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:
Fossil fuel plant retirements are slowing down, and projected load growth is to blame.

To fully decarbonize the electricity system will require more than just the rapid deployment of non-carbon-emitting generation capacity, plus the transmission necessary to get that electricity to where it needs to go. It will also require that our existing stock of electricity generation — which is largely natural gas- and coal-powered — get mostly mothballed. So far, this process has been proceeding briskly. Renewable deployment is on the way up and is projected to accelerate, and older electricity generation was sliding quickly but gracefully into retirement — until recently.
Retirements of existing generation have slowed down dramatically in the first half of this year, which is on pace to be the slowest for existing generation retirements since 2011, according to new data from the Energy Information Administration.
In the first half of the year, some 5.1 gigawatts of generating capacity have been retired, and another 2.4 gigawatts are scheduled to be retired by year’s end, for a projected total of 7.5 retired gigawatts. From 2004 to 2023, by contrast, just over 12 gigawatts of capacity were retired each year on average, with almost 15 gigawatts retired per year this decade. Since 2022, according to EIA data, over 90% of retired capacity has been coal or natural gas.
What’s behind the slowdown? “Reliability is threatened because the grid conditions are tightening,” Douglas Giuffre, executive director of gas, power and renewables analysis at S&P Global Commodity Insights, explained in an email. “This is partly due to the recent pace of coal and natural gas retirements in the U.S., which worked off some of the excess capacity in power markets. Now we are seeing tighter reserve margins, and a relatively thin pipeline of new gas-fired projects that can come online quickly.” That’s especially concerning for utilities at a time when projected electricity demand is way, way up.
The wave of retirements was a national phenomenon, often having nothing to do with state-level plans to decarbonize. Coal and gas were being retired so steadily over the past 20 years not just because plants were aging, but also because power use was essentially flat from the early 2000s through, essentially, yesterday. This meant that older plants — especially dirty coal plants — became uneconomic to run, especially as natural gas prices began to fall.
Now, we are in a completely different world. Electricity use is forecast to start growing again, thanks to a buildout of new data centers and manufacturing, plus the ongoing electrification of automobiles and home heating and cooling.
The Southeast offers an example of how these trends have played out on the ground. In December 2020, the Mississippi Public Service Commission determined that the state had “excess reserves … largely due to decreases in projected load” and ordered a 950 megawatt reduction in generating capacity by Mississippi Power by 2027. A consulting firm hired by the commission determined that Plant Daniel, a coal plant, was “relatively inefficient compared to other available resources;” a few months later, the utility said it would decommission Plant Daniel by 2027.
Then Georgia Power, the utility that covers most of the state (and, like Mississippi Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company), rushed out a new three-year plan for its future power usage less than a year after finalizing its old one. Its demand forecast through the end of the decade had jumped from 400 megawatts to 6,600 megawatts, the result of a projected boom in data center construction.
“They came in with a preselected list of ways it wanted to meet that power need,” including buying power from Plant Daniel and new gas, Bob Sherrier, a staff attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, told me. Georgia Power told the state’s utility commission that to respond to growing demand it would need to extend contracts with its sister utility in Mississippi — which meant not only that Daniel would remain open for at least another year — and build new new plants that could run on gas or diesel, plans for which regulators approved on Tuesday. The utility also hinted that its existing plans to euthanize, for the most part, its coal-fired generation fleet by the end of 2028 were likely to be revised.
“To meet that projected need, the utilities are reverting to what they know, which is fossil fuels,” Sherrier said.
In vertically integrated markets, where utilities own generating assets and sell power to customers, environmentalists have seen delayed retirements and the building of new fossil plants as examples of utilities slipping into their comfort zone, building and operating expensive projects instead of developing or procuring renewables to handle rising demand.
But it's not just in vertically integrated markets where fossil retirements are being delayed. In Maryland, for instance, Brandon Shores, a coal-fired power plant that was scheduled to close in 2025, is staying open because PJM Interconnection, the regional electricity market, determined that a plan to replace it with battery storage was not a “realistic option at present” nor “technically viable to resolve the reliability violations or avoid the need for an RMR agreement at this time,” PJM president Manu Asthana said in a letter to Paul Pinsky, the director of the Maryland Energy Administration. The transmission investments required to make up the difference, meanwhile, would take several years.
Along with the neighboring Wagner plant, which burns a mix of coal, oil, and natural gas, Brandon Shores will likely stay open more than three years past its planned retirement date thanks to what’s known as a “reliability must run” contract, which “would put Maryland ratepayers on the hook for over $600 million dollars in out-of-market payments,” according to a letter written by several Maryland congressional representatives to PJM.
Environmental advocates have blamed PJM for not doing enough proactive transmission planning to account for predictable and scheduled plant retirements.
The slowing retirements mean that emissions from the electricity sector, which have been falling since the mid-2000s (with occasional bumps up as the economy has recovered from downturns), are expected to plateau over the next year or so. EIA forecasts show carbon dioxide emissions from electricity as essentially flat from 2023 to 2025, with increased natural gas emissions essentially offsetting falling coal emissions.
There is a bright side to the data, however. So far this year, the U.S. has installed just over 20 gigawatts of new generation, 80% of which has been solar and battery storage, including a 600-plus megawatt projects in Nevada and Texas. If added generation comes on in the second half of this year as planned, the EIA projects we’ll have 15 gigawatts of battery storage by year’s end. Along with the large and growing solar generation in states like California, Nevada, and Texas, the U.S. is getting closer to a grid that can, at least, run without carbon emissions day or night.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Clean energy stocks were up after the court ruled that the president lacked legal authority to impose the trade barriers.
The Supreme Court struck down several of Donald Trump’s tariffs — the “fentanyl” tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China and the worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs ostensibly designed to cure the trade deficit — on Friday morning, ruling that they are illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The actual details of refunding tariffs will have to be addressed by lower courts. Meanwhile, the White House has previewed plans to quickly reimpose tariffs under other, better-established authorities.
The tariffs have weighed heavily on clean energy manufacturers, with several companies’ share prices falling dramatically in the wake of the initial announcements in April and tariff discussion dominating subsequent earnings calls. Now there’s been a sigh of relief, although many analysts expected the Court to be extremely skeptical of the Trump administration’s legal arguments for the tariffs.
The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF was up almost 1%, and shares in the solar manufacturer First Solar and the inverter company Enphase were up over 5% and 3%, respectively.
First Solar initially seemed like a winner of the trade barriers, however the company said during its first quarter earnings call last year that the high tariff rate and uncertainty about future policy negatively affected investments it had made in Asia for the U.S. market. Enphase, the inverter and battery company, reported that its gross margins included five percentage points of negative impact from reciprocal tariffs.
Trump unveiled the reciprocal tariffs on April 2, a.k.a. “liberation day,” and they have dominated decisionmaking and investor sentiment for clean energy companies. Despite extensive efforts to build an American supply chain, many U.S. clean energy companies — especially if they deal with batteries or solar — are still often dependent on imports, especially from Asia and specifically China.
In an April earnings call, Tesla’s chief financial officer said that the impact of tariffs on the company’s energy business would be “outsized.” The turbine manufacturer GE Vernova predicted hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs.
Companies scrambled and accelerated their efforts to source products and supplies from the United States, or at least anywhere other than China.
Even though the tariffs were quickly dialed back following a brutal market reaction, costs that were still being felt through the end of last year. Tesla said during its January earnings call that it expected margins to shrink in its energy business due to “policy uncertainty” and the “cost of tariffs.”
Current conditions: More than a foot of snow is blanketing the California mountains • With thousands already displaced by flooding, Papua New Guinea is facing more days of thunderstorms ahead • It’s snowing in Ulaanbaatar today, and temperatures in the Mongolian capital will plunge from 31 degrees Fahrenheit to as low as 2 degrees by Sunday.
We all know the truisms of market logic 101. Precious metals surge when political volatility threatens economic instability. Gun stocks pop when a mass shooting stirs calls for firearm restrictions. And — as anyone who’s been paying attention to the world over the past year knows — oil prices spike when war with Iran looks imminent. Sure enough, the price of crude hit a six-month high Wednesday before inching upward still on Thursday after President Donald Trump publicly gave Tehran 10 to 15 days to agree to a peace deal or face “bad things.” Despite the largest U.S. troop buildup in the Middle East since 2003, the American military action won’t feature a ground invasion, said Gregory Brew, the Eurasia Group analyst who tracks Iran and energy issues. “It will be air strikes, possibly commando raids,” he wrote Thursday in a series of posts on X. Comparisons to Iraq “miss the mark,” he said, because whatever Trump does will likely wrap up in days. The bigger issue is that the conflict likely won’t resolve any of the issues that make Iran such a flashpoint. “There will be no deal, the regime will still be there, the missile and nuclear programs will remain and will be slowly rebuilt,” Brew wrote. “In six months, we could be back in the same situation.”
California, Colorado, and Washington led 10 other states in suing the Trump administration this week over the Department of Energy’s termination of billions in federal funding for clean energy and infrastructure projects. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, the states accuse the agency of using a “nebulous and opaque” review process to justify slashing billions in funding that was already awarded. “These aren’t optional programs — these are investments approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit, according to Courthouse News Service. “The president doesn’t get to cancel them simply because he disagrees with them. California won’t allow President Trump and his administration to play politics with our economy, our energy grid and our jobs.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:

If you’re looking for a sign of the coming geothermal energy boom in the U.S., consider this: There is now a double-digit number of next-generation projects underway, according to an overview the Energy Information Administration published Thursday. For the past century, geothermal energy has relied upon finding and tapping into suitably hot underground reservoirs of water. But a new generation of “enhanced” geothermal companies is using modern drilling techniques to harness heat from dry rocks.

If you’re looking for a thorough overview of the technology, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote the definitive 101 explainer here. But a few represent some of the earliest experiments in enhanced geothermal, including the Fenton Hill in New Mexico, established in the 1970s, which was the world’s first successful project to use the technology.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
When Exxon Mobil announced plans in December to scale back its spending on low-carbon investments, the oil giant justified the move in part on all the carbon capture and storage projects poised to come online this year that would vault the company ahead of its rivals. This week, Exxon Mobil started transporting and storing captured carbon dioxide at its latest facility in Louisiana. The New Generation Gas Gathering facility on the western edge of the state’s Gulf Coast is the company’s second CCS project in Louisiana. Known as NG3, the project is set to remove 1.2 million tons of CO2 per year from gas streams headed to export markets on the coast. The Carbon Herald reported that two additional CCS projects are set to start up operations this year.
CCS got a big boost in October when Google agreed to back construction of a gas-fired power plant built with carbon capture tech from the ground up. The plant, which Matthew noted at the time would be the first of its kind at a commercial scale, is sited near a well where captured carbon can be injected. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are reportedly probing the Trump administration’s decision to redirect CCS funding to coal plants.
In 2019, Maine expanded its Net Energy Billing program to subsidize construction of commercial-scale solar farms across the state. “And it worked,” Maine Public Radio reported last July when the state passed a law to phase out the funding, “too well, some argue.” In 2025 alone, ratepayers in the state were on the hook for $234 million to support the program. Solar companies sued, arguing that the abrupt cut to state support had unfairly deprived them of funding. But this week U.S. District Judge Stacey Neumann denied a motion the owners of dozens of solar farms filed requesting an injunction.
That isn’t to say things aren’t looking sunny for solar in Maine. On the contrary, just yesterday the developer Swift Current Energy secured $248 million in project financing for a 122-megawatt solar farm and the Poland Spring water company went on statewide TV to show off the new panels on its bottling plant. The federal outlook isn’t as bright at the moment. As Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported in December, the solar industry was begging Congress for help to end the Trump administration’s permitting blockade on new projects on federal lands.
The Trump-stumping country music star John Rich is continuing his crusade against the Tennessee Valley Authority. Months after blocking construction of a gas plant in his neighborhood, Rich personally pressed TVA CEO Don Moul to reroute a transmission line, posting a video Thursday of farmers who opposed the federal utility’s use of the right of way process to push through the project. Rich said Moul “personally told me as of this morning” TVA will put the effort on hold. The left-wing energy writer and Heatmap contributor Fred Stafford summed it up this way on X: “MAGA NIMBY rises, Dark Abundance falls. TVA ratepayers will be paying more for a rerouted transmission project because this country music star threw his support behind a local farmer who refuses to allow the transmission line to cross his land.”
Rob talks about the consumer response to fuel economy with Yale’s Kenneth Gillingham, then gets the latest Clean Investment Monitor data from Rhodium Group’s Hannah Hess.
It hasn't attracted as much attention as you might expect, but President Donald Trump has essentially killed all fuel economy rules on cars and trucks in the United States.
By the end of the year, automakers will face virtually no limits on how many huge gas guzzlers they can sell to the public — or what those purchases will do to domestic oil prices. But is the thinking driving this change up to date?
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of environmental and energy economics at Yale. They chat about how the economics profession changed its mind about fuel efficiency rules for cars and trucks — and then recently changed its mind again. They also debrief about what the Trump rollback gets right and wrong in its key economic assumptions and how that might affect its reception.
Then Rob chats with Hannah Hess, an associate director from the Rhodium Group about new Clean Investment Monitor data that shows the U.S. clean energy economy was a “tale of two industries” in Q4 2025.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: Let’s just roll the clock back to 2015 or 2016. At that point, the Obama-era standards had been in effect for some time. Where was the field of economics thinking about the efficiency gains from efficiency-based regulation in cars?
Kenneth Gillingham: That’s a great question. A series of papers came out in the early 2010s, either as working papers initially, and then they were published in those subsequent years. So if you were asking even me around 2015, I would have said, well, it does appear that consumers do value a lot of the future fuel savings and perhaps nearly all of the future fuel savings. If that is the case, that pulls out one of the key motivations for fuel economy standards or vehicle greenhouse gas standards that save fuel: It makes it harder for those standards to look to have positive net benefits.
Meyer: And I should say that neither the CAFE standards, which are from the Department of Transportation and regulate fuel mileage, nor the EPA greenhouse gas standards, which regulate the number of the amount of tons of carbon that come out of the car, like the truck tailpipe — they’re not cost free, right? They cost — I mean, at least as of the time of the first Trump administration — they cost like, they added to the cost of vehicles by about a thousand dollars or $1,200 dollars a vehicle on average. Now, consumers saved that over the life of the vehicle many times over. But if consumers are already taking into account those efficiency gains, then that tradeoff that the rules kind of forced consumers in maybe weren’t worth it.
Before we move on to where we are now, just staying in this 2015 zone, how did the literature reach this conclusion? What methodology were economists using to say, actually, consumers take all the fuel savings into account when they make a purchasing decision?
Gillingham: It’s a great question. So conceptually, they were looking at prices and quantities of vehicles. And they were looking at cases where you had, for some reason, the efficiency was improved, so there was some way, some exogenous way that efficiency was improved. And then looking at how the prices on the market re-equilibrated. And in particular, this was used for used cars. So much of the early 2010 literature that we’re talking about here brings in used cars and new cars. But importantly, it is including used cars and looking at how used car prices change with efficiency changes. Some of the literature was new cars as well, but they were generally finding relatively high valuation ratios.
Meyer: Give us an example. Is this like consumers, when they were buying a Prius, took into account all the fuel savings from that Prius as compared to like, say, a Toyota Tacoma, like the Prius price included this premium for fuel efficiency?
Gillingham: That’s exactly right.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
From Heatmap: Trump’s One Big Beautiful Blow to the EV Supply Chain
Clean Investment Monitor’s U.S. Q4 2025 Update
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Explore the 10-month Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Use referral code HeatMap26 and get your application in by the priority deadline for $500 off tuition to one of Yale’s online certificate programs in clean energy. Learn more at cbey.yale.edu/online-learning-opportunities.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.