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:
Sweltering heat and earlier sunsets are a big problem for solar power.

The biggest problem in renewable energy goes by a few names.
Classically, it’s called the “duck curve,” which shows the relationship between solar generation and how much power the rest of the grid uses during the day. At the bottom of the curve, typically around midday, solar can sometimes generate 100% of the power demanded from the grid. But as the sun traces its arc towards the horizon, solar power generation falls and then quickly goes to zero as the sun sets. Often, temperatures and electricity use remains high, especially as people come home from work and start using home appliances, meaning non-solar sources of power must quickly come on line to fill in the gap.
It’s not a coincidence that utilities and grid operators tend to ask consumers to conserve in the later afternoon or evening. The phenomenon is classically associated with solar-heavy California, but it has come to Texas as well, where it goes by the name of the “Armadillo Curve” or the “Dead Armadillo Curve.”
But the relation between the sun and the Earth doesn’t just create darkness and light on daily scales but on annual ones as well. Yes, I know this isn’t breaking news, but it’s important, especially as the power system and climate are changing.
Right now we might be in the neck of the annual duck curve.
In case you haven’t noticed, the sun is setting earlier and it’s still really hot out. Kids are going back to school while much of the country is still facing summer temperatures.
In New York City this week, high temperatures are forecast to get into the 90s, while the sun will set before 7:30; in Washington, D.C., forecast highs are over 100 later this week with a sunset just past 7:30; in Houston, daytime highs to get over 100 later this week, with the sun setting before 7:40; and in Los Angeles , sunsets are at around 7:15 with expected daytime highs in the 90s this weekend.
And Septembers are only getting hotter. Septembers 2021 and 2022 were tied for the fifth hottest on record for the last 143 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 10 of the hottest Septembers have occurred since 2012. The warmest was in 2020.
These higher temperatures mean prolonged periods of high electricity usage, even as one resource — solar — becomes less potent. This matters because, at least in the United States, we tend to organize our lives — and our electricity usage — around the clock, not the sun.
As the sun is setting earlier, our high electricity usage stretches longer compared to the length of the solar day, exacerbating the duck curve dynamics inherent to solar power. A dishwasher that runs when the sun’s still up in July is pulling the same power from the grid as one that runs during fall’s early twilight. The saving grace of shorter days in a grid that uses solar power is supposed to be that air conditioning usage goes down, but that doesn’t happen when summer temperatures persist past Labor Day.
If hot Septembers and even Octobers become the norm, grid conditions could tighten up both during and across the days, with higher cost, less reliable power or increased usage of fossil fuels to fill in the gap.
These longer, hotter summers can make operating electric grids more difficult. ERCOT, the electricity market that covers the vast majority of Texas, restricts power plants from having planned outages between May 15 and September 15 for maintenance. While still in the summer restriction window, ERCOT on Tuesday issued an alert for later this week, warning of “forecasted higher temperatures, higher electrical demand, and the potential for lower reserves.” If ERCOT extends its restrictions on outages for maintenance, there should be more unplanned outages, making power scarcer, meaning higher prices and a greater possibility of blackouts.
Not every country sees peak electricity usage in late summer. In New England, peak electricity demand tends to hit in July. In the sprawling PJM Interconnection last year, the electricity market that spans from the Chicago area to Virginia, demand peaks tended to be in June or August. In New York, peak demand is often in July.
But summer peaks are later in the year in two the country's largest electricity markets: California and Texas.
The Texas energy market had hit its peak day in July in 2022, but it moved out to August this year. And Texas is already bursting through its September demand records. It reached over 78,000 megawatts in just the first week of this month, well over its previous record of 72,370 megawatts, which it set in 2021.
And California hit its power demand record last September amidst a heat wave that covered much of the western United States.
It’s not just there being literally fewer hours of sunlight that drags down solar production later in the year, but also the lower angle of the sun. “As the sun gets lower in the sky we see solar production numbers will drop,” Joshua Rhodes, a senior research scientist at the University of Texas, told me.
“As the sun is lower in the sky it’s up fewer hours ... the photons are coming in at a steeper angle, the panels are not going to get as much light. Even when the sun is at the highest point of the day, the panels are not getting the same level of irradiance as when the sun is at the highest point of the day [at other times of year].”
The best angle for solar panels can change around 15 degrees a year, depending on the year and solar panels are more efficient when they can track the sun during the day. Most homeowners who install solar panels won’t have tracking technology, while utility-scale solar developers are more likely to. This means that a state like Texas, whose renewable mix is more focused on large solar arrays, could see less dramatic drop-offs in solar power throughout the day or throughout the year than a state like California, which has more residential solar.
A roof-mounted four kilowatt-hour solar PV system with standard specs where I grew up in Northern California would get 7.45 kilowatts-hours per meter squared per day in July, generating 689 kilowatt-hours of power, according to National Renewable Energy Laboratory PVWatts tool; in September, solar radiation would drop down to 6.6 kilowatt-hours per meter squared per day and 587 kilowatt-hours per month.
This admittedly basic math suggests it's possible California could struggle this month — and in future Septembers — with meeting electricity demand.
In the past 10 years, California’s annual load peak has occurred in September five times, with the peak loads in 2022 and 2021 occurring on September 6 and 8 respectively.
This year has been, so far, not particularly stressful for the Golden State’s grid thanks to some good luck — no region-wide, prolonged heat waves that max out California’s grid and make imports scarce, mild temperatures on the coasts where the state’s population is concentrated, no major wildfires, and plentiful hydro power thanks to massive snowfall this past winter — as well as massive deployment of batteries across the grid. The batteries especially can help alleviate these duck curve dynamics, as they essentially redistribute power from the sunniest part of the day to the evenings.
While Texas set several new records this year in electricity usage, California has stayed well short of its 52,000 megawatt record last September. California set records for solar power in June and July, with almost 16,000 megawatts, while total demand over 40,000 megawatts.
“While we haven’t seen substantial stress on the grid this summer, we haven’t been fully tested. If we got the kind of west-wide heat we experienced in September 2022, we could need to tap into the state’s emergency or strategic reserves again,” Anne Gonzales, a spokesperson for the California Independent System Operator, told me in an email.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.