You’ve reached your free article limit
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 United Auto Workers’ contract with the Big Three automakers is almost up. Its replacement is going to be hotly contested.

One of the dirty little secrets of the electric vehicle boom is that many of its workers are paid less and enjoy fewer benefits than those who manufacture the nation’s gas guzzlers. But if unions have their way, that won’t be the case for long.
On September 14, the United Auto Workers' contract with the Big Three automakers — GM, Ford, and Stellantis — will expire. Negotiations for a new agreement are set to begin in July, and electric vehicle jobs will be a defining issue with potential to put the 380,000-member union on strike this fall. The union’s leadership team held a town hall late last month where they laid out the stakes.
“To be clear, I and the UAW leadership support this transition, but it must be a just transition,” said vice president of the union Mike Booth. “These must not only be union jobs, but they must be jobs that maintain the wages, benefits, and safety standards that generations of UAW members have fought for.”
So far, the industry has been trending in the opposite direction. Booth pointed to the Ultium battery cell manufacturing plant in Lordstown, Ohio, which is a joint venture between GM and LG. Workers there currently start at $16.50 per hour, and can work their way up to $20 per hour after seven years. That’s well below the $32 per hour that union workers made at a nearby GM assembly plant that closed in 2019. “Meanwhile the company is receiving billions in government subsidies. This is not a just transition, and this is not an acceptable standard to set,” said Booth.
The Big Three are facing pressure to keep EV costs down amid inflation, materials scarcity, and increasing competition from international automakers — particularly from China. They also must contend with the fact that workers for other preeminent players in the nascent industry — Tesla and Rivian — aren’t unionized, although movements are cropping up to change that. While Elon Musk argues Tesla pays its workers more than their unionized counterparts, his company has been accused of serious labor violations and the National Labor Relations Board has ruled it illegally fired a worker involved in labor organizing.
The upcoming negotiations are a bellwether for many on the left's belief that the transition to clean energy can and should “create millions of good, high-wage jobs.” But as Booth’s remark suggests, union members aren’t just frustrated with the automakers, but with Biden. His signature climate policy, the Inflation Reduction Act, has begun fueling the growth of a domestic electric vehicle manufacturing industry with billions of dollars in incentives and little support for organized labor.
According to a database of clean manufacturing announcements maintained by Jack Conness, a policy analyst at the nonprofit Energy Innovation, companies have announced upwards of $70 billion in investments in U.S. battery and electric vehicle manufacturing since the law was passed.
The IRA has been hailed by labor advocates for including wage and apprenticeship requirements for many of its subsidies. But those provisions are geared at construction jobs, not manufacturing jobs. For example, while automakers must pay prevailing wages and hire apprentices to build their battery factories in order to qualify for the full “Advanced Energy Project Credit,” they do not have to make similar commitments to the workers who will actually make the batteries.
The only relevant labor requirements for those workers came in federal guidance on the tax credit for the manufacturing of clean energy parts that was published last month. It noted that the Internal Revenue Service would only consider projects recommended by the Department of Energy. That agency must base its endorsements on a set of criteria that includes having a “clear and appropriately robust plan” to engage with labor unions.
These kinds of provisions, like requiring developers to put their plans for workforce and community engagement in their applications, may help give unions a leg up. David Madland, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal D.C. policy think tank, pointed to the recent unionization of the Blue Bird electric school bus factory in rural Georgia. The company received funding from the EPA that required it to be “committed to remain neutral in any organizing campaign.”
“The Biden administration is doing a lot to ensure the jobs created by industrial policy are good jobs,” Madland told me in an email. “But more work needs to be done.”
Recently-elected insurgent president of the UAW Shawn Fain sent a memo to the union’s 380,000 members in early May warning that the shift to EVs was “at serious risk of becoming a race to the bottom.” He stated that the union would not endorse Biden for re-election until he does more to support labor standards in the transition.
It’s not yet clear whether the transition to EVs will result in a net loss or gain of manufacturing jobs. Industry studies have noted that electric vehicles have fewer parts, and will therefore require fewer workers, than internal combustion engine vehicles. Ford CEO Jim Farley made waves in November when he said the job required 40% less labor, a statistic that echoes a similar warning by the UAW back in 2020
But some researchers and analysts have contested the idea. Carnegie Mellon engineers analyzed production data from leading automotive manufacturers and found that although EVs have fewer parts, their components collectively require more labor-hours than conventional vehicle parts. But the researchers note that despite this, the shift to electric vehicles could still lead to job losses in certain regions depending on where companies choose to locate new battery factories.
While the IRA has seemingly given automakers enough incentives not to move these facilities abroad, many of them are building their plants in southern states where organized labor has always struggled to gain a foothold.
Outside analysts predict the negotiations will break down and lead to a strike. Four years ago, when the union went on strike against GM for 40 days during the last round of negotiations, it cost the company $3.6 billion. Workers lost nearly $1 billion in wages.
UAW leadership began to prepare its members for that possibility during its town hall last month.
“I want to be clear on this, and I know this might sound crazy, but the choice of whether or not we go on strike is up to the Big Three,” said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock. “We are clear about what we want.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Churning off Mexico’s west coast, Tropical Storm Vance is strengthening into the 11th major hurricane to hit the eastern Pacific this year • A magnitude 7 earthquake that struck a remote corner of northeast Tibet killed at least 18 people and injured dozens more • A series of offshore storms in the Atlantic are hammering the East Coast with dangerous swells.
President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Thursday declaring that imported wind turbines and their parts “threaten to impair the national security of the United States,” affirming the findings of an investigation the Department of Commerce opened last summer. But the White House stopped short of imposing the tariffs the agency recommended. It’s tempting, of course, to interpret the White House’s decision to punt on tariffs as a concession to win Democratic votes in Congress for the bipartisan infrastructure deal. In keeping with Trump’s famously chaotic negotiating style, the Department of Justice in the past week reopened permitting decisions on two major offshore wind farms while the Pentagon advanced two of the droves of onshore wind projects amid the bureaucratic blockade that has stymied the sector for months.
But a source with direct knowledge of the White House’s thinking told me Trump made his proclamation Thursday to meet a statutory 90-day deadline between the release of the Commerce Department’s findings in its Section 232 investigation. If Trump failed to acknowledge the conclusions of the probe within that three-month notice period, the source said, the president would lose the legal right to act on the findings. Instead, the proclamation represents what the source called “the minimum viable product” to maintain the option to impose tariffs based on the Commerce Department investigation at a later date. Trump followed a similar approach in July, when he declined to impose tariffs on imported aircraft parts despite the threat the administration warned the foreign dependence posed.

Chinese turbine companies already dominate the global wind industry. But as firms such as Goldwind and Mingyang Smart Energy make a push into the European market, where countries are increasingly building out turbines to ease demand for fossil fuels, Beijing is ordering its Chinese companies to stick to Chinese-made parts. Until now, Chinese turbine companies relied on components made in Europe and elsewhere. But an investigation published this week by Poland’s state-backed Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich found that Chinese utilities are racing to replace foreign technology with domestic alternatives in hundreds of operating wind farms. The Warsaw-based think tank, known in English by the acronym OSW or as the Centre for Eastern Studies, analyzed 1,686 wind-sector procurement documents issued by Chinese utilities and their subsidiaries, “and found 293 that call for foreign technology to be replaced with Chinese alternatives, or impose domestic-localization requirements on new installations.” Of these, 251 covered replacements for wind farms that are currently online, and 42 imposed domestic requirements on new installations. That “localization drive,” OSW noted, includes grid equipment, solar panels, batteries, and coal-fired power plants.
The localization drive doesn’t stem from any one government mandate, “It works through a collection of opaque administrative measures, which is why procurement records are the place to uncover it,” OSW wrote. “But those records sit on fragmented platforms and older notices are often deleted, so what follows is the visible portion of something likely larger. Wind is also one area among many.” So, why focus on wind? “Europe has not yet decided how to treat Chinese suppliers in this sector,” the organization argued. “Chinese manufacturers are just beginning to establish a presence in the European market, while Europe is actively debating the conditions that should apply to their access. China’s treatment of foreign suppliers therefore has direct relevance for European debates over the future of the economic and trade relationship.” While Poland is internally divided in a culture war that many Americans would find recognizable, the country has long found unity in its skepticism of Europe’s embrace of Russian gas throughout the opening decades of this century. That proved to be keen foresight, as we all learned when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine in 2022. So when a country that’s rapidly building out wind power both on and offshore raises concern over Beijing’s grip over a supply chain, it’s worth paying attention.
Last year, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense established new programs to help startups developing novel nuclear reactors build prototypes and run tests, with several companies splitting atoms for the first time earlier this year. Now the data collected from those trial runs can count on the companies’ formal applications for commercial licenses. On Thursday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission finalized a rule allowing reactor developers who took part in those programs to apply their results, saving potentially millions of dollars by avoiding steps already approved by other federal experts. While the rule amends two of the main licensing pathways for reactors — known as Parts 50 and 53 — to allow information gathered at the Energy Department and the Pentagon to count, companies must “still demonstrate compliance with NRC requirements” and point out the differences between the demonstration project and a proposed commercial plant. Describing it as an “expedited path” for alumni of the other agencies’ programs, NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said “high-quality applications showing how DOE and DOW results apply to NRC requirements will help us review them more efficiently.” The move is part of a shift at the NRC that began before Trump returned to office. Former President Joe Biden signed the ADVANCE Act into law in 2024, explicitly directing the NRC to broaden its mission to include weighing both the risk of building nuclear reactors and not constructing them. Trump accelerated the change with executive orders calling on the NRC to speed up approvals for new reactors. He also tightened his control over the agency by successfully challenging the traditional interpretation of the agency’s independence to mean that presidents can appoint new commissioners but not fire existing ones in the middle of their terms.
Finland, meanwhile, just permitted the world’s first permanent repository for nuclear waste. I visited the facility in western Finland, known as Onkalo, back in 2022. Dug more than 1,300 feet into the bedrock that geologists say hasn’t moved in billions of years, the site has already inspired Sweden and Canada to pursue similar projects. The U.S., on the other hand, is moving away from its long stalled plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Instead, it’s embracing technology to reprocess spent fuel into fresh fuel. That isn’t to say there aren’t some key links between nuclear industries on opposite sides of the Atlantic. A subsidiary of Canada’s Ontario Power Generation, the state-owned utility in the country’s most populous province that’s building the first small modular reactor in North America, just inked a deal to develop that same technology in the United Kingdom, World Nuclear News reported. All good news for Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former California governor and clean energy advocate told the Financial Times on Thursday that he wants more nuclear power to “terminate pollution.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Copper is hitting record highs as the U.S. stockpiles the metal and Chile’s mine output contracts. Aluminum is dealing with the shock of the Iran War shutting down a key smelter. Nickel is facing new export restrictions from Indonesia, the world’s top supplier. The lithium shortage is driving demand for hundreds of billions in new investment. That’s the backdrop of the global mineral market right as the artificial intelligence boom is adding new demand, according to a report the consultancy Wood Mackenzie published Thursday. “Data centers represent an economy-wide power infrastructure challenge, but the bigger story is the collision between accelerating demand and increasingly complex supply delivery,” Lindsay Grant, Wood Mackenzie’s vice president of metals and mining research, said in the report. “High prices should trigger investment, yet project sanctioning remains below expectations. Without faster approvals and investment commitments, the industry cannot deliver the mine supply needed to support future growth.”

Market chaos is driving long- and short-term shortages abound. U.S. refineries are working overtime to meet soaring gas prices. The facilities averaged more than 95% of capacity from May to September, the highest output for those months since 1998, according to an analysis the U.S. Energy Information Administration published Thursday. During a speech in Iowa on Thursday night, Trump said he would direct $150 million in Defense Production Act money toward beefing up refineries further.
The Commerce Department is investing $175 million into the fusion startup Helion. The company — which the Financial Times described as a “speculative” venture backed by Josh Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law; conservative tech billionaire Peter Thiel; and OpenAI founder Sam Altman — will receive the funding from a pool of money the agency had leftover from the CHIPS Act. In exchange, the U.S. government will take an equivalent non-voting equity stake. The deal marks the Commerce Department’s largest commitment yet to a single company in the sector.
The Israeli government, meanwhile, is looking to ramp up its investments into fusion. On Thursday, Israel’s Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure published what The Jerusalem Post described as a strategic report detailing the opportunity to invest now in a fusion market that could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades. Israel has long eschewed fission energy, as establishing a traditional civilian nuclear program would invite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scrutiny of the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal, which Jerusalem has long refused to confirm. But the decision by U.S. regulators to treat fusion reactors like research and medical reactors rather than fission power plants could set the stage for laxer global oversight of the technology in the future.
With war tragically raging on between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon’s south, financing utility-scale solar and wind projects has proven difficult. The first large solar farm is poised to begin construction before the end of the year. But Lebanon’s small-scale distributed solar is booming. In 2020, Renewables Now reported, the country had less than 100 megawatts of peak solar generating capacity installed. Now that figure has risen to 1.5 gigawatts, the Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation told the trade publication. Even before the war, Lebanon’s grid repeatedly failed, spurring Lebanese to install more rooftop solar panels and batteries to keep the lights on.
Jason Fenske loved his Lucid. Or at least, the idea of it.
Fenske is the proprietor of the influential Engineering Explained channel on YouTube, which digs into the mechanical minutiae of both combustion and electric vehicles. While he regularly test-drives all sorts of cars, Fenske last year bought himself a Lucid Air, the big, beautiful sedan from the California EV startup.
The choice was no surprise. Fenske called the Air “one of the most impressive feats of engineering in the automotive world.” Technologically, it is indeed a car without compromise. Despite delivering 600-plus horsepower and a 0-60 mph time of barely more than 3 seconds, it was also the most efficient car in America, a fact that helped push its driving range above 400 miles per charge. But after a year of Fenske’s Air struggling with seemingly incurable software glitches, the company bought back his car and gave him a long-term loan of the Gravity, its new electric SUV. When that, too, suffered software bugs, he finally moved on to a Ford.
The episode encapsulates what has been a trying time for the automaker. Alongside Tesla and Rivian, Lucid looked to be the third successful EV startup to spring out of California. Tesla, once it overcame the trials of “manufacturing hell” to produce the Model 3 and Model Y, seized control of the American EV market and has yet to let go. Rivian, buoyed through the bad years by investments from the likes of Volkswagen and Amazon, appears poised to reach a sustainable future now that the more affordable R2 is out and thriving. Lucid, though, is stuck in an earlier stage in startup evolution — reportedly burning through cash as it struggles with both the software side of its vehicles and with the state of the U.S. EV market. The mood grew so grim this summer that the company announced a full operational reset to try to restore investor confidence, which included CEO Peter Rawlinson, formerly the man in charge of the Tesla Model S, stepping down.
Things started off much more promising in 2021, when the Air established Lucid as the efficiency nerd’s EV. Today, the rear-wheel-drive version gets the equivalent of 146 miles per gallon — tops in the U.S., and good enough for the Air to get 420 miles of range. The most expensive Air, with a supersized battery to match, delivers an eye-popping figure of 512 miles.
The obvious next step for the American market is to build an SUV, which Lucid has done with the Gravity. We tested it this past weekend in a seven-seat configuration, ferrying five people and three dogs up to Oak Glen, California, the mountain town of apple orchards and pumpkin patches where Angelenos come to cosplay autumn. (Bibi, one of the four-legged passengers who doesn’t care for cars, loved the Lucid). Despite its length, which gives it the proportions of a svelte minivan, the Gravity’s ample power makes it drive like a lighter vehicle. And despite its size, the Lucid’s efficiency obsession gives the car 400-plus miles of range, allowing us to drive a three-hour round trip and still have half the battery capacity left over. I can’t tell you how luxurious that feels compared to everyday life in a standard-range Tesla Model 3.
Inside, the Gravity is truly deluxe and inviting. Where Tesla embraced a fully minimalist interior and Rivian projects more of an REI, gentrified outdoorsy aesthetic, Lucid tilts more toward being the electric black car. The sprawling curved screen across the dashboard and secondary large touchscreen in the central console, combined with the elegant approach to its UI, is just so much more sophisticated than what you’d see in a legacy carmaker’s EV.
The setup offers a refined way to use all the car’s basic functions like climate, music, and navigation, as well as search for charging stations and view all of the car’s energy and efficiency stats. The array of settings and options allows an EV enthusiast to tweak a thousand things about their car. Take charge planning on road trips, a sore spot I often gripe about: In the Lucid, a bevy of options lets you select and deselect whichever charging networks you want, tell the computer whether to prioritize total time versus number of charging stops, and lots more. Then there are the premium extras meant to justify the Gravity’s price, which starts at $80,000 and rises from there. Wellness and relaxation programs can take over the digital displays and lighting, transforming the cabin into a little spa on wheels for as long as you’d like. The car simply feels like Silicon Valley affluence.
Within that user experience lies the problem, though. Lucid’s EVs are unquestionably mechanically excellent. But in the age of the software-defined car, all the software has to be excellent, too. Fenske’s Air wasn’t the only Lucid beset by bugs. This is an unavoidable fact of life in the 21st century — Tesla and Rivian have certainly had their share — but Lucid appears to have struggled more to cleanse them. Even my test unit would erroneously flash a momentary warning while I was rolling down the freeway (close latch before driving!) that disappeared just as quickly. It made no real difference to the driving experience, yet it’s one of those tiny glitches that saps one’s confidence in a car whose software is also responsible for keeping you safe.
Set aside software woes, and the timeline is troublesome for Lucid, too. Tesla established a pattern for EV startups: it built the very expensive Model S and X first, making just enough revenue from those pricey halo cars to survive until it could build the more affordable Model 3 and Y and generate a reliable revenue stream. Rivian took a similar path, selling R1 pickups and SUVs that cost $70,000, and sometimes much more, before introducing the R2 this year. Lucid’s smaller and cheaper EVs would be called the Cosmos and Earth, but we’ve yet to see those vehicles, and they won’t arrive until at least next year. When they do show up, they’ll have to compete with an improving set of luxury EVsfrom the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Once those $50,000 Lucids exist, far more drivers will be exposed to all the things that the brand does right. And maybe — as long as there’s enough investment cash to get there — that will establish Lucid as a brand that is here to stay. Until then, the sticker price of these dream machines means that Lucid is competing in a small slice of an already small market, since not even a year of expensive gas has been enough to tip Americans toward EVs for good.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has a fascinating story today about Net Power, an energy and power development company whose technology once seemed key to decarbonizing the country’s electricity grid.
When Net Power went public in 2023, it was working on a natural gas-burning power plant that would generate little to no emissions in part by using carbon capture and storage. Its invention seemed to have big implications, and not just for the company’s bottom line: Back then, the Environmental Protection Agency was drafting climate rules that would have required new natural gas plants built in the 2030s to capture their carbon dioxide emissions. Net Power’s technology seemed like one of the best available ways to meet that standard.
Cut to 2026, and the world looks different. Thanks to the artificial intelligence boom, electricity demand is surging. But Net Power hasn’t successfully commercialized its proprietary power plant technology. Even if it had, few companies are willing to pay the high premium required by Net Power’s technology, especially when cheaper options are available. And the government certainly isn’t going to require it. Emily’s story reveals what happened next.
When I helped start Heatmap more than three years ago, I never thought I would write this much about data centers. I believed that electricity demand growth was inevitable, sure, and I thought the U.S. power grid had to expand for the country to decarbonize. But I didn’t foresee such a staggering near-term surge in electricity demand. (To be fair, even long-time students of the computing industry’s energy use didn’t see the coming increase, either.)
What I didn’t anticipate — or understand — were two fast-moving trends. The first was that the AI models were responding to scale: the more text or images they consumed, or training they received, or (crucially) computational power they had access to, the better they got. The second was that Wall Street was happy to pay to continue that speedy scale-up. As long as models kept getting better, investors were willing to keep lending or investing more money to the companies making them. Through the power of those two scaling functions, the data center boom became one of the biggest infrastructure buildouts in American history.
In recent days, the second of those trends has started to falter. After a surprisingly hot inflation report last week, and a disclosure on Wednesday evening that Meta has gone free cash flow negative to finance its ongoing AI buildout, stocks with any proximity to AI or data centers stumbled on Wall Street today. The data center developer Coreweave and independent power producer Vistra were each down about 10%, while Microsoft, Alphabet, and Nvidia all fell in daily trading. Meta’s stock lost almost 7% of its value; GE Vernova, which produces gas turbines, was down 10%.
These declines look more significant when you zoom out. Since late June, a good chunk of the AI portfolio has sagged into the red. Coreweave’s stock is down 54% over the past six months. Alphabet and GE Vernova have also posted declines since the summer. (The trend isn’t uniform: Nvidia and Microsoft are still very much in the green.)
None of this, to be sure, guarantees that the AI boom is ending or even slowing down. But this finance-applied friction is what such a slowdown could look like. Investors aren’t (yet) saying that AI is a business dud, to be clear, just that companies perhaps don’t need to go and construct all this stuff so fast. And given what the data center buildout has meant for energy construction — not to mention greenhouse gas emissions — that’s a trend nobody in climate or energy can ignore.
Editor’s note: This article originally misstated Vistra’s core business. It has been corrected. We regret the error.