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 Trump’s dubious offshore wind deal, fast tracks, and missed deadlines
Current conditions: At least eight tornadoes touched down Wednesday between central Iowa and southern Wisconsin, and more storms are on the way • Temperatures in Central Park, where your humble correspondent sweltered in a suit jacket yesterday afternoon, hit 90 degrees Fahrenheit, shattering the previous record of 87 degrees • Mount Kanloan, a volcano on the Philippines’ Negros island, is showing signs of looming eruption with dozens of ash emissions.
The Trump administration appears to be tapping an essentially bottomless but highly restricted pool of federal money at the Department of Justice to pay the French energy giant TotalEnergies the $1 billion the Department of the Interior promised in exchange for abandoning two offshore wind projects. Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo got her hands on a document that suggests the fund, which is typically reserved for helping federal agencies pay out legal settlements, may have been improperly used for the deal. Tony Irish, a former solicitor in the Department of the Interior who unearthed a letter in the public docket from his former agency to TotalEnergies and shared the document with Emily, told her that the terms of the French energy giant’s lease are such that a lawsuit requiring monetary damages couldn't have been reasonably imminent. Without that, there would be no credible reason to dip into the Judgment Fund for the payout.
This morning, Emily published another banger. While listening to Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speak before the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday, she noticed the cabinet chief say that “well over 80%” of the 2,270 awards reviewed by agency were now moving forward. But there are “big holes” in that number, which doesn't account for several grants to blue states that a judge mandated be reinstated, or for energy efficiency rebates that are still in limbo.
Louisiana’s Public Service Commission voted 4-1 to fast-track a proposal from Facebook-owner Meta and the utility Entergy to build seven new gas-fired power plants, in a $16 billion investment into fossil fuel infrastructure. The project is, according to the watchdog group Alliance for Affordable Energy, one of the largest single power requests in state history. The timeline established under the vote today requires a final vote on the application by December.
The federal government, meanwhile, is getting interested in how much power data centers use. The Energy Information Administration is planning to implement a mandatory nationwide survey of data centers focused on their energy use, Wired reported, calling the move the first such effort to collect basic data on the server farms’ power demands.

Super Typhoon Sinlaku slammed into the Northern Mariana Islands as the most powerful storm on Earth so far this year, plunging the U.S. territory into darkness. It’s unclear just how many of the remote Pacific archipelago’s 45,000 residents lost grid connections amid the storm. But reports indicate island-wide blackouts. Local officials told the Associated Press it could take weeks to restore power and water service across the territory. Even if cellphones were charged, Pacific Daily News reported that wireless networks were overloaded and slow throughout the storm. Saipan, the capital, and neighboring Tinian were plunged into “total darkness,” according to Pacific Island Times.
The incident highlights the particular risk that the five populated U.S. territories face from extreme weather. All five — Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean; Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa in the Pacific — are island chains vulnerable to hurricanes, typhoons, and rising seas. And all five depend on increasingly costly imports of oil and gas to generate electricity. This September will mark nine years since Hurricane Maria laid waste to Puerto Rico’s aging grid system.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Over at NOTUS, reporter Anna Kramer found that the Interior Department “has blown past a congressionally-mandated deadline to report its progress on energy projects.” Per a letter from Senate Democrats, the agency failed to submit two required reports to Congress on its reviews and approvals of energy projects, which wind and solar developers say reflects the administration’s ongoing de facto embargo on permits for renewables.
Overall, 2025 was a worse year for zero-emissions trucks than 2024. Annual total registrations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that don’t run on gasoline or diesel fell by 7.6%, according to new data from the International Council on Clean Transportation. But the decline wasn’t uniform across all segments: The medium-duty truck, such as a box truck or a delivery truck, saw a 61.7% surge in zero-emission vehicle registrations year over year. That held even as buses fell 32.8% and heavy-duty trucks, such as flatbeds and dump trucks, declined 20.7%.
The times, they are a-changing over at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Once a stalwart opponent of nuclear power and supporter of stricter and more onerous environmental rules, the conservation-focused litigation nonprofit first embraced the need to restart existing nuclear plants, in a major shift. Now the NRDC has thrown its weight behind permitting reform, calling on lawmakers to speed up the process for approving clean energy projects. Green groups like NRDC once derided an overhaul of the landmark U.S. environmental laws as a deregulatory assault on nature. What’s going on here? The Foundation for American Innovation’s Thomas Hochman put it simply: “Vibe shift.”
The Secretary of Energy told Congress that his agency had completed its review of Biden-era funding commitments.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright testified in front of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday to defend his agency’s proposed 2027 budget. Under questioning from Democrats, Wright told the committee that his department’s review of Biden-era funding, announced in May 2025, had “finally come to a completion.”
“Well over 80%” of the 2,270 awards reviewed were moving forward, he said. Some would proceed as originally conceived, while others would be modified. “We have finished that effort, and we are keen to move forward with the majority of the projects which did pass, either straight up or through restructuring,” he testified.
But that assertion obscures the level of uncertainty that remains about the funding.
To back up his statement, Wright sent Congress a list of grants titled “Retain/modify,” which named roughly 1,950 awards — a number consistent with his “well over 80%” of 2,270 number.
But there are big holes in the data. As one example, in January, a federal judge ruled that DOE had to reinstate seven awards the agency terminated last year, ruling that the agency’s targeting of awards in blue states violated Constitutional protections against discrimination. But just one of those seven awards — which should all theoretically be “retained” — is on the list sent to Congress this week. (The single retained award is a nearly $20 million grant for Colorado State University’s Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center.)
Meanwhile, 18 other awards that were terminated as part of that same targeting on blue states, but which were not named in the court case, are on the new list. In other words, 18 awards that had been publicly deemed “terminated” and were not reinstated by a judge have been cleared to progress.
Wright’s stats are also misleading in that the new list doesn’t include any of the funding the DOE is statutorily required to pay out to states based on pre-set formulas, such as funding for long-established Weatherization Assistance Programs or the home energy retrofit programs created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which also fell victim to the agency’s review. As I reported last summer, many states were stuck in a holding pattern waiting for the DOE to respond to their applications for the IRA rebate funding.
During the hearing, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida asserted that the agency was still withholding more than $345 million in funds for her state’s energy efficiency rebate programs. Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut raised the same issue.
Wright told DeLauro that the timing for releasing the funds was “in the near future,” and could be as soon as a few weeks away. Later, when Wasserman Schultz pressed him again, Wright said he didn’t know when the funds would be released.
“I do not have a specific answer to that at the tip of my tongue,” Wright said. “I know a lot of these broad scale rebate programs, we’ve gone through to look at carefully, to make sure we get rid of fraud on these things …”
“$345 million is a lot of damn money,” Wasserman Schultz said, cutting him off. “And $8,000 to $14,000 grants are the kinds of things that help struggling homeowners dealing with high electric bills to try to reduce those costs. I would think that you would know at least something about what I’m talking about when you are withholding that much money.”
In response, Wright argued that there was “an incredible amount of fraud” in the programs and “DEI stuff put in,” referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, against which the Trump administration has mounted a crusade. The rebate programs were specifically designed by Congress, in statute, to help lower- and moderate-income households afford home upgrades like heat pumps.
Wright did not provide any information to Congress about which projects were being “modified” versus approved as-is, or describe how the “modified” projects were changing course. He did, however, indicate that the agency was still open to reconsiderating grants that had been terminated. During the hearing, Representative Mike Levin of California brought up his state’s canceled ARCHES hydrogen hub, which had been eligible for up to $1.2 billion in DOE funding. He asked whether Wright would “commit to engage in good faith” with the hub’s leadership, who “want to work collaboratively with you.”
“Absolutely,” Wright replied. He said that the ARCHES hub failed to prove it had a viable pathway to meet its cost goals, but that he was “absolutely open for that dialogue.”
Rob follows up on his scoop with Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
For the past few years, Microsoft has basically carried the carbon removal industry on its shoulders. The software company has purchased 72 million tons of carbon removal, more than 40 times what any other organization has financed, according to third-party sources.
Now it’s pulling back. As we reported last week, Microsoft has told suppliers and partners that it’s pausing new purchases. Though the company says that its program “has not ended,” even a temporary pullback will have significant implications for the nascent carbon removal industry. What happens next for these companies? And is a bloodbath on the way? On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob speaks to Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy about Microsoft’s singular importance and what could come next.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh: To your original question about where to go forward from now, you could have another surplus of what you just described come up — climate commitments could kick back up again, and we would just do this whole thing over again. We would run it back, and we would be having this conversation, you know, five years from now, or whenever that is. And the way to hedge against that from happening — and to some extent stop it from happening — is to have federal governments across the globe pass durable policy that either compels the regulation or incentivizes the deployment of carbon dioxide removal. And that ... because carbon dioxide removal — outside of the co-benefits of some pathways, which are fantastic, just removing carbon from the atmosphere for pure carbon’s sake is the tragedy of the commons in a single climate technology entity. Like, this is something that will need federal support in the long run, to some extent, in a way that other climate technologies don’t. That’s true of most of the carbon management world, but it is uniquely true of CDR.
Robinson Meyer: But it’s a form of waste management. Trash and recycling also require ongoing government support. Now, at this point, it tends to come from the state and local level. But governments still pay to handle waste. That’s part of what we expect governments to do. It’s just that this waste happens to be in the atmosphere and requires a particularly high form of technology to dispel.
Cavanaugh: Yeah, it’s a very costly trash pickup service. And it also is contingent upon people caring about the trash. There is a relatively large constituency around the world that is unconvinced that the trash is an issue. And that is the big challenge.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Our initial Friday story: Microsoft Is Pausing Carbon Removal Purchases
Jack’s take: The Private Sector Built the Market, Time for Us to Scale It
Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo on Ctrl-S, the startup trying to save CDR intellectual property
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Lunar Energy is building the technology to turn homes into active participants in the power system. Learn more about Lunar’s vision of the future at lunarenergy.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.