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:
Electricity Price Hub data helps explain why prices are — and aren’t — increasing in various parts of the PJM Interconnection territory.

Some parts of the country — California, New England — have high electricity prices but not many large-scale artificial intelligence data centers. Some places — Texas — have artificial intelligence data centers and relatively low prices.
The area spanned by PJM Interconnection — the country’s largest electricity market, which covers some or all of 13 states and 67 million people from Richmond to Chicago — has both.
Virginia’s “data center alley,” around Ashburn in Loudon County, is perhaps the hottest AI hotspot in the country. Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania are also attracting substantial interest from hyperscalers.
Meanwhile, electricity prices in the PJM territory have turned into a political crisis that transcends party ideology. New Jersey’s new governor, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, centered her campaign around a pledge to freeze prices. Pennsylvania’s governor, Democrat Josh Shapiro, reached an agreement with electricity producers at the beginning of last year to cap capacity prices — payments made to generators to be available during times of grid stress — at a level the system’s capacity auctions now regularly hit. And Indiana’s governor, Republican Mike Braun, has been on the warpath against high utility bills, declaring in September of last year, “Hoosiers have been burdened with utility rate increase after increase. We can’t take it anymore.”
A review of electricity price increases from 2019 to 2024 and from 2024 to 2025 released by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory just this week found that “increases in capacity prices in the PJM region in 2025 were a significant contributor to the rise in year-over-year retail prices in many mid-Atlantic states.” The researchers found that “many PJM states saw large price increases in 2025 vs. 2024,” calling out Washington, D.C., New Jersey , and Maryland specifically. Overall in PJM, the LBNL review found that capacity costs drove up the wholesale price of electricity in PJM by $0.09 per kilowatt-hour from 2024 to 2025, and projects another $0.06 hike in 2026.
On the surface, the coinciding phenomena of increased data center activity and rising electricity prices seem like a clear case of cause and effect. A closer look at utility price and rate data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, however, reveals a more nuanced story.
First, the big picture: In the past year, the 12-month rolling average of electricity prices have grown 10% in PJM, compared to 4.5% nationally, while average bills in PJM have risen by $14.83 compared to $5.47 nationally. In the past five years, prices have gone up 48.9% in PJM versus 33.2% nationally, while bills in PJM have risen by $49.50 compared to $35.21 nationally.
Across the PJM territory, some 63% of utilities in the Heatmap-MIT dataset have seen prices grow faster than the national average over the past year, and 72% have seen their prices grow faster than average in the past five years.
But there are stark distinctions at the regional and state levels. To get a better sense of these differences, we looked at the components of electricity bills and price growth in different parts of the PJM territory, including the utility territories with the fastest growing prices and the ones with the most data center growth.
Many of the fastest-growing utility bills in PJM are on the East Coast, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic, where prices for Pepco in Maryland and Washington, D.C. have gone up by 21.4% and 25.2%, respectively, in just the past year. In the case of D.C., the largest source of that price growth was electricity generation, the cost of which rose 32.5% in the past 12 months.
The D.C. Public Service Commission approved a rate hike last May citing a recent PJM capacity auction and tacking on a “Capacity Price Adder” to account for high prices. (For more on “adders,” “riders,” and other more obscure bill charges, see the explainer from my colleague Jeva Lange.) The average bill hike in the May 2025 order was almost $21, or 17.7%, the order said.
“Generation rates have risen substantially, primarily due to capacity price increases,” the commission wrote, which it attributed to a litany of factors. These included growing demand from data centers, but also the “retirement of generating facilities across the regional electric wholesale market” and “increasing mandates from the District’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard.”
This helps explain why the cluster of states around D.C. have seen outsize generation price hikes: They tend to rely on gas from others states, and have also decided, as a matter of public policy, to institute substantial additional charges to meet public policy goals such as boosting the share of renewable energy in the state’s generation mix, which often means buying certificates for electricity produced out of state.
Next door to D.C., Maryland utilities have also had to deal with high capacity prices — some $14 of bill increases for Pepco, according to the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, can be traced back to higher capacity payments. Maryland ratepayers specifically must also pay for “reliability must run” service: four coal-and-oil-fired units that operate outside PJM’s wholesale system and are instead funded directly through customer rates in a particular geographic area.
Maryland’s Office of the People’s Counsel argued in a brief explaining why rates were rising that not only did “RMR” payments lead to higher bills directly, they also helped push capacity market costs in Maryland up against the statutory cap. Because the capacity from those generators isn’t included in the wholesale market (they’re compensated directly), supply is artificially limited and thus “likely had spillover effects into the RTO as a whole, increasing the RTO-wide clearing price and impacting customers throughout the region.”
But what about utilities in PJM where rate hikes were more restrained?
In Virginia, the epicenter of data center growth in PJM, customers of the Dominion Energy utility Virginia Electric and Power Co. saw their prices grow 11.6% over the last year, with the generation portion of the bill growing 16.8% in the past 12 months. That’s higher growth than average for PJM, but lower than New Jersey and Maryland, which do not serve the same concentration of AI facilities.
For another Virginia utility, Appalachian Power, prices actually dropped slightly in the past 12 months, by 1.6%, with the generation portion falling 5.2%. Appalachian Power announced a rate cut averaging $10 per household last fall, which it said came out of the “fuel factor,” or the raw material costs that are passed on to customers.
Despite its crush of data center development, Virginia still has electricity rates below the national average, and much lower than some other PJM states. Natural gas and nuclear dominate the state’s generation mix, according to data from the Energy Information Administration, and that nuclear power especially is cheap on a kilowatt-for-kilowatt basis.
Virginia also has fewer worries about grid congestion because much more of its generation is local, whereas in other places (namely Maryland), that’s been a major cost driver. Virginia’s $15.27 per kilowatt-hour average electricity price is about in line with the “South Atlantic” average according to the Energy Information Administration, but still lower than Delaware, D.C., Maryland, or New Jersey.
To the extent that Dominion has raised prices, it has attributed the increases to inflation, not to increased demand. In Richmond specifically, it chalked up higher prices to bouts of cold weather.
That said, Dominion’s base rate — the core cost of service in a regulated, vertically integrated utility system like Virginia’s — is rising for the first time since 1992. Going forward, Dominion ratepayers will see another rate hike of around $11 per month this year, and around $2.35 in 2027.
Dominion had also asked to recategorize its capacity purchases from the base rate to the fuel charge, which it said would “promote rate stability.” A typical average customer would face a fuel factor expense hike of $10.92 per month for typical electricity use, Dominion said in a filing, which would include $1.98 of capacity expenses. But the SCC ended up rejecting that request, arguing that it was not “reasonable at this time not to shift cost recovery of purchased capacity expenses from base rates to the fuel factor,” which could mean that rates do not adjust smoothly with the changes in capacity payments.
Virginia’s success in avoiding higher costs may be a matter of timing as much as anything else. Virginia fits awkwardly into the PJM system, with the state still dominated by vertically integrated utilities such as Dominion, as opposed to the restructured electricity markets in much of the rest of the system.
Pro-utility groups and Dominion itself have pointed to Virginia as an example of how the regulated electricity model can protect consumers compared to the restructured one. But whether ratepayers will be convinced remains to be seen. Complaints about eye-popping bills are a mainstay of local — and social — media in the state, especially after base rate hikes kicked in.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.