Daily Briefing
A Fantastic New Way to Browse U.S Electricity and Energy Data
The federal government collects gobsmacking amounts of energy information. A new website makes it easy to access and use.
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 federal government collects gobsmacking amounts of energy information. A new website makes it easy to access and use.
Just don’t call it a platform.
Under new rules, the United States will impose virtually no limits on greenhouse gas pollution from power plants.
A new study suggests skeptical voters don’t respond to such urgent language — while climate-concerned voters find it depressing.
This is what we’re tracking in energy and climate over the next four months — and beyond.
The Pacific Northwest fire season is about to get even worse.
I turned on the heat this week for the first time since spring. Tuesday started out mild, damp, and overcast here in Seattle — the kind of weather the city still conjures in the popular imagination, even if about 50 days a year now are warmer than they used to be because of climate change. Summers here may be getting longer, but this morning felt truly like fall, and in the uninsulated shed where I do most of my writing, I briefly turned on the space heater to stave off the nip.
The same slow-moving low-pressure system responsible for the moody weather in the Puget Sound region will also go far in curbing the state’s wildfires, per Tuesday’s update to the National Wildland Significant Fire Potential Outlook. It’s almost obscenely good luck: September is historically one of the worst times of year for wildfire in the Pacific Northwest, after the summer’s high temperatures have dried out all the fuels but before the autumn rains arrive.
Worse still, though, is the tax on wildland firefighters. They call the month “Snaptember” because the physical and mental health effects of a long firefighting season begin to catch up with the more than 21,000 of them currently on assignment. That is especially true in a year like 2026, the worst fire season in the Pacific Northwest in 30 years. Nationwide, more than 8.2 million acres have burned, 164% of the 10-year average for this point in the year. The National Preparedness Level has sat at its highest level, 5, since mid-July, meaning that fire resources, personnel, and the seasonal hires who make up the bulk of the workforce are stretched to their absolute limit. There is no breathing room — 68 fires ignited yesterday alone, following 140 new ignitions on Monday. Some of the crews fighting the country’s biggest fires have come from as far away as New Zealand to help out.
The good news: The wet start to the month will drop the Pacific Northwest from above-average to normal fire potential for the first half of September, offering a much-needed break. But the brief weather pattern won’t undo August’s damage, including below-average rainfall across the region and the spread of “exceptional drought.” Temperatures ran as much as 8 degrees above average in parts of Oregon, and in southwest Idaho, an abundance of dried juniper, grasses, and shrubs has created, in fire-industry parlance, “an above-average fully cured fine fuel crop” — in normal terms, that means there’s a lot of tinder ready to burn. The entire state of Washington is under a precautionary burn ban until the end of the month.
What follows could be truly nasty. “Outlooks favor above-normal temperatures with no indication of a sustained wet pattern, meaning drying may quickly resume once the early September systems depart,” Tuesday’s report reads. Making matters worse, “Historical analogs and past transitions into El Niño,” such as the one we’re in now, “suggest an elevated likelihood of at least one moderately strong east‑wind day in September, further reinforcing opportunity for new significant fires to arise when lightning or human ignitions occur.” A similar situation — east, downslope winds and summer-cured dry fuels — compounded into the disastrous September fires of 2020, which burned over 11% of the entire Oregon Cascades ecoregion. (While El Niño historically produces above-average temperatures and lower rainfall in the Northwest in the fall, the greatest impacts will like come after the report’s outlook period.)
Drought now covers 57% of the country, and other regions could also pop off this month, further drawing on limited resources. The report highlighted northern California, the southern Plains, the Lower Mississippi Valley, and Florida as other regions with above-average fire potential heading into September. In the Southern Area in particular, which includes Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and southwestern Alabama, the suppressed Atlantic hurricane season has resulted in extreme drought “second only to the last very strong El Niño of 2015,” the report found. Above-average significant fire potential could “very well continue” as late as November.
By then, at least, the Northwest will have “probabilities for more organized storm systems,” particularly beginning in the second half of October, when precipitation will hopefully pick back up. Imagine that: Looking forward to the winter drizzle, which was once the great drawback of living in the Northwest.
But by the time Snaptember is through with us, I worry that those cold, dark, wet days of December will feel far away yet.
The Supreme Court will decide once and for all.
Good evening from New York, where a district court judge struck down a law the state passed in 2024 to extract $75 billion from fossil fuel companies to fund its response to climate change. The ruling is a sign that so-called “superfund”-style laws may not be the winning strategy many climate advocates had hoped.
You may know the New York law as the Climate Change Superfund Act, and it mirrors similarly-named legislation passed in Vermont and introduced in about a dozen other states. The law’s backers — environmental groups, consumer advocates — pitched it as a new approach after earlier attempts to sue energy companies directly for damages had either failed or were stuck in procedural arguments over whether the cases belonged in state or federal court.
Get Heatmap Daily in your inbox
Unlike those lawsuits, the climate superfund laws don’t accuse the companies of doing anything wrong. They are modeled on the federal Superfund program, which allows the Environmental Protection Agency to request funding from companies to clean up industrial waste years after the contamination occurred, and despite the fact that the pollution was lawful at the time. The theory was that this federal precedent might give the states a leg up when energy companies inevitably fought the policy.
That comparison does not seem to have meant much to Judge Brenda Sannes. Instead, her decision focused on the similarities between the climate superfund law and a lawsuit New York City brought against Chevron and other oil companies that federal courts dismissed several years ago. Sannes concluded that just like the city’s lawsuit, the superfund law would in effect regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions, which is a federal responsibility under the Clean Air Act.
Notably, Sannes also disregarded the Trump administration decision to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, which underpinned the federal government’s responsibility to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, writing that it had “no impact” on her analysis.
To me, the idea that these climate lawsuits and superfund laws are akin to emissions regulation has been one of the more confounding aspects of covering these court fights. None of the suits concern greenhouse gas regulations in any traditional sense — they are about oil companies’ deception and responsibility for climate change-related damages. Still, several courts have agreed with oil companies that the financial penalty levied on them amounts to a form of oversight of emissions.
Climate advocates are not giving up just yet, and are urging New York Attorney General Letitia James to appeal. A press release from the group Fossil Free Media argued the ruling was “based on a deeply flawed analysis” and was “an early, appealable decision in a developing legal fight.” James has not yet issued a response.
Regardless, the superfund concept will get another test in the federal court for the district of Vermont, where the same groups challenging New York’s law — the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, Republican states, and the Trump administration — are also challenging Vermont’s version.
Much more rides on an upcoming Supreme Court case, however. The high court has agreed to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by Boulder County, Colorado against Exxon and a Canadian oil sands company, Suncor. The county originally filed the case in 2018, and it’s one of the ones that’s been held up for years in procedural arguments. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court decided it could finally advance toward a trial, leading the oil companies to appeal to the federal Supreme Court. They are asking the justices to decide once and for all whether federal law preempts states from seeking relief for climate damages.
Oral arguments begin on October 5.