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:
The cost impacts can be felt for years.

In an era of extreme weather, infrastructure repair and hardening charges are piling up for utilities — and for ratepayers. Utilities in at least 18 U.S. states are now passing on disaster-related charges in electricity bills, according to data from Heatmap and MIT’s new Electricity Price Hub. And as extreme weather continues apace with climate change, those costs will only get higher.
Though California and Florida remain the expected outliers, the disaster recovery pattern is decidedly national, spanning the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, Southeast, and Appalachia, with 36 utilities having introduced at least one specific disaster-related charge since 2020. Often, such charges are tacked on years after the disaster they’re intended to address, and they sometimes begin at such a low cost as to be almost invisible to customers before ratcheting up.
Compared with generation, transmission, and distribution costs, disaster recovery charges are frequently a small line item on bills. For DTE customers in Detroit — where powerful windstorms can knock out power for days — a base securitization charge associated with tree trimming (and the retirement of the River Rouge coal plant) has increased by just over a tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour since 2022. That’s compared to about three pennies per kilowatt-hour for all the other DTE rate increases over the same period, combined.
Starting last year, customers of Kentucky Power Co. have likewise been paid three securitized surcharge riders, totaling about $0.01 per kilowatt-hour, to help cover $78.8 million in “deferred storm costs” related to major storms that hit the state every year between 2020 and 2023. That’s about $12 added to the average Kentucky Power Co customer’s bill, or an increase of roughly 6%.
Securitization is one method utilities use to deal with debt incurred due to extreme weather. Such plans allow utilities to issue long-term low-interest bonds to cover disaster-related costs upfront, avoiding shorter-term loans and the sticker shock of a large rate jump for ratepayers. In the case of Kentucky Power, securitization allowed the utility to avoid what would have been a 13.1% rate increase, per the Kentucky Public Service Commission.
Because securitization charges are tied to bond payments and are periodically adjusted, our data shows the associated disaster recovery charge for Kentucky Power has dropped slightly since it was introduced in 2025. The downside to securitization, though, is that — as, again, in the case of Kentucky Power — ratepayers will be footing the costs of the 2020-23 storm seasons for a long time: more than two decades. And while the cost per bill might be small now, by the time the 20-year recovery period is up, there will almost certainly have been further damaging storms in the state. Those costs accumulate.
The process of securitization also requires legislative approval from the state and the blessing of the local regulator. For lower and more routine damage, weatherization, and emergency operating costs, utilities can use a faster-acting rider instead.
Riders, however, can ramp up once storm costs are tallied. Oklahoma Gas & Electric’s storm cost recovery rider, for example, started at just $0.000739 per kilowatt-hour in 2020, our first year of data, and has since ballooned by 460%.
While that amounts to only about $4 to $5 a month on the average customer’s $136 electricity bill, in states like California and Florida, cost recovery can be much higher. Tampa Electric customers are in the midst of an 18-month payment plan to cover $464 million in restoration costs from Hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024, or about a $22 increase in the average customer’s monthly bill. That’s in addition to the utility’s Storm Protection Plan, which began in 2020 and funds grid-hardening measures such as undergrounding power lines, and runs about $8 per month for the average customer — or a combined $360 per year.
FPL Northwest Florida — formerly Gulf Power, serving northwestern Florida — has a $385 million storm protection plan to harden its grid. That cost is reflected in a 2,589% increase in the utility’s “Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery” charge since 2021, due to the cascading costs of hurricanes. Duke Energy Florida’s storm protection plan charge is up almost 3,000% since it was introduced in 2021, also related to infrastructure hardening.
But hurricanes are also a problem in Louisiana, where smaller rural co-ops don’t have the same access to financing as large investor-owned utilities. Six Louisiana electric cooperatives in our database have added disaster-related riders since 2021: Jefferson Davis Elec Coop, Inc, as a reactive measure to address the costs of the 2020 hurricane season; South Louisiana Electric Coop and Southwest Louisiana EMC with riders in 2022 to help with recovery from Hurricane Ida and others in 2021; and Pointe Coupee Elec Member Corp, Claiborne Electric Coop Inc, and Concordia Electric Coop, Inc, all with emergency reserve fund riders added in 2025.
“Tornadoes, straight-line winds, tropical storms, ice storms, and even the occasional hurricane can cause millions of dollars in damage in a single day,” Claiborne wrote to its customers to justify the increase last year. “As much as we wish we could control the weather and keep storms at bay, we know future harmful storms are inevitable.” (All six co-ops have also seen their total rates increase between 2021 and the latest available data, with Claiborne rising by almost 38%.)
Many West Coast utilities are also bracing for a future full of extreme weather-related disasters. Washington State’s Puget Sound Energy has added a surcharge of about $14 per year to electricity customers to recover the costs from its forward-looking Wildfire Mitigation and Response Plan. PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric Co., both in Oregon, are likewise passing fire-related mitigation costs, such as vegetation management, onto their customers. For California’s PG&E, wildfire-related charges accounted for roughly 18% of system costs in the five years preceding 2023, though those charges are also rolled into distribution costs and aren’t always clearly itemized.
Due in part to regulatory lag, the impacts of major storms such as the 2024 hurricanes that affected Tampa often aren’t felt by ratepayers for years. As the Electricity Price Hub data shows, increases in disaster recovery-related rate charges don’t neatly map to major disaster years, or even necessarily to the years immediately following them. Due in part to legal mechanics, customers in Kansas only started to see the passed-on costs of elevated natural gas prices from the 2021 Winter Storm Uri on their 2023 bills.
It is also not uncommon for costs to start so low they’re almost unnoticeable to customers before growing in scale. Alabama Power’s Natural Disaster Reserve started at a mere $0.000645 per kilowatt-hour in 2020, but has risen 155% to $0.001642 per kilowatt-hour. While that still represents only a handful of dollars per month on the average customer’s $261 monthly bill, it shows that disaster charges that slip onto bills might not stay “invisible” forever.
One major limitation of our data: Utilities don’t always neatly identify riders and surcharges related to storms and extreme weather, and costs might also be rolled into distribution and transmission base rates. After a hurricane, for example, a utility might include grid-hardening costs as capital expenditures, passing them on to customers as increased distribution costs related to infrastructure, rather than flagging them as specific “disaster” charges. This means that disaster surcharges visible in the data, including those cited in this article, should be taken as bare minima.
Temporary riders can also be replaced — as in the case of Entergy Mississippi’s SD-9 rider, which dated back to Hurricane Katrina and addressed “extraordinary incremental storm damage costs,” which appears to zero out in our data. In fact, it was followed up by a 2024 storm damage mitigation and restoration rider aimed at creating a fund to absorb the shocks of “windstorms, ice storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, or other such events.” The 2024 rider is nearly three times as high as the one it replaced.
In other words, while we’ve been able to single out 58 specific charges that utilities have identified as either addressing or anticipating extreme weather-related disasters since 2020, that is almost certainly an undercount. While still being illustrative, the data also points to an even bigger takeaway: This is just the tip of the iceberg. The true cost to ratepayers — and the extent of weather-related impacts on electricity bills around the country — will be much larger.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.
2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.
3. Pulaski County, Arkansas – Entergy has dropped the lawsuit it filed against an Arkansas newspaper over the publication of a power deal with Google.
4. Darlington County, South Carolina – We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a focus on a GOP-leaning county rejecting a renewables moratorium.
A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.
I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.
Let’s start with the data center dividend proposal. Walk my readers through it.
Data center dividends came from the idea that, ideally in the AI revolution, we want all Americans to benefit. Especially rural Americans. You look at the landscape today, the majority of AI data centers are being built in rural America. It’s critical they’ll benefit from the massive wealth AI will unlock.
There’s lots of ways to make that happen. People point to the jobs AI data centers will build out, for example. But with data center dividends, we take the logic of the Alaska Permanent Fund and we apply it to America’s rural counties, which are sitting on a proverbial gold mine right now but lack any kind of public mechanism allowing them to benefit from that in a maximal way.
If you look at the tax revenue these data centers create, which is astronomical, how do we distribute this tax revenue in a way where it has the most tangible impact on the families living there? We believe data center dividends are the best way to do that – after allocating money for schools, public safety, and infrastructure, it allows these counties with tens of millions of dollars left over to distribute them as they see fit. They should distribute that money to the men and women who make those data centers happen in the first place.
The most effective form of a dividend would take a direct payment: a cash payment, a physical check, a direct deposit. Or the form of credits paying back property taxes, utility bills, an endowment for scholarships. There’s a number of different forms this can take.
Hopefully this gets the conversation going about how we can make these work for everybody.
Who do you want to see set up this dividend mechanism? How’s your approach to implementation?
The report is addressed to county commissioners. I’m thinking of commissioners who represent both sides of the political spectrum facing this huge backlash. Many of them want to do good by their communities and their voters, even if it means doing a data center, in places where it’s difficult to explain right now. Dividends make this indisputably clear.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of an enterprising county commissioner who sees the merits in the data center buildout and wants to break out of the political storm. It’s important to note data centers can be a huge economic boon for communities, in ways that can impact lives positively.
Have any communities – counties, as you noted – taken this idea up yet? Are there any models for this proposal?
The best analogue is West Feliciana, Louisiana, which is the case study we feature. West Feliciana made an agreement with a data center developer where in lieu of taxes, they make direct payments of about $90 million a year to the parish. That triples the community’s tax budget every year. It leaves ample room not only for essential services but dividends afterwards. Louisiana then passed a law – Act 434 – that allowed West Feliciana to remit some of those payments to residents as a tax credit. This bill first provided the opportunity for the parish to even remit those payments as cash, but it was changed in the legislature to make it a credit. That’s the closest we’ve gotten so far.
As far as reaching out to individual counties, we’re a think tank. We put ideas into the universe. We haven’t had anyone reach out to us since the publication of the report so far but we’re hoping they will.
Your report does lay out how there’s a bottleneck in development and this could help with easing it. Do you see an impetus to put ideas like the dividend out there right now, in light of the increased data center scrutiny in this year’s midterms?
Our publication is irrespective of the midterms. But it is tied to the fact that a bottleneck facing the data center buildout includes it becoming a politicized issue. We’re of the belief these projects shouldn't be political at all. One way to break through the noise is by showing how they can benefit those involved in construction and residents who live there. Data centers are critical infrastructure; other forms of critical infrastructure aren’t being politicized. Our efforts are to demonstrate how these shouldn’t be political.
When it comes to the future of AI data center regulation, this proposal is obviously geared towards incentivizing a resolution to the bottleneck through using resources produced from data centers – namely, new investment.
Where does your organization stand on the increased push for environmental or siting regulation on AI data centers?
I’m not familiar with what you might be referring to there.
I mean, there’s all kinds of proposals at the federal level and in states for everything from being required to pay for infrastructure upgrades to being required to use closed-loop cooling to siting restrictions, like temporary moratoria.
What I’m asking is, what else do you as an organization believe when it comes to regulating AI data center development at the federal level? State level?
We believe data centers should work for the communities where they’re being built. That’s important. So the concept of BYOP – Bring Your Own Power – we very much support that idea. We think the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is a great proposal because ultimately we want data centers, with them being critical infrastructure, to not only strengthen our national security but strengthen the communities where they’re being built.
Some states are rejecting data centers. We think that’s a mistake because it's something that’ll ultimately short-change the people who live there. For the states that do decide to build data centers, it's up to them what regulations make data centers more sustainable over time.
There’s increased public discussion for policy on AI development – as an organization, do you see any role in the federal government making policy here with a national data center law?
We think AI will be key to America’s prosperity over the long-term. We have concerns about the regulation of open-source artificial intelligence; bitcoin is a form of open-source software and open-source money. We believe intelligence should be something available to all Americans. That’s our concern with talk about regulating AI right now, it feels like a ploy for regulatory capture.
But what about national policy on AI data centers? Does your think tank support the national legislature doing a federal data center bill or is that something best for localities or states?
It depends on the bill. Are you talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ national moratorium?
With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.
The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”
If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.
Two of the busier House members on this issue are Scott Peters, a Democratic former environmental lawyer from San Diego, and Gabe Evans, a first term Colorado Republican representing a suburban and rural district north of Denver that includes wind farms and crude oil production. “The district that I represent truly is an all of the above energy district,” Evans told me.
Their latest effort is a bill aimed at smoothing out permitting for transmission development, especially interregional transmission. Last week, the two congressmen unveiled the CLEAR Act, seeking to apply a stricter set of standards for lawsuits against transmission projects that aligned with how natural gas and hydropower projects are treated under the Federal Power Act (it’s much harder to sue to stop these projects). Earlier this year, the two also sponsored the CERTAIN Act, a more comprehensive streamlining of federal permitting for energy infrastructure projects.
“We’re proud to have a lot of our work as the foundation for this, and I think if they send us over something that includes this, it’s got a really good chance of passing in the House,” Peters told me. Evans added that bringing forward bipartisan bills “gives a little bit more impetus to the Senate to know that the House is looking for these things.”
While the Senate’s deal will be up to the senators, Peters told me he envisions a broad permitting package that could include reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act to shorten permitting timelines, preventing the president from nixing individual projects, and reform Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which effectively devolves power to tribes and states to block a variety of interstate projects. “I think it’s coming together pretty well,” Peters said. “Obviously, we’re waiting for white smoke from the Senate.”
A permitting reform package may be one of the last major bills several bipartisan-minded House members get to vote on.
Election day is about six weeks off, and while Peters will likely have an easy time getting reelected for this eighth term, Evans is in a tough race. His purple-hued district is a target for the House Democratic campaign arm, which is hoping to flip it to former Colorado House of Representatives member Manny Rutinel, who worked as a lawyer at the environmental group Earthjustice. The Cook Political Report rates the race as toss-up, and Nate Silver gives Rutinel a roughly 75% to win.
But Rutinel won’t be getting any campaign help from Peters.
When I asked Peters about the timing of releasing a bill that could boost an endangered Republican’s bipartisan bona fides less than two months before an election, Peters told me that he and Evans had been working on it “for a while,” and that “my colleagues know that I’ve worked with Republicans to get problems solved.”
He said he wasn’t “participating in Gabe’s election” and wasn’t giving any money to his campaign, but also that he wouldn’t campaign Evans’ challenger, despite the opportunity to bolster his own caucus.
Peters is not shy about praising Evans. “What I appreciate about Gabe is that it takes a little bit of initiative to separate yourself from the majority — particularly when you’re in the trifecta — and do your own thing. He’s been a good partner in helping find ways to reduce process and make things go faster,” he told me.
Evans told me that he and Peters met early in this Congress, as Evans was getting settled into his new office in the Longworth building. “We’ve built the relationship over the last two years with a lot of the different areas that we’ve collaborated on.”
“I always try to meet the members of my committee and find out who will work with me. And I was fortunate to find Gabe,” Peters said.
“I do want to win the majority in the next Congress,” Peters went on, but “the norm should be that we figure out ways to work together to solve problems, and, you know, we’ll let the voters of Colorado 8 decide who to send me.”
Evans, for his part, told me that he had to work with Democrats to get anything passed as a member of a minuscule Republican minority in the Colorado statehouse, and that the 40-plus members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have agreed not to campaign against each other. “There’s 385 other members that you can go pick fights with,” he said.