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:
Climate shouldn’t be only a story for documentaries.

Paranormal: Caught on Camera is not the kind of television show you’d typically expect to read about in a research paper. Recent episodes include “Haunted Doll Bites Child” and “UFO Takes Off in Argentina”; a critic once described it as unsuitable for viewers who have developed “some powers of critical thought.” But credit where credit is due: Caught on Camera cites “climate change” as a possible cause of increased sightings of the Loch Ness monster.
This, alas, is the kind of meager victory the climate movement is often forced to celebrate.
According to research by USC Annenberg’s Norman Lear Center, there were just 1,228 mentions of “climate change” in the nearly 200,000 hours of unscripted TV that aired in the U.S. in the six months between September 2022 and February 2023. (Fifty-eight of those mentions were on “paranormal/mystery” programs, including Caught on Camera.) The situation is even worse for scripted film and TV: Between 2016 and 2020, just 0.6% of 37,453 scripts used the words “climate change” during their runtime. While there are notable exceptions — An Inconvenient Truth won the 2007 documentary Oscar, and The Day After Tomorrow and Don’t Look Up were mainstream hits — climate mostly remains off-screen even as nearly half the population says it has affected their lives.
Starting a Climate Film Festival, then, might seem foolish — because what would you even program? But New Yorkers are about to find out: The inaugural CFF will open Friday with a sold-out screening of the documentary Searching for Amani at the Explorer’s Club in Manhattan, with the festival’s 58 other films to be screened primarily at the Firehouse Cinema over Saturday and Sunday in a de facto kick-off to Climate Week. “Once we started digging, we found that there were an incredible number of these stories being told, but no one was really bringing them together under this rubric,” Alec Turnbull, who co-founded CFF with his wife, J. English Cook, told me.
The supply, however, is noticeably lopsided. CFF received “well over 300 submissions” during its open call for movies this past spring, according to Turnbull — enough that he and the volunteer screeners were able to winnow their broad interpretation of a “climate movie” from anything with “an environmental lens that didn’t have explicit climate themes” to movies specifically about climate.
In the end, though, unscripted documentary-style films and shorts came to dominate roughly 63% of the CFF slate. Only two of the program’s full-length features — the found-footage film Earth II and DreamWorks’ animated movie The Wild Robot — are fictional climate narratives.
This disparity might lead to the impression that there are too many climate documentaries in the world. (Seriously, how many more movies and shows can be made about regenerative farming?) While that isn’t the case — at least compared to something like the oversaturated true crime genre — documentary filmmaker might have more access to the subject than their peers in Hollywood because the medium has a “long history of addressing social issues,” Erica Lynn Rosenthal, the director of research at USC Annenberg’s Norman Lear Center, told me.
At least some mismatch is also likely due to “self-selection bias,” according to Turnbull. He told me that narrative filmmakers might not have submitted to something called the “Climate Film Festival” simply because they “don’t think about the work they’re doing as a climate story.” Another reason might just be endemic to film festivals. “Documentaries are really great for the festival circuit, for impact screenings, and for coupling with resources and workshops,” which boost their visibility even if they “don’t always make it to a broader audience” afterward, Tehya Jennett, whose short scripted horror film “Out of Plastic” is playing at CFF, told me.
According to the Norman Lear Center, however, nearly half of mainstream audiences said they want to see fictional stories that “include climate-related storylines” on screen. That’s far from trivial. “We know from decades of research that stories have the power to shift people’s hearts and minds and move them to action on a variety of topics, whether it’s health behavior or social issues,” Rosenthal said.
Sam Read, a CFF jury member and the executive director of the Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, an advocacy consortium that works to reduce the entertainment industry’s environmental impact, confirmed that the demand for climate narratives “currently outstrips the supply.” But he stressed to me that what makes a climate moment in a script doesn’t have to be something preachy, moralistic, alarmist, or even terribly overt, pointing to examples like the most recent season of Hacks, which included a bottle episode about climate change, and True Detective: Night Country, with its environmental and Indigenous plotlines.
“If you’re writing a sitcom and the mom is an office worker, could you make the mom a solar panel technician?” he asked, adding: “There are ways to both help people see what a clean energy future can look like while also exploring how this is affecting communities and how people are responding to it.”
Scripted examples, though, remain relatively rare. In the Norman Lear Center’s research, just 10% of the thousands of mentions of extreme weather in film and TV shows actually made any sort of link to global warming, perhaps because producers or executives worry that referencing climate change is political and might estrange half their audience. “The idea that [climate change] is going to alienate or turn off audiences is really an outdated perception,” Rosenthal said. Still, it’s even harder to push for experimentation and risk-taking when the film industry at large is struggling. And despite how it might look at CFF, it’s the documentarians who have been hit extra hard by the post-COVID turbulence in the movie world.
Of course, none of this is to say that documentaries are any less creative, ambitious, or worthy of being in a festival slate than their scripted counterparts. In fact, the Climate Film Festival’s centerpiece, The Here Now Project, is a documentary entirely composed of found footage of real people filming weather disasters during 2021. “Two people in the film actually say, ‘This is a horror movie,’” Greg Jacobs, who co-directed the documentary with Jon Siskel, told me.
Maybe it doesn’t really matter, then, in what exact form these stories are getting told: in a world with a changing climate, truth and fiction are equally strange.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
New tariffs and price floors for imported polysilicon aim to protect U.S. producers from Chinese competition.
Almost exactly a month after President Donald Trump’s landmark tax law effectively eliminated a key incentive for solar developers to buy panels made in America, his administration is throwing a lifeline to manufacturers behind the nation’s fastest-growing and quickest-to-deploy source of electricity.
On Thursday afternoon, after the markets closed, the White House announced new tariffs and minimum import prices for imported polysilicon as part of an effort to prop up the domestic supply chain for the primary ingredient in semiconductors and solar panels.
The levies come in response to complaints from polysilicon makers that the dearth of U.S. factories demanding solar-grade polysilicon made it difficult to compete with Chinese giants who benefit from selling both the solar- and microchip-grade versions of the ultra-pure industrial material derived from quartz and sand. The companies made the petition under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the White House the power to restrict imports and charge tariffs on imports that demonstrably impair national security.
The Trump administration will impose a 15% tariff on all imports and set baseline prices at which the levies would apply for each component in the solar supply chain. Polysilicon will have a minimum import price of $20 per kilogram. Wafers, the ultra-thin slice of crystalline silicon that acts as the foundation of a photovoltaic cell, and ingots, the silicon material before it’s sliced, will start at $100 per kilogram. Cells, the tiny silicon-based devices that absorb photons from sunlight and break away electrons that generate electrical currents, will have a minimum price of $0.22 per watt. Modules, the completed panels, are $0.38 a watt.
The majority of U.S. solar factories simply assemble wafers and cells into modules, leaving them reliant on imports. But the policy won’t hit all at once. The Commerce Department is giving companies 120 days before the restrictions kick in.
The agency will also set up an incentive program that allows manufacturers that make large capital investments in the U.S. to avoid the worst of the levies. Jeffrey Kessler, the Under Secretary of Commerce in charge of executing on 232 cases, pushed for the provision as a bid to avoid what happened when Europe attempted to protect its own solar manufacturers by setting a minimum import price meant to keep Chinese companies from flooding the market. That policy ended up subsidizing the very Chinese parent companies putting market domination ahead of profits back home.
Avoiding that outcome is tricky under any circumstances. China and the U.S. don’t have a tax treaty, which makes it difficult for American authorities to confirm a company’s ownership structure. The surest way to seal off the U.S. market is with 100% tariffs such as those imposed on Chinese electric vehicles.
In this case, the Commerce Department decided to allow companies with active plans to onshore the solar supply chain to apply for an exemption from the new trade rules. Ahead of the announcement, sources familiar with the talks listed South Korean giant Qcells, which just opened the nation’s largest integrated solar factory in Georgia, as one obvious example of a company that would pass muster.
Solar manufacturers applauded the move. “Today’s decision from the White House balances the reality of where America’'s solar energy manufacturing is today while advancing our collective ambition to onshore the entire supply chain from polysilicon to finished panels in the U.S.,” Andy Park, the global CEO of Qcells, said in an emailed statement. “American solar manufacturers are ready to rise to the occasion.”
The trade action “creates a market where wafer and cell manufacturing can happen in the United States, and companies can go fully vertically integrated,” Nick Iacovella, the executive vice president of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a bipartisan trade association that represents manufacturing companies at every stage of the polysilicon supply chain, told Heatmap.
“What this does is cement a key input in the supply chain that’s critical not just for chips, but for the most efficient, best-performing solar modules,” he said. “We shore up our chip supply chain at a time when there is a greater urgency to derisk from China invading Taiwan — and also during a time when the AI data center boom is driving massive demand for new energy generation, with solar driving a lot of the new capacity coming onto the grid.”
The levies come a week after the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of new types of foreign-made inverters, the equipment needed to patch solar panels onto the grid. Analysts said the ban would have a limited effect on the solar industry, since it allows for the current models on the market to be sold. The purpose of that policy is to prop up domestic factories at a moment when Europe, despite its struggle to reindustrialize, is experiencing an inverter manufacturing boom.
Despite those intentions, multiple industry sources who spoke on condition of anonymity told Heatmap that trade restrictions alone would likely prove insufficient to prop up a domestic solar supply chain at the scale needed to minimize imports.
The latest data from the Rhodium Group found that new U.S. investments in solar factories peaked from the second half of 2022 through the first quarter of 2025. During that time, as Emily reported in May, the announced projects averaged more than $2 billion per quarter. At least 30 new utility-scale solar factories opened across the U.S. just last year.
Since then, development has plummeted. Investment in new solar factories announced fell to about $350 million in the first quarter of 2026, a drop of more than 80%.
By raising the price of panels overall, the Commerce Department is providing a particular boon to America’s leading solar manufacturer, First Solar. While the Phoenix-based panel-maker’s thin-film cell technology doesn’t use polysilicon, the price hike from the tariffs will give the company an edge by allowing the company to either raise its prices to match new industry-wide benefits or undercut its competitors. Investors in the company told Heatmap its recent bookings average sales of about $0.36 per watt.
Another clear winner is T1 Energy, which Roth analysts say “would eventually be a beneficiary once it ramps up its U.S. cell manufacturing, which is now expected to come online” next year. The company’s share price spiked more than 10% in after-hours trading, while First Solar was up more than 8%.
“There are a lot of people in the administration who support solar,” Iacovella said. “They just don’t want a bunch of Chinese solar panels.”
Still, he added, “this is all about the chip supply chain.” While the benefits to solar are welcome, “this is a two-for-one.”
The Trump administration has signed a deal with RWE, a German developer, to cancel more than 3 gigawatts of offshore wind near New York and New Jersey.
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.
There goes another one. The German energy developer RWE has signed a $1.2 billion deal with the Trump administration to give up its claims to develop offshore wind farms in New York, California, and Louisiana. The Trump administration has now bought out 12 offshore wind leases, paying energy developers $3.93 billion for the privilege of not developing renewable energy along the American coastline.
Today’s is the largest payout yet — and fittingly so, I suppose, because it is among the most damaging. As part of the deal, RWE abandoned its plans to build a more than 3-gigawatt offshore wind farm in the New York Bight. When RWE first leased that site in 2022, it paid $1.1 billion for it — the biggest offshore wind lease auction ever held in the United States.
RWE promised that the resulting facility, dubbed Community Offshore Wind, would generate 700 jobs and $3 billion in local economic activity. It would have been close enough to New Jersey and New York that its power could have flowed to either state, although no final power contract was ever signed. Now all of that is kaput.
In the eyes of some critics, RWE had overpaid for that lease — and in that context, the Trump administration has I suppose done the German developer a favor, bailing them out from a bad investment in a legally dubious manner. (New York’s attorney general is suing to block a similar payout to Total Energies.)
But even beyond that context, there remains one big problem with these deals — an issue even more glaring now than when Trump started targeting wind projects last year. It is that the United States — and especially the Northeast, and especially New York — needs as much electricity as it can get right now. The Trump administration is striving to bring new power demand online in the form of data centers, but cutting off new sources of generation if they fail to meet its aesthetic standards.
Anticipating this sensitivity, RWE’s press statement announcing the deal goes on to list major energy projects that it’s committed to in the United States. These projects all involve, coincidentally (or not), fossil fuels: They include a $900 million stake in a Louisiana liquified natural gas export terminal and a $300 million reservation for new natural gas turbines. (RWE implies, but doesn’t say outright, that it will build 15 natural gas peaker plants with these turbines.) When we asked for more details about these projects, and whether we should anticipate anything new, RWE immediately got back to us: “We are unable to discuss further details on the investments.”
Yet as RWE well knows, these projects won’t help solve a coming energy shortage in New York or New England. For one, the Louisiana LNG export terminal is, well, an export terminal: It will help move energy out of the country, not generate more of it at home. Those exports might boost Americans’ fortunes in a vague, long-term, balance-of-payments way, but they won’t keep a lid on anyone’s power bills (which, by the way, just hit an all-time high). More importantly, the 15 peaker plants that RWE cites are largely going to be built … in other regions of the country. If the lights go out on Houston Street, a new gas plant in Houston can’t help.
Americans paid $217 on average for electricity last month, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
July is typically the season of high electricity bills, and this year is no exception.
Nationally, the average electricity bill spiked to $217, an all-time high, according to new data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. That’s up from $177 in June, and $215 last July. Meanwhile, electricity rates were 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, virtually unchanged from June and slightly higher than July of last year.
Throughout the country, many ratepayers are seeing higher costs and charges in the portion of their bill covering the cost of power generation.
Once again, some of the most notable electricity price and bill trends were seen in the mid-Atlantic region, the heart of the data center boom and the anchor area of the PJM Interconnection. The region also includes Virginia, where Florida utility and energy developer NextEra is attempting to acquire the commonwealth’s dominant utility, Dominion.
In July, Dominion customers saw typical generation charges rise to $155 a month, up from $124 a year ago. Overall bills for Dominion customers were about $259 this past month.
The higher bills are in part due to the “fuel charge rider” that went into effect this past month to help recover about $1 billion in additional generation costs claimed by the utility. Those charges stem in part from higher fuel costs this past winter, when natural gas prices spiked to their highest level since the winter of 2022-23, Dominion officials said in a filing to the state’s utilities regulator. The MIT researchers estimate that the fuel charge added around $53 to July bills, up $12 from July of last year.
In neighboring Delaware, bills were $216 a month in July, a record high, while prices were around 19 cents per kilowatt-hour. Customers of the state’s main utility, Delmarva Power, saw a near 20% hike in the supply charge in their standard service offerings, as prices rose from around 16 cents per kilowatt-hour from last year.
The Delaware Public Service Commission voted at the beginning of last month to allow an interim rate increase of about $3 per month for the typical customer, which went into effect July 9. Soon after, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed a law giving the state’s regulators more discretion to reject putting certain utility costs into the rate base and thus limit subsequent price hikes requested by utilities. The governor’s office described the law as a mechanism “to prioritize prudent spending over unchecked cost recovery.”