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.
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.
Water pollution in Wyoming has big implications for the future of data center development.
Did a Meta data center introduce a rare, dangerous bacteria into the sewers system of Wyoming’s capitol city? It’s an environmental pollution mystery with an answer that could decide the future of American AI infrastructure development.
Our drama begins in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where the city’s board of public utilities just wrapped up a lengthy investigation into the presence of Cupriavidus gilardii, a potentially lethal bacteria resistant to heavy metals, in the city’s wastewater treatment systems. Apparently, in February, board staff detected the contamination and shut off public access to the city’s water reuse system, a supply of treated non-potable water fed with treated wastewater and used for lawns, athletic fields, and other green spaces. Officials were worried that spraying this water could release into the environment a bacteria found to cause fatal health outcomes in immunocompromised or elderly people who are infected by it.
The board then identified a culprit – Goat Systems LLC, a Delaware-registered firm without a website Meta tasked with overseeing its large $800 million hyperscale project in Cheyenne dubbed Project Cosmo. Goat Systems lost its wastewater disposal permit. The board plans to also fine Goat Systems for violating city code “along with additional fees for our remediation efforts,” board public affairs coordinator Erin Lamb told me in an email. (The only person publicly affiliated with Goat Systems is Pamela Gregorski, an employee for a company that specializes in creating LLCs. Gregorski, who is linked to other LLCs handling Meta projects across the country, did not reply to requests for comment.)
In public comments and statements to me, the board linked the bacteria to water used to flush the Meta data center’s closed-loop cooling system so debris could be removed before the facility was operational. “We were able to connect the Meta data center campus to this through sampling their site,” Lamb said.
This finding led Cheyenne to also indefinitely ban data center projects in the city from ever disposing of “fill-and-flush water” in the sewer system again.
Meta has not denied contamination was found by the city, but says repeated sampling at its project site failed to come up with any evidence confirming they were the source. One can imagine a scenario where the data center and its design played no role in this bacteria showing up, or that city officials erroneously tagged the tech company with responsibility at a time when they’re dealing with political troubles already.
But what is happening in Cheyenne, first reported last week by Wyoming local press, will have consequences for the future of AI infrastructure whether or not Meta was actually even responsible. Right now, all over the country, tech companies are failing to get permits for their data centers because people are worried about water use. These closed-loop data center designs are supposed to address those concerns, letting large hyperscalers contain, cycle, and reuse the water they use for months or even years. A story like this gaining traction in public discourse around data centers will inevitably damage the sector’s public image unless rectified – and fast.
Cheyenne’s claims about the Meta data center being responsible for the bacteria have already metastasized on social media, disseminated through channels often cited by data center opponents on the ground elsewhere in the country. “REPORT: ‘RARE’ BACTERIA DISCHARGED INTO WYOMING WATERSHED LINKED TO DATA CENTER,” reads one post by a Facebook user Izzy Bella that has been shared more than 2,600 times. “Think of this the next time you hear blatant greenwashed lies like ‘closed loop cooling.” This post has been shared by major anti-data center groups on Facebook, including Pennsylvania Data Center Resistance, a social media page for organizing against projects in the Keystone State.
Going solely off what happened in Wyoming, some in the state are concerned the process of cleaning these loops before opening a data center can produce some nasty byproducts. Dr. Jonathan Brand, a civil engineering professor at University of Wyoming, has been studying the data center buildout in Wyoming for years, watching what’s happened in Cheyenne closely, and like me has way more questions than answers.
Usually, Brand said, a company using water in metal-intensive industrial applications – think a metal plating facility – has to test that fluid before it’s dumped into a municipal sewer system. The chain of events spelled out by the board left him “guessing that didn’t happen here,” and he’s worried the bacteria formed within whatever petri dish-like environment was created inside the network of looping pipes before it was flushed.
“The bacterium was the canary they saw, but you could have a lot of residual metals, which is not something we normally test for at a wastewater plant,” he said. “What else was in that discharge? Nobody else has let us know that and they’re probably not going to.”
City officials claim the water was tested before it entered the sewer and was missed, but there’s a trust deficit between locals and the government on what happened. Little of this information was public until a few weeks ago. Cheyenne residents first learned trouble was afoot on June 26, when the board posted a press release “reminding all residential, commercial, and industrial customers that the discharge of hazardous substances into the sanitary sewer system is strictly prohibited.” Nothing was included about data centers at all; all the board said was that the bacteria was dumped by “an industrial user within the system.”
Then Exie Brown, a Cheyenne resident and GOP candidate for state house, blasted a press release out on social media declaring “a credible source with knowledge of the [board] investigation and sampling” told him the “industrial user” was a data center.
I reached out to Brown asking how he learned about this. His answers were cryptic. “I was given a piece of paper with that name of a bacteria on it,” he told me over the phone, declining to name the “very credible source” who told him about the contamination. “That it was released into our waste water system, that it came from a data center, that it was Meta, that they found out in February, and I needed to check into this.” When I asked why the piece of paper, he replied: “Because they [the source] wanted to keep this quiet. Off the phones and stuff.”
City officials deny any malintentions behind the delay and claim they’re learning about all of this at the same pace as the average resident. “We learned here a week or so ago,” Cheyenne mayor Patrick Collins told me in an interview. He added this wouldn’t have stirred as much interest “had it been something else,” referencing the fact it was from a data center.
“As I understand it, the contractor that was building the site was flushing out a closed-loop cooling system, and when they tested the water everything seemed to be fine, but when it was released into our system, bacteria had grown and was released into our wastewater treatment,” Collins said. “It just happened to be a data center. It’s an unfortunate and highly regrettable situation.”
The mayor acknowledged this contamination will make it “a little tougher” to argue for more data centers in the city. There are currently 10 operational data centers in Cheyenne and surrounding Laramie County, according to estimates from pro-business group Cheyenne LEADS, which has said five projects are under construction – including the Meta facility – and at least nine others are “in various stages of planning or due diligence.”
On Monday, the Cheyenne city council will vote on whether to annex land owned by various nearby property owners for more data center deals, including parcels owned by the family of U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis. Before this event, Cheyenne was incredibly resistant to the anti-data center backlash, handily rejecting proposals to pause development.
Collins thinks Cheyenne will still be open to the tech sector. But the bacteria changed things. “I recognize there’s going to be challenges as we move forward. It’s something we’re going to have to look into. This was a regrettable situation that happened.”
We will see more transparency soon from the Cheyenne city government about the contamination. The board tells me it’s planning a press conference next week where Lamb told me “more information will be made available.”
Francis Brennan, a public affairs manager in the company’s strategic response division, provided me with a statement from an unnamed “Meta spokesperson” claiming that Fortis – the construction company hired by Meta and Goat Systems LLC – was directly handling water disposal on site. After the board “shared that it found a substance in the city’s wastewater” the construction company “began hauling it offsite.” Meta claimed Fortis has not been able to corroborate the presence of this bacteria in comparable water samples.
“Meta is committed to being a good neighbor in Cheyenne, including through the protection of local water resources, and will continue encouraging collaboration between Fortis and the board until this situation is revoked,” the statement read. Meta declined to answer follow-up questions..
Fortis confirmed they were responsible for dumping water on site when the contamination was discovered. They stated they’ve been unable to confirm the presence of the bacteria. In a statement provided to me, the company said: “Immediately upon learning of the issue, we stopped discharging water into the city’s wastewater system. We have since engaged in a thorough investigation that has included ongoing repeat testing by independent environmental specialists and have found no trace of the substance.”