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:
A new report from the Clean Air Task Force casts shade on “levelized cost of energy.”
Forgive me, for I have cited the levelized cost of energy.
That’s what I was thinking as I spoke with Kasparas Spokas, one of the co-authors of a new paper from the Clean Air Task Force that examines this popular and widely cited cost metric — and found it wanting.
Levelized cost of energy, or LCOE, is a simple calculation: You take a generator, like a solar panel (with a discount for future costs), and add up its operating and capital expenditures, and then divide by the expected energy output over the life of the project (also discounted).
LCOE has helped underline the economic and popular case for renewables, especially solar. And it’s cited everywhere. The investment bank Lazard produces an influential annual report comparing the LCOE of different generation sources; the latest iteration puts utility-scale solar as low as $29 per megawatt-hour, while nuclear can be as high as $222. Environmental groups cite LCOE in submissions to utilities regulators. Wall Street analysts use it to project costs. And journalists, including me, will cite it to compare the cost of, say, solar panels to natural gas.
We probably shouldn’t, according to Spokas — or at least we should be more clear about what LCOE actually means.
“We continue to see levelized cost of electricity being used in ways that we think are not ideal or not adequate to what its capabilities are,” Spokas told me.
The report argues that LCOE “is not an appropriate tool to use in the context of long-term planning and policymaking for deep decarbonization” because it doesn’t take into account factors that real-world grids and grid planners also have to consider, such as when the generator is available, whether the generator has inertia, and what supporting infrastructure (including transmission and distribution lines) a generator needs to supply power to customers.
We see these limitations and constraints on real-life grids all the time, for instance in the infamous solar “duck curve.” During the middle of the day, when the sun is highest, non-solar generation can become essentially unnecessary on a solar-heavy grid. But these grids can run into problems as the sun goes down but electricity demand persists. In this type of grid, additional solar may be low cost, but also low value — it gives you electricity when you need it the least.
“If you’re building a lot of solar in the Southwest, at some point you’ll get to the point where you have enough solar during the day that if you build an incremental amount of solar, it’s not going to be valuable,” Spokas said. To make additional panels useful, you’d have to add battery storage, increasing the electricity’s real-world cost.
Looking for new spots for renewables also amps up conflict over land use and provides more opportunities for political opposition, a cost that LCOE can’t capture. And a renewables-heavy grid can require investments in energy transmission capacity that other kinds of generation do not — you can put a gas-fired power plant wherever you can buy land and get permission, whereas utility-scale solar or wind has to be where it’s sunny or windy.
“The trend is, the more renewable penetration you have, the more costly meeting a firm demand with renewables and storage becomes,” Spokas said.
Those real-world pressures are now far more salient to grid planners than they were earlier this century, when LCOE became a popular metric to compare different types of generators.
“The rise of LCOE’s popularity to evaluate technology competitiveness also coincided with a period of stagnant load growth in the United States and Europe,” the report says. When there was sufficient generation capacity that could be ramped up and down as needed, “the need to consider various system needs and costs, such as additional transmission or firm capacity needs was relatively low.”
This is not the world we’re in today.
Demand for electricity is rising again, and the question for grid planners and policymakers now is less how to replace fossil generators going offline, and more how to meet new electricity demand in a way that can also meet society’s varied goals for cost and sustainability.
This doesn’t always have to mean maxing out new generation — it can also mean making large sources of electricity load more flexible — but it does mean making more difficult, more considered choices that take in the grid as a whole into account.
When I asked Spokas whether grid operators and grid planners needed to read this report, he chuckled and said no, they already know what’s in it. Electricity markets, as imperfect as they often are, recognize that not every megawatt is the same.
Electricity suppliers often get paid more for providing power when it’s most needed. In regions with what’s known as capacity markets, generators get paid in advance to guarantee they’ll be available when the grid needs them, a structure that ensures big payouts to coal, gas, and nuclear generators. In markets that don’t have that kind of advance planning, like Texas’ ERCOT, dispatchable generators (often batteries) can get paid for providing so-called “ancillary services,” meeting short term power needs to keep the grid in balance — a service that batteries are often ideally placed to provide.
When grid planners look at the entirety of a system, they often — to the chagrin of many renewables advocates — tend to be less enthusiastic about renewables for decarbonizing the energy system than many environmental groups, advocates, and lawmakers.
The CATF report points to Ontario, Canada where the independent system operator concluded that building a new 300-megawatt small modular nuclear reactor — practically the definition of high LCOE generation, not least because such a thing has never been deployed before in North America — would actually be less risky for electricity costs than building more battery-supported wind and solar, according to the Globe and Mail. Ontario regulators recently granted a construction license to the SMR project, which is part of a larger scheme to install four small reactors, for a total 1.2 gigawatts of capacity. To provide the equivalent supply of renewable energy would require adding between 5.6 and 8.9 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity, plus new transmission infrastructure, the system operator said, which could drive up prices higher than those for advanced nuclear.
None of this is to say that we should abandon LCOE entirely. The best use case, the report argues, is for comparing costs for the same technology over time, not comparing different technologies in the present or future. And here the familiar case for solar — that its cost has fallen dramatically over time — is borne out.
Broadly speaking, CATF calls for “decarbonization policy, industry strategy, and public debate” to take a more “holistic approach” to estimating cost for new sources of electricity generation. Policymakers “should rely on jurisdiction-specific system-level analysis where possible. Such analysis would consider all the system costs required to ensure a reliable and resilient power system and would capture infrastructure cost tradeoffs over long and uncertain-time horizons,” the report says.
As Spokas told me, none of this is new. So why the focus now?
CATF is catching a wave. Many policymakers, grid planners, and electricity buyers have already learned to appreciate all kinds of megawatts, not just the marginally cheapest one. Large technology companies are signing expensive power purchase agreements to keep nuclear power plants open or even revive them, diving into the development of new nuclear power and buying next-generation geothermal in the hope of spurring further commercialization.
Google and Microsoft have embraced a form of emissions accounting that practically begs for clean firm resources, as they try to match every hour of electricity they use with a non-emitting resource.
And it’s possible that clean firm resources could get better treatment than they currently get in the reconciliation bill working its way through Congress. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently called for tax credits for “baseload” power sources like geothermal and nuclear to persist through 2031, according to Foundation for American Innovation infrastructure director Thomas Hochman.
“It’s not our intention to try to somehow remove incentives for renewables specifically, but to the extent that we can preserve what we can, we’re happy if it would be used in that way,” Spokas said.
When I asked Spokas who most needed to read this report, he replied frankly, “I think climate advocates would be in that bucket. I think policymakers that have a less technical background would also be in that bucket, and media that have a less technical background would also be in there.”
I’ll keep that in mind.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
His administration has zeroed in on $18 billion of projects that just so happen to be in Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries’ hometown.
The shutdown punishment has begun, and it’s aimed at New York City.
Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget announced Wednesday on X that “roughly $18 billion in New York City infrastructure projects have been put on hold to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.” That includes funding for the Second Avenue Subway extension and the Gateway Program, a proposed rail tunnel connecting New York City and New Jersey.
While Vought did not refer to the government shutdown specifically in his announcement, the timing is, shall we say, noteworthy, not least because the Democrats’ two top congressional negotiators — Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer — are both from New York. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy later made the link explicit, clarifying in a statement that the real issue with the two projects was a recently released rule — as in, published on Tuesday — “barring race- and sex-based contracting requirements from federal grants.”
There would be a review of the two projects “to determine whether any unconstitutional practices are occurring,” Duffy said, and “until USDOT’s quick administrative review is complete, project reimbursements cannot be processed.” Those reviews “will take more time” thanks to the shutdown, he wrote, reaching his denouement, as “without a budget, the Department has been forced to furlough the civil rights staff responsible for conducting this review.”
The politics behind this gambit are obvious. President Trump has consistently threatened to withhold funding from states, cities, and institutions controlled by or connected to his political opponents.
“I think they very much understand the political dynamics of trying to make an example of New York. They understand where Chuck Schumer lives,” Jackson Moore-Otto, transportation fellow at the Center for Public Enterprise, told me.
The White House wasn’t exactly running away from the political implications of the denial of funding on Wednesday.Vice President J.D. Vance arched a metaphorical eyebrow during a press conference, saying that “I'm sure that Russ is heartbroken about the fact that he is unable to give certain things to certain constituencies.”
Trump has also specifically threatened federal funding for New York City if Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani wins the upcoming mayoral election.
Duffy himself could not have been any more obvious about what he is trying to achieve by slowing down this funding. “This is another unfortunate casualty of radical Democrats’ reckless decision to hold the federal government hostage to give illegal immigrants benefits,” his statement said, while also specifically calling out the two Democratic congressional leaders, saying that the delayed review was “thanks to the Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies [sic] shutdown.”
The legality of this — and its legitimate connection to the shutdown — is not so clear.
“It’s pure political maneuvering if you read the statement closely,” David Super, a law professor at Georgetown, told me. “They’re trying to blame the shutdown for slowing their review, but they’re also effectively saying that they’re considering New York in violation of their standards.”
Super also flagged several constitutional and legal issues with the action.
“The funding allocated through laborious means to the Hudson tunnel and Second Avenue Subway is a property right that entities in New York have,” he told me. “The idea that that can be interfered with because someone wants to do an investigation is a blatant violation of due process.”
While it is possible that purported civil rights violations could lead to funding being blocked, “that would have to be established through procedure, not suspicions that they’re doing something wrong,” Super said.
The new rule Duffy referenced addresses a specific set of programs established under the Small Business Act that are designed to give organizations controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” i.e. “women and members of certain racial and ethnic groups,” a shot at winning government contracts.
The DOT argues that under these programs, “two similarly situated small business owners may face different standards for entering the program, based solely on their race, ethnicity, or sex,” and that the rules and legislation defining them violate equal protection as set out in recent federal court decisions and Trump executive orders.
The rule that Duffy cites as justification for his actions is itself constitutionally suspect, Super said. “The Administrative Procedure Act requires public comment on new rules, subject to limited exceptions,” which this did not have.
The slapdash way the rule has been rolled out could open up the DOT to lawsuits, whether from the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which oversees the New York City subway, or another entity involved with the Hudson tunnel project.
“Courts throughout history have insisted public comment is important,” Super said. The DOT is “violating procedures for issuing this policy and violating due process in the way they apply it.”
Moore-Otto also pointed out that the DOT release makes no specific claim that these projects are violating the rule.
“What they’re saying, it appears to me, is, New York might be doing this thing that we’ve just decided is illegal and we’re going to cut off your funding and it’s going to take longer because our lawyers aren’t being paid,” he said.
And there are broader issues around infrastructure policy at play beyond the obvious political gamesmanship, Moore-Otto pointed out. Duffy’s announcement links the supposedly unconstitutional women and minority contracting practices to the high costs that plague American infrastructure projects, saying they’re a “waste of taxpayer resources.”
But, Moore-Otto argued, what really ails U.S. infrastructure projects are extensive administrative reviews and the start-stop nature of project development.
“I think people would broadly agree the U.S. takes too much time and money to deliver infrastructure projects, and they are trying to invoke this as a pretext,” Moore-Otto said. “What strikes me as noteworthy is that when we look at why the U.S. does, in fact, take so long and use so much money building, while the rest of the world builds faster and cheaper, is that there’s a lot of stopping and starting of these infrastructure projects.”
“Assuming it’s a prolonged delay, it’s going to probably drive up costs — even though they’re saying it is a cost saving measure,” Moore-Otto added. “I think that should not be lost on anybody.”
On a potential deregulatory slowdown, community solar’s dimming, and Pope Leo on climate
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Imelda is set to gain intensity this week and whip the southeastern U.S. with soaking rain and storm surge • Frigid night air is forecast across northern New England • Typhoon Bualoi is flooding broad swaths of Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos.
The federal government is closed.Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
The federal government shut down at 12:01 a.m. this morning after President Donald Trump and Republicans failed to reach a deal with Democrats in Congress on a bill to keep its funding flowing. That could slow the Environmental Protection Agency’s deregulatory effort, E&E News reported Tuesday. “The political crisis that threatens to shutter much of the federal bureaucracy at midnight comes as Administrator Lee Zeldin is racing to unravel high-profile rules on things like climate science, vehicle pollution, power plants, oil and gas wells, and carbon emissions reporting,” reporter Jean Chemnick wrote. An abrupt halt to the agency’s activities would at the very least set back Zeldin’s reform effort, including an agency reorganization set to begin this month.
The Department of the Interior, meanwhile, sent employees an email Tuesday warning that the agency “has contingency plans in place for executing an orderly shutdown of activities that would be affected by any lapse in appropriations forced by Congressional Democrats.” Neither Interior nor the EPA had published updated shutdown plans taking into account staff reductions under the current Trump administration as of Tuesday.
When the Department of Defense bought a 15% stake in MP Materials, the continent’s only active rare earths mine, The Economist called it the most significant entry by the federal government into a private market since the railroads were nationalized in World War I. (Biden administration officials were admittedly jealous, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported.) Now the Trump administration has taken another share of a major mineral project. The Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office said Tuesday that it had renegotiated a multi-billion-dollar loan to back construction of Lithium Americas’ Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada. The project, on track to become the Western Hemisphere’s largest lithium producer by 2028, will transform a remote stretch of high Nevada desert into a lithium clay mine, harvesting from one of the world’s richest known deposits.
Under the new deal, the federal government will take a 5% equity stake in Lithium Americas and an additional 5% ownership of the company’s joint venture with General Motors. The Energy Department called its stakes “part of the overall collateral package on a loan, helping to reduce repayment risk for taxpayers.” But the announcement said the “revised agreement” includes “robust loan amendments,” notably “more than $100 million of new equity.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Community solar installations are plunging. After a record-breaking 2024, installations of new panels in small-scale cooperative or community solar projects dropped 36% in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act slashed the cumulative five-year outlook for community solar by 8% compared to the outlook before the legislation repealed vast chunks of the Inflation Reduction Act. That’s according to a new analysis from Wood Mackenzie.
Yet Jeff Cramer, the chief executive of the Coalition for Community Solar Access, said states are stepping up “with historic expansions like New Jersey’s 3,000 megawatts and Massachusetts’ 900 megawatts.” He added: “These bright spots show what’s possible when policymakers work to unlock capacity. At the same time, this report makes clear the challenges ahead — from federal uncertainty to interconnection delays and program caps — that must be addressed to realize the full potential of community solar and deliver the resilient, affordable power communities are asking for.”
Most Americans say that rising electricity prices have at least “a decent amount” of impact on household finances. “Still, for about 40% of the country, those high prices are more a pinch than a pain,” Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote. That’s the finding of a new Heatmap Pro poll on rising rates. The results had some predictable outcomes, including that more than 70% of voters with household incomes below $50,000 said rising bills were a problem with “a lot of" impact on spending. Upward of 62% of voters earning less than $100,000 described similar issues, as did 59% of white voters without a college degree.
It’s been difficult for “Vatican-watchers” to pin down Pope Leo XIV’s views on most issues. But “on climate change,” The New York Times wrote on Tuesday, “it is clear that he is moved by the topic, and particularly its disproportionate harm to poor and vulnerable people.” The world is about to get a lot more clarity on his views. On Wednesday, the Pontiff is scheduled to give his first address on climate change at a conference taking place at the Papal Palace of Castel Gandolfo.
The remarks come on the 10th anniversary of Laudato Si, a groundbreaking papal document written by the late Pope Francis that overhauled the Catholic Church’s teachings on climate change. The 2015 encyclical was widely credited with pushing forward carbon-cutting negotiations at the global climate summit in Paris that year.
Africa's biggest petrostate is having a solar boom. Nigeria became Africa’s second-largest importer of solar panels over the past year by overtaking Egypt. The imports total 1.7 gigawatts. “It is a response to a problem … You can’t rely on a 24/7 grid in most parts of Nigeria at the moment,” Ashvin Dayal, senior vice-president of power at Rockefeller Foundation, which backed the mini-grid project, told the Financial Times. “Demand is booming for reliable, affordable electricity both for inside the home, but also to run small businesses, to run agricultural appliances, to increase productivity and incomes.”
Rob debriefs with colleagues on the latest climate news.
It’s been a busy few weeks for climate and energy. New York Climate Week brought hundreds of events — and thousands of people — to the city to discuss decarbonization and energy policy. The New Jersey governor’s race has raised the salience of electricity rates. And suddenly everyone is talking about energy affordability.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by his colleagues at Heatmap to discuss some of the biggest topics in energy and climate. What did they take away from New York Climate Week? What do the new politics of affordability mean for climate policy? And what are the benefits — and hazards — of arguing for climate policy by talking about how clean energy is cheap energy?
This Heatmap reporter roundtable features Heatmap’s deputy editor Jillian Goodman and its staff writers, Emily Pontecorvo and Matthew Zeitlin. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, 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 our conversation:
Jillian Goodman: I want to back up a minute and just ask, what are we talking about when we’re talking about goldplating? What constitutes gilding the utility infrastructure, and what is not getting built because we’re doing all of this goldplating?
Matthew Zeitlin: Well, it’s funny, right? You’ll never read an IRP where they’ll be like, Alright, here’s our goldplated spending. What the advocates would say is that it’s often distribution, transmission and distribution spending that’s going across their territory and it’s not bringing down prices. I mean, again, it’s a completely subjective — well, not completely subjective. It is a subjective claim.
Goodman: Part of what’s motivating my question is, are we talking about things like installing smart meters?
Zeitlin: Well, in California, there’s been backlash to undergrounding. You know, it’s funny, because the utility structure makes it so anything good you want to do, the people have to pay for. So like even undergrounding electricity lines has become quite controversial in the American West because it’s so expensive.
Now, is that goldplating? Or is that climate resilience to decrease the chance of wildfires? Is it resilience? Is it building up climate resilience to the more wildfires caused by higher temperatures?
Emily Pontecorvo: I will just point out, it is also a policy choice by public service commissions and those who put people on those commissions to give the utility the rate of return that they get. There’s a lot of advocacy around lowering that rate of return, and also to put the degree of the cost of that goldplating on ratepayers that they do. They could have investors share more of that cost, and they’re just scared to do that. The utilities kind of scare them away from doing that. But it is possible. It’s in their power, at least.
Mentioned:
Everything that happened at Heatmap’s Climate Week event
Matthew on the peril for Democrats of running on electricity prices
Emily on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
Arjun Krishnaswami in Utility Dive
Jillian’s downshift; Emily’s downshift; Matthew’s quasi-upshift; Rob’s downshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.