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:
Got a solar panel? Time for a little energy arbitrage.

The new film Dumb Money gives home traders the Hollywood treatment. The movie, based on the GameStop saga of 2021, recounts how amateur stock enthusiasts and trolls united on online platforms like Reddit drove up the stock price of an over-the-hill video game store and caused huge losses for hedge funds that bet against the stock.
The bizarre episode shone a spotlight on just how many armchair stock jockeys are out there. Now, another type of trader is quietly growing in popularity: the garage energy baron.
Online, you can find solar enthusiasts not only celebrating how much energy their panels created but also how much money they made by selling energy back to the electric utility. As more homes can make and store their own energy, more homeowners are trying to get in on “energy arbitrage.” They are buying low and selling high, though this time the product in question is not a share of company stock, but a kilowatt-hour of energy.
Most people have minimal control of their home energy. It is a resource we consume, and the principal way to affect the monthly bill is by turning up the AC or turning off the lights. The roughly 5 percent of Americans with solar panels, along with those who have wind turbines or other ways to generate electricity, have been changing the equation by becoming energy providers rather than passive recipients.
Home solar lowers the amount of energy a home must buy from the grid. Sometimes, when the sun shines high and unobstructed, homeowners with a large solar setup can make more energy than the home requires. In most places, they can turn around and sell the excess energy back to the grid. Net metering, as it is called, helps to recoup the five-figure sum needed to pay for solar panels in the first place.
The revenue can be eye-popping. In the Tesla Solar subreddit, a hive of people with Elon Musk’s solar panels and integrated home energy systems, users recount the details of their system and their savings. A poster from Texas this week uploaded a screenshot showing they made $600 in a month by selling back energy as part of Tesla Electric, the company’s virtual power plant (VPP).
Tesla Electric works because of a new wrinkle in the energy game. With the advent of products such as Tesla’s Powerwall — basically a big, intelligent battery for the house — homeowners can now make their own energy and store it for later, which opens new possibilities. The first is a no-brainer: Stashing excess energy in the battery creates a backup power supply in case of a blackout. However, the ability to charge and discharge the battery at will gives rise to gamesmanship.
Suppose that instead of selling solar energy to the grid right away (in the afternoon when there’s lots of it), a homeowner stashes it and waits. In the evening, when energy demand rises as people get home from work and the price of energy rises, that’s when their system hits the “sell button.”
This is energy arbitrage. It earns the biggest windfalls when prices are volatile, with big gaps between high and low. That’s exactly what happened in Australia in 2022, where wild markets earned record profits for anyone who could use a big battery to buy and sell energy. In Texas, the Tesla Electric VPP automatically sells the energy stored in customers’ home Powerwalls when the price is the highest (and refills the battery when electricity is cheap), which leads to windfall profits during a major “sell event.” One Redditor claimed to be up more than $800 this summer, mostly by using his Powerwall to perform energy arbitrage.
Indeed, homeowners don’t need solar panels or wind turbines to do this, says Jeff Maguire, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Lab.
“If you're in that scenario and you have a battery, you can charge the battery when energy is cheap and discharge it when energy is expensive,” he says. “You'll make a little bit of profit, and you can do that every day. It’s called energy arbitrage. It's one way to pay [yourself] back for the batteries. It's usually not enough to cover the cost of the battery itself, but it certainly helps, and then you'll have it for resilience when you need it.”
Of course, all this scheming and strategy is reliant upon one basic idea: that a person can sell electricity back to the grid at fair market price. There is no guarantee this will continue indefinitely.
Over the past couple of years, state lawmakers and electric utility operators around the country have proposed cutting off net metering, slashing the rates residents get paid for extra energy. One (disputed) argument from utilities is “cost-shift,” the idea that people with solar panels are subsidized by everybody else who pays for standard electricity, and who pays for the upkeep of the grid as part of every kWh they purchase. Another is technical: America’s aging infrastructure wasn’t built with this “backfeeding” in mind, and may not be able to deal with a very large number of homes sending juice back onto the grid.
The gambit is also about the big utilities’ bottom line. They don’t want to have to “curtail” some of their solar because there’s too much on the grid, thanks to net-metering residents. And they, too, are engaged in the energy arbitrage game.
Many electric utilities are installing their own large energy storage facilities, which is crucial as the country uses more and more renewable energy: If people can’t move their electricity consumption to the times of peak energy supply — say, by charging their EV in the middle of the day when the sun shines — then we need to save lots of our renewable energy for later. When the utility stashes solar energy made from the noontime sun and sells it at 7 p.m. when residential electricity is costlier, it makes a little profit in the process to help pay for the cost of those storage systems.
What all this means for the home energy trader could vary wildly state by state. New Hampshire, in a surprise, just decided against slashing net metering rates. Sunny California, the country’s biggest residential solar market, cut energy payments for new PV installations by 75 percent – in theory because there’s already too much solar – while grandfathering in all the people who already have panels.
It may turn out that if you want to be a solar trader, you should have started yesterday.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
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.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation.What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.