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:
Corpus Christi is on the verge of running out of water. Stopping it would take a disaster.

Even in its frontier days, when it was a camp for General Zachary Taylor’s forces defending the border of newly annexed Texas, there was barely enough water in Corpus Christi to go around. The Tejanos, Americanos, and old Spanish ranchers crazy (or unlucky) enough to settle on the edge of this growing empire survived by drinking from arroyos, cisterns, and foul, sulphuric wells. The native Karankawa people lived nomadically to avoid straining the region’s streams, springs, and shallow groundwater resources.
You can follow Corpus’ subsequent history through the twists and turns of what historian Alan Lessoff calls the “endless search for a larger and more adequate water supply” in his book Where Texas Meets the Sea: Corpus Christi and Its History — the damming of local rivers, the failure of those dams, massive Depression-era reservoir projects, groundwater running dry, the consolidation of regional water districts, an expensive project to pipe in fresh water from 100 miles away, an even more expensive project to produce it on the spot. Take your pick of cities west of the 98th meridian: Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles. They’ve all followed similar beats.
But Corpus — never a superlative city, a chip on its shoulder that goes back to Taylor’s time — is now close to the inglorious distinction of becoming the first American metropolis to run out of water. Though it’s located on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, its fresh water reservoirs sit at less than 10% of their total capacity; Day Zero will arrive in November unless there’s 20 to 30 inches of rainfall before then. Those are hurricane numbers, an unsettling thing upon which to hang one’s hope.
But that’s what desperation does. You hope for the second-worst thing because it’s better than the alternative.
The first sign that something had gone very wrong in Corpus Christi came in 2016. Over the course of 10 months — in July 2015, September 2015, and May 2016 — the city issued 22 days’ worth of water-boil notices for possible E. coli contamination, low chlorine levels, and the presence of indicator bacteria suggesting low disinfectant levels. The water quality problems appeared to stem from restrictions Corpus officials had ordered during a recent drought, when low flow through old pipes can create “dead zones” for bacteria to grow between the treatment plants and home taps.
Then came December 14, 2016. Late in the evening, the city issued the strictest water advisory yet for its 317,000 residents — a “do not use” order stemming from a corrosive chemical that had leaked into the town’s water supply due to backflow from a local asphalt plant. The notice, which pertained to everything from drinking water to tooth-brushing and showering, lasted for four days.
“Our group connected at an emergency meeting and committed to start learning as much as we could about the city’s water policies and problems,” Isabel Araiza, the co-founder of For the Greater Good, a grassroots organization focused on protecting Corpus Christi’s water supply, told me. “I really had not been paying attention prior to that.”
It turned out the chemical leak was only the tip of the iceberg. City officials in the 1920s and 1930s had recognized Corpus Christi as a strategic shipping location, the closest American port to the Panama Canal, and had dredged a channel into its shallow inner bay that allowed large ships to come and go — at the time, mostly shuttling the region’s cotton exports. Following the discovery of oil to the west of the city a few years later, though, the channel enabled Corpus to begin exporting petroleum products. Industry pounced.
“Why are there so many cement factories and inorganic chemical plants and metal manufacturers [in Corpus Christi]?” Lessoff, the historian, asked me. “It’s because of all the energy they need. And those things also need a lot of water.”
Though the city was competing with the humid, semitropical petroleum hubs in Houston and Louisiana, where water is less of a concern, Corpus Christi pressed forward, even as its residential population quadrupled. By the end of the 1950s, industry-related uses accounted for almost 40% of water demand in Nueces County, of which Corpus represents as much as 90% of the population. “If you’re a city official, you’re looking at this growth, and you’re telling yourself, ‘Well, we’ll figure it out,’” Lessoff said of the ballooning problem.
The situation took a turn in late 2015, when Congress repealed the 1975 export ban on crude oil. Corpus was perfectly positioned to capitalize on the opportunity, given its proximity to the extraction operations in Eagle Ford and the Permian Basin, its deep shipping channel, and its industrial base. Billions of dollars in investment in new plants soon poured into a city waiting with open arms.
Corpus officials at the time assured ExxonMobil, among other chemical companies, that its $10 billion plastics facility, which opened in 2018, would have sufficient water available to it for the “foreseeable future” despite the plant using 25 million gallons per day during its peak production — enough to meet the needs of a family of four for 170 years. To Steel Dynamics, a year later, the city promised an additional 6 million gallons of water per day. “We have enough now to attract development and keep our lawns and parks green,” then-mayor Joe McComb boasted in 2018 when revoking drought restrictions that he claimed “gave a false sense that we were always running out of water.”
Beginning in 2018, the largest industrial water users in Corpus were also offered the option to pay a voluntary, year-round “drought surcharge exemption” rather than face larger financial penalties when a drought emergency is declared. The exemption charge of just 31 cents per 1,000 gallons is effectively a rounding error for companies like Exxon or Valero, and about 10 companies in the area take advantage of the program.
The city’s blasé attitude stemmed in part from its bet that desalination plants would come to its rescue. When they approved the new influx of manufacturing in 2018, Corpus leaders acknowledged that a new city-owned desalination facility needed to be up and running by “early 2023” to fill anticipated gaps in its natural water supply. Preliminary plans weren’t even presented to the city council, though, until 2019.
By 2022, a year before the city’s estimated deadline for needing the water, there were plans for five desalination plants around Corpus Christi Bay, including two that would have been city-owned. (City officials said the astronomical cost of building a plant — around $1 billion — would be offset by the drought surcharge exemption fund, which only brings in around $6 million per year.) Groups like For the Greater Good and the Sierra Club fought hard against the city’s plan for a desalination plant in the shallow Inner Harbor, arguing that the freshwater it produced would prop up industry, allowing it to continue its insatiable consumption, much as critics of carbon capture have argued that the technology would allow fossil fuel companies to continue emitting and running their businesses as usual.
“We as residents are not using the majority of this water, so there is no reason why we should have to subsidize any kind of infrastructure that’s primarily beneficial to private corporations,” Chloe Torres, the Coastal Bend regional coordinator for Texas Campaign for the Environment, which opposed the desalination plant, told me. “Even by the rules of capitalism, that’s a tough sell.”
Coastal desalination relies on reverse osmosis, a process that filters salt out of seawater and would discharge the hypersaline brine back into the shallow bay. “When I was living there in the 1990s, desalination was like, Who would want to do something like that?” Lessoff, the historian, told me. “It’s outrageous because of the energy involved, the environmental factors, and the effect on these estuaries.”
It was also in 2022 that national environmental groups helped elect two candidates to the city council, Jim Klein, the former president of the Coastal Bend Sierra Club, and Sylvia Campos, who said they’d focus on holding industry accountable for its water usage. By some estimates, industry was guzzling as much as 80% of Corpus’ available water supply, with residents using just a fraction. The 2022 election was critical because “desalination is not done through voter approval,” Campos told me. “It is done through the city council purposely so the citizens really don’t have a say.” For the several-hundred-thousand people who live in the metropolitan area surrounding Corpus, who can’t vote in the city elections but are subject to its decisions as wholesale purchasers of its water, the situation is even less democratic.
Heading into 2024, national climate and environmental groups such as Lead Locally and the Sierra Club again endorsed a slate of candidates who opposed desalination. But industry had wised up since 2022, and spent big on the race. Environmental candidates got clobbered — Klein lost his election for an at-large council seat; Araiza, the co-founder of For the Greater Good, lost her mayoral bid by 36 points; and four other city council hopefuls also failed in their bids.
Voters returned only Campos to the city council, but it wasn’t because of their environmental concerns. “When I was knocking on their doors, they weren’t talking to me about water,” she told me.
In purple Corpus Christi, Campos, a self-described socialist, told me she convinced other city council members to turn against the desalination plans by arguing that a billion-dollar investment in a plant producing only 30 million gallons of freshwater per day didn’t make financial sense. In September 2025, in a 6-3 vote, the city council killed the Inner Harbor desalination proposal — a move that prompted Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch to either downgrade or review the city’s credit rating given the “unexpected acceleration of water depletion risk.” William Chriss, a third-generation Corpus Christian and local political analyst, told me, “I don’t think [the city council] necessarily changed their minds about the need for a desal plant. I think they changed their minds about the cost of this particular desal plant.”
Indeed, the need for water hadn’t gone away. Corpus’ water department has said that about 70% of residents already use less than a proposed restriction of 5,250 gallons per month. First-time violators who exceed that amount could face a $500 fee; a proposed penalty for second-time violators would see their water shut off.
Under a proposal floated this week, residential customers could use up to 6,000 gallons per month, while industrial customers would be forced to adhere to a 25% cut in their average water use between 2022 and 2024 — and face water shutoffs if they don’t comply.
The big industrial consumers like Exxon, Valero, and Flint Hills Resources have so far refused to disclose how they would adjust their operations in order to meet such reductions on the grounds that it’s proprietary information, as Dylan Baddour has reported in his ongoing coverage of the crisis for Inside Climate News. (Exxon and Valero failed to return our request for comment. A spokesperson for Flint Hills, which runs two crude oil refineries in Corpus, told me in a statement that the company is “optimistic we will be able to manage the potential curtailment scenarios without significantly disrupting our operations,” and pointed me toward its plans to use up to 2 million gallons per day of treated city wastewater for its operations.)
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has warned Corpus Christi’s leadership that there is “only … a little time more before the state of Texas has to take over” managing the water crisis, and blasted the city for “squandering” a $750 million loan commitments from the Texas Water Development Board, most of which had been designated exclusively for the construction of the Inner Harbor desalination plant. President Trump has also visited the Port of Corpus Christi and floated funding a revived Inner Harbor desalination project. “This is called a serious money ask, and I’m going to get that thing approved for you guys,” he told the local media. Last week, the Corpus Christi City Council voted 6-2 to begin talks with AXE H2O, a private company seeking to build a desalination plant with the city’s guarantee of a 30-year water purchase agreement.
Campos was one of the “no” votes, expressing skepticism about the “too good to be true” proposal, which would dump its high-saline discharge into the deeper gulf rather than the isolated bay, theoretically lessening the environmental impact. But its energy-intensive process would also run on natural gas, likely via on-site turbines, which its chairman said would keep its water costs lower than regional competitors as prices on the Texas grid tend to vary wildly. (Corpus Christi Polymers, which is constructing its own desalination plant, has also solicited the city for a purchasing agreement.) There is also the inherent irony of using fossil fuels to fix a problem created by fossil fuels.
A new desalination plant also does little to solve the immediate crisis, leaving Corpus in the most desperate position of its long history. A worst-case scenario would involve shutting off the tap for industry and facing its lawyers in court; limiting or rotating residential water availability; or trucking in water to manually refill the cisterns, as Baddour has reported. “The lead time that it takes to fix some of these problems just does not allow for a head-in-the-sand approach,” Amy Hardberger, the director of the Center for Water Law and Policy at Texas Tech in Lubbock, told me, having watched the situation unfold from afar. “But I don’t want to vilify Corpus,” she added. “I just think they’re getting to this point a little ahead of other cities.”
Some optimists have entertained the idea that a major rainfall could potentially break the region’s drought and buy Corpus a little more time to find a way out of its current water crisis. “The only alternatives that exist for Corpus Christi between now and three years from now at the earliest” — when a desalination plant could be up and running — “are a series of hurricanes or tropical storms that will miraculously fill our reservoir,” Chriss, the political analyst, said.
But Lessoff, the historian, gasped when I suggested a hurricane might relieve some of the pressure on Corpus. “If you want to have the biggest environmental disaster in American history, go ahead,” he said in disbelief.
The city is a catastrophe waiting to happen, Lessoff went on. Because of its low-lying chemical plants and petroleum refineries, if or when a climate change-strengthened hurricane makes landfall on the Coastal Bend, “it’ll make the BP disaster in the Gulf look like nothing,” he said. In other words, if there were ever a way to make Corpus Christians nostalgic for a mere 22 days of boil-water notices, then a direct hit by a hurricane would be it.
But that also means, perversely, that the best outcome might be for Corpus to have to sit with the consequences of over 100 years of bad water policy, deference to industry, and electing officials more interested in economic boosterism than protecting the limited resources for its residents. If any good comes out of the situation, it might be that other cities in the urban southwest learn from Corpus’ mistakes.
“It doesn’t help me to say ‘I told you so’ when there’s no water coming out of my tap,” Hardberger, the water policy expert, said. “It’s like, ‘Please don’t put me in that position. I want to live here, too. This is my home. Please work with me.’”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
September bills in competitive Republican-held districts have risen by a median of 21% between 2024 and 2026.
New Jersey’s 7th District is an odd place for an affordability fight.
The 15th wealthiest congressional district in the country, NJ-7 stretches from the tidal strait bordering New York’s Staten Island to the winding Delaware River state line with Pennsylvania. Between those two bodies of water, roughly a third of households earn more than $200,000 a year. The 7th Congressional District is also New Jersey’s “one rare and surprising swing district,” per Gothamist, and, as a result, it is also the spendiest on elections: the 2024 high-water mark of $26.3 million in campaign spending will likely be surpassed this year by incumbent Republican Tom Kean Jr. and Democrat Rebecca Bennett.
Needless to say, there are comparatively few constituents in NJ-7 for whom paying $40 more on a September electricity bill than two years ago — or about $300 more over the past 12 months — is the difference between whether they can afford groceries or not. But like many other Republican-held competitive seats this election year, the district has seen its electricity rates increase since just before President Donald Trump took office for his second term, according to the latest data available in Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
In NJ-7, residents paid about 35% more on their electricity bills this September than two years ago; bills are up more than 18% over the past 12 months compared with the year before. Over that same time period, the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter moved Kean’s reelection race from “lean Republican” to “toss-up” to where it stands now: “lean Democrat.” NJ-7 is largely served by Jersey Central Power & Light and Public Service Electric and Gas Co, and, for both, increases in basic generation service charges — that is, what utilities charge for the production and supply of electricity — drove most of the spikes in bills.
“Kean Jr. voted to roll back commonsense energy tax credits and jack up electricity bills for New Jersey families,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wrote in a June memo, seizing on the opportunity. “Skyrocketing utility bills are a major issue in the Garden State, and Kean Jr. is part of the problem.” The National Republican Congressional Committee has defended Kean by pointing to his vote for the Ratepayer Protection Act (which passed the House last month only to fail in the Senate) and his record of opposing “Green New Deal policies” to “protect families from rising costs.”
The New Jersey race has more to it than electricity prices, of course; the 7th District election has drawn national attention, including involvement from Elon Musk and, at one time, President Trump. But if even a race in one of the country’s wealthiest districts has become a referendum on affordability to some extent, incumbent Republicans elsewhere are certainly feeling constituents’ ire, too. In the 42 closest races listed as “toss-up” or “leans” by the Cook Political Report, September bills in Republican-held districts have risen a median of 21% from 2024 to 2026, compared with just 13% for Democratic-held seats (and compared to 16% across all 435 House districts).
Comparing September bills is useful because it suggests how voters are perceiving utility costs as they prepare to submit their ballots. But September, being a shoulder season, can also vary in temperature in many parts of the country, meaning bills may be higher because of a late summer heat wave — or an early cold snap. Still, looking over the past 12 months, bills in competitive Republican-held districts have risen twice as fast as those in competitive Democrat-held seats (8% vs 4%). Overall, 22 of the 29 Republican-held House seats in active play this November are in places where electricity bills have risen more than 10% since Trump’s election.
Another race where affordability concerns and rising electricity bills seem to be intertwined is Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District, held by Republican and former House Freedom Caucus head Scott Perry. The typical September bill in PA-10 rose from about $126 to $202 in just two years, a 61% increase, according to the Electricity Price Hub. (The most recent data for the district are projections, because New York and Pennsylvania release their reports on a delay.) Among the utilities in PA-10, generation contributes the largest amount to average bills, with costs roughly doubling since 2020.
Pennsylvanians are feeling it: 57% of registered voters in PA-10 told a local pollster it is “very” or “somewhat” difficult to afford monthly utility costs, making it a bigger financial struggle than groceries, gas, rent, or health care.
Perry’s opponent, Janelle Stelson, has hammered him on affordability (including gas prices) while groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council have labeled Perry as a “rate raiser,” pointing to his coziness with the fossil fuel industry and his proud opposition to renewable energy development.
Perhaps nowhere are utility rates more central to a House race than in New York’s 17th Congressional District, where Republican incumbent Mike Lawler is in a “toss-up” race against Democrat Cait Conley. His constituents are paying about $50 more on a September electricity bill than they were before he was elected in 2024, while bills have risen more than 17%, or over $330, in the past 12 months compared with the year prior. (Across the utilities servicing NY-17 — as well as NY-19, another district where utility bills are a central talking point— the delivery portion of the bill tends to be the largest, though generation costs have also grown substantially over the past five years.)
While rising electricity bills have given Democrats an easy line of attack on vulnerable Republicans heading into the midterms, Congress admittedly doesn’t set utility rates and there are limited levers for elected officials to pull to keep them down in the short term. Heatmap’s data, rather, indicates the places where voters appear especially sensitive to rate increases and may be taking it out on their elected officials — although there are still caveats.
For example, the trends are also largely regional. Our data shows the steepest electricity increases among a cluster of seats in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Ohio — many of them Republican seats in purple areas that Democrats would have targeted with or without the ammo of higher electricity prices. In other parts of the country, competitive races in California and Arizona have actually seen falling electricity bills.
Two can play the rate increase blame game, too. In New York’s 19th Congressional District, incumbent Democrat Josh Riley is running on lowering utility bills — as is his Republican opponent. (That race isn’t considered competitive by Cook, which puts Riley as the “likely” favorite.) In Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, a toss-up race where bills were about $40 higher in September of this year than in 2024, incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur and her allies are on the defensive and warn that her challenger, Derek Merrin, could jack them up even more.
Bills are up everywhere on average, and when you pull back, the influence on elections appears relatively small: the median competitive district’s bills rose 11.4% compared to the median bill for a safe seat, 10.3%, in January–September 2026 versus January–September 2024. The per-kilowatt-hour price of electricity (as distinct from household bills) rose slightly less in competitive races (8.2% median) than in safe seats (9.7% median). In some places feeling the squeeze on electricity bills, bigger issues are driving the election: Carol Obando-Derstine, a former utility employee who campaigned in Pennsylvania’s 7th District on lowering power bills, ultimately lost the Democratic primary to a candidate focused more on corruption and greed.
But in other districts, it won’t matter whether representatives have little control over electricity bills or whether rising prices are a national trend. “I’m working hard to keep my lights on,” one constituent says in a House Majority PAC ad that makes the case against the Republican, Lawler, in NY-17. “My bills keep going up.”
Current conditions: A new nor’easter is washing the ocean over North Carolina’s Highway 12 right as crews complete reconstruction on the Outer Banks thoroughfare following last month’s storm • After whipping Mexico’s Pacific Coast with heavy rains, Hurricane Trudy has weakened to a Category 1 storm • Super Typhoon Champi knocked out power for more than half of Guam before barreling toward the Philippines as a potential Category 5 storm.
Last week was the worst week for the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 Index since President Donald Trump’s tariffs roiled the market in April 2025. The reason? Hotter than expected federal data on inflation fueled fears of an interest rate hike that could prove devastating to the buildout of artificial intelligence infrastructure. Investors were already worrying the physical investments would cost more than giants such as ChatGPT-maker OpenAI or Claude-creator Anthropic are set to earn. But on Monday, semiconductor makers such as Oracle, Intel, and Micron Technology rallied as the AI rout came to an end. Yet CoreWeave, the cloud-computing heavyweight that led the selloff last week, closed slightly lower. The issue, investors told CNBC, is the company’s debt load. “The market tends to get worried about companies that have refinance risk when rates are higher, and CoreWeave was a little bit of the poster child,” John Lloyd, global head of multi-sector and corporate credit at Janus Henderson, whose firm owns CoreWeave bonds due in 2031, told the broadcaster. “They need the debt markets in order to grow, in some form or fashion.” That CoreWeave came close to bouncing back at all comes down at least in part to Ark Investment Management chief Cathie Wood opting to buy about $12 million of shares in the company amid the market plunge last week, a play for which The Street notes she’s known. Notably, Oracle, which was previously dubbed the “canary in the coal mine” for concern over AI debt, closed just 1% higher before plunging in after-market trading.
Microsoft, meanwhile, pulled out a major data center deal in the United Kingdom to anchor Nscale Global Holdings’ debut facility in the country, located in Loughton on the outskirts of London. But The Wall Street Journal reported that power supply issues ultimately caused Microsoft to back out of the 50-megawatt project, highlighting how hyperscalers can throw a major data center complex into disarray even at a later stage in the development. Nscale’s upcoming $35 billion stock market debut rests, as The Information noted, on its ability to build data centers.
Amazon is backing a deal for another power plant built with X-energy’s next-generation reactors. On Monday, the high temperature gas-cooled reactor startup, in which Amazon took an equity stake two years ago, signed a joint development agreement with American Electric Power to evaluate a potential 960-megawatt project at a former coal site in Sullivan County, Indiana. In a press release, AEP CEO Bill Fehrman said Amazon’s support provided “all necessary capital protections and financial safeguards that we have said are essential for any potential nuclear project to move forward.” That’s a notable departure from the line many utilities executives share in private, which is that — absent some kind of federal cost overrun insurance — building new reactors will prove too difficult a sell to shareholders. It’s part of a string of nuclear deals for Indiana, which currently has no operating atomic power reactors in its borders. On Monday evening, AtkinsRealis, the developer behind Canada’s signature CANDU reactor technology that can run on raw uranium, announced a memorandum of understanding to build up to 6 gigawatts of the pressurized heavy water reactors in Indiana. The state and the utility Hoosier Energy are the counterparties to the agreement.
In Arkansas, meanwhile, Google unveiled a new “enhanced partnership” with utility giant Entergy to power the tech giant’s West Memphis campus. As part of the agreement, Google pledged to support solar, battery, and transmission investments in Arkansas that the companies said would deliver “at least $500 million in new savings for all customers.”
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright called out New York Governor Kathy Hochul for holding up a natural gas pipeline he said would lower heating prices for residents in the Northeast as early as winter of 2028. During an appearance Monday on the Fox Business Network, Wright touted his agency’s decision last week to award Williams Companies $42 million through the wartime Defense Production Act to speed up construction of the Constitution Pipeline. “We wanted to get this in by winter of 2027 but delays and still opposition from energy-subtraction Democrats has unfortunately slowed the effort,” Wright said. “The delay right now is the governor here in New York State. We’ve been talking with her. We hope she’ll go along with this. Maybe after the election, I think she will.” The governors of all six New England states, he said, “are all on board with it.”
In a statement to me, Hochul spokesperson Ken Lovett called the announcement “nothing more than a political ploy to divert attention from Trump’s tariffs and his reckless war in Iran that have not only failed to bring down prices as the president promised, but have dramatically driven up home energy costs and gas prices at the pump.” He added that, “while the president continues to obsess over blocking renewable energy projects in order to focus on gas, oil, and even coal, Governor Hochul is focused on driving an all-of-the-above energy strategy designed to keep the lights on and costs down for New Yorkers.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Albertans are the richest Canadians on average, thanks to the province’s oil and gas industry. They’re also — after the Quebecois, of course — among the Canadians with the strongest claim to a distinct identity from the national Anglo norm, often drawing comparisons to Texans within the U.S. Monday offered the biggest test yet of just how differently Alberta sees itself. Turns out whatever regional resentments Albertans may have against Ottawa after a decade of Liberal Party rule that frequently sought to restrict the oil and gas sector hasn’t been enough to merit secession. Voters overwhelmingly rejected a nonbinding referendum calling for a real vote on whether to split away from Canada and establish an independent Alberta. At least part of the reason may be that Prime Minister Mark Carney has put a new focus on beefing up Canada’s domestic energy industries in a bid to increase exports and make the country less reliant on an increasingly aggressive U.S. That includes building new pipelines. But a new analysis by Reuters warns that a successful infrastructure buildout won’t lead to another jobs boom in oil. Much of the growth in oil sands output, instead, “is likely to come from automation and efficiency gains rather than large-scale hiring,” the newswire reported, citing industry forecasts and nearly a dozen interviews with company officials, workers, politicians, and academics. Carney admitted as much when asked by the reporter during a visit to Alberta’s Fort McMurray this month: “I wouldn't use the term ‘boom.’ I would use ‘sustained growth.’”
Europe, meanwhile, is trying to keep its own populist blowback to rising prices contained. Right as violent protests over cost of living spread from France to Italy, the Italian government has struck a deal with the European Commission that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expects to slash household energy bills ahead of next year’s elections. Under the agreement, according to the Financial Times, Italy will be allowed to compensate gas-fired generators to keep wholesale electricity prices from rising above €59 per megawatt-hour, roughly $66. The European Union’s market rules require that the last and most expensive source of electricity tapped to meet demand serves as the wholesale price. But the EU’s executive chamber allowed for Italy to ease its rules after prices surged 45% higher than in nuclear-powered France and renewables-rich Spain last month.
China’s exports of solar panels fell 6.4% last month compared to the same period last year, according to Reuters. That marks the fifth straight year-on-year decline in 2026. It’s a sign that China is cracking down on its glut in solar manufacturing. But Beijing isn’t looking to lose its edge over the fastest growing electricity source in the world. Last week, Bloomberg reported that China had added 12 pieces of solar-related manufacturing equipment to its list of items restricted from export. That could make it much more difficult for U.S. manufacturers comply to stand up factories given the Trump administration’s 232 import restrictions on Chinese solar equipment, which take effect later this year. The results of the Department of Commerce’s Section 232 investigation into polysilicon, which my colleague Emily Pontecorvo and I covered here, are meant to be the Trump administration’s lifeline to solar manufacturers who lost a key incentive when federal tax credits expired, ending a bonus program for developers that use domestically-made panels.
One area where China has appeared to be gaining an edge — green hydrogen production — may still remain a competitive industry for Western manufacturers. Chinese electrolyzers, the machines needed to separate the H from H2O with electricity, cost less than half of those made outside the country, according to data from the International Energy Agency. But trade levies erase much of that advantage, ultimately reducing capital expenditures by only 8% for European projects using Chinese equipment, Hydrogen Insight reported.
Call it mine-to-battery manufacturing. As demand for batteries booked, Ivanhoe Electric had planned to differentiate itself by taking a fully integrated, farm-to-table approach, owning and operating its own copper mine, refining the metal, and ultimately turning that copper into cathodes for batteries all at its same site in Arizona. Now, however, there’s an even bigger sector demanding copper: Data centers. New data center projects are driving so much demand for copper that the company is considering selling its copper to buyers other than itself, Bloomberg reported.
The company simplifies the process of getting consistent, apples-to-apples bids.
With commercial electricity prices steadily climbing, many businesses and real estate owners are increasingly eager to generate and store their own power onsite, cutting their bills and making costs more predictable. But figuring out whether solar and storage can actually pencil out — and under what conditions — can be a nightmare. Ask a handful of developers for a quote and you might get a rooftop solar array from one, a ground-mounted solar and battery system from another, and a gas turbine from a third, each with its own size, price, and financing terms.
That leaves buyers comparing apples to oranges. And for businesses evaluating a portfolio of potential projects, the process gets even messier. “These are very local-centric systems. Different interconnection requirements, different permits, different suppliers,” Gareth Evans, CEO of the onsite energy planning and procurement startup Veckta, told me. “There are hundreds of solar developers in every state.” The hard part, he added, is “knowing what supplier to go with, how to ask them the right questions in the right language, in the right format, so that you’re getting consistent bids back that you can compare and contrast.”
That’s the tension San Diego-based Veckta has built its business around. And on Tuesday, the startup announced an oversubscribed $11 million Series A to scale its solution. Origin Ventures led the round, with participation from others including the climate-focused investor VoLo Earth Ventures, which led Veckta’s $3.3 million pre-seed round in 2022.
The company starts with a single input: a property address. Veckta’s software analyzes over 5,000 data points, including utility rates, grid emissions, outage risk, local equipment and construction costs, and available incentives to assess — in under a minute — whether an onsite energy project makes financial sense. That helps buyers define their needs, from system size and installation type to contract terms, and ensures that potential suppliers are bidding on the same requirements. The result is a set of comparable proposals, without the upfront cost of hiring a consultant or supply chain expert.
Veckta’s platform includes more than 3,000 vetted suppliers. As bids come in, the startup automatically compares them based on factors including the supplier’s track record, warranties, equipment offerings, compliance with foreign entity of concern requirements, and ability to leverage federal and local incentives. From there, Veckta makes its recommendations. “Supplier A is your best option if you want U.S.-made equipment with the longest warranty, best guarantee, and they’ve done these projects before,” Evans explained, by way of example. “Supplier B is disqualified because they’ve never done a project in your state.”
Out of the roughly 34,000 customer sites Veckta has analyzed, Evans said 37% would see positive returns today by installing solar panels, battery storage systems, or both. That translates to $3.1 billion in potential project value, concentrated largely in markets with high electricity rates such as the Northeast and California, and among businesses facing steep peak-demand charges. But as utility rates continue to rise and installation costs fall, he expects onsite power to become cost-competitive with the grid at “almost 100%” of sites within five years. The startup estimates that would unlock a whopping $12 billion in potential project value.
Veckta wouldn’t capture all that itself, of course. Rather, it generates revenue in two ways: buyers pay an upfront platform fee, and the winning supplier pays a success fee once a contract is signed. Evans told me the startup has been net profitable for the past year, though he would not share specifics. So far in 2026, customers have signed contracts for onsite energy projects at 128 sites. These typically range from 250 kilowatts for businesses like car dealerships and retail stores to 10 megawatts or more for manufacturing facilities, warehouses, or cold storage facilities. “That ranges from Fortune 500s right down to your individual business owner,” Evans told me.
With this latest raise, Veckta plans to expand its supplier network and grow its sales, marketing, and customer support teams. It also wants to help customers capture additional revenue streams from their onsite energy systems, such as by connecting them with demand-response programs, using batteries to provide grid services like frequency regulation, and selling renewable energy credits.
Named customers include rental car company Enterprise Mobility, real estate investment trust Regency Centers, and auto dealership group Lithia & Driveway. About 80% of the projects the platform facilitates today involve rooftop solar paired with batteries, but the company has begun to branch out.
“We’ve done waste-heat-to-energy, we’ve done EV chargers, done backup generators, and then the latest is, we’ve just finished our first pilot on roof replacements,” Evans told me. “We are firm believers that for any complex purchase that is a non-commodity that you can’t just buy off the shelf, we are best placed to help our customers competitively source those deals.”