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:

This transcript was automatically generated.
Robinson Meyer:
Hi, I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Jesse Jenkins:
[1:28] And I’m Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:32] And you are listening to Shift Key, Heatmap’s weekly podcast about decarbonization and the shift away from fossil fuels. Jesse, happy new year.
Jesse Jenkins:
[1:40] Happy new year. I’m back.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:42] It’s good to see you. It’s so good to talk. Look at this. We’re doing a Shift Key episode. I feel just like, feels like October 2025 in here.
Jesse Jenkins:
[1:52] If only.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:55] We have an exciting show planned for you today. We’re going to talk about, I think, one of the most interesting series of events to happen in the U.S. energy markets recently, in a little bit. But first, we have some housekeeping news for you that we want to talk about. We have some exciting, but also somewhat sad, changes at Shift Key. We have some good news and bad news that affects the show. And Jesse, I want to start with the bad news. So do you want to share anything with the class?
Jesse Jenkins:
[2:20] Yes. I’m going to be stepping back from my regular co-host role here on Shift Key and leaving you and Rob’s capable hands and transitioning to more of a guest host role. I will be back on the show, but less regularly than before. That’s to make time for a new startup venture that I have co-founded called Firma Power that I’ve started with Scott Burger and Brent Alderfer, my co-founders. We are working hard right now to scale the company up and we are working on supplying clean, reliable electricity to data centers to meet the pressing demand growth challenge that’s happening right now by trying to unlock more capacity and load enabling capacity from wind, solar and storage resources that are often overlooked as resources that can support big loads like data centers. We think that’s the fastest way to get more capacity onto the grid and to make sure it’s clean. And so excited to be working on that at Firma, but it is taking up a lot more of my time. And so to ease the load a little bit, I’m going to be transitioning to a guest role here and we’ll be with you less often.
Robinson Meyer:
[3:17] Jesse, little did we know when we started talking about the AI electricity surge that it was going to change energy so much that it would take you away from us.
Jesse Jenkins:
[3:27] That’s right. It was going to change Shift Key too.
Robinson Meyer:
[3:29] It was going to change Shift Key too. Well, that’s the bad news. The good news is that while we’re very sad to lose Jesse, the moment of his departure gives us a chance to loosen up the schedule a little bit, shift to a more dynamic Shift Key product. I will be taking over primary hosting duties as Jesse announced, but we’ll also be welcoming a new set of occasional co-hosts, much like Jesse, who will start rolling out in the next few weeks. We’re very excited for that change. I think it’s going to lead to a newsier, maybe more dynamic Shift Key. The core of the show will stay the same. We’re going to keep bringing you the best discussion we can and the best insights and reporting we can into the energy transition, the shift away from fossil fuels and the state of this giant ...
Robinson Meyer:
[4:10] Energy, fossil, climate, clean energy story that we cover all around the world. So let me also take this opportunity to thank you for listening to Shift Key
Robinson Meyer:
[4:17] and encourage you to stick around. And with that news, on this week’s episode of Shift Key, we are talking about power grids in the winter and specifically the American power grid in the winter. The Northeast United States and the Mid-Atlantic just experienced, I would say, a relentlessly frigid three weeks, which rivaled recent records for the longest periods of time where temperatures did not get above freezing. I think we came just short of the record here in New York City because in the middle of this three-week span, temperatures just peaked once slightly above freezing, but otherwise we actually would have smashed the all-time record for a number of days below freezing in a row, which is kind of funny, of course, given climate change. I should note that North America is in an anomalously cold bubble in the world right now. A lot of the rest of the planet is much warmer than usual. But for whatever reason.
Jesse Jenkins:
[5:11] Including the including west of the Rockies, actually, which is undergoing a very warm snow drought with no, you know, very little snow across the Sierras and Rockies and Cascades this year.
Robinson Meyer:
[5:21] I was hanging out with friends from Denver this weekend and they in D.C. And they were like, we’re going to go home. It’s going to be 65 degrees and very weird. And it was, of course, yeah, below 20 degrees. It was like wind chill of negative three degrees Fahrenheit, exactly, in D.C. Because of these very cold temperatures, the electricity grid was stressed and stressed in pretty profound ways. So at the peak of the winter storm in New England, oil and really diesel fuel generated 40% of New England’s electricity, which, given that oil and diesel normally generate roughly zero percent of New England’s electricity, is a marker of just how stressed the grid was. It means grid operators were looking for any source of marginal generation they could find. They had exhausted all the usual alternatives and they had moved to the dirtiest and rarest form of electricity generation, which is diesel.
Robinson Meyer:
[6:13] I wanted to talk about that. I also wanted to talk about it because when we talk about winter grid performance, it’s a bit of a preview of what’s to come. Because while historically in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S., the summer has been the time of year where we use the most electricity. It’s because it’s the time of year where everyone cranks their air conditioner up really high. As we continue to see electrification make way as data centers and new factories get built. And as people electrify not only their vehicles, but also their heating, we expect the winter, especially in New England, to take over as the most electricity intensive time of year from the summer. And so in some ways, when we see these moments of high winter grid stress, we’re previewing the future of the electricity grid. And we’re also seeing the moments that we most need to be worried about on the electricity grid, because there are some more straightforward forward ways we could proceed to reduce carbon emissions during the summer, the winter is a
Robinson Meyer:
[7:12] little bit of a trickier challenge. Let’s actually start the conversation off there. Jesse, can you give us some context on like what just happened in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern power grid in the United States and like how should we be thinking about it?
Jesse Jenkins:
[7:27] Yeah, I mean, this was, as you mentioned in the setup, quite unique for the length of frigid temperatures. So it wasn’t the coldest temperatures we’ve ever experienced in this sort of period. In PJM, at least, the largest market in the U.S. that expands the Mid-Atlantic to the Great Lakes region. And we didn’t quite set a new winter peak in demand. January 29th and 30th fell as number six and number eight in the top 10 winter peaks in PJM. But it was the fact that we had many, many days in a row, two, three weeks, really, of prolonged stress conditions where every power plant available was being called into action when natural gas pipelines were strained to deliver a simultaneous peak in demand for heating fuel and power generation from gas-fired power plants. And when frigid temperatures were increasing forced outages, you know, knocking offline power plants as they dealt with those extreme cold conditions that they’re not typically planning for, they’re much more designed to plan for the summer. This is sort of an example of like, these are the one in every, I don’t know, 10- or 20-year events that become design basis events for the grid, right? These are the kinds of circumstances that we have to be able to get through.
Jesse Jenkins:
[8:31] And for the most part, we did. There were outages that were obviously difficult to endure for people who lost power in the middle of a subzero windchill day. But most of those outages were the result of, really, I think all of those outages were the result of transmission and mostly distribution network failures, which remains our kind of critical vulnerability in the grid, and not generation adequacy from the wholesale power supplies. Power prices got high. We burned a lot of gas. We burned a lot of oil. We can talk more about that. But the supplies remained adequate and system operations managed to get through this prolonged stress period pretty well, I should say. This was not like the Winter Storm Uri in 2021 that really crippled Texas’ grid or even Winter Storm Elliott, which hit in 2023 and was really the kind of most recent stressor event for the larger Eastern interconnection of which PJM and ISO New England are part of, where we saw much higher reductions in gas availability and much higher forced outages. Since both of those events, I think that the grid operators and gas network and power plant operators have done more to prepare for these kind of winter events, and that seems to be showing up in more favorable outcomes this time around.
Robinson Meyer:
[9:39] And just to put some numbers on this, PJM saw 139 gigawatts of demand on January 29th, 138 gigawatts on January 30th. That’s below the all-time winter high, which is 143 gigawatts, which was last January, actually almost exactly a year ago. Looking forward this summer, we expect PJM is probably going to set an all-time demand record for any season of about 160 gigawatts. We won’t know exactly where it will come out, but it will break a record last set 20 years ago, thus showing that we are fully out of our 20-year period of flat electricity demand in the mid-Atlantic United States. So look, 140 gigawatts, you’re still 20, 21 gigawatts below what we expect the summer demand to be this summer. But it’s like a very different demand profile because at least when I think about the summer, I think about afternoon and evening peak periods of demand on the grid. So folks turn on their air conditioner. And yes, you know, electricity demand goes up a little bit maybe when they wake up. But when they wake up around dawn or around 7am tends to be the coolest part of the day.
Robinson Meyer:
[10:45] Electricity demand really gets cranking in the summer, like starting afternoon and then going into the peak like 7 to 9pm period. And so when I think about it, I’m like, okay, well, that’s a fairly straightforward challenge to solve with solar and batteries. and to some degree solar and batteries is like very well designed for that challenge. You know, solar generation peaks around noon or 1pm and all you have to do is.
Robinson Meyer:
[11:12] Hold on to that electricity generated by your peaking solar for another five or six hours and then dump it on the grid during periods of peak demand. Winter is tough because in winter, yes, you have this afternoon peak when folks get home and they cook dinner and they run the laundry machine and all of that. But you also have this tricky morning peak when folks wake up, they maybe turn on space heaters in their home, they crank up the thermostat. Really before the sun has fully come up, there’s a surge in power demand right at the beginning of the workday.
Jesse Jenkins:
[11:43] I mean, that’s challenging. It’s less, I think, that it’s happening right in the morning because you could keep your battery at a full state of charge from yesterday at noon. The bigger problem, of course, is that in the winter, there’s not as much sun. And so you’re not going to be able to charge your batteries reliably midday with very inexpensive electricity. Power prices may stay relatively high during the day and gas generators are likely setting the price throughout the day, as opposed to these periods of solar excess that might be more common in summer periods, especially as solar penetration increases in regional grids. If we look at kind of the periods of peak pricing in PJM, this sort of occurred most recently on February 9th from about 5.45 a.m. To 8 a.m. So you’ve got like, you know, two, three hours in the morning, little blips again in the evening hours. But the biggest ones are those early morning hours when it’s the coldest out in terms of the exterior temperature and people wake up, throw those warm blankets off and start turning on the heaters and getting ready for the day. So if you had other sources to charge from, batteries still do help quite a bit in these circumstances. Those peaks are not 12 hours long, they’re two, three hours long, and batteries are still quite capable of supplying winter peaking capability. And if you look at the kind of ratings that batteries get in the capacity markets, where they accredit the kind of percentage of capacity that’s expected to be available, they do pretty well still in winter months in different parts of the country. But solar is going to effectively get derated over time to zero in the winter because it’s just not going to be able to contribute.
Robinson Meyer:
[13:12] When you say derated, what do you mean? Sorry.
Jesse Jenkins:
[13:14] That means like, so if I want to make sure I’ve got a megawatt, I can support a megawatt of peak demand. I need more than one megawatt of supply because gas generators fail, their gas supply gets reduced because of competing demands for heating. Wind farms aren’t always, you know, turning, solar panels aren’t always cranking out, batteries run out of juice. So for all of those reasons, you know, coal piles freeze, everything has deratings that mean that they’re worth less than their rated capacity in terms of how much peak demand they can support. So if I want 100 megawatts peak demand, I might need, you know, 180 or 250 megawatts of, you know, install capacity. And that ratio depends on the kind of individual contribution of each resource at those peak demand periods. Most MISO and SPP, the mid-continent ISO and the Southwest Power Pool that operate in kind of the middle of the country, they’ve already moved to seasonal accreditation of capacity in these markets. So they recognize that solar is worth quite a bit in the summer, but it’s worth a lot less in the winter. For example, gas plants face a much higher derate in the winter because of struggles around equipment, freezing and fuel availability than they do in the summer. So they’re kind of recognizing those different contributions. ISO New England is moving that direction as well towards summer and winter. PJM eventually will, but at the moment it has a single annual rating. What’s interesting is that annual derating has become set by winter stress conditions
Jesse Jenkins:
[14:33] like this, even though they peak demand in the summer.
Robinson Meyer:
[14:37] Yeah, well, one statistic that I don’t think I mentioned in the intro, but that really stuck out to me is that winter loads are growing. Winter electricity demand is growing three times faster than summer electricity demand.
Jesse Jenkins:
[14:47] And so it’s going to be even more of a stress issue in the future. Yeah, I think ISO New England predicts that winter peaks will exceed summer peaks by as early as 2030. So this is not some distant 2050 electrification scenario. Like, it’s coming.
Robinson Meyer:
[15:00] No, this is like an imminent problem with grid management that is going to matter.
Jesse Jenkins:
[15:03] Within the planning horizon today, yeah.
Robinson Meyer:
[15:05] Not only within the planning horizon, but like fully within the political horizon. Yes, that’s true. Like current policymakers are going to be judged on decisions they make now because they may still be in office by the time that these constraints become really pressing on the grid. So I want to back up because we’ve kind
Robinson Meyer:
[15:19] of been talking around this, but I want to ask it directly. Like, what was your takeaway from watching PJM and ISO New England, which we’re calling ISO New England? It’s just the New England power grid. And conveniently, it covers exactly the states of New England, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. New York also has its own power grid and was subject to some of these dynamics, too. So watching this whole swath of the country, really Virginia and Indiana up into Maine, what was your takeaway from how the grid performed over the past three weeks?
Jesse Jenkins:
[15:51] So again, I think kudos to system operators and to the generation owners who were working hard to keep these plants online. It really wasn’t a constraint. It cost a lot of money, right? You know, prices that we had to pay for fuel at peak periods, the prices that marginal generators were setting in terms of electricity market prices were very elevated. So it’s going to show up in a big way in our bills when those kinds of wholesale prices end up actually hitting our retail bills. But we did not have widespread rolling blackouts anywhere. Those blackouts that occurred, again, were due to distribution network failures, mostly from freezing rain and sleet and heavy snow impacting distribution lines, trees falling or power poles coming down, which is, again, like that’s, you know, I would say 90%, 95% of all power disruptions that people experience are due to those distribution network failures. But that’s not because there aren’t risks at the grid level. It’s just because those grid level risks have been managed very effectively. And we focus a lot of attention on them because when things go wrong there, it’s not just one neighborhood that loses its power. It’s the entire region. So you have an event like Winter Storm Uri in Texas, where, you know, a third of their power is unavailable and people all over the state are freezing. I’m not trying to minimize the generator challenges. It’s just that we have done a very good job, I think of mostly solving them. But I think if we go through each generator type, we start to see some of the previews of these challenges that we’ll face in the future. I already talked about solar. Obviously, you can’t count much on solar in the winter.
Robinson Meyer:
[17:17] Man, I was in PJM for some of this wintery period. I was being a good reporter, Jesse. I was going in the field, in PJM, yes. And the town where I grew up has some community solar and local municipally owned solar projects. And I was driving past them right around the 22nd, 23rd at the peak demand. And, Those solar panels, I will tell you, covered in snow. They were covered in snow. I was like, man, they might be generating 10% of it.
Jesse Jenkins:
[17:47] Oh, I doubt it. Yeah. Even that. I mean, look, we got 10 to 12 inches of snow in much of the region around here and then a nice layer of sleet on top of it. So we’ve been living here in Princeton with basically an ice sheet on top of a foot of snow everywhere. Think about that on top of your solar panels and your roof. And it hasn’t warmed up enough to melt that. So if you weren’t lucky enough to like shovel out your driveway or your parking spot before the sleet hit, like you were dealing with giant ice chunks,
Robinson Meyer:
[18:14] You could send someone up to go. Periodically clean them off, but then your operation cost is much higher for the solar panels. That’s right.
Jesse Jenkins:
[18:22] Or if you are a large enough utility scale project, you could put like resistive heaters into your panels that you turn on in the winter. There are ways to weatherize them. But yeah, so, you know, the other big issue, of course, is it’s been cloudy and it’s winter. So the solar production is already lower. We just need to be clear that solar is a useful resource. It provides a lot of low marginal cost electricity throughout the year. When it does, it’s displacing other more costly resources. And for the moment, with the exception of maybe California, it’s still contributing quite a bit to the summer peaks because those do occur and do stress the system as well. And so it’s, you know, one of the pieces of a broader system that we need, but we shouldn’t be counting on it in the winter. That’s not a shocker to system operators. Wind power, depending on where you are in the country, can help in the winter. Other times it doesn’t. And so it’s a very location-specific resource because the wind patterns are much more geographically particular.
Robinson Meyer:
[19:12] Is that because of the wind patterns or is that because of in some places it makes sense to invest in winterizing your wind turbines and in other places it doesn’t?
Jesse Jenkins:
[19:20] I was thinking more of the former. The latter is also true. You know, if you’re in a region that very rarely gets cold, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to invest the extra money to make sure that they don’t get iced up once every five years versus, you know, wind turbines in North Dakota are clearly all planning to deal with those conditions all the time. But more that just wind patterns are much more localized than solar patterns. Solar tends to be less variable over geography, whereas the wind can be affected much more by local topology and differences between land and sea temperatures or lake and land temperatures or mountain passes, things like that. So wind, not a huge factor for PJM or New England at the moment because they don’t have a lot of installed wind capacity onshore, at least. But it is more relevant in places like the middle of the country, the MISO and SPP, where I think it did have differing contributions over the course of the last couple of weeks.
Robinson Meyer:
[21:42] Nothing has convinced me yet that the Trump administration is going to be successful in stopping these four or five big offshore wind projects from coming online. I mean, are those projects designed to work in the sleet and snow, or is that going to be like a summer overnight resource?
Jesse Jenkins:
[21:57] I assume that those are going to be winterized to operate in the kinds of waters that they’re operating in here. But that’s a good question. I don’t know definitively the answer to that. I haven’t done this, but it would be a really great, I think, useful exercise to look at the projected wind production from a wind farm off Long Island, and maybe look at Block Island or South Fork Winds production during this period, and then scale that up to think about how much it might have saved in energy costs over the week, the last couple of weeks, while power prices were really elevated and gas prices were high. My guess is we look at that, there are periods of time when it was contributing quite a lot and periods of time when it’s contributing very little. And so mostly it’s providing energy, which again could be used to charge batteries and wait for that system peak, but it may or may not align exactly with that early morning peak. That said, I do think, you know, offshore wind and coastal wind do tend to produce the most in the morning and the evening when you get this land-sea temperature differential that drives a shore breeze or an ocean breeze. So it may be that those are positively correlated periods.
Jesse Jenkins:
[22:59] My takeaway from all this, and I’ve said this before, I said this in Congress, as I testified after the Winter Storm Uri, is that wind and solar are contributors of energy in different seasons and at different times. They may contribute some fraction of their capacity now to meet these peak demand periods, but their primary contribution to the grid is not capacity, it’s energy. And that energy can then be stored in batteries and used to provide capacity. So they’re synergistic with batteries in that sense, just like the summer peak scenario you talked about, Rob. But they’re reliably unreliable. We know that, right? And we’re not planning our system around them. We are planning our system around our firm generating technologies and increasingly energy storage.
Jesse Jenkins:
[23:39] And I think it’s really critical in these winter periods to look at the kinds of vulnerabilities that those technologies face. Because when they fail, like they did in Texas in Uri in 2021, the system fails because those are the technologies that we’re counting on to show up. They’re the ones carrying the system on their backs. I think in this circumstance, they performed quite well overall, although there were elevated outages for gas and coal generators across the region. Overall, we had enough of them online and operating to get through the peak demand period here. I think what’s helpful is to think about the difference between summer and winter stresses on these thermal plants. Because again, it is a very different type of risk. In the summer, the main risk is the ambient temperature, ambient water temperature that they’re using as their heat sink gets higher. And the efficiency of thermal power plants is basically proportionate to the difference between their combustion temperatures or inlet temperatures and that heat sink. It doesn’t have a huge effect, but it can knock several percentage points off of the available capacity of your thermal power generators in really hot summer conditions. There may be just mechanical stresses from running over prolonged periods and having some equipment failure. The winter has a whole different set of challenges. And the biggest one is around fuel availability.
Jesse Jenkins:
[24:51] And the fuel handling equipment at these facilities. So coal plants, picture a giant coal plant, they consume trainloads worth of coal every day. That coal sits in giant coal piles and then is taken by conveyor belts up into crushers that crush and pulverize that coal and then blast it into the furnace and combust it. If any piece of that delivery chain freezes up, then the coal plant can’t get fueled into the boiler, even if you have a giant pile of coal on site. And that that is a frequent occurrence during these circumstances. You do have freezing of the coal supply and that will knock off power plants in the winter and it’s not an issue in the summer.
Jesse Jenkins:
[25:28] And for gas generators, which are increasingly the mainstay of our grid, especially in these regions, as I mentioned, I think before, it’s not just that the power grid is at its maximum, the heating demand from gas networks is also at its maximum. And that’s not true in the summer when we’re not running all our heaters on. And so what that leads to is a few different ways in which gas generators can lose supply as well.
Jesse Jenkins:
[25:49] One is that if they’re connected to a local load serving distribution utility on the gas side, they are allowed to curtail non-firm customers. And that includes typically gas generators who are not willing to pay the extra kind of standby cost to have firm access to the grid to be first in line and uninterruptible. And so gas generators can just get turned off when there’s not enough supply for the local distribution grid and the distribution operator is prioritizing households and heating over the power generators. That’s one of the key vulnerabilities. The other is that as demand goes up, gas pressures can drop in the system, and that can lead to sort of less through foot being received by the generators. And finally, this happened in particular during Elliott and Uri, the gas fields themselves can lose production. If the gathering lines and compressors and other equipment that’s exposed to the cold gets cold enough, that equipment can freeze up. Some of the valves and sensors can also freeze, which might lead to compressors turning off. And you get a drop in production. And because we don’t have a huge gas storage system, the pipelines themselves are basically the storage in most of the country. If production falls in the gas fields, that will also impact available supply pretty quickly, like within hours. And this is an area where this year, actually, the gas producers did much better than they have in the past. It seems they have been learning from previous winter events and weatherizing the system.
Robinson Meyer:
[27:13] Let’s zoom in on two specific challenges that New England in particular experienced during this winter storm. The first is something I referenced in the intro, which is that at peak, New England was actually generating 40% of its electricity from oil and really from diesel, which is crazy. I mean, oil and diesel, I think it’s crazy.
Jesse Jenkins:
[27:35] For me, I’m like- Everybody else thinks it’s crazy. I’ll tell you why I don’t think it’s crazy in a minute.
Robinson Meyer:
[27:38] Okay, well, let’s talk about this is a throwback. I mean you look at 40% of New England’s electricity coming from oil. This is like a throwback and, to the 1970s when the U.S. got a ton of electricity from oil, really only effectively cut off by the beginning of the Arab oil embargo and the energy crisis in the 1970s, ultimately prompting a return to coal, at least way back then. I don’t know. I look at this and I go, something really has gone wrong. If New England’s getting 40% of its electricity from oil, that’s like the most possible polluting thing other than coal you could generate electricity from. But what do you think? I don’t know.
Jesse Jenkins:
[28:14] I look at it and I say, that’s probably what the future is going to look like in a lot more places across the country if we transition to a winter peaking system. And here’s why. So yeah, 40%, but for how many hours? For a week? For two weeks? That’s probably half a percent to one and a half percent of annual generation in New England.
Jesse Jenkins:
[28:30] So a lot of capacity, very little energy, right? That’s the perfect thing for peaking, right? And for prolonged to events like this. The alternative to that is you oversize gas pipelines and you oversize gas production to meet that extra 40% of New England generation that only occurs once every two years for 1% of the hours of the year. While there has been local environmental opposition and political opposition to building greater pipelines into the Northeast, the economics of that also don’t necessarily line up. Gas generators had the option in New England to sign firm gas contracts that would have meant they were uninterruptible by local distribution companies. Those firm gas contracts could then help finance new gas pipeline construction or expansion. They chose not to do that. They chose instead to install oil tanks, diesel tanks on site, and to convert to dual fuel generators for these kinds of circumstances. And the reason for that is that when you’re dealing with this sort of very infrequent event, what you want is something that costs very little upfront, but maybe has a very high variable cost when you consume it. Because you’re not going to consume very much of it, and you’re going to do it very infrequently. And so you don’t want a big fixed cost just sitting there all the time. Well, guess what a gas pipeline is? A giant fixed cost sitting there all the time.
Jesse Jenkins:
[29:44] Oil, on the other hand, is a consumable. It’s very expensive. Power prices go up when we’re using it, right? They’re a couple hundred dollars a megawatt hour at least.
Jesse Jenkins:
[29:53] But you can store many days worth of fuel on site in oil tanks in a fairly compact landscape. Oil is our default long duration energy storage right now, right? Until we invent something better and cleaner. And so for these kinds of rare events that only happen a couple percent of the hours of the year, just like we would like to have more batteries and more long duration energy storage to replace this in the near term, this is a sensible way to manage gas pipeline capacity peaks, right? Otherwise, we’re building, I don’t know what percentage, maybe 10% more total gas pipeline capacity. And that extra 10% increment, we’re basically never using. We don’t need it in the summer. We only need it 1% or 2% of the times when the
Jesse Jenkins:
[30:35] System is at the sort of peak stress.
Jesse Jenkins:
[30:37] And so it’s a very logical economic solution to this problem. And while yes, it is dirty during the periods when we’re burning that oil, we are burning very little of it and for very short periods of time. You know, it’s a week or two every couple of years.
Robinson Meyer:
[30:51] Can I kind of lean in on that, though? Because I think that, yes, right now it makes sense for New England to have all this oil capacity on site. They store it, they burn it during these peak freezing events. We were just saying, though, how winter load is growing three times faster than summer load. And so what’s driving that?
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:10] Winter heating electrification, which is displacing gas consumption on the heating side.
Robinson Meyer:
[31:15] I see.
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:16] So yes, in its worst case, if you’re running resistance heating and EVs.
Robinson Meyer:
[31:20] I mean, EVs are driving that too.
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:21] Yeah, EVs as well, but they should also be more flexible when they charge. But yeah, that’s true. And data centers, although there’s not a lot of those in New England.
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:27] That’s true in PJM. There is an interesting dynamic here. This is one that my group is actually researching and modeling right now for a New England case study. As we displace gas demand for heating, Yes, we’re building electricity demand, which may rely more on gas generators in the winter or oil fire generators in the winter. We’re also relieving some of the pipeline stresses that are driven by the peak heating demand. And so the key then is to make sure that winter electrification is more efficient when you account for the power plant losses than gas furnaces and boilers. And you can do that with heat pumps, right? If it’s resistance heating, if you’re burning gas in a gas generator, you lose roughly half of that gas, and then the resistance heating is more or less 100% efficient. So you have about a 50% efficient pathway there to heat your home, as opposed to a furnace, which is maybe 80%, 85% efficient. So in that case, we would be consuming more gas to power heating from the grid than we would to fuel heating in a furnace. But if it’s a heat pump, the coefficient of performance of heat pumps that are sized appropriately for winter conditions are greater than two. And if it’s a ground source heat pump, they’re greater than four or five or six. And so in that case, we could actually be relieving gas demand even as we build up the winter electricity peak. And so these sort of dynamics are careful to think about, especially when we’re talking about whether or not we want to build a new pipeline or not. We may want more gas generators. I was going to say more dual fuel generators.
Robinson Meyer:
[32:51] You’re talking about a world where you build. Yeah, exactly. So what I’m hearing here is you don’t need a bigger pipeline or you don’t.
Jesse Jenkins:
[32:58] Maybe. I’m going to say this is just these are the dynamics that you have to be very clear about. It’s not so obvious. I mean, I know like it’s easy to look at that 40% from oil and say, well, obviously we need another pipeline. It’s not so obvious because that 40%, yes, it’s 40% for a few hours, but the savings of that oil cost would have to justify building the pipeline. And it’s not like gas is cheap right now either. Gas prices were as high as $1,000 an MMBTU when they’re normally two or three. So the relative savings from gas versus oil is not as high as you might think to justify building that pipeline. If total baseload gas demand is increasing, maybe we want a new pipeline to satisfy that. But these peak events are best satisfied with storage, ideally in the long-term clean power storage, but in the short-term oil on site. That’s the logical solution. When we’re thinking about whether that baseload demand is going to go up, we do have to be very careful to think about what the dynamics are around electrification. And are we doing electrification in a way that is as efficient as possible?
Jesse Jenkins:
[33:56] That has an extra cost at the household level, right? If I build a bigger heat pump that can handle extreme winter conditions, or I invest in a ground source heat pump, that costs me more up front, but I’m avoiding big fixed costs on the grid. And which one is cheaper is the question for society as a whole to figure out. And then whichever one’s cheaper needs to be appropriately compensated. And right now, we don’t pay for peak capacity at the household level. You pay by volume, and that’s backwards. So we’re going to have to find some way to convey to people that it is worth it to you to install that more efficient, bigger heat pump if you’re gonna electrify or to do the weatherization upgrade or to go for a ground source heat pump because it’s avoiding a bunch of sunk capital that would otherwise just sit there on the grid And, you know, if one is cheaper than the other, you should be putting it in your house as opposed to on the grid. But our rate design doesn’t convey that. Our policies don’t convey that. And that tradeoff is one that we really need to drill into as we think about the best pathway through the winter.
Robinson Meyer:
[34:52] This is extra complicated in New England, though, because New England is already bringing in LNG from the Caribbean to power its summer peak, though, right?
Jesse Jenkins:
[35:01] But again, that’s a variable cost, right? It’s a pure variable cost. I guess you have a terminal that you need to build, but they already built it. You’ve got a basically a pure variable cost to add some additional peaking capacity. Yes, it’s expensive. Is it enough in fuel savings to displace that by building a pipeline with a lot of fixed costs that you only use some of the time? So yeah, I’m not saying that I’ve done the math and said that that doesn’t make sense. I’m just saying it is more complicated than it initially looks.
Robinson Meyer:
[35:25] Well, and I’m kind of carping for the pipeline here, but I’m not actually saying we should go build the pipeline. I’m just trying to think through what all the different sides of this are because you hear about the LNG as much as you hear about the oil winter fuel generation. The other thing I want to talk about before we close is that in mid-January, the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line opened. And this is a 1,200-megawatt line. It’s been in the news for a long, long time. It connects New England to the abundant hydroelectric resources in Quebec. This has been something that climate advocates and folks have fought over for a long time. It was overturned by a referendum in Maine. That referendum was canceled out by a Supreme Court decision in Maine. But it was successfully built. It turned on in mid-January. It’s a big old transmission line. It’s going to reduce emissions on the New England grid. It’s very exciting. And then a few days into its operation, this winter storm hits, and imports of electricity into New England basically dropped to zero. And so, Quebec stopped sending any new electricity over the line to New England at a moment when New England is just absolutely screaming for electricity. And over that weekend, starting around the 24th, New England actually exported electricity back into Quebec. Now, not that much, but still.
Jesse Jenkins:
[36:39] Yeah, it turns out it was cold in Quebec too. And so they were actually willing to pay more than New England was for that power at that time.
Robinson Meyer:
[36:45] Here’s my question. We’re about to connect new york city to the hydro quebec yeah resource chippy big power line going to run down the hudson river plug directly into new york city grid it’s going to cut our emissions go to reducing some of the uh generation that was previously provided by indian point the local nuclear plant that was shut down a few years ago should.
Jesse Jenkins:
[37:05] We think about this
Robinson Meyer:
[37:06] Yes i here’s my question should we think about hydro quebec and this and this montreal hydroelectricity resource a little differently now, given that during the first big test of its ability to supply generation to the winter New England grid, it kind of failed.
Jesse Jenkins:
[37:23] No, it did exactly what the contract said. So this is an area where again, like, yes, if you were counting on it to provide winter peak with 100% firm reliability, then that was a mistake. You shouldn’t have counted on that. That’s not what the contract said. No one who built the line and was familiar with those contracts thought that that was the case. It didn’t fail. It did exactly what we expected. It is not a firm winter peaking capacity resource. It will contribute energy during winter events, even during some of these periods, right? It didn’t stop exporting for two weeks solid. But like solar, it is not a winter capacity resource that you should count on. And so you got to add up the right mix of system resources to also get your summer capacity. It does provide energy. It provides energy through the winter. It provides energy in the summer. I think it does provide firm supply in the summer, most likely, because temperatures are warmer in the south and their demand is higher than it is in quebec the way to think about those lines is as a big battery that you just tucked up to where when power prices are lower in new england than they are there you can send power north and bank it and when the reverse is true you can take power back the other way just like norway does that for denmark and germany for example and so it is a very valuable resource for the region it will supply a lot of clean energy and it will supply a lot of flexibility.
Jesse Jenkins:
[38:39] But is it a winter capacity resource? No, it was an interruptible winter contract. They knew that when they signed the contracts. And so it’s important for everybody to understand that and to plan the system accordingly. Of course, ISO New England knew that and they did plan the system accordingly. They were not counting on it to be there. So this is again, like at the high level, power systems are systems that each individual resource does not need to be dependable all the time. None of them are, right? Gas plants lose fuel, coal plants freeze, wind turbines ice up, hydro, So Quebec stops exporting, like all of these things have potential vulnerabilities. What you need is a system that as a whole is resilient enough to get through these events. And largely we built that system right now. The question is, can we keep it that resilient as winter demand grows and as we shift away from fossil fuels? So we are less reliant on the resources that today carry the brunt of that load. What will replace them? Will we have to rely on diesel stored on site to run in these winter peak scenarios? Or will we have long duration batteries that we can rely on? Or will we have more hydropower in the reservoirs we can rely on? Or will we have other new clean firm technologies like geothermal and nuclear that can help carry the load in the winter? That’s the key challenge going forward. And we have to think about the demand side just as much as the supply side, as I talked about, how do we ensure we’re not driving up electricity demand more than we should be?
Robinson Meyer:
[39:53] If you could add one resource to the New England winter grid or to the New England grid in general, where they said, look, yeah, we burned a lot of oil. It works fine, but we’re worried about winter loads are going to keep going up. Maybe we can’t synchronize all our demand as well as we might wish. What is the one resource we should add to the grid in order to make sure we can meet these winter events?
Jesse Jenkins:
[40:16] On the demand side, it’s ground source geothermal heat pumps. Because every...
Robinson Meyer:
[40:21] Which we’ll link back to the episode we’ve done on these in the show notes, because we’ve talked to a company producing ground source winter heat pumps.
Jesse Jenkins:
[40:28] With Dig Energy, who I advise. So the reason I say that is because every unit of heating you get from ground source heat pumps, while it does increase electricity demand by one unit, would displace natural gas demand by probably three units. So you want to relieve pipeline constraints in the winter? Ground source geothermal is a big bang for your buck. Now, of course, we’ve got to be able to install those at a reasonable cost. That’s, again, what Dig is trying to work on and others. But if I could wave my wand and have some breakthrough technology or some new technology come to market to expand our toolkit in the winter, ground source heat pumps are the thing, especially for northern climates. On the supply side, in New England or New York, it’d be nuclear power, right? Technology that doesn’t rely on an external fuel supply, does not rely on coal piles that can freeze up. As long as it’s appropriately winterized, it’s auxiliary systems and cooling. It does quite well in the winter. It doesn’t deal with the summer stresses that I talked about with cooling water temperatures. It’s an excellent winter resource. And that’s why it’s such a shame that New England and New York both shuttered Pilgrim and Indian Point, which we’re now sort of barely replacing with these long distance transmission lines to Quebec, many years later. Those were excellent winter reliability resources. And if we could, again, wave our magic wand and be able to build nuclear power plants at a reasonable cost and on a reasonable timeframe, it would be a very good option for the Northeast to turn to for the winter.
Robinson Meyer:
[41:45] And we should give credit to New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul here, who has already solicited contracts to build one gigawatt of new nuclear upstate somewhere in New York, and has said that she wants to build ultimately at least five gigawatts of new nuclear at some point upstate. And that would, by the way, go toward helping these New England electricity
Robinson Meyer:
[42:05] problems as well, because there’s a lot of transmission capacity between New York and New England. And by the way, we should add one more thing, which is that this too ties into a cross-border U.S.-Canadian project because New York State, if you read between the lines, you can tell that New York State might be talking to Ontario, which is itself trying to build new nuclear capacity to meet rising demand. And so, I don’t know, maybe a feel-good story for those of us who still value American Canadian economic integration. There’s lots of ongoing projects to knit those particular grids tightly together and to also go in together on building new kinds of generations, such as small nuclear reactors that could help relieve some of these problems. Okay, Jesse.
Jesse Jenkins:
[42:47] Yeah, let’s leave it there. I hope you all stayed warm over the last couple of weeks.
Robinson Meyer:
[42:50] Of course. I live in a radiator building. I got to say the problem was not staying warm. The problem was how much can you open the windows overnight? I know.
Jesse Jenkins:
[42:59] Let’s do less of that, too.
Robinson Meyer:
[43:01] Exactly. Before we go, we’re not going to have time for an up shift down shift today. But I do want to note the Rivian R2, we’ll stick it in the show notes. The first test drives of the Rivian R2 are coming out, the affordable, roughly, at least it’s going to start at $45,000 crossover that’s coming from Rivian at some point during the first half of this year. We’ll stick a link to a test drive in the show notes. It’s getting pretty good reviews. We don’t know final range yet. We don’t know final price. And we don’t know when they’ll start delivery. But other than that, other than that, seems to be getting pretty good reviews. And one of them is that it’s, you know, 10% to 80% percent charge in 30 minutes. Yeah, that’s pretty solid. Decent.
Jesse Jenkins:
[43:39] I also I texted you last night about that. They have these prototype units out for testing right now that look awesome. They’ve got this really cool print paint job on them. I really hope that they sell some of those to the public. Go Google it. Check it out. They look so cool.
Robinson Meyer:
[43:52] We’ll stick in the show notes. I cannot tell if that is.
Jesse Jenkins:
[43:55] I assume it’s just the prototypes,
Robinson Meyer:
[43:57] But I assume it’s the prototype to. We’ll see.
Jesse Jenkins:
[43:59] If enough Shift Key listeners write to Rivian, perhaps they’ll release some with those trims.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:04] RJ Scarange, if you’re listening, release the prototype paint job. Emily Panicova, my colleague, was like, are they going to sell it with those stripes? And I was like, I don’t think they are. But we’d love to be wrong. I’d love to be proven wrong.
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:15] They should.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:15] That will do it for us this week. Jesse, You know, it’s the end of one chapter, but it is not the end of your relationship with Schiffsky. We will have you back. That’s right.
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:24] The journey continues.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:25] The journey continues. We will have you back in the weeks to come. We have some very exciting episodes coming up, episodes we’ve already started planning.
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:32] I can say I love listening now to episodes that I don’t know what they’re going to say. It’s a delight to be on the other end of the other side of things.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:40] You can follow Jesse on Bluesky or LinkedIn at his name, right? Anything you should add?
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:46] Yes. Jesse D. Jenkins. Yeah.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:48] Yeah, at Bluesky, LinkedIn, at my name, Robinson Meyer. If you enjoyed Shift Key, please leave us a review on your favorite podcast app. Share this episode with a friend. Shift Key, as always, is a production of Heatmap News. Our editors are Jillian Goodman and Nico Lauricella. Multimedia editing and audio engineering is by Jacob Lambert and by Nick Woodbury. My full-time co-host is Jesse Jenkins. For the last time ever, he’ll be returning in the future as a guest co-host.
Robinson Meyer:
[45:08] Our music is by Adam Kromelow. Thank you so much for listening and see you next week.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Even the smallest wave, tidal, and river-current projects are currently licensed as if they were 1,000-megawatt dams.
Tucked inside the Senate’s ambitious new permitting bill, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, is a major win for an energy technology that often flies under the radar: marine power. Small-scale wave, tidal, and river-current projects could help power everything from remote communities and military installations to ocean sensors and coastal desalination systems — at least in theory.
Drawing largely from the bipartisan FLOWS Act, introduced in the Senate last December but never brought to a floor vote, BAAJA aims to streamline the licensing pathway for so-called micro hydrokinetic projects, which harness moving water without dams or reservoirs and have a capacity of 5 megawatts or less. The bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission one year to act on commercial license applications for these projects, while exempting them from full review under the National Environmental Policy Act. It would also allow FERC to issue 10- to 20-year licenses, giving projects a pathway to long-term commercial operation, as opposed to relying on pilot licenses designed for temporary testing.
The bill wouldn’t eliminate environmental oversight altogether. Small-scale marine energy projects would still undergo basic environmental screenings as a part of FERC licensing, and would still require state and local permits, which can trigger their own environmental reviews. They’d also remain subject to the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act — though the bill would expedite reviews under both of those laws, too. On the whole, the reforms are intended to give developers and investors alike a quicker, more predictable timeline.
“Taking a 1-megawatt marine energy project and trying to license it like it’s a 1,000-megawatt conventional dam just wasn’t working. It was apples to oranges,” Matthew Allen, senior director of legislative affairs at the National Hydropower Association, told me. “Recognizing that it deserves its own process could be a tremendous market signal for the technology.”
After all, this tech certainly doesn’t look like large-scale hydropower, where colossal dams unleash thousands of tons of water per second that rush through electricity-generating turbines to the river below. Such gargantuan infrastructure projects typically require favorable geography — think big rivers running through steep, mountainous terrain, where a dam can create a sharp drop in elevation. And with most of the best sites in the U.S. already developed, the country is unlikely to build many new greenfield hydro projects anytime soon.
But less-developed marine energy technologies have barely scratched the surface of their potential. Some look like large buoys, bobbing with the ocean swells and converting that motion into electricity. Others use turbines anchored to the seafloor or riverbed, spinning as tides ebb and flow or river currents rush past. While these devices generate essentially zero power for the grid today, in theory the resource is enormous: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that wave, tidal, and river-current projects have the technical potential to generate a staggering 2,300 terawatt-hours of electricity annually — more than half of the country’s total electricity generation last year. Wave energy alone accounts for about 60% of that number.
Of course, technical potential is a long way from practical reality. Economic constraints, environmental regulations, competing water uses, and public acceptance could limit uptake of these technologies. NREL suggests that we would be lucky to eventually tap even 10% of marine energy’s potential. Meanwhile, most of the tech remains in the pilot or demonstration stage in the U.S. — which is exactly why expediting permitting for small-scale projects stands to have significant impact.
“Marine energy is so new and still so novel that a 5-megawatt device, it doesn’t even exist right now,” Jennifer Garson, former director of the Water Power Technologies Office during the Biden administration, told me. “So you’re still talking about a good amount of headroom for being able to deploy smaller-scale marine energy devices in rivers and nearshore.”
Early deployments have largely served remote or island communities. In the 70-person Alaska Native village of Igiugig, for example, Ocean Renewable Power Company installed two 35-kilowatt turbine systems on a local riverbed, designed to supply nearly half the village’s power and thus reduce reliance on expensive diesel generators. While the project’s pilot license expires in three years, the permitting bill could offer a pathway to continued power generation.
The lack of a commercial licensing pathway has already led to the demise of one promising project, National Hydropower Association senior program manager Kelly Rogers told me. Verdant Power’s tidal energy pilot in New York City’s East River — the first project of its type to receive a license in the U.S. — officially shuttered in 2021 when said pilot license expired. By then, its turbines had delivered over 312 megawatt-hours of total electricity to the grid, harnessing the tides as they flowed in and out of the saltwater channel.
Other companies in this space include wave energy startups Oscilla Power and CalWave, which make surface-floating and submerged wave energy converters, respectively, with the goal of selling to utility customers and remote communities alike. C-Power, another early-stage wave energy company, is focused on powering off-grid equipment like ocean sensors. And while all have received at least some venture backing, a significant portion of their funding comes from Department of Energy grants.
In 2022, all three received DOE funding to trial their tech at PacWave, an Oregon-based facility that’s the first grid-connected wave energy test site in the continental U.S. Backed by the DOE, the facility secured all its necessary state and federal approvals in advance so that companies working there could largely bypass the permitting process and get their tech straight into the water. But getting there, Garson told me, involved an arduous 15 years of negotiations among the DOE, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and state and local authorities before the facility could open for testing this August.
The permitting bill can only do so much to accelerate a permitting process like this, Garson explained. Even with a faster FERC licensing process, all projects in federal waters — generally those more than 3 nautical miles from shore — will still need a separate lease from BOEM, a complex process that the bill’s new permitting pathway wouldn’t replace. “One of the complexities of anything that you do with water is you just have so many split jurisdictional challenges and questions,” she told me.
It’s also telling that as of yet, there are no wave energy devices in PacWave’s waters, as the Trump administration’s federal funding freeze has scrambled the plans of some of the marine energy developers who’d originally intended to test there. Oregon startup AquaHarmonics, for example, was on track to deploy its wave energy converter at PacWave but had to shut down last year after the Trump administration withheld its previously allocated grant money.
“A lot of the device deployments, particularly in the United States, have been contingent on or reliant on federal funding,” Garson told me. “You’re dealing with still such early-stage R&D that it really points to a necessity for the federal government to be in this space”
But while the federal budget for emerging marine energy technologies has generally grown year over year, Garson said relatively little of that money is actually reaching developers. When she was still at the DOE, for example, the Water Power Technologies Office launched a funding solicitation offering up to $112.5 million in total for wave energy companies to test their devices at sea, including at PacWave. But while the DOE was supposed to announce the winners last year, Garson said it has yet to do so — and it’s disbursed no funding, either.
“That’s a long time for a lot of these companies to sit and wait for any funding to even be available,” she told me. CalWave, at least, still plans to hook its system up at PacWave, as the startup’s CEO, Marcus Lehmann, told me the company is “now in the construction phase of installing the first grid-connected system” and that it plans to launch at PacWave sometime in 2027 or 2028.
He sees the permitting bill as “really critical” in helping early-stage projects “get online faster, and just to prove it out on a community level or a microgrid level” before scaling up to larger installations and device arrays that would likely exceed the 5-megawatt threshold.
“Regulatory certainty, particularly when you’re dealing with capital-tight startups — great. Anything that makes their lives easier, I am all for,” Garson told me, calling the existing permitting structure for marine energy “byzantine.” But she doesn’t think that if the bill passes we’ll suddenly see a slew of wave, tidal, and river-current projects coming online. “You’re still talking about relatively small outputs of power until we reach more [technological] maturity.”
But it could certainly be a first step toward recognizing the potential of water power technologies beyond conventional hydropower — and giving them a place in the broader clean energy conversation. “This is a meaningful amount of power to a lot of people. We just tend to get so lost in the gigawatt conversation,” Garson told me.
And while developers do measure these projects in kilowatts and megawatts for now, one day they too could help move the needle at the gigawatt level. As Garson put it, “If we can figure out how to unlock the ocean — power for everybody, everywhere.”
On methane emissions, renewables’ costs, and Poland’s atomic ambition
Current conditions: Hurricane Simon is lingering off Mexico’s coast as a new tropical depression that could form into a powerful storm begins gathering strength • Iceland has issued an orange-level warning — the notch just below the most severe — across the whole country ahead of an intense storm that could bring vicious winds and snow • The mountain areas surrounding Los Angeles are on red alert for wildfires throughout the rest of the week.
Over Labor Day weekend, I found myself on the upper deck of the ferry to Block Island, a rustic little vacation enclave between Rhode Island and New York’s Long Island, marveling at a seemingly endless horizon of spinning wind turbines. Revolution Wind, Orsted’s first big chunk of the Northeast’s offshore wind buildout, was, as its name implied, an act of defiance. The Trump administration had tried for months to kill the project, which was nearly finished when President Donald Trump returned to office last year. But the Danish energy giant won one battle after another in court, and ultimately brought the 704-megawatt turbine array online. Its completion, however, isn’t the end of the fight.
On Friday, the Department of Justice asked a federal court to rescind the Department of the Interior’s approval of a construction and operation plan for Revolution Wind. Citing a regulatory filing, Bloomberg broke news yesterday that the Interior Department wants to reconsider whether the permit complies with federal law. In response, my colleague Robinson Meyer asked last night whether Trump was “trying to blow up the permitting deal,” which includes a whole section on project certainty. (See my colleague Jael Holzman’s reporting on the bill for more.) White House energy advisor Jarrod Agen appeared to suggest the legal move was a negotiating tactic, calling on “the media” to “stop their attempts to blow up a GREAT deal for the American people.” In a post on X, he said, “This is an old lawsuit brought by the local community—who had serious concerns about this project—against the Biden Administration! The White House maintains support for PERMITTING REFORM! We look forward to the Senate voting on this historic legislation.” In a joint statement Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, the chief Democratic negotiators of the permitting deal, said “the administration needs to start showing good faith progress on wind permits.”
Of the 1,583 executive orders presidents have issued since 1993, 22 explicitly mention coal. More than a third of those bore Trump’s signature. That’s according to a new analysis by the Financial Times, whose reporting found that lobbying by the coal industry has significantly increased in Trump’s second term. “When we would meet with the Biden administration they were like, ‘Let’s just keep that coal in the ground,’” Michelle Bloodworth, chief executive at trade association America’s Power, told the newspaper. “It’s been just amazing, unbelievable to have President Trump and the administration talk so publicly about the importance of coal.”
Meanwhile, there’s an optimistic climate case for fossil fuel that has driven the shift away from coal and reducing America’s emissions. The problem with natural gas has always been that, despite producing less carbon when burned, the drilling and transportation of the fuel leaks methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that stays in the atmosphere for less time but traps more heat throughout those decades. But methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas sector are remaining steady despite surging production, according to new research by Johns Hopkins University. The study, published yesterday in the peer-reviewed journal Communications Earth & Environment, highlights a big reason: “Companies have built more infrastructure needed to better capture methane — a vital component of natural gas — and transport it for sale as a fuel, providing a financial incentive to limit the amount escaping into the atmosphere.” That’s a double-edged sword, the paper’s author said. “The good news is that emissions have not markedly increased, as many scientists feared would happen after an enormous increase in natural gas production in the decades following the hydraulic fracturing boom,” Scot Miller, an associate professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University who studies greenhouse gases, said in a statement. “The bad news is that oil and gas production is still a large percentage of U.S. methane emissions, and we do not find any evidence that a flurry of federal legislation had an impact on emissions.”

Wind and solar is cheap to build, and even cheaper to operate. But data suggests “there is no meaningful relationship between wind and solar deployment” and lower wholesale electricity prices, according to a new analysis from the consultancy BloombergNEF. “This is also the case when considering all renewable generation, and renewable-plus-nuclear power.” That’s because, in many markets, renewables bid at or below zero, and are thus tapped first. As a result, fossil fuels set the marginal price during the hours when they’re in demand as a dispatchable resource when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. On average, fossil fuels such as gas or coal set the price in Europe roughly 58% of the time in 2021, despite a declining share of generation. In the United Kingdom, it was around 90% in the early 2020s, but has since shrunk to 60%. In PJM Interconnection, the second-largest U.S. grid system, natural gas set the marginal price 60% of hours last year. A big problem is the high rate at which renewable power plants are forced to reduce output below maximum levels to keep from overloading the grid. Across 27 markets worldwide, BNEF found that the average rate at which wind and solar are curtailed was 10.5% last year. “Indeed, more wind and solar deployment may increase other cost inputs for retail prices unless other fundraising mechanisms are used,” the report warned. “For example, renewables integration is a key driver of grid expansion and reinforcement, for which network charges in consumer bills have been a crucial source of funding in many markets.”
So, when will wind and solar actually start reducing bills? It depends on where you’re talking about. Over the next decade, Germany’s prices are set to fall by 20% below the 2025 average. Britain’s offshore wind and solar buildout are expected to reduce prices by 26% over that same period between now and 2035. Spain, on the other hand, is forecast to see steady power prices over the next few years followed by an increase as its nuclear plants come offline. In the U.S., prices in PJM and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas are set to soar “partly due to the phaseout of wind and solar tax credits” and “delays to new gas-fired capacity and transmission build.” The Texas grid in particular could see prices soar by 160% over 2025 levels by 2035. But the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the nation’s largest grid spanning the Midwest, and New York’s statewide grid are poised for “a gradual decline from 2026 driven by steady renewable additions, lowering the need for thermal generation.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Department of Energy is pumping $581 million into upgrading the Tennessee Valley Authority’s grid system. The agency said Tuesday the funding would support 84 transmission and distribution projects across eight states in the federally owned utility’s territory, adding about 2.5 gigawatts of capacity. While $331 million will go to cost-share programs that require the TVA and local utilities to kick in funding, another $250 million will come as direct federal funding. “America’s electric grid cannot become a roadblock to economic growth,” Katie Jereza, the assistant energy secretary of the Office of Electricity, said in a statement.
When I visited the site where Poland plans to build its first nuclear power station with a trio of America’s flagship reactors, Westinghouse AP1000s, the area was little more than a cleared portion of a rural field on the Baltic Sea, where crews were conducting seismic tests. But as I told you last week, Poland cemented its plans by approving the purchase of long lead-time items. All along, the country had planned to build at least one more atomic power station. At first, the second plant was supposed to be financed with private capital and use South Korean technology. But those plans have largely fallen to the wayside in recent years.
Now the same state-owned firm behind the AP1000 facility has officially committed to building a second plant. The U.S., France, and Canada have all begun bidding to build the No. 2 facility, according to World Nuclear News.
Last month, I told you that the AI energy software provider Verse had tripled that amount of power capacity under its control. Now, I can reveal exclusively for this newsletter, the company is out with a new calculator that shows the potential impact of the data center buildout on Texas ratepayers. Without new power supply, data centers would add $624 per year to the average household’s bills, Verse’s calculations found. But requiring data centers to build their own power would reduce that increase to $35 per year. But data centers that respond to grid demand with flexibility, ramping down when supply when is lower, could actually reduce households' electricity bills by $223 per year. You can play with the calculator here for yourself.
The Trump administration has asked a court to re-examine a key permit for Revolution Wind in Rhode Island.
This is Heatmap Daily, an evening news digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
Updated, 11:05 p.m. ET
At the end of the day, the biggest threat to the bipartisan permitting deal probably isn’t green groups, the fossil fuel industry, or monopoly utilities. It’s President Trump himself.
The legislative proposal is meant to constrain the president from tampering with clean energy projects — and if it passes, then some of its provisions seem like they could do so. But in order for it to pass, Trump must adhere to the deal that he brokered with the bill’s Senate Democratic negotiators, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.
Under that deal, the Trump administration must allow the 30 wind farms held up by what is normally a Department of Defense box-checking exercise to proceed. (Trump himself agreed to allow these projects to move forward, according to Politico reporting from last month.) More broadly, the administration has to make a show of good faith that it will return to what Whitehouse has called “regular order” on wind and solar permits. That could include approving a longer list of more than 200 onshore wind projects held up in the queue.
That somewhat informal deal is now facing its biggest test yet. On Friday, the Department of Justice filed a motion in court to re-examine a key permit granted to Revolution Wind, a nearly complete offshore wind farm being built off the coast of Rhode Island. The filing was first reported by Bloomberg.
Revolution Wind is one of six Biden-era offshore projects that is now operating or at least still moving forward. It could eventually produce as much as 700 megawatts of electricity. (Other offshore wind projects have accepted Trump’s $4 billion payouts.)
This isn’t the first time that the Trump administration has gone after this particular offshore project: The White House fought, and then resoundingly lost, an effort to stop work on Revolution Wind last year. But the timing of the filing — and the fact that it’s happening in Senator Whitehouse’s backyard — could make this filing far more significant.
In a post on X, the White House energy official Jarrod Agen seemed to play down the legal move without fully disowning it.
“This is an old lawsuit brought by the local community—who had serious concerns about this project—against the Biden Administration!,” he wrote. (The lawsuit in question was filed by Green Oceans, an anti-wind-energy group. Its law firm has what The New York Times described as “close ties” to the conservative legal movement.)
The White House still supports permitting reform, Agen added, adding that “the media should stop their attempts to blow up a GREAT deal for the American people!”
Sorry, Jarrod — we’re just doing our job. After we initially published this story, Senators Whitehouse and Heinrich sent a joint statement: “Frankly, we need to get permitting certainty in law, and this proves it,” they said. “In the meantime, the administration needs to start showing good faith progress on wind permits.”