You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The PJM Interconnection can’t seem to figure out supply and demand anymore, which could be good news for natural gas.

Here’s a dilemma: Large chunks of fossil fuel-powered energy generation are scheduled to fall off the U.S. electric grid in the next decade thanks to economic and regulatory pressures. Even larger chunks of renewable energy generation have not yet been approved to connect to the grid and may not be for years, if ever. Meanwhile, data centers and electrification have kicked off the first notable demand growth for electricity markets in over 20 years. On top of all that, the grid has become increasingly vulnerable to climate change-fueled disruptions, whether from solar power being knocked out by hail or natural gas lines freezing in an ice storm.
In some parts of the country, the solution to this dilemma is relatively simple. In much of the Southeast and -west, large utilities that own power plants are simply building more natural gas power plants. In California, regulators are mandating that utilities procure enormous amounts of energy storage, and have rejiggered residential solar rules to encourage more combinations of solar panels and batteries. And Texas is planning to lend billions of dollars at low interest rates to help finance natural gas plant construction.
Then there’s the PJM Interconnection, the 13-state electricity market serving much of the East Coast and Midwest, run by the country’s largest regional transmission organization. Despite PJM’s constant warnings about natural gas and coal generation retiring, it has not been able to bring new generating resources online in a reasonable timeframe. The grid operator — technically a non-profit — has neither the regulatory muscle nor the financial firepower to shape new energy generation to its preferences; its interconnection queue got so long, it instituted a two-year pause on reviewing new applications.
While many of PJM’s problems are unique to its particular circumstances, they’ve gotten so severe in recent months, it calls into question whether the decades-long project of structuring electricity generation, transmission, and distribution into something like a market is even working anymore.
“The whole premise is that a capacity market is about efficient entry and efficient exit,” Abe Silverman, an assistant research scholar at Johns Hopkins and former New Jersey utility regulatory official, told me. “We’re squeezing the tube on the entry side and letting very few new entrants in.”
According to PJM’s independent market monitor, at the end of last year, there were just over 7 gigawatts of natural gas projects in the queue, about half of which it expected to go into service eventually, while some 24 gigawatts to 58 gigawatts of coal and natural gas is expected to retire by 2030. There were over 200 gigawatts of renewables projects in the queue, the market monitor said, but only around 30 gigawatts that’s expected to go into service, and for the purpose of a capacity auction, only about 11 would count.
But for power market observers, the sirens really started going off at the end of July, when PJM held what’s called a capacity auction, which determines the price companies get paid to supply energy-generating capacity over and above forecasted peak demand in order to avoid blackouts. By the end of the five-day process, the cost of that capacity came out almost 10 times higher for than the previous PJM capacity auction — $14.7 billion, compared to just over $2 billion in 2022 — a signal that supply, demand, and reliability dynamics within PJM are seriously imbalanced.
That almost certainly means rate increases for consumers. In Maryland specifically, some residential electricity bills could rise anywhere from 2% to 24%, a monthly change of $4 to $18, according to the state’s Office of People’s Counsel.
What that almost certainly does not mean is a huge amount of new generation coming online. “In an efficient capacity market structure, the market starts sending higher price signals and generators start coming on-line,” Silverman told me. “Usually when you see high prices, you would expect more of a response from the supply side.”
In PJM, however, “new generation cannot come online quickly,” according to a letter from a group of consumer advocates in PJM states, therefore “the high capacity market prices are not an effective signal for new entry but instead a windfall for the owners of existing generation.”
Ironically, the high prices were due, in part, to PJM applying a formula it typically reserves for renewables to coal and gas plants, which “derates” the capacity they’re able to offer in times of stress, e.g. during a winter storm. Historically, coal and gas got high ratings because high winds and cold temperatures was considered unlikely to disrupt their production, while solar and wind scored much lower. But after 2022's Winter Storm Elliott, during which natural gas lines froze and caused a mass blackout, PJM knocked down the rating for combined cycle gas plants — the most efficient kind of gas plant, which recaptures heat exhaust to produce more power — from 96% to 79%, and for combustion turbine natural gas plants from 90% to 62%. Wind got a bump, while solar was rated down.
In other words, “PJM doesn’t view all these megawatts as reliably as they did before Elliott,” Nicolas Freschi, a senior associate at Gabel Associates, which does energy and environmental consulting for federal agencies, told me. That meant some 26 gigawatts of projected coal and gas capacity disappeared from the auction, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights.
The environmental activist community has long argued that gas is less reliable than utilities and the public seem to think it is, and that this should be taken into account with grid planning. The gas derating was “a good thing,” Claire Lang-Ree of the Natural Resources Defense Council told me, “because that means what we're paying for in this auction is actually reliable. It's a truing-up of the system.”
At the same time, she acknowledged, the auction result was “a bad thing insofar as it was the driving cause of the price spike,” which also means huge payouts for power companies.
“Despite the decrease in capacity credit, the higher capacity prices will impact the capacity revenue received for projects in PJM, generally increasing it,” S&P analysts wrote in August. By way of example, S&P looked at one natural gas plant in Ohio and found that its project per-megawatt-hour net revenue in 2026 would increase by 40%.
Morgan Stanley estimated that major power producers such as Texas-based Vistra and Maryland’s Constellation Energy would see a boost to their earnings before interest, taxes, and amortization of $700 million to $800 million each.
And yet in both Texas and PJM, many analysts (not to mention the gas industry) still see gas as the solution to a shortfall exacerbated by gas’s documented vulnerability. That’s due to its ability — at least on paper — to generate large amounts of power at any time of day.
So far, however, only one power producer with a large natural gas fleet, Calpine, has publicly indicated that it will aggressively pursue development in PJM. Calpine operates a 76-facility fleet that includes 66 fossil fuel-fired plants from California to Massachusetts. “The PJM market needs and values reliable, dispatchable, non-duration-limited power” the company said in a press release. (These are all industry code words for natural gas.) Calpine said it was “accelerating its PJM electricity generation development program following market signals indicating higher demand for reliable power,” and that it was looking at “multiple new locations in the PJM region, particularly in Ohio and Pennsylvania.”
Other companies have been more cautious. “It is only one auction, of course, and not long enough out in the future to be starting a new project,” Vistra chief executive Jim Burke said in an August earnings call. Morgan Stanley analysts noted that because the next auction is in December, “we don't foresee enough time to build significant new generation capacity. There are only 18 months between the auction and the start of the delivery year, which doesn’t leave time for permitting, interconnection queue timing, and construction because they are behind.”
S&P forecast that only one natural gas project under construction in Ohio could possible bid into the next auction. And while stock and bond analysts are more focused on the prospects for new natural gas plants, they are not particularly optimistic they’ll come online any time soon. “Merchant newbuilds remain marginal under our assumptions, indicating price signals may need to improve further to incent merchant new entry,” Guggenheim analyst Shahriar Pourreza wrote in a note.
Todd Snitchler, the head of the independent power generator trade group Electric Power Supply Association, noted to me that the July auction price was “coming off a record low,” and that the “abnormally” low prices in the previous two auctions — which were then followed by a lengthy delay — “suggested that assets should be leaving, and not coming on” — a trend PJM and other electricity market overseers have been warning about for years.
“One auction does not make a trend make,” Snitchler said.
If prices stay high, however, some analysts think power producers will eventually start trying to build new natural gas plants in PJM. “Investors don’t want to start building extremely expensive projects until they’re sure this price environment is sustainable,” Freschi told me.
Instead of beckoning new gas construction, clean energy and ratepayer advocates want PJM to focus on interconnection reform so that its existing queue — which is overwhelming renewables — can finally make its way onto the grid.
In a statement to Heatmap, PJM said its new system of evaluating projects in groups instead of on a first-come, first-served basis will lead to 230,000 megawatts being processed over the next three years. The PJM spokesperson also pointed to Calpine's announcement as a sign that the capacity auction was bringing new investment.
“We need investment in real projects that can get connected to the grid quickly, as opposed to the speculative projects that have clogged the queue in the past,” the spokesperson said. “Our reformed interconnection process encourages projects with the best chance of being built, and we are weeding out some of those that have been hanging on for years past receiving an interconnection agreement from PJM and who have not moved to construction.”
“Generators should submit their new project queue positions today,” the spokesperson added.
But like so many projects clogging the queue, these reforms are speculative, and in the end the restructured market, where new supply supposedly responds to high prices, simply may not work on its own terms. Some of this is due to policy in PJM states — you’re unlikely to be able to build a new natural gas plant in Democratic-controlled states like Maryland, New Jersey, or Illinois, and Guggenheim’s Pourreza wrote that “any new gas generation will be clustered in [Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia],” which could both lead to lower capacity prices in some areas and a more unbalanced market as new gas capacity becomes concentrated geographically.
But even in areas that are famously friendly to fossil fuels and have less complicated market and interconnection processes, demand for new gas has not smoothly resulted in gas plant construction. In Texas, which has closest thing to a free electricity market that exists in the United States, the state has had to turn to a multibillion low interest rate financing program to entice developers to build new natural gas plants.
May that be a warning to regional transmission planners everywhere. As S&P analysts wrote, “High prices signal the need for new generation, but do not guarantee it.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.