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:
The country’s largest source of renewable energy has a long history.

Was Don Quixote a NIMBY?
Miguel de Cervantes’ hero admittedly wasn’t tilting at turbines in 1605, but for some of his contemporary readers in 17th-century Spain, windmills for grinding wheat into flour were viewed as a “dangerous new technology,” author Simon Winchester writes in his forthcoming book, The Breath of the Gods: The History and Future of the Wind. One interpretation of Cervantes’ novel might be that Quixote was “actually doing battle with progress.”
Nearly four and a half centuries later, harnessing the energy of the wind remains controversial, even if the breeze is one of humankind’s longest-utilized resources. While wind is the largest source of renewable electricity generation in the United States today, high construction costs and local opposition have more recently stymied the industry’s continued expansion. The new presidential administration — suspicious of wind’s reliability and place in the American energy mix — has also been doing its very best to stunt any future growth in the sector.
Whether you’re catching up on Trump’s latest regulatory moves, you have your own concerns about the safety of the technology, or this is your first time even thinking about this energy resource, here is the blow-by-blow — sorry! — on wind power in the U.S.
At their most basic conceptual level, wind turbines work by converting kinetic energy — the energy of an object in motion; in this case, air particles — into electrical energy that can be used to power homes, buildings, factories, and data centers.
Like hydroelectric dams, turbines do this by first converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy. The wind turns the turbine blades, which spin a rotor that is connected to a generator. Inside the generator are magnets that rotate around coils of copper wire, creating a magnetic field that pushes and pulls the electrons within the copper. Voilà — and with gratitude to Michael Faraday — now you have an electrical current that can be distributed to the grid.
Turbines typically require an average wind speed of about 9 miles per hour to generate electricity, which is why they are constructed in deserts, mountain passes, on top of hills, or in shallow coastal waters offshore, where there is less in the way to obstruct the flow of wind. Higher elevations are also windier, so utility-scale wind turbines are frequently around 330 feet tall (though the largest turbines tower 600 feet or higher).
It depends on the size of the turbine and also the wind speed. The average capacity of a new land-based wind turbine in the U.S. was 3.4 megawatts in 2023 — but that’s the “nameplate capacity,” or what the turbine would generate if it ran at optimal capacity around the clock.

In the U.S., the average capacity factor (i.e. the actual energy output) for a turbine is more like 42%, or close to two-fifths of its theoretical maximum output. The general rule of thumb is that one commercial turbine in the U.S. can power nearly 1,000 homes per month. In 2023, the latest year of data available, land-based and offshore wind turbines in the U.S. generated 425,235 gigawatt-hours of electricity, or enough to power 39 million American homes per year.
A common criticism of wind power is that it “stops working” if the wind isn’t blowing. While it’s true that wind is an intermittent resource, grid operators are used to coping with this. A renewables-heavy grid should combine different energy sources and utilize offline backup generators to prevent service interruptions during doldrums. Battery storage can also help handle fluctuations in demand and increase reliability.
At the same time, wind power is indeed dependent on, well, the wind. In 2023, for example, U.S. wind power generation dropped below 2022 levels due to lower-than-average wind speeds in parts of the Midwest. When you see a turbine that isn’t spinning, though, it isn’t necessarily because there isn’t enough wind. Turbines also have a “cut out” point at which they stop turning if it gets too windy, which protects the structural integrity of the blades and prevents Twisters-like mishaps, as well as keeps the rotor from over-spinning, which could strain or break the turbine’s internal rotating components used to generate electricity.
Though Americans have used wind power in various forms since the late 1800s, the oil crisis of the 1970s brought new interest, development, and investment in wind energy. “The American industry really got going after the suggestion from the Finns, the Swedes, the Danes,” who’d already been making advances in the technology, albeit on single-turbine scales, Winchester, the author of the forthcoming history of wind power, The Breath of the Gods, told me.
In the early 1970s, the Department of Energy issued a grant to William Heronemus, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, to explore the potential of wind energy. Heronemus became “really enthusiastic and built wind generators on the campus,” helping to modernize turbines into the more familiar construction we see widely today, Winchester said.
Some of Heronemus’ former students helped build the world’s first multi-turbine wind farm in New Hampshire in 1981. Though the blades of that farm interfered with nearby television reception — they had to be paused during prime time — the technology “seemed to everyone to make sense,” Winchester said. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, which introduced production tax credits for renewables, spurred further development through the end of the millennium.
Heronemus, a former Naval architect, had dreamed in the 1970s of building a flotilla of floating turbines mounted on “wind ships” that were powered by converting seawater into hydrogen fuel. Early experiments in offshore wind by the Energy Research and Development Administration, the progenitor of the Department of Energy, weren’t promising due to the technological limitations of the era — even commercial onshore wind was still in its infancy, and Heronemus’ plans looked like science-fiction.
In 1991, though, the Danes — ever the leaders in wind energy — successfully constructed the Vindeby Offshore Wind Farm, complete with 11 turbines and a total installed capacity of 5 megawatts. The Blyth offshore wind farm in northern Wales soon followed, with the United States finally constructing its first grid-connected offshore wind turbines off of Maine in 2013. The Block Island wind farm, with a capacity of 30 megawatts, is frequently cited as the first true offshore wind farm in the U.S., and began operating off the coast of Rhode Island in 2016.
Though offshore wind taps into higher and more consistent wind speeds off the ocean — and, as a result, is generally considered more efficient than onshore wind — building turbines at sea comes with its own set of challenges. Due to increased installation costs and the greater wear-and-tear of enduring saltwater and storms at sea, offshore wind is generally calculated to be about twice as expensive as onshore wind. “It’s unclear if offshore wind will ever be as cheap as onshore — even the most optimistic projections documented by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have offshore wind more expensive than the current price of onshore in 2035,” according to Brian Potter in his newsletter, Construction Physics, though he notes that “past projections have underestimated the future cost reductions of wind turbines.”

In the decade from 2014 to 2023, total wind capacity in the U.S. doubled. Onshore and offshore wind power is now responsible for over 10% of utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S., and has been the highest-producing renewable energy source in the nation since 2019. (Hydropower, the next highest-producing renewable energy source, is responsible for about 5.7% of the energy mix, by comparison.) In six states — Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, and North Dakota — onshore wind makes up more than a third of the current electricity mix, Climate Central reports.
Offshore wind has been slower to grow in the U.S. Even during the Biden administration, when the government targeted developing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, the industry faced financing challenges, transmission and integration obstacles, and limits in access to a skilled workforce, per a 2024 paper in Energy Research & Social Science. That same year, the Department of Energy reported that the nation had a total of 80,523 megawatts for offshore wind in operation and in the pipeline, which, under ideal conditions, could power 26 million homes. Many of those offshore projects and plans now face an uncertain future under the Trump administration.
Though we’re far removed from the 1880s, when suspicious Scots dismissed wind energy pioneer James Blyth’s home turbine as “the devil’s work,” there are still plenty of persistent concerns about the safety of wind power to people and animals.
Some worry about onshore wind turbines’ effects on people, including the perceived dangers of electromagnetic fields, shadow flicker from the turning blades, and sleep disturbance or stress. Per a 2014 systematic review of 60 peer-reviewed studies on wind turbines and human health by the National Institutes of Health, while there was “evidence to suggest that wind turbines can be a source of annoyance to some people, there was no evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between living in proximity to wind turbines and more serious physiological health effects.” The topic has since been extensively studied, with no reputable research concluding that turbines have poor health impacts on those who live near them.
Last year, the blade of a turbine at Vineyard Wind 1 broke and fell into the water, causing the temporary closure of beaches in Nantucket to protect people from the fiberglass debris. While no one was ultimately injured, GE Vernova, which owns Vineyard Wind, agreed earlier this year to settle with the town for $10.5 million to compensate for the tourism and business losses that resulted from the failure. Thankfully, as my colleague Jael Holzman has written, “major errors like blade failures are incredibly rare.”
There are also concerns about the dangers of wind turbines to some wildlife. Turbines do kill birds, including endangered golden eagles, which has led to opposition from environmental and local activist groups. But context is also important: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found that wind farms “represent just 0.03% of all human-related bird deaths in the U.S.” (Illegal shootings, for example, are the greatest cause of golden eagle deaths.) The continued use of fossil fuels and the ecological impacts of climate change also pose a far graver threat to birds than wind farms do. Still, there is room for discussion and improvement: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a call earlier this year for proposals to help protect golden eagles from turbine collisions in its major wind resource areas.
Perhaps the strongest objection to offshore wind has come from concern for whales. Though there has been an ongoing “unusual mortality event” for whales off the East Coast dating back to 2016 — about the same time the burgeoning offshore wind industry took off in the United States — the two have been falsely correlated (especially by groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry). A recent government impact report ordered by Republicans even found that “NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any death or serious injury to whales from offshore wind-related actions and has not recorded marine mammal deaths from offshore wind activities.” Still, that hasn’t stopped Republican leaders — including the president — from claiming offshore wind is making whales “a little batty.”
Polling by Heatmap has found that potential harm to wildlife is a top concern of both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the deployment of renewable energy. Although there has been “no evidence to date that the offshore wind build-out off the Atlantic coast has harmed a single whale … studies have shown that activities related to offshore wind could harm a whale, which appears to be enough to override the benefits for some people,” my colleague Jael has explained. A number of environmental groups are attempting to prevent offshore and land-based wind development on conservationist grounds, to varying degrees of success. Despite these reservations, though, our polling has found that Americans on the coast largely support offshore wind development.
Aesthetic concerns are another reason wind faces opposition. The proposed Lava Ridge wind farm in Idaho, which was Heatmap’s most imperiled renewable energy project last year, faced intense opposition, ostensibly due to the visibility of the turbines from the Minidoka National Historic Site, the site of a Japanese internment camp. Coastal homeowners have raised the same complaint about offshore wind that would be visible from the beach, like the Skipjack offshore wind project, which would be situated off the coast of Maryland.
Not good. As one of President Trump’s first acts in office, he issued an executive order that the government “shall not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” until the completion of a “comprehensive assessment” of the industry’s impacts on the economy and the environment. Eight months later, federal agencies were still not processing applications for onshore wind projects.
Offshore wind is in even more trouble because such projects are sited entirely in federal waters. As of late July, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had rescinded all designated wind energy areas — a decision that applies to some 3.5 million acres of federal waters, including the Central Atlantic, California, and Oregon. The Department of the Interior has also made moves to end what it calls the “special treatment for unreliable energy sources, such as wind,” including by “evaluating whether to stop onshore wind development on some federal lands and halting future offshore wind lease sales.” The Interior Department will also look into how “constructing and operating wind turbines might affect migratory bird populations.”
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, meanwhile, put strict restrictions on tax credits available to wind developers. Per Cleanview, the bill jeopardizes some 114 gigawatts of wind energy projects, while the Center for American Progress writes that “more than 17,000 jobs are connected to offshore wind power projects that are already canceled, on hold, or at risk from the Trump administration’s attacks on wind power.”
The year 2024 marked a record for new wind power capacity, with 117 gigawatts of wind energy installed globally. China in particular has taken a keen interest in constructing new wind farms, installing 26 gigawatts worth, or about 5,300 turbines, between January and May of last year alone.
Still, there are significant obstacles to the buildout of wind energy even outside of the United States, including competition from solar, which is now the cheapest and most widely deployed renewable energy resource in the world. High initial construction costs, deepened by inflation and supply-chain issues, have also stymied wind development.
There are an estimated 424 terawatts worth of wind energy available on the planet, and current wind turbines tap into just half a percent of that. According to Columbia Business School’s accounting, if maximized, wind has the potential to “abate 10% to 20% of CO2 emissions by 2050, through the clean electrification of power, heat, and road transport.”
Wind is also a heavy player in the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, which aims for
7,100 terawatt hours of wind electricity generation worldwide by the end of the decade, per the International Energy Agency. But current annual growth would need to increase annual capacity additions from about 115 gigawatts in 2023 to 340 gigawatts in 2030. “Far greater policy and private-sector efforts are needed to achieve this level of capacity growth,” IEA notes, “with the most important areas for improvement being facilitating permitting for onshore wind and cost reductions for offshore wind.”
Wind turbines continue to become more efficient and more economical. Many of the advances have come in the form of bigger turbines, with the average height of a hub for a land-based turbine increasing 83% since the late 1990s. The world’s most powerful offshore turbine, Vestas’ V236-15.0 megawatt prototype, is, not coincidentally, also the world’s tallest, at 919 feet.
Advanced manufacturing techniques, such as the use of carbon fiber composites in rotor blades and 3D printed materials, could also lead to increases in efficiency. In a 2024 report, NREL anticipated that such innovations could potentially “unlock 80% more economically viable wind energy capacity within the contiguous United States.”
Floating offshore wind farms are another area of active innovation. Unlike the fixed-foundation turbines mainly used offshore today, floating turbines could be installed in deep waters and allow for development on trickier coastlines like off of Oregon and Washington state. Though there are no floating offshore wind farms in the United States yet, there are an estimated 266 gigawatts of floating turbine capacity in the pipeline globally.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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.”
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.