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:
Introducing the Electricity Price Hub, a partnership between Heatmap News and MIT in collaboration with CleanEcon designed to bring much-needed clarity to the conversation around energy affordability.

As the energy shock generated by the Iran War ripples through the global economy, gas prices are front of mind for many Americans. They are the most visible energy prices in our lives — posted on billboards along the highway and in towns and cities across the country, updated on a day-to-day, even hour-to-hour, basis.
Electricity prices, by contrast, are far less transparent. Even as prices rise across the country, it is difficult for households and businesses to see, let alone understand the price they are paying for electricity and what is behind it.
In nominal terms, electricity rates are up by an average of 33% over the past five years nationwide, adding $35 on average to household bills every month, or $420 per year. Prices in 32 states grew by more than 25% in that time, with six states experiencing increases of over 50%. As electricity prices increase, what was once a relatively stable line item in many Americans’ budgets is now more volatile, compounding broader cost of living pressures.
As the stakes rise for American consumers, the lack of transparency also makes effective policymaking more difficult: Regulators and politicians are making high-stakes decisions about reliability, affordability, and future investment with, at best, partial information.
That is why Heatmap and MIT are launching the Electricity Price Hub, a new public data platform built to address this information gap. The hub provides month-to-month estimates of residential electricity prices and bills for utilities across the United States, from 2020 to the present. For the largest utilities, these estimates are broken down into their core components. By making this data available down to the zip code level, the hub empowers users to understand what they are paying and see how that compares to neighboring communities and states.
That clarity is urgently needed. More than half of Americans say that power bills are causing at least “a decent amount” of stress on their budgets, according to a Heatmap Pro poll from last fall. Electricity prices have already emerged as a political issue in states like New Jersey, Virginia, and Georgia — and are likely to keep rising in voters’ minds.
Last year utilities asked state regulators to approve more than $28 billion in rate increases, according to the research and advocacy group PowerLines. Many of these rate increases won’t take effect for months or even years to come, meaning that some amount of price increase is baked in regardless of how the policy and technology environment changes.
But electricity prices are not the only problem. If the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity is analogous to the number projected on the neon sign at the gas station, the total monthly cost of electricity use is what you see at the bottom of your receipt when you fill up. As anyone who has ever driven a gas car knows, the ultimate expense is a function of both the size of your tank and how fuel-efficient your car is.
Even where electricity prices appear moderate, electricity bills can be high. Alabama Power, for example, has prices that are just $0.05 above (or 1.3x) the national average. But its average residential bills are among the nation’s highest, at nearly $100 over the national average. (Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo has more on how trends in prices and bills can diverge.)
In many areas, it’s not just that bills are rising. Sharp swings in bills are especially difficult for households to manage. The median difference between the highest and lowest bills in 2025 was $92 (a 91% difference). Zooming in on a subset of utilities with the greatest bill volatility, peak-to-trough bill differences often exceed $200, with percentage swings of 200% to 280%. Two utilities in New Jersey, for example, saw average residential bills increase by more than $275 between spring and peak summer months.
Why have electricity prices remained so deeply opaque? In part, this is a function of the byzantine structures that govern our electricity system. We have three major grids, seven regional transmission authorities, 51 state-level regulators, more than 800 rural co-operatives, and roughly 3,000 utilities.
The result is a data environment that is fragmented and inconsistent, and lags well behind real-time price changes:
In the absence of reliable data, simplified narratives fill the void, allowing anyone to pick their chosen villain — be it renewables, data centers, transmission lines, or environmental policies — to blame for system failures. Policymakers risk adopting blunt measures that provide limited and temporary relief but that fail to address critical underlying issues, including the investments required to protect the grid’s long-term reliability and affordability.
Addressing these challenges starts with more timely and detailed data. That is what the Electricity Price Hub is all about. The platform delivers timely data for utilities serving the vast majority of residential customers in each state, with standard estimates that are comparable across states with different regulatory systems and across utilities with different rate structures.
It provides monthly, up-to-date estimates of both electricity prices and bills for a typical residential customer, offering a clearer view of the real cost burden households face and how that burden varies across places and over time. These estimates are more current than any existing public data sources.
We construct these estimates by combining detailed price and price component data for the largest utilities, sourced from state filings and utility rate books. We complement that with data for a wider set of utilities from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to generate standardized, current estimates of monthly average prices and bills.
We also disaggregate electricity prices into their core components: generation, the cost of producing electricity; transmission, the cost of moving power over long distances; distribution, the cost of getting electricity “the last mile” to homes and businesses; and other, a grab bag of regulatory and system-level charges. (You can find more on our methodology here.)
By standardizing and updating this information on a monthly basis, the platform is designed to inform consumers and businesses, and equip federal and state policymakers, regulators, and researchers with the information needed to design targeted, evidence-based responses.
You can now explore this tool for yourself, but here’s what we’ve already learned: There isn’t one cause of rising electricity costs. Prices are rising for different reasons in different places. There is no single national explanation for surging power prices.
Take our data on Maine. The state has long had some of the country’s most expensive electricity prices, and in recent years, distribution-related charges have been rising steadily. The utility Versant Power, for example, has seen distribution charges more than double over the last five years. The rising costs of maintaining and repairing aging distribution infrastructure, made worse by the increasing equipment and construction costs, are behind that trend.
In other parts of the country, extreme weather is driving higher distribution costs. While wildfire-related costs in California currently offer the most extreme example, storm costs are showing up in rising bills across the country. In Florida, for example, Tampa Electric customers have seen storm-related charges rise steadily, increasing from a credit in 2020 to more than $0.027 per kilowatt-hour in 2025.
Elsewhere, other factors are at play. In parts of the Mid-Atlantic, persistent bottlenecks in adding new capacity to the grid — as well as surging power demand, driven primarily by data centers — are causing generation costs to get bid up. In New Jersey, for example, the utility Atlantic City Electric Co’s generation-related charges have increased by more than 50% year on year.
You can already find other stories from the Electricity Price Hub from Heatmap reporters across the site. In some states, for instance, “other” charges are driving up power bills. We also look in detail at what’s going on with prices in PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest grid.
We hope this hub is only the beginning of a new era in open electricity data. If we want a modern electricity system that can deliver affordability, reliability, decarbonization, and economic growth, we will need a modern, up-to-date, and localized data infrastructure to match.
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 facility will power OpenAI’s 10-gigawatt data center in Pike County, Ohio.
The Trump administration aims to complete its environmental review of what would be the biggest fossil fuel power project in the country in just a few months, Heatmap has learned.
This news follows Monday’s announcement from OpenAI that it intends to lease a new 10-gigawatt data center under development in Pike County, Ohio, financed by a mixture of money from a SoftBank subsidiary and the chip company Nvidia. This AI hyperscale facility — known as the PORTS-Pike project — is expected to draw power from the largest gas power facility ever built in the United States, a 9.2-gigawatt facility sited on federal lands that would be built and owned by the Energy Department.
According to OpenAI, the data center campus will be built and started up in phases, with the first 800 megawatts starting construction this year and operational in 2028. That first phase will rely mostly on existing power infrastructure operated by AEP Ohio. How things progress from there will depend at least in part on the permitting and construction timelines for the new power plant.
Building large infrastructure of any kind on federal land or with significant federal investment typically triggers a review under the National Environmental Policy Act. I’ve been curious to find out what kind of review this particular project was going to get, especially after the administration allowed a NEPA review for a solar project to be repurposed for a data center on federal lands earlier this year.
Turns out some information about the PORTS-Pike permitting process is public. Before OpenAI confirmed its involvement with the site, the Trump administration added the project to the federal FAST-41 permitting dashboard, where it posts regular updates on the timeline for getting federal sign-offs. Per the lone federal notice available about the PORTS-Pike project, it will include “several data center buildings and power plants.” That will require at least two federal greenlights: an Army Corps of Engineers permit and approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is being consulted about potential endangered bats in the project area.
The NEPA permitting work for this historically large data center-plus-fossil fuel power project began on July 10 and will conclude on December 23, the day before Christmas Eve, according to the Trump administration’s estimates. This comes after paperwork to begin the review was submitted to the Army Corps in May, per the federal notice — a total timeline of about seven months.
Those familiar with NEPA and the debate over permitting reform will likely be surprised by the speed of this review. It’s moving fast in part because the project is receiving just an Environmental Assessment, the lesser and smaller type of analysis than the EIS. I do not know why the government decided to take this route because the government’s NEPA review determination is not currently public, but I have asked the Army Corps to explain this move.
I’m not sure exactly how air permitting will fit into this NEPA review, as the Clean Air Act isn’t listed as a review step on the federal dashboard. The Ohio EPA has primary authority over permitting projects like these under the Clean Air Act, and I’ve reached out to them to confirm whether PORTS has submitted a permitting application. The state agency’s permitting database does not have any information on air permitting for the project, though it does include reports from third-party consultants confirming wetlands and protected species warranted reviews from the Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife.
Lastly, these timetables are not sacrosanct. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, agencies are supposed to complete environmental assessments within one year, but nevertheless they regularly fail to meet them. The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality said in a report to Congress last year that from mid-2023 to mid-2025, the Army Corps was the agency that most often missed these statutory NEPA deadlines for environmental assessments.
Still, news of this speedy review for a priority Trump project is sure to excite pro-data center advocates who see expedited construction as an imperative in the global AI arms race. It’s also guaranteed to put a foul taste in the mouths of environmentalists already frustrated by federal revisions to NEPA regulations they say elide analysis of climate impacts.
What’s undebatable in all this is that, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote, the PORTS project could ignite a new era of mega-gas plants. This permitting timeline couldn’t be more important for the future of the data center boom — and the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary behind the data center project, did not provide comment before publication.
A new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.