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:
No matter where you live, you should be prepared to live without power during extreme heat.

What keeps emergency management officials up at night? Terrorist attacks. The Big One. A direct hit from a Category 5 hurricane.
But when it comes to climate-related disasters, one fear often rises above the rest: a blackout during a heat wave.
According to new research published this spring, a two-day citywide blackout in Phoenix during a heat wave could lead to half the population — some 789,600 people — requiring emergency medical attention in a metropolitan area with just 3,000 available beds. As many as 12,800 people could die, the equivalent of more than nine Hurricane Katrinas.
Power outages can happen during a heat wave for a number of reasons. The most obvious is because of strain on the power grid, as everyone cranks up their air conditioning at the same time. By one estimate, “two-thirds of North America is at risk of energy shortfalls this summer during periods of extreme demand.” Blackouts can be both city- and state-wide, like when 11 million people were without power following a deadly grid failure in Texas in 2021; or rolling, to prevent a more catastrophic failure; or localized, like when a wildfire takes down transmission lines.
Storms can also knock out power, cutting off access to life-saving air conditioning. Excessive heat killed 12 nursing home residents in Florida in the aftermath of a 2017 hurricane, the same year that hundreds died in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria lead to a months-long blackout.
There’s another possibility that has been quietly discussed by emergency officials, too: a malicious cyberattack that takes down the grid during a time of extreme heat. “What happens when a cyberattack disables access to electricity for weeks, coordinated with record-breaking heatwaves, which are significant public health concerns in themselves?” a 2021 piece in The American Journal of Medicine mused, only to conclude that “the impact on the health-care system” — including hospitals, which can run on generators but would be quickly overwhelmed — “would be catastrophic.”
So if the power goes out during a heat wave, what do you do?
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
No, you’re not psychic: You can’t predict when a power outage will leave you without your AC. But you are an informed person who’s aware that heat waves are becoming more common and intense and that extreme heat is the deadliest weather phenomenon in the United States. Virtually every American can benefit from having a plan in place for how to deal with extreme heat in the absence of AC, since nowhere is climate-proof.
At the most basic, the emergency agencies that informed this article — primarily American Red Cross, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Ready.gov, all of which can be consulted for further resources — say you should have an emergency kit prepared and up to date in your home, and sign up for emergency alerts. (Also prepare a separate emergency kit for your pets if you have any.) This should include directions to your local cooling center in addition to a hospital.
Next, “Take an inventory of your essential electrical needs,” advises the American Red Cross. “Then consider how you would live without them when the power goes out.” That list might include backup batteries for phones, fans, CPAP machines, or any other medical devices.
Also consider buying misting spray bottles (we’ll get to those later) and a cooler where you can stash food if the refrigerator goes down. Battery-operated fans can additionally be useful to have on hand, particularly in humid areas, despite many public health organizations warning against them. Extra gallons of water are a part of every emergency kit, and important to have on hand as well.
Finally, make a habit of checking in on the vulnerable people in your life ahead of time — in particular, older people who live alone — and confirm they have air conditioning units that are working. Of the 72 people who died in Oregon's Multnomah County, which makes up the bulk of the city of Portland, during a heat wave in 2021, only three were found to have a functioning AC unit.
The first thing you want to do if the power goes out during a heat wave, regardless of how severe you anticipate the situation being, is prevent the loss of whatever cool air there still is inside your house. At the most basic, this means covering your windows to keep out sunlight by drawing the blinds.
If you anticipate the power being out for more than a few hours — perhaps because one of the emergency alerts you signed up for warns you the blackout could last for days — take more dramatic measures, like using blackout curtains if you have them, or reflective, foil-covered pieces of cardboard in the windows to bounce heat off your home. The most important thing, though, is to get the windows covered with something; even a towel will do if you don’t have drapes or blinds. If you have a multi-story home and anticipate a long-lasting power outage, begin to shut upstairs doors (hot air rises!) with plans on keeping those rooms closed off for the duration of the blackout. Any particularly drafty doors or windows can be further sealed with a rolled-up towel. In a worst-case-scenario event, you’ll be staying downstairs until your air conditioning turns back on, so keep that in mind as you move through the rooms.
As you’re making your sweep, also snag any medications you have stored, since heat can alter their efficacy. Many meds will become less potent or altered when exposed to high temperatures; aspirin, for example, breaks down into acetic acid and salicylic acid, which can upset the stomach.
Preventatively turn off and disconnect appliances, too, in order to avoid damage from a surge when the power returns (this is generally good advice no matter what the blackout conditions are). Then establish yourself in your darkest, coolest room — it’s likely on the north side of your home or apartment. Generally avoid south-facing rooms, followed by east- and west-facing rooms, since they get the most sunlight. Hunkering down in the basement is also potentially a good option.
Keep your refrigerator closed until about four hours have passed, at which point you should move the contents and stash them in a cooler. A full freezer can stay at a safe temperature for up to 48 hours, but as FoodSafety.gov will remind you, “when in doubt, throw it out.”
We know dangerously little about how indoor heat works. But we know that it kills — studies have found that people are most likely to succumb to heat-related illnesses in their own homes.
As a rule of thumb, if your body is exposed to temperatures of 90 degrees or higher, you are potentially at risk of heat exhaustion, which can lead to heat stroke, the National Weather Service notes. Keep in mind, though, that it can “feel like” 90 degrees when the temperature on the thermometer is as low as 86 degrees, because of humidity. If your home starts to feel hot, pay close attention to both the indoor heat and humidity and consult the NWS’s heat index to understand your risk.
Prolonged exposure to high temperatures increases the strain on your body and the danger of heat illness. While 90 degrees might be technically survivable for a healthy adult, “the temperature needs to drop to at least 80 degrees for” the body to begin to recover from extreme heat, CNN reports — part of why overnight highs can actually be deadlier than daytime highs.
Keep in mind your own vulnerabilities to heat, too: The elderly and the prepubescent are most at risk, but people taking antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticholinergics, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors can all have severe heat intolerance, too, Yale Climate Connection observes. Additionally, the publication notes, certain diabetes medications, including insulin, can be less effective when exposed to high heat. People with heart disease, kidney issues, or diabetes should be especially cautious about their health during heat waves because of the intense strain on these systems.
If the temperature starts to climb inside your home during a power outage, it is imperative to act quickly to stay healthy. Drink lots of water, but do so consistently, not in guzzling bursts; we’re limited in how much water we can absorb by how fast our kidneys can function. In extreme conditions, the body can absorb up to a liter of water per hour, but it’s often much less. It’s more important, then, to sip continually throughout the day.
If you have the option to do so, spend as much time in air-conditioned spaces as possible, particularly in the afternoon — movie theaters, malls, public libraries, community lake or pool, and friends’ and family’s homes in an area with power are all potential options. Cooling centers are also a terrific option since they are free, can be equipped with backup generators, and may have other resources handy to help you beat the heat.
But let’s assume, for whatever reason, these options are unavailable. Many cooling centers, including most of those in Los Angeles, for example, do not have backup generators, and they can quickly become crowded — one study that looked at Atlanta, Detroit, and Phoenix found that at most, 2 percent of the city population could be accommodated by existing cooling facilities.
Water, then, becomes your best friend. The evaporation of water from our skin helps pull heat away, so begin a regime of keeping a sheen of water on your skin, whether that’s by using a handheld mister or by placing cool wet towels on your body (the head and neck, armpits, and groin are the warmest parts of our bodies, so focus your efforts there). This is an especially good technique if you have a battery-powered fan to sit in front of. Though fans get a bad rap for creating “a false sense of comfort,” in the words of Ready.gov, used properly they can absolutely help — just keep in mind they stop working very effectively once it’s above about 95 degrees.
Showers can help keep you cool too, just don’t be tempted to take an especially cold one; as Popular Science explains, you don’t want to reach the point of shivering, a response that counterproductively increases our internal temperature.
Switch into light, airy clothes and avoid physical activity as much as you can. At night, keep an eye on the temperature; if it’s cool enough outside, open all your windows to create a cross-flow of air, but be sure to close your windows up after temperatures begin to climb again in the morning.
Pay attention to how your body is responding and know the symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke (we have a guide for that here). Typically the first signs are cramps, headaches, or dizziness.
If you begin to feel too hot or sick, it’s time to evacuate your home. Heat illness can go from “uncomfortable” to deadly within 90 minutes, so it’s better to act decisively and get to safety rather than wait and get sicker, when your decision-making abilities begin to erode.
Check what heat relief options exist in your area. Many cities now have programs designed to protect people during extreme heat events, such as the Heat Relief Network in Phoenix, which offers everything from hydration sites to air-conditioned respite centers. Urban areas frequently offer free air-conditioned bus rides to cooling centers, too. But because some of these sites might be unavailable during a major power outage, check local government websites for information.
Before leaving your home, collect any medications and important documents you might need. Also bring any animals you have at home — as the Red Cross emphasizes, “If it’s not safe for you to stay behind then it’s not safe to leave pets behind either.”
If you believe you have the symptoms of heat exhaustion, seek medical attention immediately. But keep in mind, hospitals will likely be overwhelmed during a major power outage — it’s better to have a plan for dealing with the heat long before you ever get sick, rather than try to deal with illness after it’s already set in.
Read more about heat waves:
This Is How You Die of Extreme Heat
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.