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:
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.
Americans have come to expect shocking electricity bills, especially in the summer months. The latest data from the Electricity Price Hub makes clear: Households in every region of the country are seeing not just record high July bills, but also bills that are sharply higher than even just a few months before.
Some may see these trends and argue that utilities and regulators set rates, but bills are ultimately the result of consumer choices about how much electricity to use. But that narrative misses the mark for a simple reason: How utilities and regulators design rates influence both summer bill swings and how much electricity consumers use. Seasonal rates and other features of electricity pricing can exacerbate summer bill swings and inform customers’ decisions about whether certain electricity uses — even running the air conditioner on an extremely hot day — are worth it.
The scale of this summer’s electricity bill increases is striking. Nationwide, the average household electricity bill was $90 per month, or 71% higher in July than it was in April of this year. Not only are bills up, they are up from a high base. The national average bill in April 2026 was higher than any previous April average in the Electricity Price Hub data, and 37% higher than the national average in April five years ago.
These trends are not just driven by a few states. There are households in every corner of the country experiencing sharp increases in their power bills this summer.
At the state level, average household bills have increased the most in New Jersey (up 163%), Nevada (157%), and Oklahoma (133%), but bills have at least doubled in 11 states and are up 1.5 times in 24 more.
In 19 different states, average household bills from major utilities at least doubled from April to July, adding between $72 and $214 per month to their average customers’ bills. In 12 of those states — including some in the Northeast, Mountain West, South, and Southeast — more than 40% of all households are served by utilities whose average bills have at least doubled this summer.
Greater electricity use is a big part of what’s at play in these trends, but it’s not the whole story. Higher summer rates also contribute, in many cases. Rate design, market conditions, and regulatory processes can all cause electricity prices to change throughout the year.
Some utilities, for instance, have rates that vary seasonally, automatically adjusting in the summer months. Seasonal rates contribute to summer bill increases for eight of the 10 utilities whose average bill increased most from April to July. For three of those utilities, over half of the April-to-July increase was driven by seasonal rates. For another five, seasonal rates play a meaningful role, compounding usage-driven increases. For only two does the increase come back to usage alone.
Taken together, these findings suggest that summer bill shocks are not simply a function of warmer weather. In many cases, they also reflect deliberate choices about how utilities price electricity during the summer months.
Even where higher usage is the primary driver of rising summer bills, the way utilities structure rates influences how much customers can save by using less electricity or shifting when they consume power.
Across the utilities with the largest April-to-July bill increases, there is considerable variation in how they calculate a customer’s monthly bill. All include a mix of fixed monthly fees and charges based on usage, measured in dollars per kilowatt-hour. But the balance between these components differs significantly, with fixed charges contributing from 4% to 23% of average bills over the past 12 months. Some utilities apply the same per kilowatt-hour rate year-round, while others increase rates in the summer. For some, the same rate applies to the total amount of electricity customers use in a month, while others have rates that increase for higher tiers of usage.
That means the design of residential rates also determines how much households actually benefit from using less electricity. Two households may receive similar-sized bills, but depending on how their utilities structure their rates, customers can see very different savings from cutting back.
The three New Jersey utilities in the top 10 illustrate one approach: They all have relatively small fixed customer charges, along with per-kilowatt-hour rates that vary both seasonally and by usage tier. For example, Jersey Central Power & Light’s distribution charge shifts from a single volumetric charge in the winter to a tiered structure in the summer, with usage above 600 kilowatt-hours priced at a higher rate. This structure contributes to sizable seasonal bill swings, but it also creates a strong financial incentive to limit summer usage.
The average household in JCP&L’s service area used more than 1,000 kilowatt-hours in July 2025. Had that household used 15% less electricity, it would have saved roughly $50 that month; a 25% reduction would have saved $82. At current rates, a 25% reduction in usage would cut the average bill by 28%, and every 4 kilowatt-hour reduction in usage over 600 kilowatt-hours saves a dollar.
Nevada Power takes a different approach. Its residential rate consists of a larger fixed customer charge — contributing 14% of total average bills over the last year — and a set of volumetric rates that do not vary by season or usage level. As a result, consumers have less of a financial incentive to reduce consumption. A household would need to reduce usage by roughly 8.4 kilowatt-hours to save a dollar, and cutting electricity use by 25% would reduce the bill by about 23% — meaningfully less than under JCP&L's structure.
While seasonal variability in bills is expected and not on its face problematic, it is important to recognize that unpredictability and month-to-month volatility in power bills can compound energy affordability challenges. And although regulators cannot control the weather, the choices they make about rates influence the agency households have in managing their bills each month.
This then raises the question: Should utilities and regulators consider bill stability and its impact on affordability in setting rates? Staff for the Arizona Corporation Commission, which is currently considering requests from the state’s two investor-owned utilities to raise average household bills by around 15%, recently testified that “affordability and energy burden are not pertinent to ratemaking” — that they are, instead, “societal issues.” But that is exactly the wrong sentiment.
Affordability and bill stability both deserve to be explicit considerations in ratemaking, carefully weighed against other objectives and not dismissed or treated as an afterthought. Doing so may look different in different places and does not require prioritizing bill stability over all else. But where households are struggling to manage unpredictable power bills, regulators should be sensitive to those trends and lend greater weight to measures that boost households’ ability to manage usage and limit bills, should they choose to.
That may mean more effective and targeted energy efficiency and demand response programs and incentives for utilities to promote uptake. In some cases, it may call for better customer education on available rate schedules and ways to manage bills, and ultimately it may require more modern rate design. Whatever the response, stability is part of affordability. Wild bill swings add to the burden of record-high bills — a fact that utilities and regulators cannot afford to ignore.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Trump’s mineral deals, the gas turbine backlog, and Turkic offshore wind
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Lala could strengthen into a hurricane before hitting Hawaii’s Big Island, becoming the first such storm to make landfall there since 1900 • A glacial outburst at Suicide Basin near Juneau, Alaska, is raising the Mendenhall River • Temperatures surpassed 107 degrees Fahrenheit in Zaragoza, the inland capital of Spain’s Aragon region.

The United States is rapidly approaching a two-decade streak as the world’s No. 1 producer of natural gas. The country held the top spot between 2009 and 2024, the latest year for which the U.S. Energy Information Administration has data. But America pumped record volumes of natural gas last year. And now the federal energy research agency forecasts 2026 will be another record year. Marketed natural gas production — the total volume that actually makes it to market, minus what’s burned off or leaks as waste — is set to reach an average of 122.5 billion cubic feet per day in 2026, up from 2025’s record of 118.5 billion cubic feet per day. The new milestone is the result of expanded drilling in the Permian region that straddles Texas and New Mexico, and in the Haynesville area, between Texas and Louisiana.
When the Trump administration first started buying up equity stakes in mining companies, former officials from the Biden administration told my colleague Matthew Zeitlin they were “jealous” that the Republican White House had the guts to try something novel to compete with China on the metals needed for defense and energy technologies. Now, however, top Democrats are asking federal watchdogs to probe whether the American taxpayer is actually getting good deals. New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Representative Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called on the Government Accountability Office to open an investigation into potential conflicts of interest. In a letter sent last week to Acting U.S. Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown and published Thursday on E&E News, the lawmakers accused the White House of violating rules to assess the financial risk of federal purchases. “These equity acquisitions also create potential conflicts of interest for federal agencies because a significant portion of the planned mining operations are located on federal lands,” they wrote. “With the executive branch now holding direct financial equity in these private mining operations, the federal government is required to act simultaneously as a mining investor and land-use regulator, an inherent conflict of interest.”
Mitsubishi’s backlog of orders for large-frame gas turbines is now more than twice its output from last year. In the 2025 fiscal year, the Japanese industrial giant delivered 16 gigawatts of gas turbines and had a backlog of 23 gigawatts. Just halfway through 2026, that backlog has ballooned to 35 gigawatts, executives told investors on the latest quarterly earnings call. The update, announced in Japan last week and covered in English by Utility Dive on Thursday, shows that “demand for large-frame gas turbines remains broadly in line with, or slightly above, the strong level we had anticipated,” Hiroshi Nishio,the chief financial officer of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
Power electronics maker Heron Power, meanwhile, unveiled plans for a $100 million factory in Morgan Hill, California. The startup, led by a former Tesla executive, aims to produce next-generation transformers that can patch more solar panels and batteries on the grid and help ease some of the issues that arise from the direct current-based electricity sources. The first factory is designed to churn out 40 gigawatts of Heron Links, the transformer product, per year. “America's grid has to grow faster than it has in decades. We’re seeing new demand from AI and EVs, and at the same time new supply from solar and storage,” Drew Baglino, Heron Power’s chief executive and founder, said in a statement. “The equipment running the grid hasn’t changed in 50 years. Heron Factory One in Morgan Hill is how we fix that. We’re manufacturing the leapfrog technology our grid needs, at scale, in America first.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Offshore wind is in retreat in the U.S., where, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote this week, the Trump administration is paying billions to kill projects that were already dead or dying. The industry’s tide is also ebbing in Japan, where the new right-wing government of Sanae Takaichi is putting a heightened focus on nuclear power. Elsewhere, however, offshore wind is booming. Europe is only expanding its plans. China is steadily dominating the industry. And East Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan are expanding their sectors.
Now two of the richest countries in the Turkic world are laying plans for more offshore turbines. Turkey announced plans this week for its first offshore wind tender in the first quarter of 2027, Renewables Now reported. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, this week formally designated a 275-square-mile section of water in the Caspian Sea for offshore wind development, per offshoreWIND.biz. The moves highlight the extent to which the U.S. government stands alone in its view that offshore wind has no role in a modern electricity mix. Turkey, after all, is doubling its domestic production of gas and completing its first nuclear plant. Azerbaijan is famously rich in natural gas and produces a decent amount of hydropower. Yet both countries are still charging ahead on offshore wind.
Deep-sea mining isn’t yet technically legal in international waters. But the Trump administration isn’t waiting, creating the regulatory frameworks for domestic approvals and opening the area around one of America’s Pacific territories to exploration. Japan has been eager to follow suit. Now Washington and Tokyo are planning to meet “centuries’ worth of industrial demand” by establishing what Mining.com called the world’s deepest undersea mine in a bid to take on China’s mineral dominance. The mineral extraction would take place more than 1,000 miles southeast of Tokyo on an uninhabited speck of land called Minamitorishima, where Japanese scientists carried out tests pulling rare earths out of mineral-rich mud.
China is actively building more reactors at home than all other countries combined and singlehandedly restarted the race for novel technologies after hooking the world’s only commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactors up to the grid in 2023. So far, Beijing’s two state-owned nuclear companies have remained focused on building light water reactors. Just one new high-temperature gas-cooled unit, designed to have more than twice the output of the first version, is currently underway at a facility where the fourth-generation, helium-cooled technology will be paired with third-generation, water-cooled reactors. Now the developer, the China National Nuclear Corporation, has made plans to procure a contract for the reactor for the first time, laying the groundwork for future deals to purchase units specifically designed to reach high temperatures. The “first concrete” for the plant is expected to be poured by the end of 2026, World Nuclear News reported.
Investment in zero-carbon energy and transportation surged this spring, driven by consumer EV and battery buying.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Ready to be surprised? Clean energy and transportation investment surged in the second quarter of this year, rising to more than $75 billion in total, according to new data released earlier this week.
In fact, this spring was the second biggest quarter for U.S. clean investment in nominal terms since at least 2018, when data started to be kept. More than 5% of overall investment in the United States went into a clean energy or transportation industry.
That’s according to the Clean Investment Monitor, a joint project of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and the Rhodium Group, a private research firm. The monitor tracks nationwide investment across a number of sectors that make up the new electricity economy, including critical mineral refining, battery manufacturing, solar and wind installation, and electric vehicle and heat pump purchases by consumers (among other variables).
Outside of a promising headline number, the story is a mixed one. Investment in America’s clean manufacturing sector started growing again last quarter after falling for 18 months; it remains about 24% below where it was a year earlier, according to the project. The new growth came overwhelmingly from investment in the EV supply chain — defined as “critical minerals, batteries, vehicle assembly, and charging equipment” — driving a staggering 88% of all clean manufacturing investment. That subsector alone made up more than 9% of all U.S. clean investment.
The more interesting story — and what leaps out from the chart — is that retail activity drove the spring resurgence. High gasoline prices helped here, pushing consumers to buy all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in larger numbers. (Rivian, Tesla, and other automakers started to see an EV rebound last quarter, too, after Republicans ended EV incentives in 2025.) But the real boom came in residential batteries, which surged to an all-time high of $11 billion in quarterly sales. Consumer activity hasn’t made up such a large share of national clean investment since 2023.
This trend wasn’t just happening in the United States. We’ve talked a lot at Heatmap about whether the Strait of Hormuz crisis will drive a clean energy boom. But it's now clear the oil price shock really did encourage global EV adoption. Some 50 countries set new EV sales records in 2026’s second quarter, according to Kelley Blue Book. India, Brazil, and Australia all set record highs. That's a lot of demand destruction.
As costs rise, more proceeds from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are going to direct bill relief.
A carbon price can be a tough sell when electricity costs are rising.
That’s what governors up and down the eastern seaboard are facing as they decide what to do with revenues from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an 11-state cap-and-trade program for the electricity sector that operates from Virginia to Maine.
In Virginia and New Jersey, two states where Democratic governors won last year amidst a maelstrom of concern about rising electricity prices, the program has been at least partially reoriented around putting dollars back into the pockets of ratepayers.
Virginia only recently rejoined the group this year after having left under the leadership of Republican Glenn Youngkin in 2023. When Virginia was last a member of RGGI, the proceeds from the auctions for emissions allowances largely went to an energy efficiency program for low-income households and a flood resilience fund. Today, having rejoined RGGI, some 45% of the revenue will be earmarked for rate relief, thanks to a budget amendment passed in June.
In New Jersey, meanwhile, Governor Mikie Sherrill has used money raised through to help fulfill the rate freeze pledge on which she centered her campaign for Drumthwacket by directly reducing bills.
Conservatives in RGGI states have for years tried to make a stink about the up-front costs it imposed on ratepayers. Now as electricity costs balloon, Democratic governors and state legislatures are looking to RGGI to help balance their emissions goals and efforts to keep electricity bills under control.
In New Hampshire, for instance, the most conservative state to be a consistent RGGI member, nearly all the state’s proceeds from the program now go to rate relief, compared to about three-quarters historically. In its latest report on how RGGI funds get used, the organization reported that in 2024, the last year for which comprehensive data is available, some 23% of RGGI proceeds went to direct bill assistance, compared to 16% over the 17-year lifetime of the system.
“The affordability narrative is the leading political narrative of 2026. And the albatross around the neck of carbon pricing has been that it’s going to raise energy prices,” Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, told me.
Seen holistically, Burtraw told me, “carbon pricing is built for affordability.” That’s because, one, economists generally consider carbon pricing the cheapest and most efficient way to hit a given emissions reduction goal (assuming, that is, that you want to reduce emissions in the first place), and secondly because the proceeds from the carbon price can be invested and distributed in ways that mitigate price hikes.
“Carbon pricing raises tremendous proceeds, and the question comes down to the distributional impacts of carbon pricing. It always comes down to how you use those carbon proceeds,” Burtraw told me.
The current pressure for rate relief comes as RGGI prices have risen as the same time electricity prices up and down the East Coast are at or near all-time highs. The clearing price in the latest quarterly auction for carbon dioxide allowances was $35 per ton, the highest price in the history of the program, bringing in some $642 billion to be distributed among the states. By contrast, the third quarter auction in 2025 had a clearing price of $19.63 and raised some $300 million.
At the same time, electricity bills have risen across the RGGI system, including an 18.5% rise in New Jersey by 12.5% rise in New Hampshire just over the past year, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
Because every state in the RGGI system besides Virginia operates in a restructured wholesale electricity market, it’s hard to say exactly how much RGGI prices affect ratepayer bills. In Virginia, Dominion, the dominant utility, has requested permission for a rider on bills of $10 to $13 per month, compared to monthly added costs under $3 when Youngkin began the process of withdrawing Virginia from the system in 2022.
In a New Jersey regulatory filing, meanwhile, the state’s Board of Public Utilities recommended using RGGI proceeds to fund $150 million of rate relief for moderate- and low-income households that Sherrill announced in June, citing an update to the state’s three-year strategic plan for RGGI that directly the NJBPU “to provide direct bill credits on residential energy bills for NJ’s most vulnerable residents.” There is precedent for this in the Garden State: In 2025 Governor Phil Murphy helped deliver rate relief by shifting some RGGI money around.
The trend toward using RGGI funds for rate relief has caused disquiet among environmental groups that support carbon pricing and want to see the dollars largely go to energy efficiency programs, not ratepayers.
In 2025, a coalition of Virginia environmental groups that supported rejoining RGGI called for revenue to go to the “low-income energy efficiency fund and the Community Flood Preparedness Fund.” The Flood Preparedness Fund issues grants to local governments for flood mitigation and resiliency projects, while the energy efficiency programs fund things like home weatherization.
“The case we’ve made to our environmental advocates in Virginia is that we have taken 45% towards RGGI credits, but we’ve left 55% of the revenue. That leaves each of the programs with record levels of funding,” Josephus Allmond, Virginia’s chief energy officer, told me, referring to the flood and energy efficiency programs that have historically been funded by RGGI.
“We were able to take what could have been a pretty negative impact to residential customer bills and turn it into something we can basically hold customers harmless.”
While the Natural Resources Defense Council has said it supports temporary rate relief to low-income ratepayers, it also has also mounted a defense of using RGGI revenues “to fund energy and environmental programs.”
“Several states are using larger amounts of program proceeds to provide households with bill credits or rebates that immediately lower monthly electricity bills, which means less investment in programs that provide long-term benefits,” Jo Gardias and Dawone Robinson wrote for the NRDC.
To me, Gardias framed the debate between energy efficiency programs and bill credits as between up-front and long-term benefits.
“Energy efficiency programs not only save the households that are getting the upgrade money, but every other customer through avoided transmission and distribution and generation costs,” Gardias told me. “On the far end there’s energy efficiency where you’re getting lifetime savings, on the shorter or more immediate end there’s the bill credit on energy savings.”
RGGI itself has estimated that every $1 of investments funded by the auction results in a lifetime bill savings of just over $4. In 2024 alone, RGGI claims that investments “are associated with approximately $363.9 million in annual energy bill savings and $2.6 billion in lifetime bill savings.”
“The question of how you spend proceeds is a large question of tradeoffs,” Gardias said. “What we’re seeing now is that because we have price spikes that are happening from data centers and other factors, there’s more interest in spending money on bill credits that provide immediate relief.”
Of course, this is the dilemma with all climate policy. The costs are immediate and upfront, while the benefits accrue over time and are more difficult to attribute to any one program or investment.
“There’s a lot of priorities for ways that you should use carbon proceeds to address the challenges of climate change,” Burtraw said. “But in 2026, given the affordability narrative and the populist sentiment in politics today, it makes sense to use carbon proceeds to reduce electricity prices.”
While an economist could draw up a cost benefit analysis that shows any number of uses of the proceeds could be more efficient for the economy or the environment — using the money to reduce taxes on investment, say, or using the money to fund energy efficiency programs — any of those would assume certain baseline of support for carbon pricing in the first place.
“For 25 years we’ve argued about this with the expectation that carbon pricing was inevitable because it was so much more efficient than any other type of approach. But we’ve seen after 25 years that carbon pricing is not inevitable,” Burtraw said. “We have to face the realities of what it takes to make it possible to do carbon pricing.”