Ideas
Summer Electricity Bills Don’t Have to Be This Crazy
The problem isn’t just affordability, two researchers from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub argue. Bill volatility also creates pain for electricity consumers.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The problem isn’t just affordability, two researchers from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub argue. Bill volatility also creates pain for electricity consumers.
GOP lawmakers know climate change is real. But they lack political incentives to do anything about it.
Two former defense officials argue that Rivian may be as important to America’s national security as SpaceX.
A longtime energy analyst argues that there are no solutions to the hyperscale problem, only tradeoffs.
A climate scientist goes back to the numbers to argue that we’re overestimating the cost of the energy transition.
A group of energy researchers have a three-part prescription for Washington, D.C.’s exploding energy costs.
The founder of one-time sustainable apparel company Zady argues that policy is the only that can push the industry toward more responsible practices.
Everlane’s reported sale to Shein has left many shocked and saddened. How could the millennial “radical transparency” fashion brand be absorbed by the company that has become shorthand for ultra-fast fashion? While I feel for the team within the company that cares about impact reduction, I am not surprised by the news.
Everlane was built around a theory of change that was always too small for the problem it claimed to address — that better brands and more conscientious consumers could redirect a coal-powered, chemically intensive, globally fragmented industry.
The theory had real appeal, but it was wrong. Yes, it created some better products, but it was never going to remake the fashion industry on its own.
This is the tension at the center of sustainable fashion: Consumer demand can create a niche, even a meaningful one, but it cannot reconfigure the economics of global supply chains. What is needed are common sense laws that require all significant players to play by the same basic rules: reduce emissions, ban toxic chemicals, and maintain basic labor standards.
A company I used to run, Zady, was an early competitor to Everlane, and we were part of the same cultural and commercial moment. When we raised money, we told investors that while our Boomer parents may have thought that changing the world meant marching on the streets, we knew better. Change was going to happen through business.
The problem was that, while our market was growing, fast fashion was growing faster. There was a small but passionate group of consumers trying to buy better, but the overall system drove companies to produce more — more units, more emissions, more chemicals, and more waste.
The truth is that brands do not have direct control over the environmental impacts of their products. Most of the emissions and applications of chemicals are not happening at the brand level, but are instead in fiber production, textile mills, dyehouses, finishing facilities, and laundries, all of which the brands do not own. These factories operate on the thinnest of margins, and the open secret is that brands share these suppliers. No one brand wants to pay the cost for their shared factories to make the necessary upgrades to address their impacts. It’s a classic collective action problem.
Everlane’s capital story matters here, too. Unless a founder arrives with substantial personal wealth, outside investment is often the only path to scale. A company can remain small, independent, and slow-growing, but then it will likely be more expensive, more limited in reach, and less able to influence factories.
Everlane chose the other path. It took institutional growth capital from storied venture firms more closely associated with the digital revolution (including some that also fund clean energy technologies) and became a recognizable national brand. This obligated the company to operate inside a financial structure that leads inexorably toward some kind of exit, whether through a sale, an initial public offering, or some other liquidity event. Once that is the operating system, sustainability can remain a real and important goal, but it is not the final governing logic — investor return is.
“Radical transparency” was never enough to solve the fashion industry’s or venture capital model’s structural problems. Naming a factory is not the same as knowing what happens inside it. Publishing a supplier list does not tell us whether the facility runs on coal, whether wastewater is treated before being released back into the ecosystem, or whether restricted substances are present in dyes, finishes, trims, or coatings.
We already have many forms of transparency in American capitalism. Public companies, for example, are required to disclose executive compensation and the average pay of their workers; this transparency has done exactly nothing to close the pay gap. A disclosure is not the same thing as a legal standard.
So what does this mean for all of us? We don’t know exactly how Shein will absorb Everlane. I could guess that this is a Quince play for Shein, a way to access higher-end consumers that would otherwise never go on the Shein site.
What this tragicomedy reveals is that the idea born from Obama-era optimism, that the arc of history naturally bends toward justice and sustainability, was ephemeral.
The work to make this coal-powered industry sustainable will come from regulation. The technology to decarbonize is there, and unlike with aviation, for instance, it would cost the apparel industry a mere 2 cents per cotton t-shirt to get it done. But unlike with aviation, there are no requirements or incentives that these investments be made, so they are not.
The electric vehicle industry got a head start through direct subsidies and fuel efficiency standards. Apparel needs the same.
If you’re disappointed or angry about this turn of events, I ask you to channel those feelings into citizenship. Help pass the New York or California Fashion Acts that would require all large fashion companies that sell into the states to reduce their emissions and ban toxic chemicals. It’s currently legal to have lead on adult clothing, and Shein is consistently found to have it on their products. The industry is pushing back through their trade associations, so people power is needed so that legislators know it needs to be their priority.
But if you want to shop sustainably, you don’t need a brand. What is most helpful is understanding your own style and lifestyle — that’s how we know what we actually need and what we don’t. There are apps to help on that front. (I love Indyx, for instance, but there are others.)
The only way forward is together, and that means political solutions — emissions requirements, chemical requirements, labor requirements — not just consumer ones.
Invest in Our Future’s Peter Colavito on why funders and advocates should pay more attention to the solar farm down the road.
Up until last September, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission had gone 14 years without approving a large-scale wind project. But when they met to review the 456 public comments submitted for Badger Hollow, a 118-megawatt project that would straddle Iowa and Grant counties, they found overwhelming support for the proposal. Approval followed.
This wasn’t by chance. For months, groups like the Rural Climate Partnership, Greenlight America, Farm-to-Power, Clean Wisconsin, CivicIQ, and Healthy Climate Wisconsin worked together to build support. They held roundtables with farmers and shot digital ads with testimonials from residents that ran online and at gas stations. They emphasized the nearly $600,000 the project would generate for cash-strapped towns and counties every year to fund things like roads, bridges, and emergency services. And they empowered trusted local voices to make a case grounded in their communities’ values.
The breakthrough in Wisconsin shows how investing in local interventions can accelerate the energy transition — and points the way forward for clean energy advocates trying to navigate federal headwinds.
As skyrocketing electricity demand and soaring costs draw attention to our power systems, clean energy offers a formidable solution. Wind, solar, and storage technologies have matured enough that they can be built quickly and cheaply virtually anywhere, for anyone, at any scale. And now, as the world contends with yet another conflict roiling fossil fuel markets, these energy sources offer a shield from volatility.
Given these clear advantages, it’s worth asking, “Why aren’t clean energy projects moving forward faster in more places?”
Our team at Invest in Our Future has learned a lot in the past three years about the answer.
Invest in Our Future’s creation marked a departure from philanthropy’s longstanding approach to climate and clean energy, which often focused on developing and passing policy to spur reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. Instead, with the Inflation Reduction Act on the books, my organization was formed with a singular focus: maximize the reach and impact of federal clean energy investments in the face of on-the-ground constraints.
Our remit was to ensure this ambitious policy advancing commercially-ready technology resulted in actual projects getting built and benefiting people. That meant mobilizing organizations to raise awareness of IRA programs and incentives and help communities access IRA dollars. It also meant finding a way around the significant barriers that stood in the way of deployment, even with historic levels of government support.
First, utility-scale projects were hit with organized, vocal opposition upset by the prospect of rapid changes to the local landscape and skeptical of out-of-town developers. That resistance often seized on siting and permitting processes to delay or altogether stop projects from being built. And too infrequently did countervailing forces try to speak to their concerns or organize support.
There were also funding problems for more community-oriented projects. In many cases, neither private investors nor public officials fully understood the opportunity or potential returns for projects like rooftop solar for schools, microgrids for hospitals and health centers, or electrified buses that double as mobile batteries during blackouts, leaving a sizable project pipeline struggling to pencil out.
Clean energy employers also struggled to hire, and workers couldn’t see a career path in the sector.
And as media habits changed, and national leaders spread disinformation, clean energy got more polarized.
For some, there was a political logic behind the IRA that suggested new projects would set off a self-reinforcing cycle of support for federal clean energy policy. But building support and real champions takes time. Consider that utility-scale solar projects, for example, need 24 months at minimum just to reach operational status. The work of connecting projects and benefits in the public mind extends further still. With barriers slowing deployment, the advantages of new projects needed time to take root.
Still, where projects did move forward, Invest in Our Future cultivated local validators who could share authentic stories about how clean energy improved their lives. When we mobilized local champions to engage with decisionmakers last year, they left a big impression. But we needed more of them — from more places, drawing value from more projects.
So after Congress repealed much of the IRA last summer, we developed new, interlocking strategies to address the major barriers to deployment and push as many projects forward in as many communities as possible.
By educating local decision-makers early and mobilizing active, vocal support from a wide range of perspectives — farmers and faith leaders, landowners and labor, educators and entrepreneurs — we can boost the number of projects that secure siting and permitting approvals.
By identifying high-potential, commercial-scale community projects with local lenders, packaging them into aggregated investments, and demonstrating low risk and reliable returns, we can draw institutional investors and lower-cost capital toward an otherwise underfunded but important segment.
Setting high and consistent job quality standards across clean energy industries will counter real and perceived concerns around safety, benefits, and wages, helping attract more workers who can go on to serve as advocates for new projects.
And deepening investment in storytelling by local champions will build the credibility of — and, in turn, support for — clean energy projects from the ground up.
Market forces are increasingly and irreversibly favoring clean energy. Influential allies of the president are coming around on solar, and longtime critics of renewables acknowledge that the transition is inevitable. What’s needed most now is a push from the ground up.
Our grantees are delivering it. Their work on siting and permitting, for example, helped gain approval for nearly 20 gigawatts of clean capacity in 2025. That included projects like Wisconsin’s Badger Hollow wind farm and Illinois’s 210-megawatt Glacier Moraine solar project — which was initially denied a permit but triumphed in a reconsideration vote after more than a dozen local residents mobilized to sway public opinion. Greenlight America and their partners managed to win eight permitting campaigns over one week last December alone.
Yet funding for these efforts is limited. Climate solutions receive less than 2% of total giving. Most funding within that segment has long flowed to regulatory and policy-focused work, which made sense while clean energy needed policy support to compete on economics. But today, with clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the country, there’s a real gap between our goals and on-the-ground success that we can bridge by focusing more on getting projects built.
Deploying clean energy at the community level happens to be one of our most effective tools for drawing down greenhouse gas pollution — with the added advantage of helping to lower costs, strengthen economic growth and community resilience, and generate good jobs. Through Invest in Our Future, I’ve met leaders driving progress often in the most challenging places in the country. Despite all the setbacks and discouraging headlines last year brought, these leaders have not lost their sense of urgency, or their resolve to build clean energy. That resolve — and their track record of success — should give us all hope. We should give them our support in return.