You’ve reached your free article limit
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:

Maybe you’re reading this in a downpour. Perhaps you’re reading it because you have questions about the upcoming hurricane season. Or maybe you’re reading it because you’re one of the 150 million Americans enduring record-breaking temperatures in this week’s heat dome.
Whatever the reason, you have a question: Is this climate change?
There’s an old maxim — that, like many things, is often dubiously attributed to Mark Twain — that goes something like, “Climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.” Weather refers to the event itself, while climate refers to the trends (averaged over 30 years or more, usually) that might make such an event more or less likely.
Climate change is almost always an exacerbating factor in the case of something like a heat wave or a heat dome. In other situations, the picture is far more complicated and uncertain. It can take years to understand if and how climate change made an extreme weather event more likely, and while organizations like World Weather Attribution work hard to provide quick and accurate estimations, getting the science wrong can fuel climate skepticism and bolster deniers’ arguments. While it might be tempting to pin all extreme weather on climate change, the truth is, not all of it is.
Still, we do know a lot about how climate change influences the weather — and we’re always learning more. While this guide is far from the be-all and end-all of attribution and should be referred to with caveats, here is what we know about how climate change is shaping the extreme weather we see today.
“When you’re looking at heat extremes, there is almost always a climate change signal,” Clair Barnes, a research associate with World Weather Attribution, told me. “I don’t think there’s ever not been a climate change signal since I’ve been doing it in the last couple of years.”
As the planet warms, local temperatures respond everywhere. There are not as many complicating variables in this relationship as there are with something like drought. “With heat waves, it’s the same answer every time: It got hotter because it’s got hotter,” Barnes said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the kind of heat waves that would have occurred once in a decade before the Industrial Revolution now occur almost three times more frequently and are 1.2 degrees Celsius (or 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. The most extreme examples — like the 2021 heat dome over the Pacific Northwest — appear to have been possible only because of warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, about 37% of global heat-related deaths, which amount to tens of thousands of deaths per year, are attributable to climate change.
There have, of course, always been heat waves. But it is with high confidence that scientists say they are hotter and last longer now than they would otherwise because of climate change.
Did climate change do it? It is “virtually certain” that heat waves are more frequent and hotter than they otherwise would be because of climate change.
WWA doesn’t specifically study wildfires since they aren’t technically “weather” (though once they form, they can make their own). Instead, the organization studies the conditions that make a fire more likely. In the American West, this deadly combo usually involves high pressure, extremely dry air, and some wind.
Globally, burned areas decreased between 1998 and 2015, but that isn’t because fire-weather conditions are improving — rather, regional leaders have gotten better at things like land use and fire management. Fire weather, meanwhile, is increasing and lasting longer due to climate change. In particular, hotter temperatures — especially hotter overnight temperatures — make it more difficult to combat the fires that do ignite. (Most fires in the U.S. start due to human negligence or arson, rather than by natural causes such as lightning strikes.)
This is especially the case in California, where 10 of the state’s largest fires have occurred in the past two decades, with five in 2020 alone; a 2023 National Integrated Drought Information System-funded study further found a 320% increase in burned areas in the state between 1996 and 2021 due to contributions of human-caused climate change, with that number expected to grow in the coming decades.
On average, wildfire weather season lengthened by two weeks around the globe from 1979 to 2019. The IPCC has medium confidence in the claim that fire weather has become more probable in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and parts of Europe over the past century, and high confidence that fire weather will increase regionally due to global warming in the coming years.
Did climate change do it? Climate change has almost certainly exacerbated the heat, humidity, and drought conditions necessary for wildfires to start. The actual ignition of the fire is frequently human-caused, however, and complicating variables such as local vegetation, forest management, and land use can also muddle the picture.
Tropical cyclones are large and complicated storm systems. Ocean temperatures, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, wind shear, barometric pressure, atmospheric moisture, the shape of the continental shelf, emergency preparedness measures, and pure luck all affect how destructive a given storm might be — when or if it makes landfall. Climate change can put a thumb on the scale, but it is far from a lone actor.
Hurricanes — the strongest manifestation of a tropical cyclone — essentially work by transferring heat from the ocean into wind energy. Because the ocean absorbs excess heat from the warming atmosphere, scientists expect to see more “major” hurricanes of Category 3 or above in the coming years.
The storms aren’t just getting more powerful, though. Because of the interaction between ocean heat and energy in a hurricane, the storms also intensify more rapidly and are “more than twice as likely to strengthen from a weak Category 1 hurricane to a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane in a 24-hour period than they were between 1970 and 1990,” according to new research published last year.
WWA says it cannot attribute the intensification of any individual storm to climate change due to relatively limited modeling so far, so the organization instead looks at how climate change may have amplified associated rainfall and storm surges. Rainfall and flooding are, in fact, more deadly than high wind speeds in hurricanes, and both are understood to be increasing because of climate change. Put simply, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, which means worse deluges. Researchers linked extreme rainfall during Hurricanes Katrina, Maria, and Irma to climate change; Hurricane Harvey, which flooded up to 50% of the properties in Harris County, Texas, when it made landfall in 2017, had a rainfall total 15% to 38% greater than it would have been in a pre-industrial world, researchers found. Additionally, rising sea levels caused by climate change will worsen coastal flooding during such events.
However, “trends indicate no significant change in the frequency of tropical cyclones globally,” according to the IPCC. That is, there aren’t more hurricanes; the ones that form are just more likely to become major hurricanes. Scientists understand far less about what climate change means for the smaller Category 1 or 2 storms, or if it will impact the diameter of the storms that do form.
Did climate change do it? The greenhouse effect is making the atmosphere warmer, and in a warmer climate, we’d expect to see more major hurricanes of Category 3 and above. Evidence also points to hurricanes intensifying much more rapidly in today’s climate than in the past. Climate does not seem to play a role in the overall number of storms, though, and other critical factors like the path of a storm and the emergency preparedness of a given community have a significant impact on the potential loss of life but aren’t linked to a warmer atmosphere. Hurricanes are complicated events and there is still much more research to be done in understanding how exactly they’re impacted by climate change.
In the winter, your skin might feel dry, and your lips might chap; in the summer, many parts of the country feel sticky and swampy. This is simple, observable physics: Cold air holds less moisture, and warm air holds more. The “Clausius-Clapeyron” relation, as it is known, tells us that in 1 degree C warmer air, there is 7% more moisture. All that moisture has to go somewhere, so quite literally, when it rains, it pours. (That is, when and where it rains: WWA notes that “an attribution study in northern Europe found that human influence has so far had little effect on the atmospheric circulation that caused a severe rainfall event.”)
Like heat, the relationship between warm air and rainfall is well understood, which is why the IPCC is highly confident in the attributable influence of climate change on extreme rain. While it may seem confusing that both droughts and intense rainfall are symptoms of climate change, the warming atmosphere seems to increase precipitation variability, making events on the extreme margins more likely and more frequent.
Increased precipitation can have counterintuitive results, though. Rain occurring over fewer overall days due to bursts of extreme rainfall, for example, can actually worsen droughts. And while it might seem like more water in the atmosphere would mean snowier winters, that’s only true in certain places. Because it’s also warmer, snowfall is declining globally while winters are getting wetter — and as a result, probably more miserable.
But what does “more rain” really mean? Rain on its own isn’t necessarily bad, but when it overwhelms urban infrastructure or threatens roads and houses, it can quickly become deadly. Flooding, of course, is often the result of extreme rain, but “the signal in the rainfall is not necessarily correlated to the magnitude of the floods because there are other factors that turn rain into a flood,” Barnes, the research associate with WWA, told me, citing variables such as land use, water management, urban drainage, and other physical elements of a landscape.
Landslides, likewise, are caused by everything from volcanic eruptions to human construction, but rain is often a factor (climate-linked phenomena like wildfires and thawing permafrost also contribute to landslides). The IPCC writes with “high confidence” that landslides, along with floods and water availability, “have the potential to lead to severe consequences for people, infrastructure, and the economy in most mountain regions.”
Did climate change do it? More extreme rainfall is consistent with our understanding of climate change’s effects. Many other local, physical factors can compound or mitigate disasters like floods and mudslides, however.
When I spoke with Barnes, of WWA, she told me, “It’s really easy to define a heat wave. You just go, ‘It was hot.’” Droughts, not so much. For one thing, you have to define the time span you’re looking at. There are also different kinds of drought: meteorological, when there hasn’t been enough rain; hydrological, when rivers are low possibly because something else is diverting water from the natural cycle; and agricultural, when there is not enough water specifically for crops. Like flooding, many different infrastructural and physical factors go into exacerbating or even creating various kinds of droughts.
Drought as we mean it here, though, is a question of soil moisture, Barnes told me. “That’s really hard to get data on,” she said, “and we don’t necessarily understand the feedback mechanisms affecting that as well as we understand heat waves.” As recently as 2013, the IPCC had only low confidence that trends in drought could be attributed to climate change.
We have a better understanding of how drought and climate change interact now, including how higher temperatures drive evaporation and cut into snowpack, leading to less meltwater in rivers. The IPCC’s most recent report concluded that “even relatively small incremental increases in global warming (+0.5C) cause a worsening of droughts in some regions.” The IPCC also has high confidence that “more regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming.”
WWA’s attribution studies have, however, found examples of droughts that have no connection to climate change. The organization flags that it has the highest confidence in the climate affecting droughts in the Mediterranean, southern Africa, central and eastern Asia, southern Australia, and western North America and lower confidence in central and west Africa, western and central Europe, northeast South America, and New Zealand.
Did climate change do it? Maybe. Some droughts have a strong climate signal — California’s, for example. Still, researchers remain cautious about attribution for these complicated events due in part to their significant regional variability.
Tornadoes are extremely difficult to study. Compared to droughts, which can last years, tornadoes occupy a teeny tiny area and last for just a blip in time. They “wouldn’t even register” on the models WWA uses for its attribution studies, Barnes said. “It would probably look like a slightly raised average wind speed.” The IPCC, for its part, has only “low confidence” in a connection between climate change and “severe convective storms” like tornadoes, in part due to the “short length of high-quality data records.”
But we are learning more every day. This spring, researchers posited that Tornado Alley is moving east and “away from the warm season, especially the summer, and toward the cold season.” Though it’s not entirely clear why this is happening, one theory is that it relates to how climate change is affecting regional seasonality: winters and nights are becoming warmer in certain areas, and thus more conducive to tornado formation, while others are becoming too hot for storms to form during the normal season.
Did climate change do it? Researchers aren’t entirely sure but there doesn’t appear to be a correlation between tornado formation and climate change. Still, warmer temperatures potentially make certain areas more or less prone to tornadoes than they were in the past.
We say “it was a dark and stormy night” because “it was a severe convective storm” doesn’t have the same ring. But an SCS — which forms when warm, moist air rises into colder air — is the most common and most damaging weather phenomenon in the United States. You probably just call it a thunderstorm.
Severe convective storms cause many localized events that we think of as “weather,” including heavy rainfall, high winds, tornadoes, hail, thunder, and lightning. Because heat and moisture are necessary ingredients for these kinds of storms, and because the atmosphere is getting both warmer and wetter, climate models “consistently” and confidently predict an “increase in the frequency of severe thunderstorms,” the IPCC notes — but, “there is low confidence in the details of the projected increase.” Trends remain poorly studied and highly regionally dependent; in the United States, for example, there is still no evidence of a “significant increase in convective storms, and hail and severe thunderstorms.” Still, other research suggests that for every 1.8 degree F of warming, the conditions favorable to severe convective storms will increase in frequency by up to 20%.
Hail forms during severe convective storms when the hot, moist air rises to a region of the atmosphere where it is cold enough to freeze. Like thunderstorms more generally, data is fairly limited on hail, making it difficult to study long-term trends (most climate models also do not look directly at hail, studying convective storms more broadly instead). However, it’s been hypothesized that climate change could create larger and more destructive hail in the future; if thunderstorm updrafts grow stronger, as projected, then they could hold hail at freezing high altitudes for longer, allowing individual hailstones to grow larger before falling back to Earth. One study even suggested that with continued warming, there could be a 145% increase in “significant severe hail” measuring at least 2 inches in diameter — that is, a little smaller than a tennis ball.
Did climate change do it? Everything we know about thunderstorms suggests that a warmer, wetter atmosphere will mean severe convection storms become both more frequent and more intense. But there is still very little available data to track the long-term trends, so attributing any one storm to climate change would be nearly impossible.
Just as virtually all heat waves worldwide are worsened by climate change, “nearly every instance of extreme cold across the world has decreased in likelihood,” according to the WWA. While the organization has run attribution studies on “a few” heavy snowfall events, it has either found no link to climate change or has been unable to state a conclusion confidently. On the other hand, the loss of snow cover, permafrost, Arctic sea ice, and glaciers has a high-confidence link to human-caused climate change in the IPCC report.
Just because climate change makes extreme cold and snowstorms less likely does not mean they won’t happen. Research published in Nature earlier this year suggests climate change could bring more snow to certain places, as extremely cold parts of the world warm to snow-friendly temperatures, and increased precipitation from a warmer atmosphere results in more flurries. Parts of Siberia and the northern Great Plains are even experiencing a deepening snowpack.
Did climate change do it? Probably not — though there are notable exceptions.
An earthquake is usually caused by the release of energy when two tectonic plates suddenly slip past each other (though they can also be caused by fossil fuel extraction). But before you dismiss earthquakes as having no connection to climate change, there is one place where there could be a link: water.
As Emily Pontecorvo wrote for Heatmap this spring, “Changes in surface water, whether because of heavy rain, snow, or drought, could either increase or relieve stress on geologic faults, causing them to shift.” Admittedly, even if there is a relationship between climate change, water, and earthquakes, it appears to be small — so small that humans probably can’t feel any resulting quakes.
Did climate change do it? It’s highly unlikely.
Earlier this year, extreme turbulence on a Singapore-bound flight from London killed one person and injured at least 20 others. While such events remain rare — the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recorded just 101 serious injuries caused by turbulence on millions of flights between 2013 and 2022 — extreme turbulence appears to be increasing, potentially because of climate change.
According to one study, severe turbulence is up 55% between 1979 and 2020, seemingly due to an increase in wind shear at high altitudes caused by the temperature contrast between the equator and the North Pole. (This relationship is a little bit complicated, but essentially, at higher altitudes, the temperature over the pole has been declining due to rapid Arctic temperature changes even as it’s increased at the equator; lower in the troposphere, the opposite is happening). Other studies have similarly shown that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could increase moderate-to-severe turbulence by as much as 127%.
Data, however, is limited and fairly subjective, leading to some skepticism in the scientific community and inaccurate dismissals by climate-change deniers. As with many complex weather phenomena, our understanding of how climate change interacts with turbulence will likely grow in the coming years as the field of research develops.
Did climate change do it? Potentially in some cases, but there is still much to learn about the connection between the two.
Desertification differs from drought in that it describes a decline in soil fertility, water, and plant life to the point of total “land degradation.” (In contrast, land can become productive again after a drought.) Like other compound disasters, desertification results from natural processes, climatic conditions, and land management practices such as grazing and deforestation.
According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, land degradation is “almost always” the result of these “multiple interacting causes,” and the warming climate certainly isn’t helping. Heat stress can kill off vegetation, making landscapes more prone to desertification, as well as drive aridification.
In the resulting drylands — which comprise about 46% of global land area — you can expect dust storms (also known as haboobs), and sand storms resulting from the wind kicking up loose soils. While there have always been sand storms, one study suggests that climate change is one of the critical drivers of global annual dust emissions increasing by 25% between the late 19th century and today.
However, “climate change impacts on dust and sand storm activity remain a critical gap,” writes the IPCC, and more research is desperately needed to address this. By the UN’s estimate, dust storms were associated with the deaths of 402,000 people in 2005. As many as 951 million people, mainly in South Asia, Central Asia, West Africa, and East Asia, could be vulnerable to the impacts of desertification if climate change continues.
Did climate change do it? It was potentially a factor, but we have lots more to learn.
Are locust swarms technically “weather”? Not really. But so long as we’re on the topic of weather events of Biblical proportions, locust swarms might as well be addressed, too.
And the answer may surprise you: Climate appears to be a driver of locust swarms, which threaten food security and exacerbate famines throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Locusts prefer “arid areas punched by extreme rainfall,” according to one study that looked at the connection between swarms and climate change, and while much of that pattern is fixed in the natural El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle, a warming climate will also “lead to widespread increases in locust outbreaks with emerging hotspots in west central Asia.” In particular, the research found that in a low-emissions scenario, locust habitat could increase by 5%, while in a high-emissions scenario, it could increase by 13% to 25% between 2065 and 2100.
Did climate change do it? It’d likely be tricky to attribute any one locust swarm to climate change, but as with many other natural phenomena, climate likely plays a compounding factor.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
September bills in competitive Republican-held districts have risen by a median of 21% between 2024 and 2026.
New Jersey’s 7th District is an odd place for an affordability fight.
The 15th wealthiest congressional district in the country, NJ-7 stretches from the tidal strait bordering New York’s Staten Island to the winding Delaware River state line with Pennsylvania. Between those two bodies of water, roughly a third of households earn more than $200,000 a year. The 7th Congressional District is also New Jersey’s “one rare and surprising swing district,” per Gothamist, and, as a result, it is also the spendiest on elections: the 2024 high-water mark of $26.3 million in campaign spending will likely be surpassed this year by incumbent Republican Tom Kean Jr. and Democrat Rebecca Bennett.
Needless to say, there are comparatively few constituents in NJ-7 for whom paying $40 more on a September electricity bill than two years ago — or about $300 more over the past 12 months — is the difference between whether they can afford groceries or not. But like many other Republican-held competitive seats this election year, the district has seen its electricity rates increase since just before President Donald Trump took office for his second term, according to the latest data available in Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
In NJ-7, residents paid about 35% more on their electricity bills this September than two years ago; bills are up more than 18% over the past 12 months compared with the year before. Over that same time period, the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter moved Kean’s reelection race from “lean Republican” to “toss-up” to where it stands now: “lean Democrat.” NJ-7 is largely served by Jersey Central Power & Light and Public Service Electric and Gas Co, and, for both, increases in basic generation service charges — that is, what utilities charge for the production and supply of electricity — drove most of the spikes in bills.
“Kean Jr. voted to roll back commonsense energy tax credits and jack up electricity bills for New Jersey families,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wrote in a June memo, seizing on the opportunity. “Skyrocketing utility bills are a major issue in the Garden State, and Kean Jr. is part of the problem.” The National Republican Congressional Committee has defended Kean by pointing to his vote for the Ratepayer Protection Act (which passed the House last month only to fail in the Senate) and his record of opposing “Green New Deal policies” to “protect families from rising costs.”
The New Jersey race has more to it than electricity prices, of course; the 7th District election has drawn national attention, including involvement from Elon Musk and, at one time, President Trump. But if even a race in one of the country’s wealthiest districts has become a referendum on affordability to some extent, incumbent Republicans elsewhere are certainly feeling constituents’ ire, too. In the 42 closest races listed as “toss-up” or “leans” by the Cook Political Report, September bills in Republican-held districts have risen a median of 21% from 2024 to 2026, compared with just 13% for Democratic-held seats (and compared to 16% across all 435 House districts).
Comparing September bills is useful because it suggests how voters are perceiving utility costs as they prepare to submit their ballots. But September, being a shoulder season, can also vary in temperature in many parts of the country, meaning bills may be higher because of a late summer heat wave — or an early cold snap. Still, looking over the past 12 months, bills in competitive Republican-held districts have risen twice as fast as those in competitive Democrat-held seats (8% vs 4%). Overall, 22 of the 29 Republican-held House seats in active play this November are in places where electricity bills have risen more than 10% since Trump’s election.
Another race where affordability concerns and rising electricity bills seem to be intertwined is Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District, held by Republican and former House Freedom Caucus head Scott Perry. The typical September bill in PA-10 rose from about $126 to $202 in just two years, a 61% increase, according to the Electricity Price Hub. (The most recent data for the district are projections, because New York and Pennsylvania release their reports on a delay.) Among the utilities in PA-10, generation contributes the largest amount to average bills, with costs roughly doubling since 2020.
Pennsylvanians are feeling it: 57% of registered voters in PA-10 told a local pollster it is “very” or “somewhat” difficult to afford monthly utility costs, making it a bigger financial struggle than groceries, gas, rent, or health care.
Perry’s opponent, Janelle Stelson, has hammered him on affordability (including gas prices) while groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council have labeled Perry as a “rate raiser,” pointing to his coziness with the fossil fuel industry and his proud opposition to renewable energy development.
Perhaps nowhere are utility rates more central to a House race than in New York’s 17th Congressional District, where Republican incumbent Mike Lawler is in a “toss-up” race against Democrat Cait Conley. His constituents are paying about $50 more on a September electricity bill than they were before he was elected in 2024, while bills have risen more than 17%, or over $330, in the past 12 months compared with the year prior. (Across the utilities servicing NY-17 — as well as NY-19, another district where utility bills are a central talking point— the delivery portion of the bill tends to be the largest, though generation costs have also grown substantially over the past five years.)
While rising electricity bills have given Democrats an easy line of attack on vulnerable Republicans heading into the midterms, Congress admittedly doesn’t set utility rates and there are limited levers for elected officials to pull to keep them down in the short term. Heatmap’s data, rather, indicates the places where voters appear especially sensitive to rate increases and may be taking it out on their elected officials — although there are still caveats.
For example, the trends are also largely regional. Our data shows the steepest electricity increases among a cluster of seats in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Ohio — many of them Republican seats in purple areas that Democrats would have targeted with or without the ammo of higher electricity prices. In other parts of the country, competitive races in California and Arizona have actually seen falling electricity bills.
Two can play the rate increase blame game, too. In New York’s 19th Congressional District, incumbent Democrat Josh Riley is running on lowering utility bills — as is his Republican opponent. (That race isn’t considered competitive by Cook, which puts Riley as the “likely” favorite.) In Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, a toss-up race where bills were about $40 higher in September of this year than in 2024, incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur and her allies are on the defensive and warn that her challenger, Derek Merrin, could jack them up even more.
Bills are up everywhere on average, and when you pull back, the influence on elections appears relatively small: the median competitive district’s bills rose 11.4% compared to the median bill for a safe seat, 10.3%, in January–September 2026 versus January–September 2024. The per-kilowatt-hour price of electricity (as distinct from household bills) rose slightly less in competitive races (8.2% median) than in safe seats (9.7% median). In some places feeling the squeeze on electricity bills, bigger issues are driving the election: Carol Obando-Derstine, a former utility employee who campaigned in Pennsylvania’s 7th District on lowering power bills, ultimately lost the Democratic primary to a candidate focused more on corruption and greed.
But in other districts, it won’t matter whether representatives have little control over electricity bills or whether rising prices are a national trend. “I’m working hard to keep my lights on,” one constituent says in a House Majority PAC ad that makes the case against the Republican, Lawler, in NY-17. “My bills keep going up.”
Current conditions: A new nor’easter is washing the ocean over North Carolina’s Highway 12 right as crews complete reconstruction on the Outer Banks thoroughfare following last month’s storm • After whipping Mexico’s Pacific Coast with heavy rains, Hurricane Trudy has weakened to a Category 1 storm • Super Typhoon Champi knocked out power for more than half of Guam before barreling toward the Philippines as a potential Category 5 storm.
Last week was the worst week for the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 Index since President Donald Trump’s tariffs roiled the market in April 2025. The reason? Hotter than expected federal data on inflation fueled fears of an interest rate hike that could prove devastating to the buildout of artificial intelligence infrastructure. Investors were already worrying the physical investments would cost more than giants such as ChatGPT-maker OpenAI or Claude-creator Anthropic are set to earn. But on Monday, semiconductor makers such as Oracle, Intel, and Micron Technology rallied as the AI rout came to an end. Yet CoreWeave, the cloud-computing heavyweight that led the selloff last week, closed slightly lower. The issue, investors told CNBC, is the company’s debt load. “The market tends to get worried about companies that have refinance risk when rates are higher, and CoreWeave was a little bit of the poster child,” John Lloyd, global head of multi-sector and corporate credit at Janus Henderson, whose firm owns CoreWeave bonds due in 2031, told the broadcaster. “They need the debt markets in order to grow, in some form or fashion.” That CoreWeave came close to bouncing back at all comes down at least in part to Ark Investment Management chief Cathie Wood opting to buy about $12 million of shares in the company amid the market plunge last week, a play for which The Street notes she’s known. Notably, Oracle, which was previously dubbed the “canary in the coal mine” for concern over AI debt, closed just 1% higher before plunging in after-market trading.
Microsoft, meanwhile, pulled out a major data center deal in the United Kingdom to anchor Nscale Global Holdings’ debut facility in the country, located in Loughton on the outskirts of London. But The Wall Street Journal reported that power supply issues ultimately caused Microsoft to back out of the 50-megawatt project, highlighting how hyperscalers can throw a major data center complex into disarray even at a later stage in the development. Nscale’s upcoming $35 billion stock market debut rests, as The Information noted, on its ability to build data centers.
Amazon is backing a deal for another power plant built with X-energy’s next-generation reactors. On Monday, the high temperature gas-cooled reactor startup, in which Amazon took an equity stake two years ago, signed a joint development agreement with American Electric Power to evaluate a potential 960-megawatt project at a former coal site in Sullivan County, Indiana. In a press release, AEP CEO Bill Fehrman said Amazon’s support provided “all necessary capital protections and financial safeguards that we have said are essential for any potential nuclear project to move forward.” That’s a notable departure from the line many utilities executives share in private, which is that — absent some kind of federal cost overrun insurance — building new reactors will prove too difficult a sell to shareholders. It’s part of a string of nuclear deals for Indiana, which currently has no operating atomic power reactors in its borders. On Monday evening, AtkinsRealis, the developer behind Canada’s signature CANDU reactor technology that can run on raw uranium, announced a memorandum of understanding to build up to 6 gigawatts of the pressurized heavy water reactors in Indiana. The state and the utility Hoosier Energy are the counterparties to the agreement.
In Arkansas, meanwhile, Google unveiled a new “enhanced partnership” with utility giant Entergy to power the tech giant’s West Memphis campus. As part of the agreement, Google pledged to support solar, battery, and transmission investments in Arkansas that the companies said would deliver “at least $500 million in new savings for all customers.”
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright called out New York Governor Kathy Hochul for holding up a natural gas pipeline he said would lower heating prices for residents in the Northeast as early as winter of 2028. During an appearance Monday on the Fox Business Network, Wright touted his agency’s decision last week to award Williams Companies $42 million through the wartime Defense Production Act to speed up construction of the Constitution Pipeline. “We wanted to get this in by winter of 2027 but delays and still opposition from energy-subtraction Democrats has unfortunately slowed the effort,” Wright said. “The delay right now is the governor here in New York State. We’ve been talking with her. We hope she’ll go along with this. Maybe after the election, I think she will.” The governors of all six New England states, he said, “are all on board with it.”
In a statement to me, Hochul spokesperson Ken Lovett called the announcement “nothing more than a political ploy to divert attention from Trump’s tariffs and his reckless war in Iran that have not only failed to bring down prices as the president promised, but have dramatically driven up home energy costs and gas prices at the pump.” He added that, “while the president continues to obsess over blocking renewable energy projects in order to focus on gas, oil, and even coal, Governor Hochul is focused on driving an all-of-the-above energy strategy designed to keep the lights on and costs down for New Yorkers.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Albertans are the richest Canadians on average, thanks to the province’s oil and gas industry. They’re also — after the Quebecois, of course — among the Canadians with the strongest claim to a distinct identity from the national Anglo norm, often drawing comparisons to Texans within the U.S. Monday offered the biggest test yet of just how differently Alberta sees itself. Turns out whatever regional resentments Albertans may have against Ottawa after a decade of Liberal Party rule that frequently sought to restrict the oil and gas sector hasn’t been enough to merit secession. Voters overwhelmingly rejected a nonbinding referendum calling for a real vote on whether to split away from Canada and establish an independent Alberta. At least part of the reason may be that Prime Minister Mark Carney has put a new focus on beefing up Canada’s domestic energy industries in a bid to increase exports and make the country less reliant on an increasingly aggressive U.S. That includes building new pipelines. But a new analysis by Reuters warns that a successful infrastructure buildout won’t lead to another jobs boom in oil. Much of the growth in oil sands output, instead, “is likely to come from automation and efficiency gains rather than large-scale hiring,” the newswire reported, citing industry forecasts and nearly a dozen interviews with company officials, workers, politicians, and academics. Carney admitted as much when asked by the reporter during a visit to Alberta’s Fort McMurray this month: “I wouldn't use the term ‘boom.’ I would use ‘sustained growth.’”
Europe, meanwhile, is trying to keep its own populist blowback to rising prices contained. Right as violent protests over cost of living spread from France to Italy, the Italian government has struck a deal with the European Commission that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expects to slash household energy bills ahead of next year’s elections. Under the agreement, according to the Financial Times, Italy will be allowed to compensate gas-fired generators to keep wholesale electricity prices from rising above €59 per megawatt-hour, roughly $66. The European Union’s market rules require that the last and most expensive source of electricity tapped to meet demand serves as the wholesale price. But the EU’s executive chamber allowed for Italy to ease its rules after prices surged 45% higher than in nuclear-powered France and renewables-rich Spain last month.
China’s exports of solar panels fell 6.4% last month compared to the same period last year, according to Reuters. That marks the fifth straight year-on-year decline in 2026. It’s a sign that China is cracking down on its glut in solar manufacturing. But Beijing isn’t looking to lose its edge over the fastest growing electricity source in the world. Last week, Bloomberg reported that China had added 12 pieces of solar-related manufacturing equipment to its list of items restricted from export. That could make it much more difficult for U.S. manufacturers comply to stand up factories given the Trump administration’s 232 import restrictions on Chinese solar equipment, which take effect later this year. The results of the Department of Commerce’s Section 232 investigation into polysilicon, which my colleague Emily Pontecorvo and I covered here, are meant to be the Trump administration’s lifeline to solar manufacturers who lost a key incentive when federal tax credits expired, ending a bonus program for developers that use domestically-made panels.
One area where China has appeared to be gaining an edge — green hydrogen production — may still remain a competitive industry for Western manufacturers. Chinese electrolyzers, the machines needed to separate the H from H2O with electricity, cost less than half of those made outside the country, according to data from the International Energy Agency. But trade levies erase much of that advantage, ultimately reducing capital expenditures by only 8% for European projects using Chinese equipment, Hydrogen Insight reported.
Call it mine-to-battery manufacturing. As demand for batteries booked, Ivanhoe Electric had planned to differentiate itself by taking a fully integrated, farm-to-table approach, owning and operating its own copper mine, refining the metal, and ultimately turning that copper into cathodes for batteries all at its same site in Arizona. Now, however, there’s an even bigger sector demanding copper: Data centers. New data center projects are driving so much demand for copper that the company is considering selling its copper to buyers other than itself, Bloomberg reported.
The company simplifies the process of getting consistent, apples-to-apples bids.
With commercial electricity prices steadily climbing, many businesses and real estate owners are increasingly eager to generate and store their own power onsite, cutting their bills and making costs more predictable. But figuring out whether solar and storage can actually pencil out — and under what conditions — can be a nightmare. Ask a handful of developers for a quote and you might get a rooftop solar array from one, a ground-mounted solar and battery system from another, and a gas turbine from a third, each with its own size, price, and financing terms.
That leaves buyers comparing apples to oranges. And for businesses evaluating a portfolio of potential projects, the process gets even messier. “These are very local-centric systems. Different interconnection requirements, different permits, different suppliers,” Gareth Evans, CEO of the onsite energy planning and procurement startup Veckta, told me. “There are hundreds of solar developers in every state.” The hard part, he added, is “knowing what supplier to go with, how to ask them the right questions in the right language, in the right format, so that you’re getting consistent bids back that you can compare and contrast.”
That’s the tension San Diego-based Veckta has built its business around. And on Tuesday, the startup announced an oversubscribed $11 million Series A to scale its solution. Origin Ventures led the round, with participation from others including the climate-focused investor VoLo Earth Ventures, which led Veckta’s $3.3 million pre-seed round in 2022.
The company starts with a single input: a property address. Veckta’s software analyzes over 5,000 data points, including utility rates, grid emissions, outage risk, local equipment and construction costs, and available incentives to assess — in under a minute — whether an onsite energy project makes financial sense. That helps buyers define their needs, from system size and installation type to contract terms, and ensures that potential suppliers are bidding on the same requirements. The result is a set of comparable proposals, without the upfront cost of hiring a consultant or supply chain expert.
Veckta’s platform includes more than 3,000 vetted suppliers. As bids come in, the startup automatically compares them based on factors including the supplier’s track record, warranties, equipment offerings, compliance with foreign entity of concern requirements, and ability to leverage federal and local incentives. From there, Veckta makes its recommendations. “Supplier A is your best option if you want U.S.-made equipment with the longest warranty, best guarantee, and they’ve done these projects before,” Evans explained, by way of example. “Supplier B is disqualified because they’ve never done a project in your state.”
Out of the roughly 34,000 customer sites Veckta has analyzed, Evans said 37% would see positive returns today by installing solar panels, battery storage systems, or both. That translates to $3.1 billion in potential project value, concentrated largely in markets with high electricity rates such as the Northeast and California, and among businesses facing steep peak-demand charges. But as utility rates continue to rise and installation costs fall, he expects onsite power to become cost-competitive with the grid at “almost 100%” of sites within five years. The startup estimates that would unlock a whopping $12 billion in potential project value.
Veckta wouldn’t capture all that itself, of course. Rather, it generates revenue in two ways: buyers pay an upfront platform fee, and the winning supplier pays a success fee once a contract is signed. Evans told me the startup has been net profitable for the past year, though he would not share specifics. So far in 2026, customers have signed contracts for onsite energy projects at 128 sites. These typically range from 250 kilowatts for businesses like car dealerships and retail stores to 10 megawatts or more for manufacturing facilities, warehouses, or cold storage facilities. “That ranges from Fortune 500s right down to your individual business owner,” Evans told me.
With this latest raise, Veckta plans to expand its supplier network and grow its sales, marketing, and customer support teams. It also wants to help customers capture additional revenue streams from their onsite energy systems, such as by connecting them with demand-response programs, using batteries to provide grid services like frequency regulation, and selling renewable energy credits.
Named customers include rental car company Enterprise Mobility, real estate investment trust Regency Centers, and auto dealership group Lithia & Driveway. About 80% of the projects the platform facilitates today involve rooftop solar paired with batteries, but the company has begun to branch out.
“We’ve done waste-heat-to-energy, we’ve done EV chargers, done backup generators, and then the latest is, we’ve just finished our first pilot on roof replacements,” Evans told me. “We are firm believers that for any complex purchase that is a non-commodity that you can’t just buy off the shelf, we are best placed to help our customers competitively source those deals.”