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:
New research published today in Nature shocked even the study’s own authors.

Hurricane Helene is, by conventional measures, the deadliest hurricane to strike the continental United States since Katrina. At least 182 people have been confirmed killed by the storm, with hundreds of people still unaccounted for. Although all hurricanes are deadly, only a handful of storms have killed more than 100 people since 1950. Or at least that is what we have long thought. New research suggests that these conventional tallies may be a vast undercount.
Several years ago, two economists and public policy researchers — Rachel Young and Solomon Hsiang, now of Princeton and Stanford — began to study a seemingly simple question: How many Americans do hurricanes kill each year? According to the federal government, the average hurricane kills 24 people after making landfall. That seemed likely to be a modest underestimate. Economists know that natural disasters can have a long tail of suffering; Hsiang expected the real number to be a “single digit multiple” of that figure — perhaps 50 or 100 people per storm.
Yet when they ran the numbers and looked at mortality in places affected by storms, they were initially perplexed by the results, Hsiang told me earlier this week. The numbers they came up with didn’t even make sense at first.
“It was months of us trying to understand what we were looking at,” Hsiang said. “And then once we realized what we were seeing, it was years of us checking our work to find what we missed.” Only when it was clear that their work resembled other American public health statistics — specifically, that the white-Black mortality mirrored what has been found in other studies — that the horrifying truth sunk in.
The finding: Hurricanes are hundreds of times deadlier than anyone has realized.
Their study, which was published on Wednesday in Nature, finds that the average hurricane kills 7,000 to 11,000 people after making landfall in the United States. These previously uncounted deaths happened not during a storm or in its immediate aftermath, but as a long, slow trickle of mortality that plagues a region long after the clouds have cleared and floods have abated.
In any one year, the number of storm-related deaths is not very high. And yet a wave of excess deaths is visible in population data for at least 15 years after a storm hits an area, they found.
“It lasts for so many years, and because there’s so many storms hitting so many states, once you add up, it becomes this enormous number,” Hsiang told me. When added together, hurricanes’ long-term death toll exceeds American combat deaths in all wars, combined. The number so dwarfs previous estimates that it suggests tropical cyclones alone are a major determinant of public health across the United States.
Kerry Emanuel, an MIT meteorology professor who studies climate change and hurricanes, told me that the results were “truly astounding” and “persuasive,” although he noted that he is not an expert in the statistical approach used in the paper.
“Summed over all hurricanes, this amounts to three to five percent of all deaths near the Atlantic coast,” he said. “I expect this result will prove controversial and will be followed up by many other studies of long-term mortality from natural disasters.”
The paper fits into a growing body of research on what others have called the hidden or invisible public health threat of environmental threats. For years, researchers have known that air pollution and heat waves, seemingly silent hazards, can in fact kill tens of thousands of people. Lately they have begun to apply the same techniques to other hazards, with outsized results.
Officially, Hurricane Maria killed 64 people when it struck Puerto Rico in 2017. But when researchers surveyed households across the island months after the storm, they found the death toll was closer to 4,600. (The territory’s government later revised the official figure to 2,975.) These deaths were caused not by the cyclone’s high winds or torrential floods, but rather by secondary effects of the storm’s destruction. Maria took out the island’s power grid and road networks, for instance, and preventing people with heart attacks and strokes from reaching the hospital in time.
That paper was written six months after Maria struck the island; this new hurricane paper considers a wider time horizon, finding that more than 80,000 Americans die each year as a result of a hurricane, whenever it occurred. Black people were disproportionately killed by the aftermath of hurricanes, at least partly because a larger share of the country’s Black population lives in storm-afflicted areas. About 37,000 white deaths each year are due to a prior tropical cyclone.
How could such storms cause such a long tail of deaths, affecting areas 10 or 15 years after they come ashore? The paper cannot answer those questions today. But Hsiang and Young hypothesize that hurricanes cause extreme economic distress, which can resonate for years or decades afterward. “If someone suffers a loss and can’t invest in their business, then it will have ramifications for their income long into the future,” Hsiang told me. “If someone is on a fixed income and their garage is destroyed, and they pull from their retirement funds to fix the garage, then eight years later when they face a big medical decision, they might choose” a cheaper or less effective form of treatment.
“When you talk to people, you hear stories like this,” Hsiang added. The time and money invested in dealing with the storm is often a “pure loss,” even if some of the damage ultimately gets reimbursed. “Even if you have insurance, that just means you already paid for it in some way,” he said.
Storms cause disruption in other ways. They can break up communities and social networks. (If children move away, for instance, their parent can face higher medical bills.) Hurricanes can also impose high costs on states, towns, and cities, which may then have to reduce or restrict other services as a result.
“When you think about how communities rebuild — local municipalities and states — they also play a lot of games with their budget” in the aftermath of a storm, Hsiang said. “If they spend a lot of money to rebuild a bridge or boardwalk somewhere, does that come out of some social program 10 years later? Or building a new NICU hospital?” That could explain why an infant — even one born 15 years after a storm struck a given area — could face a higher chance of death.
Young and Hsiang think that these economic drivers are most likely to be the big reason for the excess deaths — the effect is just too big and drawn out to make any other cause likely — but other possibilities exist, they recognize. Hurricanes could be deadly simply because they are highly stressful events. “We see an effect on cancer rates and also cardiovascular illness. Stress matters a lot to those,” Hsiang said. It’s also possible that hurricanes unleash contamination into the environment that then makes people sick. A flooded basement can become a breeding ground for mold. “There’s gas stations in every town. What chemicals come out when there’s flooding?” Hsiang wondered.
The paper may also help resolve a riddle in American public health. On average, Americans die earlier in the eastern half of the continental United States than in the western half. This effect is worst in the Gulf Coast and Southeast but persists to some degree in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
The paper suggests that hurricanes may have something to do with this geographic phenomenon. For infants, people below the age of 44, and Black people of all ages, hurricanes may explain a large share but not all of the mortality gap.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The cost crisis in PJM Interconnection has transcended partisan politics.
If “war is too important to be left to the generals,” as the French statesman Georges Clemenceau said, then electricity policy may be too important to be left up to the regional transmission organizations.
Years of discontent with PJM Interconnection, the 13-state regional transmission organization that serves around 67 million people, has culminated in an unprecedented commandeering of the system’s processes and procedures by the White House, in alliance with governors within the grid’s service area.
An unlikely coalition including Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, and the governors of Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee (Republicans), plus the governors of Maryland, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Carolina (Democrats) — i.e. all 13 states of PJM — signed a “Statement of Principles” Friday demanding extensive actions and reforms to bring new generation onto the grid while protecting consumers.
The plan envisions procuring $15 billion of new generation in the region with “revenue certainty” coming from data centers, “whether they show up and use the power or not,” according to a Department of Energy fact sheet. This would occur through what’s known as a “reliability backstop auction,” The DOE described this as a “an emergency procurement auction,” outside of the regular capacity auction where generation gets paid to be available on the grid when needed. The backstop auction would be for new generation to be built and to serve the PJM grid with payments spreading out over 15 years.
“We’re in totally uncharted waters here,” Jon Gordon, director of the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, told me, referring to the degree of direction elected officials are attempting to apply to PJM’s processes.
“‘Unprecedented,’ I feel, is a word that has lost all meaning. But I do think this is unprecedented,” Abraham Silverman, a Johns Hopkins University scholar who previously served as the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ general counsel, told me.
“In some ways, the biggest deal here is that they got 13 governors and the Trump administration to agree to something,” Silverman said. “I just don't think there's that many things that [Ohio] Governor [Mike] DeWine and or [Indiana] Governor [Mike] Braun agree with [Maryland] Governor [Wes] Moore.”
This document is “the death of the idea that PJM could govern itself,” Silverman told me. “PJM governors have had a real hands off approach to PJM since we transitioned into these market structures that we have now. And I think there was a real sense that the technocrats are in charge now, the governors can kind of step back and leave the PJM wrangling to the public service commissions.”
Those days are over.
The plan from the states and the White House would also seek to maintain price caps in capacity auctions, which Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro had previously obtained through a settlement. The statement envisions a reliability auction for generators to be held by September of this year, and requested that PJM make the necessary filings “expeditiously.”
Shapiro’s office said in a statement that the caps being maintained was a condition of his participation in the agreement, and that the cost limit had already saved consumers over $18 billion.
The Statement of Principles is clear that the costs of new generation procured in the auction should be allocated to data centers that have not “self-procured new capacity or agreed to be curtailable,” a reference to the increasingly popular idea that data centers can avoid increasing the peak demand on the system by reducing their power usage when the grid is stressed.
The dealmaking seems to have sidestepped PJM entirely, with a PJM spokesperson noting to Bloomberg Thursday evening that its representatives “ were not invited to the event they are apparently having” at the White House. PJM also told Politico that it wasn’t involved in the process.
“PJM is reviewing the principles set forth by the White House and governors,” the grid operator said in a statement to Heatmap.
PJM also said that it would be releasing its own long-gestating proposal to reform rules for large load interconnection, on which it failed to achieve consensus among its membership in November, on Friday.
“The Board has been deliberating on this issue since the end of that stakeholder process. We will work with our stakeholders to assess how the White House directive aligns with the Board’s decision,” the statement said.
The type of “backstop procurement” envisioned by the Statement of Principles sits outside of PJM’s capacity auctions, Jefferies analysts wrote in a note to clients, and “has been increasingly inevitable for months,” the note said.
While the top-down steering is precedent-breaking, any procurement within PJM will have to follow the grid’s existing protocols, which means submitting a plan and seeking signoff from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Gordon told me. “Everything PJM does is guided by their tariffs and their manuals,” he said. “They follow those very closely.”
The governors of the PJM states have been increasingly vocal about how PJM operates, however, presaging today’s announcement. “Nobody really cared about PJM — or even knew what they PJM was or what they did — until electric prices reached a point where they became a political lightning rod,” Gordon said.
The Statement is also consistent with a flurry of announcements and policies issued by state governments, utility regulators, technology companies, and the White House this year coalescing around the principle that data centers should pay for their power such that they do not increase costs for existing users of the electricity system.
Grid Strategies President Rob Gramlich issued a statement saying that “the principle of new large loads paying their fair share is gaining consensus across states, industry groups, and political parties. The rules that have been in place for years did not ensure that.”
This $15 billion could bring on around 5.5 gigawatts of new capacity, according to calculations done by Jefferies. That figure would come close to the 6.6 gigawatts PJM fell short of its target reserve margin after its last capacity auction, conducted in December.
That auction hit the negotiated price caps and occasioned fierce criticism for how PJM manages its capacity markets. Several commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have criticized PJM for its high capacity prices, low reserve margin, and struggles bringing on new generation. PJM’s Independent Market Monitor has estimated that planned and existing data center construction has added over $23 billion in costs to the system.
Several trade and advocacy groups pointed out, however, that a new auction does not fix PJM’s interconnection issues, which have become a major barrier to getting new resources, especially batteries, onto the grid in the PJM region. “The line for energy projects to connect to the power grid in the Mid-Atlantic has basically had a ‘closed for maintenance’ sign up for nearly four years now, and this proposal does nothing to fix that — or any of the other market and planning reforms that are long overdue,” AEU said in a statement.
The Statement of Principles includes some language on interconnection, asking PJM to “commit to rapidly deploying broader interconnection improvements” and to “achieving meaningful reductions in interconnection timelines,” but this language largely echoes what FERC has been saying since at least its Order No. 2023, which took effect over two years ago.
Climate advocacy group Evergreen Action issued a statement signed by Deputy Director of State Action Julia Kortrey, saying that “without fixing PJM’s broken interconnection process and allowing ready-to-build clean energy resources onto the grid, this deal could amount to little more than a band aid over a mortal wound.”
The administration’s language was predictably hostile to renewables and supportive of fossil fuels, blasting PJM for “misguided policies favored intermittent energy resources” and its “reliance on variable generation resources.” PJM has in fact acted to keep coal plants in its territory running, and has for years warned that “retirements are at risk of outpacing the construction of new resources,” as a PJM whitepaper put it in 2023.
There was a predictable partisan divide at the White House event around generation, with Interior Secretary Burgum blaming a renewables “fairy tale” for PJM’s travails. In a DOE statement, Burgum said “For too long, the Green New Scam has left Mid-Atlantic families in the dark with skyrocketing bills.”
Shapiro shot back that “anyone who stands up here and says we need one and not the other doesn’t have a comprehensive, smart energy dominance strategy — to use your word — that is going to ultimately create jobs, create more freedom and create more opportunity.”
While the partisan culture war over generation may never end, today’s announcement was more notable for the agreement it cemented.
“There is an emerging consensus that the political realities of operating a data center in this day and age means that you have to do it in a way that isn't perceived as big tech outsourcing its electric bill to grandma,” Silverman said.
Editor’s note: This article originally misidentified the political affiliation of the governor of Kentucky. It’s been corrected. We regret the error.
“Additionality” is back.
You may remember “additionality” from such debates as, “How should we structure the hydrogen tax credit?”
Well, it’s back, this time around Meta’s massive investment in nuclear power.
On January 9, the hyperscaler announced that it would be continuing to invest in the nuclear business. The announcement went far beyond its deal last year to buy power from a single existing plant in Illinois and embraced a smorgasbord of financial and operational approaches to nukes. Meta will buy the output for 20 years from two nuclear plants in Ohio, it said, including additional power from increased capacity that will be installed at the plants (as well as additional power from a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania), plus work on developing new, so-far commercially unproven designs from nuclear startups Oklo and TerraPower. All told, this could add up to 6.6 gigawatts of clean, firm power.
Sounds good, right?
Well, the question is how exactly to count that power. Over 2 gigawatts of that capacity is already on the grid from the two existing power plants, operated by Vistra. There will also be an “additional 433 megawatts of combined power output increases” from the existing power plants, known as “uprates,” Vistra said, plus another 3 gigawatts at least from the TerraPower and Oklo projects, which are aiming to come online in the 2030s
Princeton professor and Heatmap contributor Jesse Jenkins cried foul in a series of posts on X and LinkedIn responding to the deal, describing it as “DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC.”
“Additionality” means that new demand should be met with new supply from renewable or clean power. Assuming that Meta wants to use that power to serve additional new demand from data centers, Jenkins argued that “the purchase of 2.1 gigawatts of power … from two EXISTING nuclear power plants … will do nothing but increase emissions AND electricity rates” for customers in the area who are “already grappling with huge bill increases, all while establishing a very dangerous precedent for the whole industry.”
Data center demand is already driving up electricity prices — especially in the area where Meta is signing these deals. Customers in the PJM Interconnection electricity grid, which includes Ohio, have paid $47 billion to ensure they have reliable power over the grid operator’s last three capacity auctions. At least $23 billion of that is attributable to data center usage, according to the market’s independent monitor.
“When a huge gigawatt-scale data center connects to the grid,” Jenkins wrote, “it's like connecting a whole new city, akin to plopping down a Pittsburgh or even Chicago. If you add massive new demand WITHOUT paying for enough new supply to meet that growth, power prices spike! It's the simple law of supply & demand.”
And Meta is investing heavily in data centers within the PJM service area, including its Prometheus “supercluster” in New Albany, Ohio. The company called out this facility in its latest announcement, saying that the suite of projects “will deliver power to the grids that support our operations, including our Prometheus supercluster in New Albany, Ohio.”
The Ohio project has been in the news before and is planning on using 400 megawatts of behind-the-meter gas power. The Ohio Power Siting Board approved 200 megawatts of new gas-fired generation in June.
This is the crux of the issue for Jenkins: “Data centers must pay directly for enough NEW electricity capacity and energy to meet their round-the-clock needs,” he wrote. This power should be clean, both to mitigate the emissions impact of new demand and to meet the goals of hyperscalers, including Meta, to run on 100% clean power (although how to account for that is a whole other debate).
While hyperscalers like Meta still have clean power goals, they have been more sotto voce recently as the Trump administration wages war on solar and wind. (Nuclear, on the other hand, is very much administration approved — Secretary of Energy Chris Wright was at Meta’s event announcing the new nuclear deal.)
Microsoft, for example, mentioned the word “clean” just once in its Trump-approved “Building Community-First AI Infrastructure” manifesto, released Tuesday, which largely concerned how it sought to avoid electricity price hikes for retail customers and conserve water.
It’s not entirely clear that Meta views the entirety of these deals — the power purchase agreements, the uprates, financially supporting the development of new plants — as extra headroom to expand data center development right now. For one, Meta at least publicly claims to care about additionality. Meta’s own public-facing materials describing its clean energy commitments say that a “fundamental tenet of our approach to clean and renewable energy is the concept of additionality: partnering with utilities and developers to add new projects to the grid.”
And it’s already made substantial deals for new clean energy in Ohio. Last summer, Meta announced a deal with renewable developer Invenergy to procure some 440 megawatts of solar power in the state by 2027, for a total of 740 megawatts of renewables in Ohio. So Meta and Jenkins may be less far apart than they seem.
There may well be value in these deals from a sustainability and decarbonization standpoint — not to mention a financial standpoint. Some energy experts questioned Jenkins’ contention that Meta was harming the grid by contracting with existing nuclear plants.
“Based on what I know about these arrangements, they don’t see harm to the market,” Jeff Dennis, a former Department of Energy official who’s now executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance, an energy buyers’ group that includes Meta, told me.
In power purchase agreements, he said, “the parties are contracting for price and revenue certainty, but then the generator continues to offer its supply into the energy and capacity markets. So the contracting party isn’t siphoning off the output for itself and creating or exacerbating a scarcity situation.”
The Meta deal stands in contrast to the proposed (and later scotched) deal between Amazon and Talen Energy, which would have co-located a data center at the existing Susquehanna nuclear plant and sucked capacity out of PJM.
Dennis said he didn’t think Meta’s new deals would have “any negative impact on prices in PJM” because the plants would be staying in the market and on the grid.
Jenkins praised the parts of the Meta announcement that were both clean and additional — that is, the deals with TerraPower and Oklo, plus the uprates from existing nuclear plants.
“That is a huge purchase of NEW clean supply, and is EXACTLY what hyperscalars [sic] and other large new electricity users should be doing,” Jenkins wrote. “Pay to bring new clean energy online to match their growing demand. That avoids raising rates for other electricity users and ensures new demand is met by new clean supply. Bravo!”
But Dennis argued that you can’t neatly separate out the power purchase agreement for the existing output of the plants and the uprates. It is “reasonable to assume that without an agreement that shores up revenues for their existing output and for maintenance and operation of that existing infrastructure, you simply wouldn't get those upgrades and 500 megawatts of upgrades,” he told me.
There’s also an argument that there’s real value — to the grid, to Meta, to the climate — to giving these plants 20 years of financial certainty. While investment is flooding into expanding and even reviving existing nuclear plants, they don’t always fare well in wholesale power markets like PJM, and saw a rash of plant retirements in the 2010s due to persistently low capacity and energy prices. While the market conditions are now quite different, who knows what the next 20 years might bring.
“From a pure first order principle, I agree with the additionality criticism,” Ethan Paterno, a partner at PA Consulting, an innovation advisory firm, told me. “But from a second or third derivative in the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, you can make the argument that the hyperscalers are keeping around nukes that perhaps might otherwise be retired due to economic pressure.”.
Ashley Settle, a Meta spokesperson, told me that the deals “enable the extension of the operational lifespan and increase of the energy production at three facilities.” Settle did not respond, however, when asked how Facebook would factor the deals into its own emissions accounting.
“The only way I see this deal as acceptable,” Jenkins wrote, “is if @Meta signed a PPA with the existing reactors only as a financial hedge & to help unlock the incremental capacity & clean energy from uprates at those plants, and they are NOT counting the capacity or energy attributes from the existing capacity to cover new data center demand.”
There’s some hint that Meta may preserve the additionality concept of matching only new supply with demand, as the announcement refers to “new additional uprate capacity,” and says that “consumers will benefit from a larger supply of reliable, always-ready power through Meta-supported uprates to the Vistra facilities.” The text also refers to “additional 20-year nuclear energy agreements,” however, which would likely not meet strict definitions of additionality as it refers to extending the lifetime and maintaining the output of already existing plants.
A third judge rejected a stop work order, allowing the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project to proceed.
Offshore wind developers are now three for three in legal battles against Trump’s stop work orders now that Dominion Energy has defeated the administration in federal court.
District Judge Jamar Walker issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the stop work order on Dominion’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project after the energy company argued it was issued arbitrarily and without proper basis. Dominion received amicus briefs supporting its case from unlikely allies, including from representatives of PJM Interconnection and David Belote, a former top Pentagon official who oversaw a military clearinghouse for offshore wind approval. This comes after Trump’s Department of Justice lost similar cases challenging the stop work orders against Orsted’s Revolution Wind off the coast of New England and Equinor’s Empire Wind off New York’s shoreline.
As for what comes next in the offshore wind legal saga, I see three potential flashpoints:
It’s important to remember the stakes of these cases. Orsted and Equinor have both said that even a week or two more of delays on one of these projects could jeopardize their projects and lead to cancellation due to narrow timelines for specialized ships, and Dominion stated in the challenge to its stop work order that halting construction may cost the company billions.