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:
Heat kills more Americans than any other extreme weather event in the United States. But wildfire smoke — while not strictly “weather” — appears to kill even more. Current excess death estimates put American heat mortality at about 10,000 people per year, or possibly as high as 12,000. Recent studies on wildfire PM 2.5 exposure suggest a mortality of double that: 24,000 all-cause deaths every year.
Needless to say, wildfire smoke is definitely not something you want to inhale if you can avoid it. (And really, you should try to.) But for the 115 million Americans in the Great Lakes and Northeast regions of the country who’ve been exposed to hazardous air from the fires in Ontario and Minnesota this week, there’s a chance that the damage is already done. According to a wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool from Cornell University’s School of Public Health and the Northeast Regional Climate Center, the total mortality for this smoke event could already be as high as 424 people so far, including nearly 100 in Michigan and more than 50 in both New York and Wisconsin.
Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health, stressed to me that the tool is a “first draft,” and that his team is still working on getting it peer-reviewed. “We intend it as a hypothesis that people can test in the coming weeks or months to confirm our numbers,” Hayden told me. “I’m really hoping to be proven wrong.”
But Hayden also emphasized that while the West Coast might historically be where many smoke-related deaths have occurred, “this is the third out of four years [in the Northeast] that we’re having the smoke, so it seems like something we should be planning for,” he said. “It reminds me of that saying: ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’”
Admittedly, the smoke this week is a bit of a freak occurrence. A cooler-than-average sea surface pattern across the North Pacific, known as a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, helped produce weak low-pressure areas in the northwestern part of the United States, which in turn allowed for heat domes to develop across the Southwest and Plains. After one did just that earlier this month, the hot, high-pressure dome then shifted north, where it developed “dryness across Canada, followed by the lightning-producing thunderstorms,” Chad Merrill, a senior meteorologist at AccuWeather, told me. Then, boom: widespread fires.
“It is very unusual to have a combination of an El Niño and a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation,” Merrill went on. “That’s one of the unusual factors this year, which contributed to the heat dome being farther north in that particular position.” The heat dome and jet stream then worked together to direct the thick smoke down into some of the most populous regions of Canada and the U.S.
That’s what makes this particular smoke event so bad. Were the smoke blowing over remote regions of Canada, as it would under more usual conditions, “then the big cities and the Great Lakes wouldn’t experience the smoke; it would have gone north toward the Hudson Bay and then Greenland,” Merrill said. In fact, the Canadian fire season is tracking below average overall; it’s the meteorological conditions that made this week’s smoke events, as one outlet put it, “the perfect storm.”
Wildfire smoke in the region is not historically anomalous, however. A 1903 article in The New York Times describes a “yellow day” similar to smoky events in 1894, 1881, and earlier. But large-scale burns in Canada’s dense, remote boreal, which produce more smoke, are increasing. Though it’s difficult to attribute any one wildfire directly to climate change because of the complex nature of such events, we do know that fire weather is becoming more common with the warming of the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions. As modeled by Zeke Hausfather in the Friday edition of his newsletter The Climate Brink, “hotter, drier seasons burn the most” in Canada — and “recent years cluster there” as the country has outpaced the global average in warming.
But as Hausfather also writes, “While overall area burned is the climate-linked trend, who breathes the smoke on a given week in July is mostly driven by the weather.” This is similar to the way that, though it may be a quiet year in the Atlantic, it only takes one hurricane making landfall in the right (or wrong) spot for the season to be remembered as catastrophic.
On the other hand, as foolish as it might be for the Central Plains and East Coast to still believe smoke is the exclusive domain of Westerners, it is also a mistake to assume smoke only comes from without. As I reported earlier this year, the Eastern half of the country has seen a 10-fold jump in the frequency of large burns over the last 40 years. Nowhere is safe from the smoke.
Planning and preparation, then, should be paramount. But as Grist learned last month, there are no established Air Quality Index numbers that would trigger the postponement, relocation, or cancellation of, say, a FIFA World Cup game, including the final, which is set to be played in New Jersey on Sunday. White House officials are reportedly meeting with FIFA’s president on Friday to discuss contingencies, given the unhealthy air quality in the region.
Which brings us back to Hayden’s modeling. He offered a note of optimism in that research by Stanford’s Sam Heft-Neal and his colleagues indicates that emergency room visits do not rise in tandem with increasing wildfire smoke. “As smoke gets bad, the health impacts get bigger. But then as smoke gets worse and worse, the amount of health impacts actually goes down, measured for emergency room visits,” Hayden said. “The idea is that people modify their behavior in higher smoke” — say, by staying indoors, wearing masks, or canceling outdoor events.
It’s time to treat smoke as an East Coast phenomenon, in other words. Doing so will save lives. “Will [smoke events] become more frequent in the future? Most likely we will see a recurrence,” Merrill, the meteorologist, told me. “How often they happen is yet to be determined.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Utility watchdog Jamie Van Nostrand argues that National Grid’s recent “rate stabilization proposal” is a way to charge customers more money while bypassing the regulatory process.
When National Grid, the natural gas utility that serves New York City and Long Island, proposed a one-year rate freeze last month, Governor Kathy Hochul celebrated it as a victory for affordability.
“I’m pleased to announce National Grid and the Department of Public Service found a way to hold the line on rate hikes for nearly 2 million gas customers,” she wrote on social media.
“New Yorkers don’t deserve gratuitous rate hikes. We’re fighting at every turn to stop them.”
But if “holding the line” for a year means accepting higher rates the following year, is it really a win for customers?
Jamie Van Nostrand, a former utility lawyer and regulator who served as the chair of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities through last fall, dug into the details of National Grid’s proposal and was alarmed by what he saw. In Van Nostrand’s view, it’s actually a delayed rate hike dressed up as a rate freeze, designed to avoid the scrutiny that comes with an official request.
To be fair, National Grid did not use the words rate freeze in its filing with the Public Service Commission, instead referring to the plan as a “rate stabilization proposal.” The Catch-22 is that during this year of stabilized rates, the company wants to continue — and actually increase — its capital spending, then bill customers for the work the following year with interest and a return on equity.
Infrastructure spending is the only part of the natural gas business that utilities earn a profit on, so they have an incentive to overdo it. Normally, regulators review such capital expenditures in year-long proceedings called rate cases to ensure the added costs to ratepayers is worth it. But here, National Grid is asking regulators for prompt approval “without material modification.”
I reached out to National Grid for comment on Van Nostrand’s critique. In response, a representative referred me back to the company’s press release.
Van Nostrand is now the policy director at the Future of Heat Initiative, a nonprofit working to improve utility regulation on the path to decarbonized heating. The group is concerned about utilities investing billions into natural gas delivery at the same time many states, including New York, are pushing to switch to electric heat pumps, which risks sticking the remaining gas customers with higher bills. Rate cases are essentially the only venue to challenge this spending, hence Van Nostrand’s ire.
I spoke to him about the hidden details in National Grid’s proposal and what a “good” rate freeze might look like. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
When did National Grid last have a rate increase and what’s the context for this rate stabilization proposal?
In 2024, the New York Public Service Commission approved a three-year rate plan which runs through the end of March in 2027. So what National Grid would have done is file a rate case in May of this year in order to have a new rate take effect in April of 2027. Essentially, what they say they’re doing is trying to extend that three-year rate plan for a fourth year. They’re saying, “We want to avoid having to file a full rate case” — which they audaciously and presumptuously say is going to result in rate increases for customers that are greater than the rate of inflation.
And what is in the proposal?
What jumps out at me are two things. One is, when they did this three-year rate plan, 2024 to 2026, they had certain expenses that they said were one-time, non-recurring expenses — a three-year amortization of $250 million. That three-year amortization expires on March 31. That would result in a $250 million rate decrease for customers. But by avoiding the rate filing, the rates are going to continue to reflect the amortization of costs that they are no longer authorized to recover.
They’re basically saying, “Rather than giving it back to customers, we’re going to keep collecting it and find other things to spend the money on.” So by avoiding the rate filing, they’re avoiding having to give the money back to customers and acting like they’re doing us a favor.
But didn’t you just say that the alternative to this rate freeze proposal is a big rate increase?
Yes, but they would have to prove their costs. These are closely scrutinized rate filings. The other piece I was going to mention is there’s $1.7 billion of additional capital spending. They’re saying, “We’re going to keep spending money,” actually spending more money in the next year than they are currently spending. They’re going to increase the level of spending on infrastructure investments without having to go through the process of proving, why are these expenditures necessary? Are you overspending? Is there a cheaper alternative?
Regulators need to closely scrutinize natural gas company infrastructure spending. They want to spend billions of dollars replacing pipes because that’s where they make money. They put it in their rate base and they earn a return on it.
Does the proposal at least allude to what they’re planning to spend the $1.7 billion on?
Oh yeah, it’s more pipe replacement. It’s a continuation of what they’ve been spending, it’s just more. And the point is, when they approved their rate plan, the parties to the rate case got to look at what they were spending in 2024, 2025, 2026, and they signed off on it. And here they’re saying, “Here’s our spending for 2027. It just builds on what we’ve already been spending, it’s just there’s more of it.” But there’s not the same review, other than I guess that there’s going to be a comment proceeding where parties can file comments on this proposal. But they don’t have to put out evidence and sworn testimony and be subjected to cross examination and discovery. It’s like, “Here’s what we’re gonna do. Take it or leave it.”
Is the idea that the $1.7 billion will be recovered through a future rate increase?
They’re just going to defer those costs and have ratepayers pay it beginning April 2028 with interest at 9%. It goes right into their rate base, and they’re going to earn a return on that. That means they’re going to collect $150 million more from customers to cover the return on that $1.7 billion they’re spending.
This is not uncommon when utilities propose rate freezes. Utilities go, “Our costs aren’t actually going down, our costs are continuing to go up, so we’re just going to keep spending money like we otherwise would have. But rather than raise rates contemporaneously, we’re going to put them in this little account and wait until the end of the rate freeze, and then we’re going to raise rates and add on the interest because the customers didn’t pay these costs when we incurred them.” Utilities love the concept of a rate freeze. I’ve never seen anybody quite so audacious as this proposal, where they’re not just doing that, they’re doing a whole bunch of other stuff to make this far sweeter for shareholders.
What else are they doing?
They’re not just extending their rate plan, they’re extending it selectively. For example, there’s a penalty mechanism that if you don’t address a certain number of miles of leak-prone pipe, you’re going to be subject to a penalty. And they are adjusting that target because they’re not meeting it. The same thing with the backlog of leaks. They’re not reducing the backlog of leaks, so they’re raising that target.
That’s a benefit to shareholders because shareholders end up bearing the consequences — you can’t recover the penalty in rates. So you’ve got a couple of mechanisms that are intended to benefit customers by having the system more safe by reducing miles of leak-prone pipe and by reducing a backlog of leaks, and they’re basically walking away from their commitments, making them easier for them to attain and thereby avoiding penalties. It’s resetting the balance between customers and shareholders, and it’s all in the shareholders’ favor. They’re throwing more risk onto the customers.
Do you think that a rate freeze could be structured in a way that is good for ratepayers?
Well, just strictly a rate freeze might not have been that bad a deal. If they really stepped up and said, “We’re going to live by the rates that were set, we’re just going to extend them for another year, and we’re going to suck it up and make it work, and our shareholders are going to bear some of that pain because by God, it’s all about customer affordability.” They’re so far away from doing that.
[At Future of Heat,] we’re all about the infrastructure spending, right? In New York, 75% of your gas bill is the delivery charge, 25% is the commodity. What we’re trying to do is work with the commissions, ask the tough questions. Let’s look at this pipe replacement program. Do you need to replace the pipe? Can you rely on a repair rather than replace it, and really make them prove their case? And they’re saying, “We’re going to spend $1.7 billion, and no, you don’t get a chance to review it because we’re not doing a rate case. We’re just telling you how much we’re going to spend.”
On NRC moves, Blue Energy, and China’s solar and methanol breakthroughs
Current conditions: The World Cup’s final match between Argentina and Spain is set to take place Sunday in New Jersey, where the thick orange haze of Canadian wildfire smoke is still hovering • Temperatures are soaring to 110 degrees Fahrenheit in Ethiopia’s northeast Afar province • Researchers just categorized the first major dust storm of Arizona’s monsoon season, which struck Phoenix earlier in the week, as a Category 3.

On Tuesday, I told you about the United Arab Emirates’ plan to build a new port to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Iraq and its oil partners are looking westward. The Financial Times reported yesterday that Chevron and Baghdad are in advanced discussions to form a consortium to build and restore a pipeline network through Syria as an alternate route to export oil. The U.S. oil giant is working with the Los Angeles-based TI Capital and an investment group owned by the Syrian-Qatari billionaire Al-Khayyat brothers, who own a major construction company in the Gulf nation and are, according to Bloomberg, “betting big” on Syria’s post-war reconstruction.
It’s yet another sign that, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote, it’ll be a long time before the Strait of Hormuz returns to normal operations — especially now that the war is back on.
Just two weeks ago, I told you that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had proposed both overhauling how it measures the risks from radiation exposure and giving more flexibility to developers to prove their reactors operate safely. Now the agency is continuing its regulatory blitz with another rule, posted Thursday to the Federal Register, to smooth the way for license renewals, speed up approvals to begin construction on certain components and structures at new nuclear plants, and provide more guidance for technologies that use coolants other than water.
In Spain, meanwhile, the country’s Nuclear Safety Council gave the country’s oldest nuclear station, the Almaraz plant two hours west of Madrid, the greenlight to continue operating until 2030, according to NucNet. Currently, the Spanish government is pursuing the world’s only active nuclear phaseout policy. Virtually every country that has phased out atomic energy now regrets it. Switzerland and Belgium already reversed course. German politicians complain constantly about what a mistake it was to quit nuclear power. Taiwan, which shut down its last reactor last year, now wants to reopen at least one. Even Italy, the first country to abandon nuclear energy, is now looking to revive the industry.
Constellation Energy knows a thing or two about what works with nuclear power. So it’s quite notable that the largest operator of civilian reactors in the nation is making a bet on one of the more unique startups hoping to shape the next generation of atomic power stations. Constellation’s venture arm announced a strategic equity investment into Blue Energy, a developer that is pitching itself as a project manager to get small modular reactors built on time and on budget. Unlike most other players in the nuclear game at the moment, Blue Energy isn’t designing its own reactor. The company calls itself “reactor agnostic.” Rather, Constellation said the company would focus instead on building GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s BWRX-300, a 300-megawatt boiling water reactor that is currently one of the leading designs in the U.S. “With demand for near-term power rising, Constellation’s investment will help Blue Energy meet America’s need by making new nuclear development predictable, rapidly scalable, and project financeable for the first time in history,” Blue Energy CEO Jake Jurewicz said in a statement. “This relationship helps us leverage an established operator, proven technology, and innovative, project-financeable deployment models to expand access to nuclear energy.”
Meanwhile, one of the most attention-grabbing startups in the next-generation reactor race is looking at an eye-popping valuation. Led by its 27-year-old CEO Isaiah Taylor, Valar Atomics made waves when it worked with the U.S. military to transport the components for its gas-cooled microreactor by plane. The company is now eyeing a $6 billion valuation, The Information reported last night.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
New York City’s brand-new power line connecting the five boroughs to Quebec’s hydroelectric system is down for repairs in the midst of the summer heat. Hydro-Quebec, the French-speaking province’s state-owned utility, said its teams had “identified a fault with the terrestrial cable” at a location on the U.S. stretch of the route. Governor Kathy Hochul’s office called the outage “unacceptable” in a statement to Gothamist.
Over in Hawaii, Governor Josh Green, a fellow Democrat, signed legislation to adopt a clean fuel standard, making the island state the fifth in the nation to adopt such a policy. The program will come into full effect at the start of 2029, and will use market incentives to reduce the carbon intensity of fuel over time. Texas, meanwhile, is serving as the model for the new bipartisan permitting reform bill my colleague Robinson Meyer broke news of last night.
Chinese panel manufacturer LONGi’s newest solar cell has made a breakthrough in increasing the power conversion efficiency of its panels to 35.5%. That figure was confirmed this week by a European certification test. The cell design is called a crystalline silicon-perovskite tandem cell, which PV Tech described as “widely regarded as a leading technology pathway for next generation” solar panels. A perovskite top cell with a crystalline silicon bottom cell allows the solar panel to tap into both technologies’ efficiencies. By contrast, the efficiency by percentage of energy converted to electricity in thin-film solar cells like those the U.S. manufacturer First Solar sells tap out somewhere in the teens. The more popular crystalline silicon cells that China has dominated have efficiency rates of up to 24%. So LONGi’s announcement represents a significant improvement.
Meanwhile, China’s state-owned pipeline company, PipeChina, successfully shipped two batches of methanol about 125 miles through existing oil pipelines in northwest China. Hydrogen Insight hailed the test as “a record-breaking trial that could transform” a sector long plagued by questions about how to transport fuel. It’s the latest sign, as I told you last month, that Beijing is doubling down on green hydrogen.
Like a Mesopotamian metal merchant of yore, I like to train a keen eye on copper prices in this newsletter. And with good reason: It’s the basic building block of the electrical system, and it’s subject to some wild geopolitical price pressures. Just look at why the price is sliding now. Per Mining.com, the major storms in Chile and the flareup of hostilities in Iran are depressing the market for the metal, which had hit an all-time high earlier this year.
Senator Martin Heinrich’s bill, which makes it easier to connect new power plants to the grid, is an encouraging sign for bipartisan permitting reform.
An important part of a bipartisan permitting reform deal may be falling into place.
Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico introduced a bill on Thursday that would make it easier for new power plants to hook up to electricity markets across the country.
The legislation, which applies to all types of generation, would allow new power plants to connect to the grid without waiting for the arduous technical studies — and without paying the exorbitant equipment upgrade fees — now required in much of the country.
Instead, the bill would let power plants opt into a much faster safety study and offer what it cheekily dubs “basic access service for energy-only delivery” — that is, BASED service — to the local electricity market.
A similar approach is already used in Texas, which has added more new generation than any other U.S. power market in recent years. In effect, Heinrich hopes to bring that cheaper, faster, and more laissez-faire method to the rest of the country.
“As electricity demand grows, we need to find better, faster ways to add more affordable, reliable power to the grid,” Heinrich said in a statement. “Right now, unnecessary delays are slowing projects that could help lower energy costs and deliver the low-cost energy we need.”
Outside experts have pushed for wider adoption of Texas’s approach, which is dubbed “connect and manage,” for some time. Although Heinrich’s proposal would apply to all kinds of power plants, Texas has been particularly successful at bringing new solar, battery, and natural gas power plants online in recent years — and it has done so while keeping connection costs lower than other markets.
“We’re seeing the success of the free market in Texas,” Sarah Toth Kotwiss, an electricity researcher at the energy and climate think tank RMI, told me, noting the state has added far more generation in recent years than much bigger and more populous U.S. grid zones. “They’re leading the way, and replicating that free market attitude could go a long way in the rest of the U.S.”
More broadly, the proposal is the kind of legislation that would slot into the bipartisan permitting package expected later this year — and as soon as next month. Heinrich’s proposal may be a sign that the senator, the ranking Democratic member of the natural resources committee, takes the prospect of reaching a deal seriously.
Across much of the country, a new power plant can only connect to the power grid after the local grid operator completes what’s called an “interconnection study” — an intensive technical account of how that new plant will affect the overall system.
These studies examine a slew of worst-case scenarios, simulating how the plant would behave at full capacity under extremely congested grid conditions, such as during a heat wave. The new plant’s developer is then required to pay for the grid and transmission line upgrades that would allow their project to run at full blast at those moments of maximum stress.
In theory, that approach maximizes the amount of money a developer can make on a new power plant. But because the grid is a big, interconnected system, that method can cause long delays and rippling costs in practice. In one case, a new 300-megawatt plant in North Dakota near the Canadian border could not start operating until it paid nearly $3 million to upgrade power lines and transformers in Missouri — more than 1,000 miles away.
And because interconnection studies try to model a proposed power plant’s influence on the power grid for years into the future, a single cancellation can have a cascading effect. When a power plant pulls out of the interconnection queue, every project in line behind it sometimes needs to be studied again, causing delays and costs to spiral even further.
In one famous example, a solar and battery plant in Maryland was initially told that it needed to pay for $1.25 million to connect to the local grid. But after a series of cancellations and new rounds of study, that figure was revised — to nearly $72 million. The solar project got shelved.
While interconnection queues used to be relatively quick, the process of hooking up a new power plant to the grid can now regularly take eight years, Kotwiss said.
As I discussed with the electricity researchers Tyler Norris and Claire Waymer on Heatmap’s podcast Shift Key in 2024, these lengthening wait times have changed how power plant developers behave. Many developers now “spam the queue,” filing study requests for any project that they could ever conceivably want to build. That has led delays to spiral even further.
The end result of all this spamming is that the total capacity of power plants asking to connect to the grid now exceeds the size of the U.S. grid itself. At the end of 2025, more than 2,000 gigawatts of new generation or storage projects were waiting in interconnection queues, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. The country’s operating power plant fleet is only about 1,400 gigawatts.
To be clear, most of those proposed projects will never be built — they are hypothetical queries submitted by developers who are trying to claim a place in line. Yet even switching on a small set of plants could transform the power grid.
These long wait times aren’t the norm in Texas. In the Lone Star state, it takes less than four years to bring a new plant online.
That’s because new power plants in Texas can hook up to the grid — and start generating power — as soon as the local grid operator completes a more rudimentary engineering and safety study. Then during moments of peak grid congestion, power plants must curtail their own generation, reducing their electricity production to the level that the overall grid can support. While this means that a given solar farm or natural gas plant might not run at full bore all the time, the overall approach gets that plant up and running much sooner, allowing it to sell energy into the grid during most of the year.
Heinrich’s law would order electricity markets and grid operators to make this faster option available to new power plants across the country. It would let power plants opt into receiving a much simpler and faster study, one that checks only that adding the new power plant will be safe for the immediate grid.
A power plant that opts into the new BASED service would still have the option of entering the traditional interconnection queue. Doing so would let it eventually increase its operation over time, paying for grid upgrades so that it can participate in capacity markets and other auctions.
Expanding Texas’s approach to other states could help cut costs for electricity consumers by bringing more energy onto the market faster, Kotwiss said. Even in complicated power markets that include additional auctions — for capacity, for instance, or reliability — energy still makes up most wholesale costs.
It could also help ease the strains on the grid — especially in congested regions like the Mid-Atlantic — caused by artificial intelligence data centers and new factories.
The Texas-inspired technique could help the solar and battery industries, because it keeps a given project’s upfront expenses low and allows those technologies’ low costs to dominate their economics. Solar has boomed in Texas in recent years, and the state now has more utility-scale solar installed than California does.
But the BASED approach would likely help natural gas plants and other forms of newer, cheaper generation, too, because it strengthens new entrants as compared to incumbents. Jacob Mays, a Cornell engineering professor, has studied how slow and wonky interconnection queues can prevent electricity markets from functioning well. The existing interconnection approach used in most of the country “amounts to a significant barrier on new entry to new generation,” he told me, and it has “some anticompetitive impacts.”
Heinrich has said that he plans on introducing more electricity system reforms soon, including a bill to push utilities to adopt technologies that get more capacity out of their existing equipment.
I think it’s an encouraging sign for permitting reform advocates that ranking Senate Democrats are advancing these kinds of technology-neutral power market bills. An eventual deal will likely ultimately rest on Democrats’ willingness to support policy like this — and whether they can strike a deal with Republicans to rewrite parts of long-standing environmental or permitting laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act and Clean Water Act.
But just as importantly, it will depend on Republicans — and the White House — reining in President Trump’s powers to kill energy projects by fiat. With this bill, Democrats are suggesting they’re willing to be, well, a little BASED. Whether the president will join them remains to be seen.