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:
Knock knock, it’s your local power provider. Can I interest you in a heat pump?

Natural gas utilities spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on pipelines and related infrastructure — costs they typically recoup from ratepayers over the course of decades. In the eyes of clean energy advocates, these investments are not only imprudent, but also a missed opportunity. If a utility needs to replace a section of old pipeline at risk of leaking, for example, it could instead pay to electrify all of the homes on that line and retire the pipeline altogether — sometimes for less than the cost of replacement.
Utilities in climate-leading states like New York and California, under the direction of their regulators, have started to give this a shot, asking homeowners one by one if they want to electrify. The results to date are not especially promising — mainly because any one building owner can simply reply “no thanks.” The problem is that, legally, utilities don’t really have any other option.
All states have anti-discrimination laws that require utilities to provide service to anyone who requests it, known as the “obligation to serve.” Utilities have long exploited these statutes to justify spending on gas infrastructure — but now that they are pursuing alternatives to that increased spending, the same provisions are holding them up. To avoid investing in a section of the gas system that requires expensive maintenance, for example, a utility would need to get 100% of the customers served by that section off gas. It only takes one customer with an attachment to their gas stove to derail a whole project.
As long as it’s illegal to take away someone’s gas stove, there won’t be any way to plan an orderly transition off gas. And that’s a problem because the scattershot, incentives-based transition that’s happening now — where early adopters are grabbing subsidies for heat pumps and induction stoves — is a recipe for vast inequity.
“If random homes are being taken off the gas system, the entire gas infrastructure continues to need to stay in place, and it needs to be paid for and maintained and reinvested in,” Nicole Abene, the senior New York legislative and regulatory manager for the Building Decarbonization Coalition, told me. “What you're doing is leaving the people remaining on the gas system to pay for the entire system.”
A report published in early May by National Grid, which operates both gas and electric companies in New York and Massachusetts, and the clean energy nonprofit RMI, chronicles how poorly efforts to implement “non-pipeline alternatives,” where utilities try to electrify homes instead of further investing in the gas system, have gone. It says that in one case, National Grid offered to pay the full cost of installing geothermal heating systems for 19 customers in rural upstate New York in order to avoid performing system upgrades. Just five showed interest, and only three moved forward with the installations. In another case, the company contacted nearly 400 New York customers by phone about the potential to electrify their homes in order for the company to avoid replacing leak-prone pipes. Only 149 responded, and just 18 expressed interest.
PG&E, in California, has seen slightly more success. Between 2019 and 2021, it approached 124 customers to negotiate agreements to disconnect their gas and convert them to electrified heating and cooking so that the company could decommission sections of the system. After spending more than $3 million on outreach, it got 68, or 55% of the customers to sign contracts. It has since signed up at least 37 more building owners for the program and decommissioned 22 miles of pipeline as a result.
I asked Mike Henchen, a principal on the carbon-free buildings team at RMI and one of the authors of the report, why we should trust any of this data. It doesn't seem like there's much incentive for the utilities to try that hard, I said. They could simply mail out a pamphlet, and then come back to regulators and say, “Well, we asked and they didn’t respond.”
Henchen had a few thoughts on this. For one, these companies have all made public commitments to decarbonization and showed at least some support for reducing gas consumption to help achieve state climate goals. “They’ve got to back that up and show that they’re serious,” he said. “I think it’s also true that within these companies, real humans are being tasked at their job to go do these projects. Those people, regardless of what the utility business model is, want to see success from their efforts.” Plus, regulators are also stepping up their oversight.
In New York, utilities have to report back to regulators on their efforts, providing a window into how aggressively they have conducted outreach. Last year, Con Edison, which also provides gas and electric service in the state, pursued 65 projects to avoid replacing risky gas infrastructure like leak-prone pipes through electrification. Public filings say that the company first tried mailing brochures to the buildings that explained the benefits of electrification, along with a letter explaining how the program would work if they opted in and including the program manager’s business card. Then Con Edison sent emails to the building owners once a month for three months. It also met in person with customers, though it did not say how many. After reaching out to the owners of the more than 150 buildings that would be affected, only five agreed to cooperate.
The filings also outlined why customers declined to participate, with the number one reason being that they had either recently installed a new gas stove or simply preferred gas cooking. Other concerns raised included worries about higher electric bills and vulnerability to power outages.
Henchen said that utilities are only just getting started learning how to sell electrification to customers, and there’s a lot of ideas about how to improve, including working with community partners and engaging with local contractors.
But outreach is just one piece of the puzzle. The bigger obstacle is the law. The exhaustingly named “Strategic Pathways and Analytics for Tactical Decommissioning of Portions of Gas Infrastructure in Northern California” report, written by several California-based energy research firms, notes that despite PG&E’s more than 100 successful conversions, each project has been relatively small and low-impact. That’s because the company has not been able to convince clusters of customers larger than five at a time to convert.
Lawmakers have started to act. In March, Washington State passed a law amending its statute, allowing gas companies to meet their obligation to serve by providing “thermal energy” through a network of geothermal heating systems.
Massachusetts legislators are considering a bill that would change the official definition of a “gas company,” adding that it can be a corporation organized for the purpose of selling “utility-scale non-emitting renewable thermal energy.” The bill would also change the obligation to serve to be inclusive of that definition.
In New York, where the current statute calls gas, among other energy sources, “necessary for the preservation of the health and general welfare,” a bill called the HEAT Act would strike the word “gas” altogether and allow utilities to discontinue service as long as a replacement plan has been approved by the utility commission. California is also considering similar legislation.
New York’s HEAT bill cleared the State Senate earlier this year. The Assembly refused to include the proposal in the state budget, but could still bring it to the floor before the legislative session closes in early June. Though neither Con Edison nor National Grid has come out swinging publicly for the bill, both companies have expressed support for many of the policies in it, including ending the obligation to serve. In the new report with RMI, National Grid concedes that changing the statute is necessary — and that not doing so threatens to balloon costs for customers.
“Utilities’ obligation to connect new gas customers upon request will require the construction of new gas infrastructure regardless of whether the expansion is economically viable,” it says. “This policy challenge requires designing a new process to enable projects driven by community needs or system economics rather than individual customer opt-in.”
In other words, without changes, these laws that were designed to prevent inequality could end up exacerbating it.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
We’re about to see what happens when big ideas become companies.
Before I covered energy and climate change, I was a technology journalist. And I remember 2011, 2012, and 2013 as a time of tremendous change.
Over the course of a few years, a procession of tech startups — including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Yelp — transitioned from being secretive industry darlings to normal publicly traded companies. All at once, social media companies that had once seemed cool and somewhat elusive turned into some of the biggest and most boring members of the Fortune 500. These companies didn’t become any less interesting to Wall Street, of course, and Facebook soon cemented itself as a profit titan. But the era when a social media startup could seem alluring, potent, and even darkly glamorous had concluded. With a shuffling of ownership papers, the avant garde became the old guard.
I wonder if the same thing is about to happen to the artificial intelligence business. For the past four years, AI startups have been among the most mysterious firms in the American economy. Their decisions reshape power grids and contort geopolitics, yet there has remained something strikingly informal about these organizations. Just as with the social media companies of the early 2010s, you can learn a lot about ChatGPT and Claude by following the right podcasts, newsletters, and X accounts — OpenAI and Anthropic employees disclose a tremendous amount of useful information in their efforts to out-hype each other.
But soon these startups will become … well, normal companies, too. Earlier this week, OpenAI confidentially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to offer its stock to the public. It revealed the filing on Monday because it expected the news to leak; executives cautioned that they might delay the offering because “there are things we want to do that are likely easier as a private company.” Earlier this month, Anthropic also filed with the SEC to go public as soon as the fall.
And of course SpaceX will conduct its IPO later this week — and it will likely be the largest public offering of all time.
These offerings might seem like they have little to do with the world of climate and energy. In fact, they matter to our part of the world quite a lot. That’s not only because they will generate a new surge of philanthropic and venture capital for decarbonization causes, as my colleague Katie Brigham wrote earlier this week.
It’s also because they mark a potential market-changing moment for climate-friendly companies that have, thus far, benefited from the AI boom. A number of low-carbon electricity firms — such as NextEra, Fervo, and T1 Energy — have surged as investors bet that electricity will become scarce in the AI era. That expectation, I should clarify, has been good for everyone in the power business, including coal and natural gas plant owners, but it has seriously helped the tranche of clean energy startups that initially planned to profit from the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet have AI-loving investors flocked to these energy startups because they could not buy equity from the frontier AI labs themselves? We’ll soon find out.
Meanwhile, I don’t think it’s set in yet how much SpaceX, in search of a pre-IPO narrative diversion, has reframed itself as a company that manufactures orbiting data centers. It has also signed big deals allowing Anthropic and Google to use its existing (and terrestrial) data centers. That’s partly to draft off the AI boom, too, of course — SpaceX absorbed Elon Musk’s xAI in February— but it’s also a response to the difficulty of getting a U.S. power grid hookup and the darkening permitting environment for data centers.
I mentioned at the beginning of this piece that I remember the early 2010s as a boom time for IPOs. So I was shocked to look back and discover that each year in that period only saw one or two major internet companies conduct initial stock sales. That era did not come anywhere close to the current fervor; this year, we’ll see as many as three era-defining companies go live within months of each other. We’re in a mind-bending moment — and we shouldn’t forget that.
Seattle practiced responding to a heat dome during the international soccer tournament. It didn’t go well.
Welcome to Seattle! If you’re one of the 750,000 visitors in town to watch the 2026 North American FIFA World Cup, you’re going to love it here. For one thing, you’ve arrived just in time for the city to suspend its interminable construction for the games. That’s a plus! Be sure to check out our newly pedestrianized Pike Place Market and stroll along the waterfront to “Seattle Stadium” (or sound like a local and call it “Qwest”). You might even get a little chilly from the wind off the bay — you can thank our “temperate, oceanic climate” for that. It’s what makes Seattle the safest place in the United States to attend (or play in) a World Cup game, per researchers at Queen’s University Belfast — at least, from the perspective of extreme heat.
That’s worth bragging about. Extreme heat has been a concern at almost every subsequent World Cup going back to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, including the 2022 tournament in Qatar, which FIFA had to reschedule to the winter. The 2026 World Cup could get dicey, too. Of the 104 scheduled matches in 16 host cities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico over the next month, at least half have a 50% chance or greater of being played in temperatures of 82 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, according to research by Climate Central — that being the threshold at which player performance begins to suffer, with athletes slowing down, getting sick, and making poorer decisions because of the heat. The odds of there being impairing heat during the World Cup final in New York on July 19 are basically a coin flip, and 17% higher than they otherwise would have been due to climate change-induced warming.
All of that is just part of what makes Seattle’s host city status so appealing. There is only about a 3% chance of performance-impairing heat during its two mid-June fixtures, rising to 6% later in the month and into July.
Unless, of course, there’s another heat dome.
In 2021, temperatures in Seattle peaked at 108 degrees on June 28, which this year will fall between when the city hosts Egypt vs. Iran and a Round of 32 match. Needless to say, 108 degrees is not just perspiration-inducing; it is well beyond the 89.6-degree wet-bulb globe temperature threshold at which FIFA considers postponing matches. While the possibility of another heat dome in the next few weeks is admittedly an edge case — before 2021, Seattle had only touched 100 degrees three times in 126 years of recorded-keeping— it’s still a realistic enough possibility that last spring, the National Weather Service’s Seattle office ran a tabletop exercise with its local partners to game out just that.
“Before 2021, heat [in Seattle] was just another hazard alongside fire and smoke and those sorts of things,” Reid Wolcott, the warning coordination meteorologist with the NWS Seattle, who helped lead the two-day-long run-through, told me. The heat dome “really highlighted that heat is a powerful hazard that can cause significant loss of life.”
After more than 400 people died in Washington alone, the NWS dedicated considerable time and resources to its heat preparedness and messaging in the Pacific Northwest. Beginning in 2022, the National Integrated Heat Health Information System began offering technical support for heat tabletop exercises in communities around the country. Seattle was supposed to participate in 2024 but “due to some logistical reasons, we ended up delaying it until 2025,” Wolcott said. “And because of that, we were like, We’re well on our way into World Cup planning, here.”
The idea of the “Heat Dome Cup” exercise was to kill two birds with one stone — to test the Seattle area’s response four years after the heat dome, as well as its ability to respond to a weather crisis when thousands of visitors are in the city for the World Cup. Participants included representatives from surrounding cities such as Bellevue, Everett, and Portland, Oregon; county-level offices including from climate, emergency management, and public health; the University of Washington; and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe.
The results of the exercise were both encouraging and not: For every core capability tested, from “threat/hazard identification” to “communication” and “community resilience,” the after-action report found that Seattle “performed with some challenges.” There was “limited local data” on the compounding hazards of heat, cooling center efficiency, and — particularly alarming — the local healthcare system’s ability to respond during such an event. “Prehospital triage, surge planning, and better integration with public health systems are urgently needed,” the report found. Because paramedics attempt to bring down a heat stroke patients’ temperature before transporting them to a hospital — a laborious process often involving filling a home bathtub with ice, setting the patient in it, and waiting — the emergency response during heat events is slow, and can quickly back up and overwhelm the system.
Heat Dome Cup partners directed my questions about King County’s readiness to handle extreme heat during the World Cup to the public health office, which told me no one was available for an interview.
Carlos Martinez, a senior climate scientist with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists who did not participate in the exercise, told me that after reading the report, he hopes that “there’s a recognition and awareness of the fact that there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.” He also flagged an observation from the exercise regarding the development of stronger workplace protections during the World Cup.
“That sometimes can be neglected,” he went on. “You have folks in construction, food service, retail, landscaping, and sanitation who work a full day outside during these events. What are the protocols that are out there to ensure that they are protected from heat-related illnesses?”
I put the question to Hollie Stark, the communications coordinator for the Office of Emergency Management in Seattle. (While Stark’s office participated in the exercise, Stark did not.) She told me that Washington’s Department of Labor & Industries offers recommendations for how employers can protect their workers from heat and smoke, including running trainings and publishing posters and pocket cards in multiple languages that promote offering adequate water, shade, and breaks. “We’re thinking about maybe bars and places that might be hosting [FIFA viewing parties] that don’t have access to AC but might have an influx of people,” she said as a hypothetical, “and we’re encouraging them to listen to those recommendations.”
In general, the people I spoke with in Seattle who were involved in the exercise acknowledged that messaging and communication were the areas the city struggled with the most. “That has definitely been the single biggest thing — trying to make sure that we’re all singing from the same sheet of music,” Wolcott told me. “Because we weren’t prior to 2021.”
One of the biggest hurdles has been figuring out exactly how to communicate potential extreme heat warnings to the thousands of visitors traveling to Seattle. During my conversations with officials involved in the Heat Dome Cup, officials pointed me to myriad preparedness websites, real-time risk tools, opt-in alert systems, and health and safety resources for out-of-town visitors, which left me — a local fluent in English — feeling even more confused.
Language itself is one thing — on that front, Stark told me her office has already pre-scripted messaging for extreme heat translated into Spanish and the eight threshold languages of King County — Vietnamese, Somali, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Amharic, Arabic, and Ukrainian — as well as seven additional World Cup spectator-specific languages — Arabic, Farsi, Dutch, French, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. But one of the threats of having a heat dome during a major sporting event is that “you have a lot of visitors coming from all different parts of the world,” Wolcott said. “Some come from locations where they are probably more acclimated to heat than we are, but some may be coming from areas that are cooler climates than ours.” Proper acclimation can take weeks, if not an entire season — far longer than most spectators will be in town.
But perhaps the biggest takeaway is that a heat dome isn’t required for people to be under heat stress, even in a place as temperate as Seattle. Wolcott told me the NWS’s seasonal outlook for the summer in the region indicates above-average temperatures, and while that “does increase the risk of a heat event occurring, it has nothing to do with the actual magnitude of it. You could have a 2021-level event, or you could have 30 smaller events, and there is no way to tell exactly what’s going to happen.”
Indeed, even fairly moderate temperatures can sneak up on spectators. While FIFA is in charge of making decisions that impact their athletes’ health, Shel Winkley, the senior engagement specialist and meteorologist at Climate Central, pointed out that “fans are still sitting in the sun in the heat, and if they’re fans like me, they’re not drinking water during [the FIFA-mandated in-game] cooling breaks.” Spectators get to the stadium early, stand in long lines in the sun, sit in crowded stadiums with potentially no shade — and essentially endure an entire day of heat, even if the temperatures seemed manageable when they walked out their hotel door.
At this point, there is nothing to indicate Seattle’s worst-case scenario will come true. (Stark also mentioned that a true worst-case scenario more likely involves the Big One than extreme heat, but we won’t go there.) But “just because historically the odds are low” for a heat dome in the Seattle area “doesn’t mean that they’re zero,” Winkley said.
Martinez, the climate scientist with UCS, stressed to me that while the Heat Dome Cup was an engaging thought experiment, bringing together 30 distinct partners for two whole days, he fears that a gutted NWS and Federal Emergency Management Agency might lack the funding or personnel to act on the weaknesses the exercise exposed. “If you have this one exercise but no follow-through, that can risk eroding trust by those populations who gave time out of their day to come and speak to the federal government about the importance of this issue,” he told me. “We shouldn’t just do this for well-renowned events. This should be an evergreen thing.”
But Wolcott, the lead on the Heat Dome Cup, sounded to me like he was at the end of a long marathon when I spoke to him. “I’ve been planning for [the World Cup] for three years now. I’m ready for it to be over,” he told me, laughing.
“We are always doing this; it was just one exercise that we did last May,” he added. “I’m just looking forward to late July at this point.”
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Cristina is inching north toward landfall in Central America, threatening floods, landslides, and winds of up to 73 miles per hour • Washington, D.C., is poised for rain for the rest of the week as temperatures rise to nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit by Friday • By contrast, Cartersville, Georgia, where the solar manufacturer Qcells just started up its factory, is looking at a two-day break of sunshine from an otherwise gray and wet forecast.
At the start of 2023, South Korea’s biggest solar manufacturer, Qcells, began construction on a sweeping new factory northwest of Atlanta in Cartersville, Georgia. Betting that U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels were here to stay, the company gambled on bringing most of the supply chain under one roof. On Tuesday, Qcells started producing solar cells at the plant, marking what it called “a major milestone toward completing the country’s only vertically integrated solar manufacturing plant.” The firm expects to reach full production by the third quarter of this year. The factory’s module assembly line, meanwhile, is now at full capacity, building 16,700 panels per day. “Producing the first solar cells at Cartersville is a milestone for Qcells and for American manufacturing,” Andy Park, the global chief executive of Qcells, said in a statement. “As our ingot, wafer, and cell lines reach full capacity, we’ll be making the major components of a solar panel right here in Georgia.”
The U.S. could be seeing the start of a small solar boom. Last year alone, at least 30 new utility-scale solar factories came online, as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported last month.
Over the weekend, as I told you on Monday, a federal court blocked the Trump administration’s rules for using the soon-to-expire tax writeoffs for investing in or producing electricity from solar panels and wind turbines. But with just 24 days to go until the tax credits officially end, few developers are likely to move quickly enough to benefit from the ruling. “Practically speaking, I don’t think this is likely to have much impact on the market or behavior in the coming weeks,” Heather Cooper, a tax lawyer at McDermott Will & Schulte, told E&E News. “The deadline is less than four weeks away.”
Investments into electrical grids are on track to surpass $650 billion globally this year, according to new data from the consultancy Rystad Energy. That’s up 5% from last year and more than double the investments recorded in 2020, PV Magazine reported. The high cost comes as long lead times and pricy components for transformers, high-voltage circuit breakers, and switchgears strain and stall upgrades and expansions to power systems all over the world. The soaring growth of wind and solar is propelling grid investments, which are needed to patch more intermittent and often far-flung renewables onto the system. In 2010, wind and solar made up just 2% of global generation. By 2040, Rystad expects them to make up nearly half the mix.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Everyone recognizes Canada as a major oil producer, metal miner, and hydroelectricity generator. But did you know the Canucks are not just a serious player in nuclear power, but actually have their own domestically-designed reactor that can run on raw uranium? Get this, it even has a catchy name: the CANDU. Pronounced CAN-do and short for Canada Deuterium Uranium, the pressurized heavy water reactors are among the only commercial designs in the world that can run on unenriched, natural uranium. The advantage, especially for a country like Canada with vast uranium deposits, is that they’re faster to build, cheaper to fuel, and free of the international scrutiny that comes with enriching uranium. The downside is that they break down faster than the light water reactors that make up the entirety of the U.S. fleet. But Canada is demonstrating that isn’t a big problem. On Monday, the Bruce nuclear power station brought its Unit 3 reactor back online, completing refurbishments seven months early and $107 million under budget, NucNet reported. You don’t need to know a lot about the American or European nuclear industries to know “early and under budget” aren’t words typically associated with any recent or ongoing projects.
The best-proven way to make truly green steel involves turning iron ore into direct reduced iron through a process that, when powered by green hydrogen instead of natural gas, significantly slashes any carbon emissions associated with its production. Assuming it’s finished off in an electric arc furnace, it’s green steel — and even greener if that final process was powered by renewables or nuclear. Yet despite some high-profile projects, green hydrogen has remained too expensive in the West, even as China’s industry starts to boom. That could be changing. On Tuesday, the German steelmaker Salzgitter inked its first major offtake agreement for green hydrogen from the supplier EWE, Hydrogen Insight reported. One of Germany’s largest steel producers, Salzgitter will buy roughly 10,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year from the electrolyzer plant EWE is building in Emden, near the Dutch border.
Meanwhile in America, U.S. Steel unveiled plans to invest up to $2.5 billion into upgrading the Mon Valley Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. The renovations come after Japanese steel giant Nippon’s takeover of the iconic American firm last year. To win President Donald Trump’s blessing, Nippon gave the federal government a “golden share” in the company. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last year, that could ultimately give a future administration leverage to press U.S. Steel to green its operations.

If you’re booking a flight right now, you might not yet be feeling the difference. But U.S. production of jet fuel has reached record highs as refiners scramble to respond to soaring prices following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. By the start of May, the four-week average estimate of fuel production surpassed 2 million barrels per day for the first time on record, according to new analysis by the Energy Information Administration. But with domestic inventories still relatively high, much of that increased production is being exported.