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:
A talk with the creators of the new movie “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” about high-functioning climate coalitions.

“There is something suspicious about total tactical conformity,” writes Andreas Malm in How to Blow Up a Pipeline, his provocatively titled 2021 manifesto that, rather famously, “doesn’t actually teach readers” how to do it.
The film adaptation of the book, out Friday, bears little overtly in common with its IP: For one thing, it more or less does show you how to blow up a pipeline; for another, it’s an original fictional narrative, not an academic treatise or documentary.
But the film’s philosophical allegiance remains firmly rooted with Malm, who believes diversity of opinion and approach in the climate movement — including the evolution of a more radical splinter — are essential for progress. In the film, this materializes as the story of eight aspiring saboteurs who join together to plot an attack on a West Texas oil pipeline. The characters come from diverse cultural backgrounds (college-educated; Christian; Indigenous; vegan, etc.) and follow wide-ranging paths to radicalization (mutual aid work; a pollution-related cancer diagnosis; sticking it to a rich dad) — but for the most part, they get along with little more disparagement of each other than an occasional “weird kid!” comment.
Cynically, this can feel a bit like movie magic — a rose-tinted coalition-building fantasy. As everyone knows, leftists can only agree on one thing: that all the other leftists are wrong. It seems unlikely that the array of ideologies that come together in the film could ever be in agreement for long enough to actually carry out a pipeline-sabotage operation.
But somehow, How to Blow Up a Pipeline never feels false in this regard. Constructed like a heist film, it extends the “perfect crime” to the perfect team of criminals, and in doing so, stakes an optimistic political position that has nothing to do with crime. What if, the script seems to ask, this kind of coalition isn’t actually so far out of reach?
To many, though, leftist movements have never felt more broken. “The progressive advocacy space … has, more or less, effectively ceased to function,” Ryan Grim wrote for The Intercept last June. “The Sierra Club, Demos, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time’s Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.” Group tensions, fighting between groups, and fundamental disagreements over courses of action are what have caused the blog WagingNonviolence.org to identify “movement infighting and politics” as one of the primary “battlefields” of the climate movement. “When we are struggling to see fruits borne of many years of labor,” the publication writes, “we are more prone to point fingers.”
How to Blow Up a Pipeline’s four-person “film by” team — made up of writer-director Daniel Goldhaber, co-writer and actress Ariela Barer, co-writer Jordan Sjol, and editor Daniel Garber — weren’t ignorant of the “snake-eating-its-tail internal political struggles that ... often tear leftist movements apart,” as Goldhaber told Heatmap. Rather, it was an aspect that they were “very consciously ... trying to engage in.” One obvious example: that four-person film-by credit, a subtle but important meta-testament to successful collaboration.
The writers also spent “months trying to build a larger understanding of the kinds of cross-sections that exist in the climate movement in the U.S.,” Goldhaber said. An early approach to the script involved thinking about what a pipeline attack would look like “if it was us and our friends who did this,” Barer added. “We started talking to anyone who would talk to us and realized that, no farther than like one degree of separation, all of these characters existed in our lives already.” Just because the characters existed at one degree of separation didn’t mean they actually occupied the same orbit, though. As one activist advised the filmmakers, the characters in How to Blow Up a Pipeline shouldn’t all directly know each other before the sabotage team begins to assemble.
Once it does, the relative harmony is also well-researched. “We wanted to tell a story that was aspirational … where the group doesn’t fall apart and doesn’t fall victim to infighting,” Goldhaber said. “We’d actually been given some pointers by some people who do engage with direct action movements about what it takes to really successfully build a group like that.” Malm likewise stresses in Pipeline that heterogeneity of thought, while necessary for progress, makes movements vulnerable to “internal tensions” — a reality, however, that “no movement that has altered the course of history" has avoided.
It’s nevertheless true that in the current moment, “it sometimes seems more important to legislate those differences of values or opinions or even culture than to organize around material interest,” Sjol, the third co-writer, told Heatmap. But while Goldhaber agrees that “to some extent, yes, this is a Hollywood movie that traffics in aspirational ideas,” the team doesn’t see the coalition-building aspect as that far-fetched. In fact, the whole point of the film project was to make it identifiable — to offer a “point of entry to it if you were [in the] mainstream climate movement; if you were a climate radical; if you were a conservative land-rights person; if you were somebody who engaged in mutual aid work” — and thereby possible. You can see yourself in a character, and from there imagine working in a functional coalition of differing viewpoints.
“I think one of the reasons that climate doomism is so pervasive is because it feels impossible to actually figure out how to attack the problem,” Goldhaber said. But “show a bunch of kids building bombs that can directly attack the fossil fuel industry and all of a sudden that just that opens up a sense of empowerment.”
Empowerment … to blow up a pipeline? I’ll leave that read up to you. Certainly, though, it oils the gears of a movement that has felt stuck in its divisions: “We do hope and believe,” said Goldhaber, “that people will start thinking, What can I do?”
If you liked this article, sign up for Heatmap Daily to receive the best of the site directly in your inbox:
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 problem isn’t just affordability, two researchers from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub argue. Bill volatility also creates pain for electricity consumers.
Americans have come to expect shocking electricity bills, especially in the summer months. The latest data from the Electricity Price Hub makes clear: Households in every region of the country are seeing not just record high July bills, but also bills that are sharply higher than even just a few months before.
Some may see these trends and argue that utilities and regulators set rates, but bills are ultimately the result of consumer choices about how much electricity to use. But that narrative misses the mark for a simple reason: How utilities and regulators design rates influence both summer bill swings and how much electricity consumers use. Seasonal rates and other features of electricity pricing can exacerbate summer bill swings and inform customers’ decisions about whether certain electricity uses — even running the air conditioner on an extremely hot day — are worth it.
The scale of this summer’s electricity bill increases is striking. Nationwide, the average household electricity bill was $90 per month, or 71% higher in July than it was in April of this year. Not only are bills up, they are up from a high base. The national average bill in April 2026 was higher than any previous April average in the Electricity Price Hub data, and 37% higher than the national average in April five years ago.
These trends are not just driven by a few states. There are households in every corner of the country experiencing sharp increases in their power bills this summer.
At the state level, average household bills have increased the most in New Jersey (up 163%), Nevada (157%), and Oklahoma (133%), but bills have at least doubled in 11 states and are up 1.5 times in 24 more.
In 19 different states, average household bills from major utilities at least doubled from April to July, adding between $72 and $214 per month to their average customers’ bills. In 12 of those states — including some in the Northeast, Mountain West, South, and Southeast — more than 40% of all households are served by utilities whose average bills have at least doubled this summer.
Greater electricity use is a big part of what’s at play in these trends, but it’s not the whole story. Higher summer rates also contribute, in many cases. Rate design, market conditions, and regulatory processes can all cause electricity prices to change throughout the year.
Some utilities, for instance, have rates that vary seasonally, automatically adjusting in the summer months. Seasonal rates contribute to summer bill increases for eight of the 10 utilities whose average bill increased most from April to July. For three of those utilities, over half of the April-to-July increase was driven by seasonal rates. For another five, seasonal rates play a meaningful role, compounding usage-driven increases. For only two does the increase come back to usage alone.
Taken together, these findings suggest that summer bill shocks are not simply a function of warmer weather. In many cases, they also reflect deliberate choices about how utilities price electricity during the summer months.
Even where higher usage is the primary driver of rising summer bills, the way utilities structure rates influences how much customers can save by using less electricity or shifting when they consume power.
Across the utilities with the largest April-to-July bill increases, there is considerable variation in how they calculate a customer’s monthly bill. All include a mix of fixed monthly fees and charges based on usage, measured in dollars per kilowatt-hour. But the balance between these components differs significantly, with fixed charges contributing from 4% to 23% of average bills over the past 12 months. Some utilities apply the same per kilowatt-hour rate year-round, while others increase rates in the summer. For some, the same rate applies to the total amount of electricity customers use in a month, while others have rates that increase for higher tiers of usage.
That means the design of residential rates also determines how much households actually benefit from using less electricity. Two households may receive similar-sized bills, but depending on how their utilities structure their rates, customers can see very different savings from cutting back.
The three New Jersey utilities in the top 10 illustrate one approach: They all have relatively small fixed customer charges, along with per-kilowatt-hour rates that vary both seasonally and by usage tier. For example, Jersey Central Power & Light’s distribution charge shifts from a single volumetric charge in the winter to a tiered structure in the summer, with usage above 600 kilowatt-hours priced at a higher rate. This structure contributes to sizable seasonal bill swings, but it also creates a strong financial incentive to limit summer usage.
The average household in JCP&L’s service area used more than 1,000 kilowatt-hours in July 2025. Had that household used 15% less electricity, it would have saved roughly $50 that month; a 25% reduction would have saved $82. At current rates, a 25% reduction in usage would cut the average bill by 28%, and every 4 kilowatt-hour reduction in usage over 600 kilowatt-hours saves a dollar.
Nevada Power takes a different approach. Its residential rate consists of a larger fixed customer charge — contributing 14% of total average bills over the last year — and a set of volumetric rates that do not vary by season or usage level. As a result, consumers have less of a financial incentive to reduce consumption. A household would need to reduce usage by roughly 8.4 kilowatt-hours to save a dollar, and cutting electricity use by 25% would reduce the bill by about 23% — meaningfully less than under JCP&L's structure.
While seasonal variability in bills is expected and not on its face problematic, it is important to recognize that unpredictability and month-to-month volatility in power bills can compound energy affordability challenges. And although regulators cannot control the weather, the choices they make about rates influence the agency households have in managing their bills each month.
This then raises the question: Should utilities and regulators consider bill stability and its impact on affordability in setting rates? Staff for the Arizona Corporation Commission, which is currently considering requests from the state’s two investor-owned utilities to raise average household bills by around 15%, recently testified that “affordability and energy burden are not pertinent to ratemaking” — that they are, instead, “societal issues.” But that is exactly the wrong sentiment.
Affordability and bill stability both deserve to be explicit considerations in ratemaking, carefully weighed against other objectives and not dismissed or treated as an afterthought. Doing so may look different in different places and does not require prioritizing bill stability over all else. But where households are struggling to manage unpredictable power bills, regulators should be sensitive to those trends and lend greater weight to measures that boost households’ ability to manage usage and limit bills, should they choose to.
That may mean more effective and targeted energy efficiency and demand response programs and incentives for utilities to promote uptake. In some cases, it may call for better customer education on available rate schedules and ways to manage bills, and ultimately it may require more modern rate design. Whatever the response, stability is part of affordability. Wild bill swings add to the burden of record-high bills — a fact that utilities and regulators cannot afford to ignore.
On Trump’s mineral deals, the gas turbine backlog, and Turkic offshore wind
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Lala could strengthen into a hurricane before hitting Hawaii’s Big Island, becoming the first such storm to make landfall there since 1900 • A glacial outburst at Suicide Basin near Juneau, Alaska, is raising the Mendenhall River • Temperatures surpassed 107 degrees Fahrenheit in Zaragoza, the inland capital of Spain’s Aragon region.

The United States is rapidly approaching a two-decade streak as the world’s No. 1 producer of natural gas. The country held the top spot between 2009 and 2024, the latest year for which the U.S. Energy Information Administration has data. But America pumped record volumes of natural gas last year. And now the federal energy research agency forecasts 2026 will be another record year. Marketed natural gas production — the total volume that actually makes it to market, minus what’s burned off or leaks as waste — is set to reach an average of 122.5 billion cubic feet per day in 2026, up from 2025’s record of 118.5 billion cubic feet per day. The new milestone is the result of expanded drilling in the Permian region that straddles Texas and New Mexico, and in the Haynesville area, between Texas and Louisiana.
When the Trump administration first started buying up equity stakes in mining companies, former officials from the Biden administration told my colleague Matthew Zeitlin they were “jealous” that the Republican White House had the guts to try something novel to compete with China on the metals needed for defense and energy technologies. Now, however, top Democrats are asking federal watchdogs to probe whether the American taxpayer is actually getting good deals. New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Representative Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called on the Government Accountability Office to open an investigation into potential conflicts of interest. In a letter sent last week to Acting U.S. Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown and published Thursday on E&E News, the lawmakers accused the White House of violating rules to assess the financial risk of federal purchases. “These equity acquisitions also create potential conflicts of interest for federal agencies because a significant portion of the planned mining operations are located on federal lands,” they wrote. “With the executive branch now holding direct financial equity in these private mining operations, the federal government is required to act simultaneously as a mining investor and land-use regulator, an inherent conflict of interest.”
Mitsubishi’s backlog of orders for large-frame gas turbines is now more than twice its output from last year. In the 2025 fiscal year, the Japanese industrial giant delivered 16 gigawatts of gas turbines and had a backlog of 23 gigawatts. Just halfway through 2026, that backlog has ballooned to 35 gigawatts, executives told investors on the latest quarterly earnings call. The update, announced in Japan last week and covered in English by Utility Dive on Thursday, shows that “demand for large-frame gas turbines remains broadly in line with, or slightly above, the strong level we had anticipated,” Hiroshi Nishio,the chief financial officer of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
Power electronics maker Heron Power, meanwhile, unveiled plans for a $100 million factory in Morgan Hill, California. The startup, led by a former Tesla executive, aims to produce next-generation transformers that can patch more solar panels and batteries on the grid and help ease some of the issues that arise from the direct current-based electricity sources. The first factory is designed to churn out 40 gigawatts of Heron Links, the transformer product, per year. “America's grid has to grow faster than it has in decades. We’re seeing new demand from AI and EVs, and at the same time new supply from solar and storage,” Drew Baglino, Heron Power’s chief executive and founder, said in a statement. “The equipment running the grid hasn’t changed in 50 years. Heron Factory One in Morgan Hill is how we fix that. We’re manufacturing the leapfrog technology our grid needs, at scale, in America first.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Offshore wind is in retreat in the U.S., where, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote this week, the Trump administration is paying billions to kill projects that were already dead or dying. The industry’s tide is also ebbing in Japan, where the new right-wing government of Sanae Takaichi is putting a heightened focus on nuclear power. Elsewhere, however, offshore wind is booming. Europe is only expanding its plans. China is steadily dominating the industry. And East Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan are expanding their sectors.
Now two of the richest countries in the Turkic world are laying plans for more offshore turbines. Turkey announced plans this week for its first offshore wind tender in the first quarter of 2027, Renewables Now reported. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, this week formally designated a 275-square-mile section of water in the Caspian Sea for offshore wind development, per offshoreWIND.biz. The moves highlight the extent to which the U.S. government stands alone in its view that offshore wind has no role in a modern electricity mix. Turkey, after all, is doubling its domestic production of gas and completing its first nuclear plant. Azerbaijan is famously rich in natural gas and produces a decent amount of hydropower. Yet both countries are still charging ahead on offshore wind.
Deep-sea mining isn’t yet technically legal in international waters. But the Trump administration isn’t waiting, creating the regulatory frameworks for domestic approvals and opening the area around one of America’s Pacific territories to exploration. Japan has been eager to follow suit. Now Washington and Tokyo are planning to meet “centuries’ worth of industrial demand” by establishing what Mining.com called the world’s deepest undersea mine in a bid to take on China’s mineral dominance. The mineral extraction would take place more than 1,000 miles southeast of Tokyo on an uninhabited speck of land called Minamitorishima, where Japanese scientists carried out tests pulling rare earths out of mineral-rich mud.
China is actively building more reactors at home than all other countries combined and singlehandedly restarted the race for novel technologies after hooking the world’s only commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactors up to the grid in 2023. So far, Beijing’s two state-owned nuclear companies have remained focused on building light water reactors. Just one new high-temperature gas-cooled unit, designed to have more than twice the output of the first version, is currently underway at a facility where the fourth-generation, helium-cooled technology will be paired with third-generation, water-cooled reactors. Now the developer, the China National Nuclear Corporation, has made plans to procure a contract for the reactor for the first time, laying the groundwork for future deals to purchase units specifically designed to reach high temperatures. The “first concrete” for the plant is expected to be poured by the end of 2026, World Nuclear News reported.
Investment in zero-carbon energy and transportation surged this spring, driven by consumer EV and battery buying.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Ready to be surprised? Clean energy and transportation investment surged in the second quarter of this year, rising to more than $75 billion in total, according to new data released earlier this week.
In fact, this spring was the second biggest quarter for U.S. clean investment in nominal terms since at least 2018, when data started to be kept. More than 5% of overall investment in the United States went into a clean energy or transportation industry.
That’s according to the Clean Investment Monitor, a joint project of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and the Rhodium Group, a private research firm. The monitor tracks nationwide investment across a number of sectors that make up the new electricity economy, including critical mineral refining, battery manufacturing, solar and wind installation, and electric vehicle and heat pump purchases by consumers (among other variables).
Outside of a promising headline number, the story is a mixed one. Investment in America’s clean manufacturing sector started growing again last quarter after falling for 18 months; it remains about 24% below where it was a year earlier, according to the project. The new growth came overwhelmingly from investment in the EV supply chain — defined as “critical minerals, batteries, vehicle assembly, and charging equipment” — driving a staggering 88% of all clean manufacturing investment. That subsector alone made up more than 9% of all U.S. clean investment.
The more interesting story — and what leaps out from the chart — is that retail activity drove the spring resurgence. High gasoline prices helped here, pushing consumers to buy all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in larger numbers. (Rivian, Tesla, and other automakers started to see an EV rebound last quarter, too, after Republicans ended EV incentives in 2025.) But the real boom came in residential batteries, which surged to an all-time high of $11 billion in quarterly sales. Consumer activity hasn’t made up such a large share of national clean investment since 2023.
This trend wasn’t just happening in the United States. We’ve talked a lot at Heatmap about whether the Strait of Hormuz crisis will drive a clean energy boom. But it's now clear the oil price shock really did encourage global EV adoption. Some 50 countries set new EV sales records in 2026’s second quarter, according to Kelley Blue Book. India, Brazil, and Australia all set record highs. That's a lot of demand destruction.