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:
Any household savings will barely make a dent in the added costs from Trump’s many tariffs.

Donald Trump’s tariffs — the “fentanyl” levies on Canada, China, and Mexico, the “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every country (and some uninhabited islands), and the global 10% tariff — will almost certainly cause consumer goods on average to get more expensive. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that in combination, the tariffs Trump has announced so far in his second term will cause prices to rise 2.3%, reducing purchasing power by $3,800 per year per household.
But there’s one very important consumer good that seems due to decline in price.
Trump administration officials — including the president himself — have touted cheaper oil to suggest that the economic response to the tariffs hasn’t been all bad. On Sunday, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told NBC, “Oil prices went down almost 15% in two days, which impacts working Americans much more than the stock market does.”
Trump picked up this line on Truth Social Monday morning. “Oil prices are down, interest rates are down (the slow moving Fed should cut rates!), food prices are down, there is NO INFLATION,” he wrote. He then spent the day posting quotes from Fox Business commentators echoing that idea, first Maria Bartiromo (“Rates are plummeting, oil prices are plummeting, deregulation is happening. President Trump is not going to bend”) then Charles Payne (“What we’re not talking about is, oil was $76, now it’s $65. Gasoline prices are going to plummet”).
But according to Neil Dutta, head of economic research at Renaissance Macro Research, pointing to falling oil prices as a stimulus is just another example of the “4D chess” theory, under which some market participants attribute motives to Trump’s trade policy beyond his stated goal of reducing trade deficits to as near zero (or surplus!) as possible.
Instead, oil markets are primarily “responding to the recession risk that comes from the tariff and the trade war,” Dutta told me. “That is the main story.” In short, oil markets see less global trade and less global production, and therefore falling demand for oil. The effect on household consumption, he said, was a “second order effect.”
It is true that falling oil prices will help “stabilize consumption,” Dutta told me (although they could also devastate America’s own oil industry). “It helps. It’ll provide some lift to real income growth for consumers, because they’re not spending as much on gasoline.” But “to fully offset the trade war effects, you basically need to get oil down to zero.”
That’s confirmed by some simple and extremely back of the envelope math. In 2023, households on average consumed about 700 gallons of gasoline per year, based on Energy Information Administration calculations that the average gasoline price in 2023 was $3.52, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics put average household gasoline expenditures at about $2,450.
Let’s generously assume that due to the tariffs and Trump’s regulatory and diplomatic efforts, gas prices drop from the $3.26 they were at on Monday, according to AAA, to $2.60, the average price in 2019. (GasBuddy petroleum analyst Patrick De Haan wrote Monday that the tariffs combined with OPEC+ production hikes could lead gas prices “to fall below $3 per gallon.”)
Let’s also assume that this drop in gas prices does not cause people to drive more or buy less fuel-efficient vehicles. In that case, those same 700 gallons cost the average American $1,820, which would generate annual savings of $630 on average per household. If we went to the lowest price since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, about $3 per gallon, total consumption of 700 gallons would cost a household about $2,100, saving $350 per household per year.
That being said, $1,820 is a pretty low level for annual gasoline consumption. In 2021, as the economy was recovering from the Covid recession and before gas prices popped, annual gasoline expenditures only got as low as $1,948; in 2020 — when oil prices dropped to literally negative dollars per barrel and gas prices got down to $1.85 a gallon — annual expenditures were just over $1,500.
In any case, if you remember the opening paragraphs of this story, even the most generous estimated savings would go nowhere near surmounting the overall rise in prices forecast by the Yale Budget Lab. $630 is less than $3,800! (JPMorgan has forecast a more mild increase in prices of 1% to 1.5%, but agrees that prices will likely rise and purchasing power will decline.)
But maybe look at it this way: You might be able to drive a little more than you expected to, even as your costs elsewhere are going up. Just please be careful! You don’t want to get into a bad accident and have to replace your car: New car prices are expected to rise by several thousand dollars due to Trump’s tariffs.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rates were up 17% year over year in June, according to the latest Electricity Price Hub update, with another increase on the way.
With higher temperatures come higher electricity bills. Whether through higher seasonal charges or greater usage, Americans across the country were paying more for electricity in June.
In Virginia, the epicenter of the data center boom, the typical household electricity bill was $192 in June, up from $172 in June of last year, according to the latest data from the Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. Rates, meanwhile, were about 18 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to just over 15 cents in June of last year, a 12% hike. Rates were also up from the end of last year, when they were about 15.5 cents.
The rate increase is largely due to prices set by Virginia’s largest utility, Dominion. Its rates are up 8% so far this year, according to MIT researchers, and 17% over the past 12 months, the result of a base rate increase that took effect at the beginning of the year. The average base rate alone is up 7.5% year over year for the average Dominion customer.
But that’s not all: The fuel portion of the bill is rising $8 a month for the typical customer, Dominion said according to local media reports, as a result of rising costs. The fuel charge went into effect at the beginning of July. Already, Dominion customers are paying about $78 per month for the generation portion of their electricity bill, according to Heatmap-MIT data.
The price hike will likely increase pressure on Dominion as it seeks to sell itself to Florida utility and energy developer NextEra in a $67 billion deal announced in May.
Earlier this week, Virginia's lieutenant governor Ghazala Hashmi sent a detailed letter to the State Corporation Commission, Virginia’s utility regulator, with 64 questions about the proposed merger. She said the deal “carries unprecedented implications for Virginia’s consumers and regulatory landscape.”
Hashmi asked regulators to extend their review of the deal beyond the six-month period mandated by its utility regulations, writing that “forcing this process into the six-month timeline will render an already inadequate period completely unworkable.”
In May, when the deal was announced, NextEra said it would provide over $2 billion of bill credits over two years to Dominion customers in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, which Dominion executives estimated would add up to $10 per month over the two years.
On the India-Australia uranium deal, a U.S. general’s warning, and Chicago’s VPP
Current conditions: China and Taiwan are bracing for Super Typhoon Bavi to make landfall as possibly the strongest storm either country has faced in years • Utah’s Babylon fire has torched at least 103,000 acres already, and was just 25% contained as of this morning • New York City faces flooding as the thunderstorms that began yesterday continue into Saturday.

When the heat dome roasting the Eastern United States hit a peak last week, I told you that PJM Interconnection could hardly keep up with its own forecasts for demand. While the nation’s largest power grid operator had projected summertime demand for electricity would top out at 156 gigawatts, analysts last week predicted PJM’s load during the heat wave would hit the all-time record set in 2006 of just under 166 gigawatts. On July 2, it far surpassed even that: The 13-state grid set a new all-time system record of more than 168 gigawatts of demand, the grid operator confirmed Thursday. Wind and solar played major roles in supplying the power needed to avoid blackouts. “Solar, wind, and demand-side solutions showed up in a big way during this heatwave to keep the lights on and homes cool,” Jon Gordon, a senior director at the industry group Advanced Energy United, said in a statement. “Deploying more of these solutions, as well as energy storage, would help PJM avoid needing to call on so many expensive and dirty backup diesel generators and peaker units in the future.”
The milestone comes as PJM is scrambling to rewrite its rules, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin has covered, to figure out how to bring more generation online and allow more large power users such as data centers to patch onto the system.
Fervo Energy just drilled another well for its flagship Cape Station project in Utah. This one, as Matthew wrote yesterday, is 19,448 feet deep, includes a 7,500-foot lateral span underground, and took just 21 days to drill. While that time matches the same number of days the project’s Phase I wells required, this one is, on average, nearly 35% deeper, with a 50% wider lateral extension. “Today, we are drilling deeper, hotter wells that will produce multiples more [megawatts] per well than our Project Red pilot, and we are doing it in a fraction of the time,” CEO Tim Latimer said in a statement.
In the race to build out more nuclear power, China is far and away in first place, with more than three dozen reactors under construction. Trailing in second is India, with about half a dozen. But New Delhi wants more, as evidenced by last winter’s legal reform to open the subcontinent’s atomic power industry to exports for the first time in nearly decades, which I told you about back in December. Unlike other countries that build first and find fuel later, India is devoid of major uranium reserves, which is partly why its government is so keen on thorium fuel. Until that works out, however, New Delhi is locking down other supplies. On Thursday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inked a deal with the Australian government to increase India’s imports of uranium. The agreement, signed in Melbourne yesterday morning, does not specify the volumes of metal India plans to import. The deal’s significance goes beyond just reactor fuel. India is infamously one of the biggest countries to refuse to sign the global Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and in fact was the first nation to develop an atomic weapon after the pact was agreed among most countries on Earth. Australia, a major uranium miner, previously refused to sell fuel to any country that wasn’t a signatory to the treaty. But Canada eased its rules to ink a uranium deal with India in March. While the Associated Press noted that Australia’s “leaders historically ruled out” such a deal with New Delhi, “Canberra’s position has eased.”
In the U.S., meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week continued its regulatory overhaul efforts by proposing the biggest changes to how the agency applies the National Environmental Policy Act in years. Under the new NEPA rule, the NRC would streamline permitting, eliminate the need to submit a draft of a project’s environmental impact statement, and add new exemptions to conducting environmental reviews.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The series of equity deals President Donald Trump struck with individual mining companies to bolster the U.S. government’s portfolio of domestic producers of critical minerals certainly made members of the Biden administration jealous. But the U.S. Army’s former chief operating officer says a huge policy gap remains. Speaking on a podcast from The Northern Miner, Flynn, who previously commanded the U.S. Army Pacific, suggested Trump’s approach was too piecemeal. “One of the central problems is we tend to fund a mine, a processor, or a technology as a standalone project versus trying to pull a consortium of projects together, a consortium of companies and leaders together, that combine skilled workers, equipment, metallurgists, transportation needs, and customers,” Flynn said, hanging on that last word in an apparent attempt to emphasize the “Trump mineral paradox” I was telling you about yesterday. “I’m not sure that’s what our plan is.” He added that he’s “being critical now” because mining projects require five- to 10-year funding commitments. “This is what China did to build their system out,” he said. “That’s what they did a number of years ago. We’re almost taking a page out of their book.”
The proposal Chicago’s utility Commonwealth Edison put out for a battery-based “scheduled dispatch virtual power plant” has won state approval. On Wednesday, Utility Dive reported that the Illinois Commerce Commission gave the company the green light last week to replace the more limited VPP proposal the ComEd pitched last year, which was scrapped after the state passed legislation to support the expansion of battery storage capacity across northern Illinois. The new VPP program “is an important step in bolstering the potential of customer-sited energy resources to make the grid more resilient during periods of peak demand while helping customers receive additional value for their support at a time when supply costs are rising,” Andrew Plenge, ComEd’s vice president of strategy and energy policy, said in a press release. The VPP is poised to go live next year.
Hyundai is so committed to developing clean hydrogen that the South Korean automaker is now building America’s leading green steel project in Louisiana. But if skeptics of the fuel think that’s billions of dollars thrown in the toilets, just wait until they hear about the company’s newest facility. On Thursday, Hydrogen Insight reported that the company had opened its HTWO Energy Cheongju plant at a public waste treatment facility with the goal of producing 500 kilograms of hydrogen per day from sewage sludge broken down in an anaerobic digester and refined through two additional processes. “At a time when energy security is important, this is significant in that it establishes a system for directly producing and supplying energy using urban infrastructure,” Lee Ho-hyun, second vice-minister of the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment, said in a statement.
Plus, the Trump administration appointed a new “beacon of rational thought.”
We got a look at another major tech company’s latest energy and carbon emissions data — and it’s a doozy. On Wednesday, Microsoft released its annual sustainability report, giving us another year’s worth of energy and emissions data for a company that Heatmap’s annual insiders poll once judged to be one of the best hyperscalers for climate change.
The headline: Microsoft’s climate pollution surged last year. Its carbon emissions increased 25% year-over-year, the biggest single-year rise since at least the pandemic. The company emitted the equivalent of 21 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2025, under standard measurement methods. (It emitted slightly less under its own bespoke measurement system, which counts fuel credits and customer energy use differently.)
Electricity, which the company is buying in larger amounts than ever before to power AI data centers, is driving a good share of that increase. In 2024, carbon pollution produced by generating electricity (as well as from making chilled water and steam) was responsible for 2% of Microsoft’s total corporate carbon footprint. In 2025, that same category made up 13% of its overall emissions. The company’s power use rose by more than 24% over the same period.
That means Microsoft’s power use isn’t rising as fast as other companies’. Google’s most recent sustainability report said its own electricity consumption leapt 37% during the same period.
The report suggests, too, that Microsoft is increasingly wary of local fights over data center development — and how water has come to play an outsize role in those battles. The company reports that 2025 was the first year ever that it “replenished” more water on global scales than it withdrew. But “the next phase of our work is increasingly local,” write Brad Smith, the company’s vice chair and president, and Melanie Nakagawa, its chief sustainability officer. That line is clearly in reference to water, specifically — Smith and Nakagawa add that the company hopes to “restore more water to the watersheds where we operate than we withdraw” — but it could also cover the widespread local opposition to data centers that has exploded over the same period.
There’s one more thing to flag about this report: Although it just came out, it covers Microsoft’s 2025 fiscal year, which began in July 2024 and ended more than a year ago. That means it’s inherently an out-of-date view — it shows us what Redmond was doing as the AI and data center boom got underway, but not what it’s doing now. We’ve known for some time that the company is struggling to meet booming AI power demand while maintaining its power commitments; it paused carbon removal buying in April and revised its own clean energy commitments in May.
I should add that Microsoft would prefer that we look at other numbers in the report. First, under its in-house measurement scheme, the company says it released only 20 million tons of carbon pollution over the past year, a figure that appears in its top-line charts. Second, Microsoft estimates that it would have done even more harm to the climate — producing 34 million tons of climate emissions — if not for its corporate policies of buying zero-carbon electricity, using renewable fuels, and improving the energy efficiency and carbon footprint of its XBox game consoles and Surface tablets.
We asked Microsoft for a follow-up interview, but unfortunately they didn’t make anyone available. I’ll be back tomorrow to look at Microsoft’s report in context with other hyperscalers.
Speaking of a sudden rise in gaseous emissions, the Trump administration today named a new leader of the federal government’s marquee in-house climate research office, the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Per Politico, the new top dog is Matthew Wielicki, a UCLA PhD who (1) has a Substack, (2) refers to himself (in the third person) as a “beacon of rational thought” and “professor in exile” on said Substack, and (3) has suggested on X that climate change belongs in the “Department of Imaginary Problems.”
What can I say? Back during President Trump’s first term, his administration tried to bury the publication of the National Climate Assessment by dumping it on a holiday weekend. Now it seems to have taken another strategy. All I can say is, Dr. Wielicki, from one beacon of rational thought to another: I look forward to following your work.