in sub-Saharan Africa.
In both cases, distrust of the administration and Republican lawmakers seems to have blinded Democrats to a larger strategic goal: building a secure critical mineral supply chain. Democrats who want to strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness and cultivate domestic clean technology sectors cannot afford to engage in partisan posturing at the expense of real policymaking. Nor can they afford to waste time — America’s vulnerabilities loom too large to wait until Trump leaves the White House.
Doing so will require Democrats to embrace certain positions that are at odds with recent party orthodoxy. First, they must accept the basic math that both the U.S. and the world will need new mine production and support incentives and regulatory reform for new critical minerals projects, not just recycling, re-mining, and substitution. And second, they must admit that mining projects in the U.S. and in democratically-governed partner countries offer a far better foundation for achieving high environmental and social standards than the currently dominant production routes for many raw materials today.
A recent hearing question from Texas Representative Christian Menefee hints at the risks of overly narrow minerals policy: “Should byproduct recovery be the first priority before we open up a single new mine?" While advocacy organizations and academic researchers have lately argued that operating mines dig up enough minerals to meet U.S. needs yet are currently neglecting to recover them, such analyses only consider the theoretical potential of extracting every element present in mined rock, not technical feasibility. Feasible recovery will be the exception, not the rule. Efforts to produce lithium as a byproduct from a copper-gold deposit might confront concentrations of under 20 parts per million, relative to concentrations at U.S. lithium mines currently under development that range from around 850 to 2,000 parts per million. Compared to cobalt concentrations of 2,400 parts per million at the Jervois Idaho Cobalt mine, Alaska’s large Red Dog zinc mine might boast 39 to 149 parts per million. For many elements, recovery would require new, first-of-a-kind extraction equipment consuming added water, energy, and chemical reagents — akin to burning a barn to fry an egg.
Recycling, too, is a meaningful category of solutions but ultimately limited. For instance, improved batteries and solar panels with longer service lives delay the point at which significant flows of materials become available for recycling. An increasing number of batteries and solar modules may also be redirected towards second-life use markets — electric vehicle batteries repurposed as electric grid storage assets, for example — diverting even more materials from recycling facilities.
To put such constraints into numbers, growing grid storage battery cell manufacturing capacity in the U.S. may surpass 96 gigawatt-hours by the end of this year, requiring over 17,000 tons of lithium content — alone equivalent to half of all worldwide lithium consumption in 2015. China’s tightening of rare earth export restrictions last year forced one of Ford’s auto plants to pause operations, and the shift to electric vehicles will only drive U.S. rare earths demand higher. The U.S. alone produced around 1 million EVs last year, relative to total auto manufacturing of 12 million to 14 million vehicles per year.
Even modest domestic manufacturing goals of 10 gigawatts of wind turbines and 2 million electric vehicles per year would require at least 100 tons of dysprosium and praseodymium, heavy rare earth elements that the U.S. is only just beginning to produce from recycling efforts and its sole operating mine. Globally, the International Energy Agency estimates that successful recycling expansion could avert around 5% to 30% of new mining activity, depending on the commodity.
The math is unforgiving. We need more minerals, and we need them soon.
For years, progressives have critiqued current U.S. mining regulations as antiquated and inadequate, insisting that standards governing existing mines expose marginalized communities to unacceptable impacts. While understandably reflecting past harms inflicted by mining prior to the enactment of stronger laws and regulations in the 1970s and 1980s, such a position exposes lawmakers to an uncomfortable contradiction: If modern mining and refining are structurally problematic industries, then not only must U.S. lawmakers advocate for improved industry standards domestically, logic dictates that they also use trade policies and international frameworks to penalize the unjust economic advantages benefiting irresponsible producers globally. The sum total of such actions might well slow the country’s transition to clean energy as opposed to speeding it.
Activist narratives that U.S. mining regulations offer the mining industry a smash-and-grab free-for-all obviously conflict with the reality that domestic mining has long been viewed as borderline uninvestible, with the U.S. seeing a 70% decrease in the number of active metal mines over the last 40 years. Insisting that more public engagement, extracting higher royalties to fund community projects, and quartering off certain areas with mineral potential for conservation will speed U.S. mining projects by neutralizing community opposition must consider how such high-cost projects can survive in a global market. China produces 10 times more graphite, rare earths, and polysilicon than the next largest producing country — and not by excelling at public engagement and community benefits-sharing. Continuing to indulge such domestic-only remonstrations will solve none of the nation’s supply challenges.
Meanwhile, efforts by both the Trump and Biden administrations are already driving progress towards improved recycling and utilization of unconventional wastes and resources. Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funded numerous programs to produce new critical minerals without new mining, including Department of Energy grants to equip operating facilities with byproduct recovery systems, new mapping programs from the United States Geological Survey to locate historic mines with viable levels of critical minerals in abandoned wastes, and a Rare Earth Elements Demonstration Facility program at the Department of Energy to prioritize the use of waste as a feedstock. The Trump administration has continued to issue notices for IIJA-funded, waste resource, and recycling-focused opportunities into 2026. In short, maximization of byproduct potential, recycling, and remining is already established bipartisan policy.
Above all, Democrats must capitalize on the chance to start alleviating national critical mineral constraints now, in the middle of a Trump presidency, to position the U.S. industrial base to produce impressive economic and technological results in 2028 and beyond. Trump will depart the Oval Office in less than three years, whereas U.S. critical minerals strategy must play out over the next five to 10. Passing up promising opportunities today in the name of scoring short-term political points serves neither the nation’s best interests nor those of the Democratic Party.
Over the next two years, critical minerals policy offers rare bipartisan opportunities to supercharge innovation and build projects that will not only produce strategic materials but also solutions for cleaner industrial processes. In most cases, new U.S. production will already be less carbon-intensive than the global average. Meanwhile, federal policy support will foster U.S. process engineering know-how that might ultimately drive long-term breakthroughs in transformative cleaner solutions.
All of that said, policymakers must also balance environmental and innovation ambitions against realistic expectations and resist the temptation to chase only fully clean projects. For now, truly zero-carbon metals produced using green hydrogen or other novel techniques remain dramatically more expensive than metals produced with the most cost-efficient mix of energy inputs and feedstocks. Depending on the sector, domestic industries that have first achieved scale and rebuilt domestic expertise may position America better for catalyzing such shifts.
Cost competitive industries, after all, are also key for advancing Democratic priorities. More favorable costs for U.S.-produced critical materials and increasingly secure upstream secure supply chains will help make U.S.-manufactured technologies such as electric vehicles, solar modules, and electrolyzers more competitive. Responsible production capacity that is operating at scale will increase bargaining power for pressuring irresponsible producers overseas to reform, while creating new markets for American raw materials among principled partners and corporate offtakers.
Miners and metallurgists deserve an equal place of honor in the energy transition economy alongside rooftop solar installers and electricians, and such heavy industry workers can help rebuild a stronger U.S. labor movement.
But the risk of squandering such long-term opportunities is real. During the Biden administration, progressives reflexively fielded proposals that would add regulatory burdens and make mining more difficult — proposals which largely went nowhere. Meanwhile, the bipartisan Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — one of the few specific regulatory reforms proposed for the mining sector to date — still has not passed since its introduction in 2023. The current version is stalled over the inclusion of provisions that would redirect mining administrative fees to cleaning up abandoned mines. Remediating legacy sites is an important federal government obligation, but the quid pro quo calculus of extracting concessions for simple regulatory reforms both complicates their passage while also procrastinating standalone measures to address abandoned mines.
Certainly, the current political moment could not be more charged. Another recent House Natural Resources hearing on oversight ended abruptly after Oregon Representative Maxine Dexter moved to subpoena Donald Trump, Jr. over concerns that administration financial support favored mineral companies in which he was invested. This episode highlights the challenge for Democrats — holding the federal government accountable to the U.S. public while simultaneously working to address the country’s critical mineral priorities.
This is less complicated than it sounds. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can agree on strong oversight provisions to ensure that programs prioritize the nation’s interests and achieve political longevity. Democrats should therefore lean in to their desired guardrails, be they mandatory public transparency, reviews of company history and project feasibility, or conflict-of-interest restrictions. Stronger congressional oversight and robust environmental and human rights safeguards are worthy Democratic goals, but advancing them requires that Congress do its job and legislate.
Current conditions: After a springy warm up, temperatures in Northeast cities such as Boston and Atlantic City are plunging back into the low 50 degrees Fahrenheit range for the rest of the week • In India, meanwhile, a northern heatwave is sending temperatures in Gujarat as high as 110 degrees today • The Pacific waters off California and Mexico are hitting record temperatures amid an historic marine heatwave.
Last month, following a string of legal defeats over his efforts to halt construction of offshore wind turbines through regulatory fiat, President Donald Trump tried something new: Paying developers to quit. The plan worked: French energy giant TotalEnergies agreed to abandon its two offshore wind farms in exchange for $1 billion from the federal government, with the promise that it would reinvest that money in U.S. oil and gas development. Reporting by Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo later showed that the legal reasoning behind the federal government's cash offer was shaky, and that the actual text of the agreement contained no definite assurances that the company would invest any more than it was already planning to. Last week, I told you that more deals were in the works, including with another French company, the utility Engie. Now the Trump administration has confirmed the rumors.
On Monday, the Department of the Interior announced plans to spend a little under $1 billion — a combined $885 million — to recoup the leasing costs developers already paid from a proposed wind farm off New Jersey and another off California. BlackRock-owned Global Infrastructure Partners “has committed” to reinvest up to $765 million into a U.S.-based liquified natural gas project. In exchange, the Interior Department said it will cancel the firm’s lease for the Bluepoint Wind offshore project in federal waters off New Jersey and New York “and reimburse the company’s bid payment in the amount invested in the LNG project.” As part of the deal, Bluepoint Wind “has decided not to pursue any new offshore wind developments in the United States,” the agency said. Likewise, the floating wind farm developer Golden State Wind agreed to abandon its lease located in the federally designated Morro Bay Wind Energy Area located 20 miles off San Luis Obispo County. The company had hoped to build one of the first offshore wind facilities in California where the continental shelf drops off too steeply for the kinds of wind farms sited on the nation’s Atlantic coast. Under the deal, the developer can recover “approximately $120 million in lease fees after an investment has been made of an equal amount in the development of U.S. oil and gas assets, energy infrastructure, and/or LNG projects along the Gulf Coast.” As part of the agreement, Golden State has opted out of pursuing new offshore wind projects. In a statement, Michael Brown, the chief executive of Ocean Winds North America, credited for “the clarity they have provided with this decision and deal.” The 50% owner of both Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind added: “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners, and shareholders.”
The Department of Energy said Monday it will soon restart talks to pay out nearly $430 million in payments to American hydroelectric projects that were promised under a Biden-era program. The Trump administration paused the negotiations as the agency reorganized its hydro-related programs under the newly named Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright reassessed droves of investments his predecessors made into clean energy projects. The funding aims to support 293 projects at 212 facilities through a program to maintain and enhance the nation’s fleet of dams. “American hydropower is a key component of this Administration’s vision for an affordable, reliable energy system,” Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson said in a statement. “These actions will modernize our hydropower fleet, bolster our domestic workforce, and bring us closer to realizing that vision.”

Hydropower is a renewable power source conservative critics of wind and solar tend to like because it operates 24/7 and provides large-scale, long-duration energy storage through pumped-storage systems. Similarly, commercializing fusion power, the so-called holy grail of clean energy, is another technological goal the Trump administration shares with advocates of a lower-carbon future. On Tuesday morning, Commonwealth Fusion Systems became the first fusion power plant developer to apply to join a major grid operator. By submitting its paperwork to link its generators to PJM Interconnection, the largest U.S. wholesale electricity market, Commonwealth Fusion is showing it’s “on track to connect to the electricity grid in time to deliver power in the early 2030s.” The company also announced that it had named the first 400-megawatt ARC power plant it’s building in Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Fall Line Fusion Power Station. The name is a reference to the geological boundary where Virginia’s elevated Piedmont region drops to the Tidewater coastal plain, creating rapids on the James River that Virginians historically built mills on to harness the power from falling water.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Xpansiv, the startup that manages a global exchange for trading carbon credits and renewable energy credits, has signed a deal to bring credits with precise data that allows buyers to match clean electricity consumption to generation on an hour-by-hour basis. The partnership with the software platform Granular Energy, which I can exclusively report for this newsletter, will allow buyers and sellers to access “high-integrity, time-stamped energy data with registry-issued energy attribute certificates through a single platform” for the first time. The push comes amid growing calls for tighter rules and more transparency to avoid greenwashing carbon credits as voluntary programs such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol draw scrutiny and the European Union’s world-first carbon tariff enters its fifth month of operation. “This integrated solution makes granular renewable energy more accessible and easier to manage for independent power producers, utilities, traders, brokers, and corporate buyers,” Russell Karas, Xpansiv’s senior vice president of strategic market solutions, told me in a statement.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Earlier this month, I told you that SunZia, the nation’s largest renewable energy project ever, had come online. The behemoth project, which included 3.5 gigawatts of wind turbines in New Mexico and 550 miles of transmission lines to funnel the electricity to Arizona’s fast-growing population centers, took just three years to build once construction began in 2023. But “the permitting process took nearly 17 years — almost six times as long,” in a sign of how “a broken permitting system has choked the infrastructure growth that underwrites American strength.” You’d be mistaken for thinking these words came from someone like Senator Martin Heinrich, the New Mexico Democrat and climate hawk who long championed SunZia and more transmission lines to bring renewables online, but told Heatmap’s Jael Holzman last December that he wouldn’t vote for anything that failed to boost renewables. But their author is actually Senator Tom Cotton, the right-wing firebrand Republican from Arkansas. In a Monday op-ed in The Washington Post, Cotton argued that the U.S. “needs more electricity to support data centers, modern manufacturing, defense infrastructure, and economic growth,” in addition to more “domestic access to critical minerals” and processing plants and “a stronger industrial base.” To make that happen, “the country first needs straightforward, enforceable permitting standards and fast, efficient construction,” he wrote. He called for overhauling landmark laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and establishing “a single agency” to “oversee permitting reviews with firm deadlines and a clear, coordinated decision process.”
The push comes as Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives propose restoring tax credits for wind, solar, and other clean energy technologies that were curtailed by One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The American Energy Dominance Act, introduced Thursday, would remove the accelerated deadlines that Trump’s landmark legislation last year placed on the renewable energy production tax credit, known as 45Y, and the 48E investment tax credits. It would, according to Utility Dive, also make similar changes to the 45V clean hydrogen production credit.
Last month, New York utility executives gathered at a luxury hotel in Miami and boasted about banding together to influence a new state policy that would limit when power companies can turn off customers’ electricity during heat waves because of unpaid bills. A day later, Albany unveiled the policy. Ratepayers in New York City in particular “lost meaningful safeguards,” Laurie Wheelock, the head of the watchdog Public Utility Law Project, told The New York Times. Under its previous agreement with the state, ConEdison, the utility that serves the five boroughs and Westchester, was barred from terminating service for non-payment the day before a 90-degree forecast, the day of, and two days after. The new policy prohibits shutoffs only on the day of the forecast.
Meanwhile, in Seattle, residents of King County are bracing for a double-digit rate hike on sewage service. Following years of modest increases, the Seattle Times reported, county officials proposed a 12.75% spike in sewer rates for next year as the municipality looks for ways to pay for $14 billion in infrastructure upgrades over the next decade. The problem? The famously rainy cultural and financial capital of the Pacific Northwest is facing worsening floods from atmospheric rivers.
In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Governor Josh Shapiro is taking yet another step to deal with ballooning electricity costs in PJM Interconnection. In a Monday afternoon post on X, he said he’s appointing a new special counsel for energy affordability to be “our newest watchdog to hold utility companies accountable when they try to jack up Pennsylvanians’ energy bills.” The Democrat, widely considered a top contender for his party’s presidential nomination in 2028, said the appointment “will support our efforts to lower costs and put money back in your pockets.”
Robotaxis are more likely to be EVs, and that’s not a coincidence.
Here in Los Angeles, the hot new thing in parenting is Waymo. One recent article argued that driverless electric vehicles have become the go-to solution for overscheduled parents who can’t be everywhere at once. No time to drive the kid to school dropoff or to practice? Hire a rideshare, preferably one without a potentially problematic human driver.
Perhaps it’s fitting that younger Americans, especially, are encountering electric cars in this way. Over the past few years, plenty of headlines have declared that teens and young adults have fallen out of love with the automobile; they’re not getting their driver’s licenses until later, if at all, and supposedly aren’t particularly keen on car ownership compared to their parents and grandparents. Getting around in a country built for the automobile leaves them more reliant on the rideshare industry — which, it so happens, is a place where the technological trends of electric and autonomous vehicles are rapidly converging.
This isn’t the way most people, myself included, talk about the EV revolution. That discourse typically runs through the familiar lens of our personal vehicles — which, it should be noted, Americans still lease or buy in the millions. In that light, EVs are struggling. Since buyers raced to scoop up electric cars in September before the federal tax credit lapsed, sales have slowed. Automakers have canceled or delayed numerous models and pivoted back to combustion engines or hybrids in response to the hostile Trump-era environment for selling EVs. While the world has carried on with electrification, America has backslid.
While all this was happening, however, the rideshare industry was accelerating in the opposite direction. Waymo’s fleet of autonomous vehicles is all-electric, currently made up of Jaguar I-Pace SUVs. Uber just invested more than $1 billion in Rivian as part of a plan to add thousands of the brand’s new R2 EVs to its fleet of electric robotaxis. Tesla’s moves are particularly telling. Elon Musk is still selling plenty of normal, human-driven Model Y and Model 3 EVs to make some money for the moment, but the company’s future prospects are all-in on the Cybercab, a two-seater robotaxi that would never be driven by a person. Who’d buy such a thing? Rideshare companies — or, perhaps, people see the Cybercab as a passive income machine that shuttles their neighbors around town whenever they’re not riding in it.
Human-driven rideshare fleets are quickly electrifying, too. Uber now allows riders to request an EV explicitly, an option that has been growing in popularity, especially as rising gas prices make electric rides more appealing. The company has been offering thousands of dollars of incentives to drivers who want to buy an EV, a program that expanded nationwide this month. EV-maker Fisker went bankrupt and folded, but its orphaned Ocean vehicles are roaming New York City as rideshare cars. Sara Rafalson of the charging company EVgo recently told me that rideshare already accounts for a quarter of the energy it distributes.
Yes, gasoline carries certain advantages for a taxi service — a gas-burning cab can drive all night with just momentary refueling stops, for example, whereas an EV must go out of commission during its occasional charging stops. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the rideshare industry is going electric.
That isn’t just because EVs have a futuristic vibe. There are technological reasons, too. Tesla and Rivian have designed their vehicles to be effectively smartphones on wheels, which makes them ideally suited for robotaxis. EVs have plenty of battery power on hand to meet all the computational demands of self-driving. Plus, electric power is particularly efficient for stop-and-go urban driving.
On the EV side, the business case for electric robotaxis is particularly compelling. One reason electric cars have struggled with everyday Americans is that it’s more difficult for an individual to stomach the higher upfront cost of an EV to enjoy its longer-term rewards. That’s less true for a business, whose accountants know EVs mean less long-term maintenance.
In the case of the rideshare economy, EVs are becoming the clear choice even though they’re owned by individual drivers. While the EV purchasing tax credit is gone for individuals, drivers can get financial help from a company like Uber to purchase an EV, which allows them to insulate themselves from the volatility of gas prices and reduce their regular maintenance schedule. They can also charge strategically around their taxi trips; robotaxi fleets often concentrate their recharging to the overnight hours when electricity is cheapest.
There is plenty of evidence that the “Gen Z doesn’t want to own cars” narrative is as reductive and oversimplified as you’d think. Younger generations are interested in cars — and in electric cars, in particular — but they’re often put off by the soaring costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle. As EV prices continue to fall, you can expect EV adoption to accelerate among Gen Z and millennial drivers.
In the meantime, those folks don’t have to buy an EV to join the EV age. It’s getting more and more likely that the car that drives you to the airport will be an EV — and more likely that riders will opt for electric if given the choice.