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:

This transcript has been automatically generated.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:53] Hello, it’s Friday, May 1st. Happy May Day. And we have some good news for you today. The global electricity system became slightly less fossil fuel intensive last year. In 2025, clean power met all global electricity demand growth for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s according to the new report from the think tank Ember, which is headquartered in the UK and has become one of the most important and interesting organizations tracking the energy transition over the past few years. You might remember last year we had Kingsmill Bond, one of their energy strategists, on to talk about electrostates and the rise of electricity technology.
Robinson Meyer:
[2:29] Transforming global industry in China and around the world. Their data, though, beyond Kingsmill’s work, has been central to understanding the inexorable rise of solar energy, of batteries, and of how clean power is now driving fossil fuels out of the energy system. You know, our tagline here at Shift Key, which I say every episode, is that we look at the shift away from fossil fuels. But lately, there hasn’t been as much shifting in what we talk about.
Robinson Meyer:
[2:54] So today, I thought we would look at the shift for once, at least and have some good news for once too. Joining us today is Nicolas Fulghum. He’s the lead author of Ember’s new 2025 Electricity Review. He’s also a senior energy and climate data analyst to Ember. I wanted to talk to him about the biggest changes in global power systems last year, whether what’s happening in California and Western Europe is the same as what’s happening in Southeast Asia, why solar in particular keeps growing in such an unstoppable way, and how the Iran war might change the numbers for 2026. I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News, and it’s all coming up on Shift Key. Nick Fulghum, welcome to Shift Key.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[3:36] Thanks so much for having me.
Robinson Meyer:
[3:38] So you recently published this report, Ember’s Big Annual Report on the Global Electricity System. It’s an amazing document, as always. And I feel like the story that comes out just hits you right on the face when you look at it this year is the absolute growth of solar, this total dominance of solar in the electricity system. So why did solar dominate last year? And what is the story of the electricity grid in 2025 as you understand it as the lead author?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[4:06] Yeah, for those of us that have been following this story for a while, solar breaking records is not really a new thing. But what keeps happening every year is that the scale and just the absolute amount of solar growth just keeps edging up more and more. And in 2025, we got to the point where solar growth alone met 75% of the increase in electricity demand. Now, that brings it from just a fast-growing source by historical standards to really the dominant driver of any change in the global power sector. And that increase that we had, the 636 terawatt hours of new solar generation that was added in 2025, that’s equivalent to twice the UK’s annual electricity demand. So we’re really talking about system-level change now.
Robinson Meyer:
[4:58] So we’re adding basically two UK size electricity systems entirely made of solar every year.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[5:04] Yeah, that’s right. And it’s not just the absolute growth there. It’s just also the speed of growth that we’re not really expecting from sources in the past. Usually when a source scales to this level where you have a maturing technology that is dominating parts of the market, the growth rates come down. But with solar, what we’ve seen is that actually 2025 had the highest growth rate with 30% that we’ve seen in eight years. And that’s quite unusual for something that’s really reached scale.
Robinson Meyer:
[5:36] Why is it dominating now? Because you’re absolutely right. We’ve been talking about the story for so many years in a row. This is the one thing we’ve come to expect about the electricity system globally, is that we’re just going to add all this solar every year. So why did it accelerate last year?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[5:54] The solar story as a whole is essentially a story of technology. And the learning curve that solar has been on hasn’t really stopped. So we’re still seeing cost declines. And they are really accelerating the deployment further. If you think about where the cost has come from, we have a decline of about 90% over the last decade. It really just completely changes the use cases and where solar is applicable. We now have seen rapid solar build out in so many different contexts. We’ve seen it in big utility installations in the U.S. We’ve seen the sort of hybrid deployment that we see in Australia, where it’s both utility scale and distributed. Same, very similar approach in Germany as well, a mix between utility and distributed. But we’ve also seen the very grassroots, not very organized, but equally rapid deployment in countries like Pakistan. And this versatility is not something that is applicable to any other electricity source, not just now, but in history.
Robinson Meyer:
[6:58] Basically, what this means is that you have a situation like what I understand to be happening in Pakistan, where there’s now a lot of electricity available during the day, or are we seeing, we haven’t talked about batteries, but does the concomitant rise of batteries mean that actually this generation is not as time-locked as solar by itself would be.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[7:20] Yeah, historically, at least over the last few years, while solar has seen its initial rise, it’s been used in varying ways. So in Europe, for example, it’s mostly used to displace fossil generation in the middle of the day. And that’s also the case in the U.S. where in California is displacing gas generation. In a country like Pakistan, solar was deployed in a response to a failing state electricity grid. So it was about the actual availability of solar power. And increasingly, as you say, batteries now make that not just a daytime solution, but a solution that works around the clock. And we’re seeing that increasingly both on that very distributed level, but also on a utility scale.
Robinson Meyer:
[8:06] Is that where the solar growth is coming from? What part of the solar equation here is growing more? Is this mostly a story about developing countries adding solar because it’s a modular energy technology that individuals can purchase and then have access to electricity? Or is this a story about places like Texas or California or Western Europe just continuing to hammer their midday fossil share?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[8:31] Yeah, well, the interesting thing there is that the story is that it’s all of those things at the same time. Yeah, it’s both. So in China, for example, it’s a relatively evenly distributed amount of distributed generation and utility scale solar. And China is by far the largest contributor to solar growth globally. So more than half of the increase in solar generation in 2025 was in China. So we have both geographically a lot of diversity, obviously dominated by one country in this case, but also in the use case, it’s very much you have distributed solar and utility solar scaling at the same time at similar rates as well.
Robinson Meyer:
[9:14] Speaking of China, one of the huge findings you have in this report is that fossil generation fell in both China and India. It sounds like solar was responsible for that trend in China, but can you talk a little bit about how we know that and whether you expect these trends to continue?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[9:33] Yeah. So over the last two decades, people have become very familiar to huge increases in fossil generation year after year in China and in India. And together, they were by far the largest contributors to that fossil generation growth that was also still happening at the global level. But actually, if we look at the aggregate, outside of China, since 2018, fossil generation had actually already been flat. So if you take China out of the equation, but we still had fossil generation growth, even globally. So the question was, when is China going to turn? And 2025 is kind of that moment where we see what that turning can look like. Now, China and the world are very mirrored stories. In China, the reason that we didn’t have an increase in fossil generation is because clean generation grew enough to meet and exceed the growth in electricity demand.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[10:27] And that’s what we saw on the global level as well. So China is leading that trend and on the global level, turning the tide on fossil generation growth as a whole.
Robinson Meyer:
[10:38] I think one of the biggest questions about China is fossil generation fell in 2025. Obviously, now there’s this energy crisis caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the war in Iran. Do you expect this trend to continue? Let’s just start with in China, because looking back in the clock, right, in 2021 and 2022, they think there were big coal increases in China as the country kind of redoubled down on coal. Do you expect to see it respond to the current energy crisis in the same way? Or is it wrong to even understand that change in 21 and 22, like in response to Ukraine and the post-Ukraine energy crisis? Or was it all about internal Chinese power market dynamics?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[11:22] Yeah, I think what can help us understand the situation is looking at Dissecting the structural drivers, so the longer term trends from those moments in energy history, so to speak. So 2020, obviously everyone remembers COVID pandemic, demand destruction on a large scale, globally electricity demand, you know, growth tanks compared to previous years and years after. The same happened in China as well. So 2020 is actually a really interesting case because we didn’t have fossil generation growth at the global level. But the reason wasn’t large scale adoption of clean power, even though it was already growing quite fast. It was that demand wasn’t growing. And the big difference in 2025 is that demand growth is really robust. So 5% was the increase in China. At the global level, it was 2.8%, which is basically in line with the 10 year average. So both globally and in China, we have robust demand growth. And that’s where 2025 is really different, because that’s not something we’ve seen before. Robuster mangrove and falls in fossil generation. So that’s the structural element where clean power is just now growing fast enough. And in response to the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, what a lot of people were expecting is we’re going to get a big shift back to coal.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[12:44] But that’s not a shift away from clean power. That is, if anything, a short-term shift within fossil fuels. If gas is really expensive, so LNG in that case in Asia, then maybe coal becomes slightly more attractive relative to that in the market. But what it doesn’t do is become more attractive than solar and wind, which is what China has predominantly looked towards to meet its additional power demand. So we’re not going to see a turn towards coal over clean sources.
Robinson Meyer:
[13:17] Can you say a little bit more about that? Because I feel like that countries don’t, especially China, I think doesn’t make decisions between clean and dirty when it’s kind of planning its energy system. It makes decisions between secure and insecure. And so why does gas being really expensive? I understand that China has relatively low LNG share, but why maybe when we look at Southeast Asia or outside of China, would we expect to see gas lose out to coal rather than kind of coal step up?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[13:46] Yeah, so if we go back to the previous crisis, and I guess this is also a separate point, is that we’re talking about consecutive crises every few years in the fossil fuel sector. If we go back to the previous one in 2022, we actually had sort of a double whammy with prices going up for gas and prices going up for coal at the same time. So you had power markets that were really dependent on imports like South Korea and Japan really suffer the consequences.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[14:17] And this time around, gas is significantly more affected just because the trade route through the Strait of Hormuz just has more gas exports. And as we know, some of that infrastructure in countries that weren’t actively involved in the conflict, like in Qatar, were also affected where some of the production capabilities might be inhibited for more than just a few months. We’re talking about years that some of that infrastructure needs to be rebuilt for. So that means that the price for LNG is rising. Surprisingly, it’s actually not risen as much as many people expected. And that might just point to some panic and illiquidity in the market where people are afraid to even trade some of those longer term contracts, given that these prices currently change on the daily with, you know, tweets coming out of the White House affecting prices, basically. So we don’t know the full impact of this specific crisis yet. But what we can say is that historically, power markets have been relatively flexible, especially in countries that have both of these sources available, so both coal and gas. But the overwhelming trend and the voices that we’ve heard from governments in South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, is that they want to double down on reducing their import reliance through renewables and away from coal and gas altogether.
Robinson Meyer:
[15:42] We’ve kind of hinted at it a few times, but what was the story in India last year? Because from an emission standpoint, I think actually several years ago, we passed the point where, you know, the OECD countries plus China are most of the emissions that we expect to see going forward, kind of the big questions about where the climate system is going to wind up and how much temperature rise we’ll experience in the 21st century is actually primarily a question about about India and Indonesia and the Southeast Asian and Sub-Saharan African countries. So India is like the country at the front of that pack, right? It’s the furthest along its development pathway. And it kind of tells us the most about how countries are choosing to develop at this moment. What was the story of its electricity system last year?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[16:27] Yeah, so India is super interesting because we have with China, we have a country that many see just a few years further that ahead of India in the clean power deployment journey. And in China, we’ve seen that break even point where they can meet new demand. Now for India, the question was how far behind are they on that curve? And in 2025, they did also meet all of the increase in demand with clean power, largely led by solar power, which increased by more than 50 terawatt hours, which was also a massive new record growth in India as well.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[17:03] India wasn’t really meant to get to this point so early. So there’s two things that were going on in 2025. The first one is this record renewables growth, which was twice as high as the previous ELE record. So this year was 98 terabyte hours increase for clean power or for renewables. And in 2022, which was the previous record, it was 49 terabyte hours. So a huge boost in clean power growth. And at the same time, we’ve had relatively mild demand growth. And the reason for that was simply that temperatures were quite low during the monsoon period when usually you need a lot of electricity for cooling. And that just didn’t really happen to the same degree this year. So you get this temporary relaxation and demand growth. And as a result, it surpassed demand growth actually by quite a lot. And we had a significant decline in coal generation and fossil generation as a whole. And if we look a little bit further back, that increase in renewables would have come close to meeting the demand growth in the last four years where we had much more robust increases in demand of over 5% and over 6%. So we’re really now at a point where we do expect next year to be probably a small increase in fossil generation again. But we’re just not talking hundreds of terabyte hours per year. We’re talking more about maybe 20, 30, 50 terawatt hours.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[18:28] And as we get closer to 2030, 2035, India is also going to get to this place where it can structurally meet all of its increase in demand with clean power sources and not grow coal generation further. And now that’s a vast departure from the projections that many people had five to 10 years ago.
Robinson Meyer:
[18:48] Do we have a sense, maybe it’s from China, maybe it’s from European countries, maybe it’s from California, of what happens in power markets and what happens in electricity grids as the fossil share begins to tip over? Because there’s been discussion of this in liquid fuels and transportation for a long time, where the idea is, you know, yes, you’re going to get a point where EVs penetrate further enough into vehicles that oil demand will be flat. And then the question is, is oil demand flat for a long time? Does it plateau? What kind of things happen in that plateau. In some ways, the UAE’s announcement this week to leave OPEC is actually very indicative of what we might expect to see in a world of flat oil demand. But there is a question about kind of how fast things begin to fall off and how long that plateau lasts. Obviously, it will be a different story in the electricity system. But what does China or, I don’t know, Germany, California, What do countries that are further down the chain here, or jurisdictions, tell us about what the future of the grid might look like in a world where clean is just straight up out-competing fossil, at least for the marginal electron?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[19:53] Yeah, so in Europe, for example, fossil power has been falling for quite a long time. Even in the U.S., the peak for fossil generation was in 2007. So this is a while ago and over that course, demand didn’t drop significantly either. So this is just direct displacement of fossil generation in the power sector. What we see at a more granular level, particularly with the introduction of solar, is that power markets change pretty significantly. You have much bigger intraday swings between the middle of the day when there’s a lot of solar power on the system and the evening peak demand hours. Now, one of the most famous examples for how to overcome this is the deployment of utility-scale battery storage in California. And there we’re now seeing that this solar profile, if you think about it, this distribution, very, very smooth distribution, the middle of the day, most of the output smooths out towards the evening, disappears for the night. That profile is now being stretched in both directions. So batteries are deploying and they’re not going to be able
Nicolas Fulghum:
[21:01] In the morning, when the morning peak demand is happening, and in the evening, during evening peak demand. And it’s essentially stretching that profile out. And if you follow it over the years, that stretch is getting wider and wider. So it’s really penetrating the evening and night hours as well now. At peak demand, it can now meet more than 40% of California’s electricity demand. And that’s just batteries, where 90% of those were installed in the last five years. So we’re really talking about a surprisingly quick pickup in a technology that basically wasn’t on the market five years ago.
Robinson Meyer:
[21:37] One big question I feel like in electricity right now is how exactly to think about the utility of a marginal additional solar panel. And so I think there are some folks who would say, and to some degree the like advocacy line, right, is that solar is basically always the cheapest form of electricity anywhere in the world. And it’s always better to add solar. And if you are not adding solar, there’s some other reason, there’s some other dislocation in the system causing you not to add solar. I will say I’m a little skeptical of that line. I think if that were the case, we’d be adding more solar in a lot of places. Obviously, we’re adding an enormous amount of solar, but there’s still reasons why solar might be tricky. And maybe it has to do with land costs, maybe it has to do with permitting. But like looking at the global electricity system, What is the right way to think about … We know solar is cheap. We know it’s an absolute powerhouse. We know it’s absolutely transforming the global electricity system. But what is the most rigorous way to think about how cheap it is compared to other forms of power and how countries are adding it to their electricity mix right now?
Nicolas Fulghum:
[22:41] Yeah, so bottlenecks are real. And I think it’s totally fair to acknowledge that, especially for technology that has risen in the market so quickly. It would be shocking if it was smooth sailing on all fronts. But we have some really good examples of what the second and third stage of that solar growth can look like. We already mentioned California, where the bottleneck did appear a few years ago already, where you had larger curtailment in the middle of the day. It was really difficult for rooftop solar installations to actually be used economically within the distribution grids. So there were real bottlenecks. Those are being resolved actively. So it’s kind of As we’re coming up to these technological hurdles, technology is overcoming them relatively quickly. And if you thought the falling costs in solar panels was quick in the last few years, the fall in costs in battery prices is even faster. At the pack level, those pack prices have come down 45% in 2025. And that’s on top of 20% in the year before and another double-digit percentage decline before that. So we have this huge drop in battery prices. If you think about it in the context of other applications in your life, what does a 50% reduction in price for other consumer electronics, for example, look like? If cars were half the price or twice the price, the application in the world would be completely different.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[24:06] That’s how batteries work as well. So that bottleneck is being resolved. The second point is that actually for most of the world, the system integration of solar isn’t as big of a problem yet. So at a global level, the share of solar generation is now 8.7%. Now, there’s a really nice way to illustrate what that actually means on a daily basis. So 8.7% is about 25% in the middle of the day. So that’s just for the global average. Which is quite an important milestone. So in May, for example, the biggest solar month, that’s when solar is meeting a quarter of global electricity demand in the middle of the day. So a lot of headroom to grow without significant flexibility concerns. But then if you go into the specific markets, that number can scale up quite quickly. So in Hungary, for example, which is the country with the highest solar share globally of 27%, during the peak month in June, solar is meeting 90% of the demand at midday. So it scales relatively quickly. You can do about 3x in your sunniest month is your actual penetration relative to your average penetration throughout the year. So it does create a bottleneck at that point. So for those systems, the fact that battery prices are coming down now is unlocking that bottleneck that was really fast, fast approaching.
Robinson Meyer:
[25:31] But it sounds like part of the story here is that solar is able to dominate because in some ways the global system on an average basis is closer to where California was maybe 10 or 15 years ago where you can just keep adding solar to that thing and it’s going to reduce your marginal costs and you can add batteries too and that’s awesome. But you’re not hitting these questions about ramping or firm power that I think we’re beginning to encounter in California and I also think a little bit in Texas now.
Robinson Meyer:
[26:02] How do we know? I mean, this is a methodological question about Ember, but, one constraint we’ve begun to run into in the United States, I think especially from big tech firms that do a lot of renewable buying, is that the accounting techniques that, previously were good enough to lower emissions, like saying, okay, well, we used 500 megawatt hours of electricity last year. So we’re going to go buy 500 megawatts of solar and wind production. And we’re going to say that’s close enough. If you try to match on an annual basis the amount of energy you’re using and the amount of energy that renewables are producing and you just go buy that renewable power in the open market, you’re actually still going to be producing a lot of emissions. And so when Ember looks at... The global electricity system and says the fossil share is declining or solar’s you know eating into fossil in this way like how do we know that solar is actually eating into demand growth or that renewables are actually eating into demand growth and not just that say solar is generating all this electricity in the middle of the day but if demand’s a little higher it’s actually just boosting fossil a little bit overnight there.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[27:10] Are two things here so one is at the aggregate level we can see this very clearly. So if we imagine a world where solar and wind power hadn’t been deployed, that demand would have had to be met. Maybe demand growth would have been slightly lower because of the higher power prices that would have caused. But still, that demand would have most likely been met by fossil generation, given that we don’t really have other sources that can grow quickly. Nuclear power is growing by 1% per year. Hydropower is growing by 1% per year. Those are not the growth rates that can give you 2% to 3% global electricity demand growth. It just can’t meet that. So historically, we know exactly what happens when solar and wind don’t grow. Because if you go back 20 years, it means that fossil generation increases every single year by a pretty significant percentage. So we know what the counterfactual is. And then on the specific reporting side,
Nicolas Fulghum:
[28:08] Fossil generation reporting is actually the most accurate reporting. The tricky thing with solar often is that we do get some really excellent national level reporting that includes estimates for rooftop solar. There are some countries that are doing a really great job with that. U.S. reporting of both utility scale and estimated rooftop solar is excellent, for example. But then for Pakistan, you do not get excellent national level data. So you have to estimate it based on the amount of solar panels that were imported over the years, the expected deployment. Some people are doing satellite estimation of what’s actually on the ground. So the solar side is a little bit more difficult to do. But there’s two ways we can figure out what’s going on here. We can look at demand profiles on a daily basis. We know exactly how solar power looks in the market. We know exactly the shape of it. So when we see that demand destruction in the middle of the day,
Nicolas Fulghum:
[29:06] we know where that’s coming from. So that’s one way to estimate this difference in where solar is coming from. And then the other one is we already know what fossil generation is.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[29:19] So the big power plants are much easier to account for. These are big coal-fired power stations in China, and China reports their generation pretty accurately. So that means we know that the fossil growth isn’t happening this year. That’s certain. The slight uncertainty is more in the size of the solar growth, but it does give us a little bit more certainty because we know also what kind of electricity demand growth we should expect. And those are the levels that we see when we combine that solar with the growth in fossil generation.
Robinson Meyer:
[29:54] Last question. We are constantly talking about solar and batteries. We have spent very little of this interview talking about wind. Should we stop talking about renewables at this point and just talk about a solar and battery story being the primary driver of global electricity decarbonization and say,
Robinson Meyer:
[30:11] yeah, sure, wind can be an important addition to that in some especially developed settings. But this is primarily right now a story about solar and batteries just absolutely driving decarbonization globally. And we should kind of stop talking about the renewable category as a category.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[30:30] It’s a fair point to the renewable category as a whole, where we also include things like hydropower, for example, which, as I said, doesn’t really have fast growth rates. I do think that wind is quite different there. So wind was still the second fastest growing source globally, at the second highest increase with 205 terawatt hours, so a really substantial amount. And if we didn’t have that increase in wind generation year after year, we would be quite a few years behind on the curve of bending down that fossil generation curve in the short and medium term. So wind is still really competitive with solar as well. It’s one of the lowest cost sources of electricity globally. And solar and wind together as of 2024, so that’s already more than a year ago, were the cheapest source of new power. Where they were installed in 90% of installations, it was cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative. That’s in 2024. Costs have since come down a little bit as well. So we know that wind is a really important piece of the puzzle. And if you think about the global distribution where people are living, a lot of demand growth is going to happen in countries that are very sunny.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[31:43] We compared in the report the growth in fossil generation that we’re currently seeing from countries where it’s still increasing. So countries like Egypt, India to some degree structurally over the last few years has still seen an increase, Indonesia, these are the countries where fossil generation is still growing. Almost every country with fossil generation growth has above average solar potential. Very, very few are actually in areas where solar doesn’t have high potential. But there are quite a few with a large stock of fossil generation, like Europe, like the U.S., that really benefit from a more balanced approach. Europe, for example, has incredibly good complementarity between summer and winter. and trying to get to a more decarbonized power system in Europe without wind is virtually impossible, at least on a low cost basis. The overbuild for solar to go solar alone in Europe is just not feasible at all. So wind gives the additional clean power piece that fits in really nicely with solar. And in regions where solar is so much cheaper just because of its abundance and high solar potential, they might need slightly less wind generation. But overall, there’s nothing that speaks against driving up the deployment for wind as well.
Robinson Meyer:
[33:08] Such an interesting conversation. We’re going to have to leave it there. But Nick Fulghum, thank you so much for joining us.
Nicolas Fulghum:
[33:13] Thanks so much.
Robinson Meyer:
[33:19] And that will do it for us today. We’ll be back early next week with a new episode of Shift Key. Stick around after the credits, by the way, for a message and a conversation with our friends at Salesforce. Very excited about that. Until then, Shift Key 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. Our music is by Adam Kromelow. Thanks so much for listening. We’ll see you next week.
Mike Munsell:
[33:49] Hi, my name is Mike Munsell, and I’m the Vice President of Partnerships with Heatmap. Last week, I spoke with Sunya Norman from Salesforce about how they’re approaching AI and sustainability. Today, we’re diving into a specific piece of that, AI and water. So in our last conversation, I know you talked a bit about Salesforce and its AI energy score and how it’s thinking about sustainability as it pertains to AI, but I’d like to really dive deeper into this conversation and looking at what is Salesforce’s relationship to data centers and in particular water, as I know that’s become something pressing of an issue.
Sunya Norman:
Sustainability has been a core value of Salesforce’s for a very long time. And we think at the highest level about how we make our entire operations more sustainable. And one of the things I love about sustainability is it’s a field where you always need to be evolving, adapting, and learning. And one of the things that we’re all collectively learning in the field is how important water is, especially for the technology sector.
Sunya Norman:
[34:53] Just looking at the data and grounding folks in where fresh water is used, it’s primarily dominated by agriculture and industrial use and the cities where we all mostly live. And so for a long time, the technology sector didn’t think that water was the most material issue for us. However, now with data centers and compute and the data showing us that there’s likely to be this hockey stick in AI demand in terms of energy and accompanying water, water has really risen in importance and prominence. And especially when you overlap maps that show water-stressed regions with AI infrastructure. So really important to understand how to mitigate the impacts on local watersheds and communities from AI infrastructure. Salesforce is not at all the first company to recognize the importance. I’ve really learned a lot from following our hyperscalers. Folks like AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft, many of them have water positive strategies and are making strategic investments in the communities that surround their data infrastructure.
Mike Munsell:
[36:08] Can you talk more about some of those watershed initiatives that Salesforce is backing?
Sunya Norman:
So we see climate and nature as two interconnected crises. And when you look at our water program, it focuses on three things. It’s about resilient data centers, resilient power supply, and resilient watersheds. The initiatives that I wanted to share with you, our most recent investments, are in that resilient watershed bucket. And it’s about looking again at water stress regions and seeing how we can support communities in making sure that we can reverse or at least slow down the trajectory of water stress that’s really local. You know, it’s specific watersheds. In Brazil, we supported a project from Conservation International, and it’s focused on a river basin that’s actually a water source for 9 million people in Sao Paulo. So just think about how critical that water is and that water basin is. Everything from clean water for drinking to sanitation to industry, very, very important and also critical for the ecosystem.
Sunya Norman:
[37:22] Mexico is another area where we’ve made an investment. Similarly, around the watershed of Mexico City. I wasn’t aware of this before we made this investment, but that area around Mexico City and this wetland, it’s known for something called floating garden farming. This has been something that the community has been practicing since the Aztecs. Something that deserves to be preserved, an ecosystem that’s really critical, not only ecologically, but culturally.
Mike Munsell:
[37:53] Do you see a future where water usage becomes a reported or regulated metric for AI, similar to carbon disclosures?
Sunya Norman:
Yeah, I think the top line thing to know about water is it’s significantly undervalued. All experts and scientists agree, from the UN to World Wildlife Fund, the true cost of water is consistently much, much higher than what consumers pay in terms of utility pricing or what businesses pay when they purchase water. And it’s only in the last few years that even the sustainability space has really been paying attention to how critical an issue this is. Specific to AI, as I mentioned, this is really closely linked with compute. So I think the tech sector must remain laser focused on compute because when you address that compute, you’re actually addressing the energy impacts as well as the water impacts from cooling. In terms of the type of regulation we might see, I think it’ll start first with carbon and energy, because those are the most mature spaces. But I think it’s incredibly encouraging that companies like Salesforce, who traditionally haven’t felt like this is the core focus of their strategy, are waking up to understand how all these issues are interconnected.
Mike Munsell:
[39:01] On the impact side, how is Salesforce thinking about its investments in water generally?
Sunya Norman:
One of the things that I’ve really been excited to learn more about is an initiative we’ve been supporting for several years called the Mangrove Breakthrough Initiative. Mangroves are this incredible species of tree that sits at the intersection of water and land. They not only buffer coastlines from storms, flooding, and erosion, they filter out pollutants, they create safe space for all sorts of species to breed, and they store three to five times more carbon than your average terrestrial tree. So they’re just this incredible nature-based solution. And essentially, the initiative is reaching out to the main countries that have these mangrove ecosystems to get commitments of conservation. And then what Salesforce has been funding is best practices around that conservation or in areas of mangrove loss, how to actually reforest those mangroves and revitalize those ecosystems because so much of coastal economies is wrapped up in these ecosystems.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus a startup harvesting energy from roadways nabs a new funding round and more of the week’s big money moves.
Uncertainty may have dried up venture funding for early stage climate, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t still deals getting done — or past commitments now coming to light as funding rounds close. This week, for example, brings early-stage backing for a European startup working to convert wasted kinetic energy from braking vehicles into power at ports, as well as a software company helping utilities visualize and manage the increasingly complex electrical grid. Meanwhile, nuclear company Deep Fission proved that the private markets aren’t the only game in town — after going public via SPAC, it’s now planning to list its shares on the Nasdaq stock exchange.
There’s also some promising news for companies looking to scale up, with thermal battery company Antora turning on its first commercial plant in South Dakota this week. That project was made possible in large part by backing from one Australian billionaire. But there’s also S2G Investments, which last week closed a $1 billion fund focused on growth-stage companies and will perhaps help more climate technologies reach that critical commercial milestone.
Every day, hundreds of millions of vehicles travel the world’s roads, converting fuel into motion and exerting mechanical force on the roads’ surface. Much of that kinetic energy is shed as heat when a vehicle throws on the brakes to navigate curves, intersections, ramps, and traffic signals. Austria-based startup REPS plans to capture some of that wasted energy, raising $23.6 million to “turn roads into power plants” by embedding hydraulic plates into road surfaces in braking zones, converting a vehicle’s momentum into clean electricity.
The mechanism is straightforward: As cars and trucks drive over the plates, they compress hydraulic cylinders built into the system, generating pressure that drives an onsite generator. The resulting electricity is routed to on-site battery storage systems, where it’s put to use powering on-site operations or feeding directly back into the local grid, turning high-traffic roads, ports, industrial sites, and other logistics hubs into their own small power sources. The company claims that capturing the energy lost through traffic could account for about 5% of global electricity demand, at least in theory.
REPS isn’t the first to attempt this form of so-called "energy harvesting,” but it says past efforts have failed due to the inferior efficiency and durability of existing mechanical energy converters. The company says its proprietary system, however, can operate for over 20 years. It’s already got one commercial system up and running in the Port of Hamburg, and says that if it were to install hundreds of such systems around the port, costs could be recovered in under four years. Now the startup is engaging with ports around the world and looking to build installations in other logistics hubs and cities.
At the end of last year, I identified Deep Fission, a startup looking to build small nuclear reactors inside underground, water-filled boreholes, as one of the wackiest recent bets in climate tech. Now the company has announced plans to go public at a target valuation of roughly $1.7 billion, seeking to raise $156 million in the process. Its thesis is that placing car-sized, 15-megawatt reactors about a mile underground could dramatically reduce both costs and safety risks. The surrounding rock would effectively serve as a natural barrier and containment vessel, negating the need for many of the bulky structures typically required to house reactors and prevent radioactive leaks.
The planned Nasdaq listing comes less than a year after the company’s somewhat unusual SPAC merger, which listed Deep Fission on the lesser-known and lightly traded OTCQB stock exchange and netted just $30 million. According to an SEC filing, the stock never actually traded, and at the time of the offering, it read as a quick attempt to secure cash. The startup had been attempting to raise a $15 million seed round earlier in the year that never panned out, and to date has raised only a modest $4 million in venture funding.
Deep Fission’s fortunes might be shifting, however, given that it’s transferring its listing to a major national exchange. The company’s public markets strategy does appear to be working as of late — In February, the startup raised $80 million by selling over 5 million restricted shares directly to investors. Whether this will all be enough to achieve its goal of beginning commercial operations in 2027 or 2028 remains to be seen, however. As a part of the Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program, Deep Fission initially aimed to reach criticality — the point at which a nuclear chain reaction becomes self-sustaining — by this July, a target that now looks highly unlikely.
As utilities scramble to keep pace with surging electricity demand, expanding grid-scale renewables, increasingly extreme weather while also coordinating new, distributed resources coming online, modern grid management is getting too complex for traditional software to keep up. Texture, the startup billing itself “the operating system for the energy grid,” wants to simplify the ecosystem by giving utilities, virtual power plant operators, and grid service companies a unified view of every device and associated data sources across their network — and it just raised a $12.5 million Series A to scale this solution further.
Texture’s software aggregates data from various sources — everything from smart meters to battery storage systems, electric vehicles, and smart thermostats — and consolidates it into a single layer for grid operators, flagging problems such as voltage irregularities or outage risks in real time. The platform sits atop an operator’s legacy software infrastructure, thus avoiding the need for utilities to overhaul their existing systems or implement customized and expensive enterprise solutions that require dedicated engineering teams to maintain.
The tech has gained traction among utility cooperatives — customer-owned nonprofits that often serve rural communities and maintain smaller staffs and tighter budgets than investor-owned utilities. With this latest raise, the startup is looking to access greater scale in the co-op market through a partnership with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, a network of 850 utility cooperatives across the country which will now gain access to some of Texture’s software. As Texture’s CEO Sanjiv Sanghavi said about its co-op customers in the company’s press release, "They wanted to run modern grid programs but didn't have software built for their scale or budget. A co-op serving 15,000 members shouldn't have to build custom technology to launch a battery program or manage transformer load. We built Texture so they don't have to."
I was off last week, which means I missed the chance to bring you a piece of news that I’m particularly excited about: The sustainability-focused firm S2G Investments closed a $1 billion fund in what managing partner Aaron Rudberg described in a post on the firm’s website as “one of the most difficult fundraising environments in over a decade.” What’s more, this fund is specifically designed to help growth-stage companies bridge the persistent capital gap that emerges for climate tech companies after early-stage venture rounds but before institutional investors deem them bankable. This void often prevents startups from building first-of-a-kind facilities or deploying their solutions broadly enough to prove out their tech and drive down costs.
This fund is also a milestone for S2G itself, marking the firm’s first close after spinning off two years ago from Builder’s Vision, a family office managing investments for Walmart heir Lukas Walton. According to Rudberg, the fund is writing checks in the $25 million to $100 million range, and has already invested $300 million across 10 companies, largely in food and agriculture, energy, and ocean systems. The various recipients include the agricultural input startup Exacto, maritime battery supplier Echandia, and the industrial power optimization company ANA, Inc.
So-called missing middle financing is difficult precisely because it often involves technologies that, at least initially, carry a green premium or depend on policy support. But S2G is adamant that there are plenty of competitive startups, even in a political environment where climate policy is on the outs and affordability is a top concern.
“We believe some of the most attractive investment opportunities are in growth-stage businesses that deliver economic superiority through improved efficiency, margins, and resilience in industries fundamental to the global economy,” Rudberg wrote, as companies with unfavorable economics are being weeded out. “What remains are businesses with genuine commercial advantage, and those are the companies this Fund is built to back.”
Bonus: Antora Turns On Colossal 5 Gigawatt-Hour Thermal Battery in South Dakota
Over two years ago, I wrote about how super hot rocks — that is, thermal batteries — were one of the coolest things in climate tech. Since then, the companies I profiled, Rondo Energy and Antora Energy, have both brought their first commercial plants online, with the latter announcing that milestone this week. On Tuesday, as we covered in Heatmap AM, Antora turned on its 5 gigawatt-hour project in South Dakota, which stores excess wind power as heat for a bioethanol plant operated by POET, the world’s largest biofuel producer. Once the facility ramps to full capacity later this year, it will rank among the world’s largest energy storage projects, relying on over 200 of Antora’s thermal batteries.
For this project, Antora’s tech works by absorbing surplus wind power that would otherwise go to waste in windy South Dakota, where generation often outpaces what the region’s congested transmission lines can handle. The startup converts that renewable electricity to heat using resistive heating, essentially the same technology as a toaster. That’s then stored in insulated carbon blocks for later use, where it can be delivered as direct heat to power high-temperature industrial processes, or converted back into electricity. In this case, the heat is transferred to a circulating fluid that carries it to the POET plant, where it’s then delivered as steam to power boilers, distillers, and other machinery used in ethanol production.
Neither POET nor Antora have disclosed the value of this long-term offtake agreement. The sole external investor providing project-level financing was Australian firm Grok Ventures, a climate-focused investment company bankrolled by Mike Cannon-Brookes, co-founder and CEO of enterprise software company Atlassian. One of Australia’s richest people, Cannon-Brookes has emerged as one of world’s foremost climate investors, pledging $1.5 billion of his wealth to climate projects by 2030. Perhaps its telling of the investment environment at large that an Australian billionaire — rather than the U.S. government or institutional investors — had to push this first-of-a-kind project over the finish line.
On Exxon’s Venezuela flipflop, SpaceX’s fears, and a nuclear deal spree
Current conditions: U.S. government forecasters project just one to three major storms in the Atlantic this hurricane season • The Meade Lake Complex, a wildfire that scorched 92,000 acres in southwest Kansas, is now largely contained • Temperatures in Vientiane, the sprawling capital of Laos, are nearing 100 degrees Fahrenheit amid a week of lightning storms.
A years-long megadrought. Reduced snowpack in the northern mountains. Rising water demand from southwestern farms and cities whose groundwater is depleting. It is no wonder the water levels in Lake Mead are getting low. Now the Trump administration is giving the Hoover Dam money for a makeover to make do in the increasingly parched new normal. The Great Depression-era megaproject in the Colorado River’s Black Canyon boasts the largest reservoir capacity among hydroelectric dams. But the facility’s actual output of electricity — already outpaced by six other dams in the U.S. — is set to plunge to a new low if drought-parched Lake Meade’s elevation drops below 1,035 feet, the level at which bubbles start to form damage the turbines. At that point, the dam’s output could drop from its lowest standard generating capacity of 1,302 megawatts to a meager 382 megawatts. Last night, federal data showed the water level perilously close to that boundary, at 1,052 feet. The Bureau of Reclamation’s $52 million injection will pay for the replacement of as many as three older turbines with new, so-called wide-head turbines, which are designed to operate efficiently at levels below 1,035 feet. Once installed, the agency expects to restore at least 160 megawatts of hydropower capacity. “This action ensures Hoover Dam remains a cornerstone of American energy production for decades to come,” Andrea Travnicek, the Interior Department’s assistant secretary for water and science, said in a statement.
Like geothermal, hydropower is a form of renewable energy that President Donald Trump appreciates, given its 24/7 output. Last month, the Department of Energy’s recently reorganized Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office announced that it would allow nearly $430 million in payments to American hydropower facilities to move forward after stalling the funding for 293 projects at 212 facilities. Last year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed streamlining the process for relicensing existing dams and giving the facilities a categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act. The Energy Department also withdrew from a Biden-era agreement to breach dams in the Pacific Northwest in a bid to restore the movement of salmon through the Columbia River.
Shortly after the U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Máduro in January, Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods told CNBC the South American nation would need to embark on a serious transition to democracy before the largest U.S. energy company could invest in production in a country the firm exited two decades ago amid the socialist government’s crackdown. Five months later, he may be changing his tune. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that Exxon Mobil was in talks to acquire rights to start drilling for oil in Venezuela. If finalized, such a deal would mark what the newspaper called “a victory for President Trump, who has declared the country’s vast natural wealth open to American businesses.”
It’s not just Elon Musk’s xAI data centers that brace for the data center backlash that Heatmap’s Jael Holzman clocked last fall as the thing “swallowing American politics.” In its S-1 filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission ahead of one of the country’s most anticipated stock market debuts this year, SpaceX warned that mounting public skepticism over AI could harm the growth of America’s leading private space firm. “If AI technologies are perceived to be significantly disruptive to society, it could lead to governmental or regulatory restrictions or prohibitions on their use, societal concerns or unrest, or both, any of which could materially and adversely affect our ability to develop, deploy, or commercialize AI technologies and execute our business strategy,” the company disclosed in the filing, a detail highlighted in a post on X by Transformer editor Shakeel Hashim. “Our implementation of AI technologies, including through our AI segment’s systems, could result in legal liability, regulatory action, operational disruption, brand, reputational or competitive harm, or other adverse impacts.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Yesterday, I told you that corporate energy buyers last year inked deals for more nuclear power than wind energy. But if you needed more proof that, as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham called last summer, “the nuclear dealmaking boom is real,” just look at this week:
Separately, this week saw two projects take big steps forward:
It’s been the year of Chinese automotives. Ford’s chief executive admits he can’t get enough of his Xiaomi SU7. Chinese auto exports are booming. And now Beijing’s ultimate automotive champion, BYD, is accelerating talks to enter Formula 1. On Thursday, the Financial Times reported that the company had met with former Red Bull Racing chief Christian Horner in Cannes. “Following talks between Stella Li, executive vice-president at BYD, and Horner last week, BYD intends to hold further meetings with senior figures involved in F1 and at the FIA, the governing body,” the newspaper reported.
China’s hydrogen boom continues. The country’s electrolyzers are quickly going the way of batteries and solar panels by securing global export deals that reflect their efficiency and competitive prices. On Thursday, Hydrogen Insight reported that Chinese manufacturer Sungrow Hydrogen inked a deal to supply a 2-megawatt alkaline electrolyzer to a Spanish cement facility. That same day, another Chinese manufacturer, Hygreen Energy, announced an agreement to supply a 1.3-megawatt system to a green hydrogen project in Nova Scotia.
With both temperatures and electricity prices rising, many who are using less energy are still paying more, according to data from the Electricity Price Hub.
In 135 years of record-keeping, Tampa, Florida, has never been hotter than it was last July.
Though often humid, the city on the bay is typically breezy, even in summer. But on July 27, it broke 100 degrees Fahrenheit on the thermometer for the first time ever; two days later, it hit its highest-ever heat index, 119 degrees. The family of Hezekiah Walters, the 14-year-old who died of heat stroke during football practice in Tampa in 2019, urged neighbors at a local CPR certification event to take the heat warnings seriously. Local HVAC companies complained about the volume of calls. Area hospitals struggled to keep their rooms and clinics comfortable. Experts later said the record temperatures were made five times more likely by climate change.
But according to data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, Tampa Electric customers used 14% less electricity in July 2025 than they did in the same month of 2020, which was Tampa’s previous hottest July on record — about 216 kilowatt-hours per household less, roughly the equivalent of running a central AC a couple hours fewer per day for an entire month. Tellingly, Tampa Electric raised rates over that period by 84%, with the average bill growing from $111 to $190 per month.
Though there are many instances in many places around the country where usage has dropped as rates rose, the correlation doesn’t necessarily mean people were rationing their electricity. Climate-related factors like anomalously cool summers can lower summer bills, while energy efficiency upgrades can also result in changes to residential consumption. Southern California Edison customers, for example, used 24% less electricity in 2025 than they did in 2020, at least in part due to the widespread adoption of rooftop solar.
Thanks to recent efforts by the Energy Information Agency to track energy insecurity and utility disconnections, however, we can start to tease out deficiency from efficiency. By cross-referencing that data with rate and usage statistics from the Electricity Price Hub, we find a handful of places like Tampa, where people have seemingly reduced their electricity usage because they couldn’t afford the added cost, even during a deadly heatwave. (Tampa Electric did not return our request for comment.)
The EIA’s tracking program, known as the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, tells a clear story: Across the country, people are struggling to absorb the rising costs of electricity. In 2020, nearly one in four Americans reported some form of energy insecurity, meaning they were either unable to afford to use heating or cooling equipment, pay their energy bills, or pay for other necessities due to energy costs. By 2024, the most recent data available, that number had risen to a third — and two-thirds of households with incomes under $10,000. In 2024 alone, utilities sent 94.9 million final shutoff notices to residential electricity customers.
Since 2020, 98% of the more than 400 utilities in the Heatmap-MIT dataset have raised their rates — more than half of them by greater than 20%; about one in 10 utilities have raised their rates by 50% or more. And 219 of those utilities raised rates even as usage in their service area fell, meaning that as customers used less, they still paid more.
“I don’t feel like [the rates have] ever been all that affordable, but they have steadily increased more and more and more,” Janelle Ghiorso, a PG&E customer in California who recently filed for bankruptcy due to the debt she incurred from her electricity bills, told me. She added: “When do I get relief? When I’m dead?”
The people hit hardest by rate increases tend to be those already struggling the most. For example, about 30% of Kentucky residents reported going without heat or AC, leaving their homes at unsafe temperatures, or cutting back on food or medicine to pay energy bills, per the EIA’s 2020 RECS report. Since then, Kentucky Power has raised rates in the eastern part of the state by 45%, adding about $64 to the average monthly bill in a service area where the median monthly household income can be less than $4,000.
The Department of Energy’s Low-income Energy Affordability Data, which measures energy affordability patterns, actually obscures some of this burden. It reports that for all of Kentucky, annual electricity costs account for about 2% of the state’s median household income, which is about average for the nation. But in Kentucky Power’s Appalachian service area specifically, many households live under 200% of the poverty level, and $15 of every $100 someone earns might go toward their energy costs, Chris Woolery, the residential energy coordinator at Mountain Association, a nonprofit economic development group that serves the region, told me. “The situation is just dire for many folks,” he said.
Kentucky Power is aware of this; its low-income assistance charge has grown by 110% since 2020, the Heatmap-MIT data shows. Woolery also noted that the utility agreed to voluntary protections against disconnections, such as a 24-hour moratorium during extreme weather, in a rate case settlement with the Kentucky Public Service Commission. The commission rejected the proposal, but the utility kept the protections anyway, Woolery told me.
Customers in other areas are not so lucky.
In states like Oklahoma, where one in three households reported energy insecurity in 2020, rates rose about 30% from 2020 to 2025, according to our data. Per the EIA survey, Oklahoma’s monthly disconnection rate is more than three times the national average. Oklahoma doesn’t have the highest electricity rates in the country — far from it. But median incomes there are low enough that even moderate rate increases leave some with hard choices.
Interestingly, in bottom-income-quartile states, where median household incomes are below $81,337, only about 30% of utilities show a pattern of rising bills and falling electricity usage, which would suggest energy rationing. The other 70% of utilities show the opposite effect: usage is rising despite electricity rates becoming a bigger burden of customers’ incomes. In Kentucky Power’s service area, for example, bills may be up $64 a month, but usage remained essentially flat.
“Think of it this way: The electric company goes to the front of the line,” Mark Wolfe, the executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, a policy group for administrators of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, told me of how households triage their bills. If you need to buy something from the grocery store, the drug store, or pay your electricity bill, then “the utility goes to the front of the line because they can shut off your power, which causes lots of other problems.”
Wolfe added, “Plus, if you’re really in dire straits, you can go to the food bank. You can’t go to the ‘other’ utility company.”
Even as resource-strapped households put a higher share of their income toward electricity, they’re also least able to afford energy efficiency upgrades like newer appliances, smart thermostats, or solar panels. The pattern is prevalent in places with extreme climates, such as Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, where turning off the AC in the middle of summer could mean death. It shows up most starkly among the most extreme rate examples in our data set, like the utilities serving remote Alaska villages — despite astronomical electricity prices, usage hasn’t fluctuated much because its customers are already using it as little as they can afford. The elderly and other individuals living on fixed incomes are also often unable to cut their electricity usage beyond what little they’re already using.
In middle-income states like Florida, roughly 60% of the utilities in our dataset show rising bills and falling electricity use — more than twice the rate we see in the lowest-income states. While the poorest Americans have already reduced their electricity use to the bare minimum and are cutting groceries and medicine in order to keep the heat and AC on, in places like Tampa, where the median income is $96,480, the electricity rate shocks have caused even middle- and even high-earning households to start worrying about their bills. According to a new survey released Tuesday by Ipsos and the energy policy nonprofit PowerLines, 74% of respondents with household incomes over $100,000 said they are worried about their utility bills increasing.
“People are seeing their utility bill as one of the few things that changes so much month to month, that is so unpredictable, and that they don’t have any control over,” Charles Hua, the founder and executive director of PowerLines, told me.
Wolfe, the executive director at NEADA, agreed, saying that for the first time, the association has begun hearing from families with incomes above the threshold who need assistance. “An extra $100 a month for a family, but they’re middle class — that shouldn’t push them over the edge,” at least in theory, Wolfe said. But for those with no flexibility in their budgets, anything additional or unpredictable “pushes them close to the edge — from going from middle class to lower middle class — and I think that’s why this affordability crisis is becoming such an issue.”
We can also see this phenomenon in the explosion of line items on utility bills going toward funding assistance programs. Appalachian Power Co.’s low-income surcharge, for instance, is up 3,200% for customers in Virginia; Puget Sound Energy’s low-income program is up 970% for customers in Washington; and PacifiCorp Oregon’s low-income cost-recovery charge, up 879%.
The EIA data, too, bears this out: Florida had one of the highest rates of people reporting they were “unable to use air conditioning equipment” due to costs in the RECS data, and in 2024, there were 186,202 disconnections in the state in July alone — every one of which would have meant people no longer had the power to run their ACs. (FPL and Duke Energy Florida also show usage declines as rates rose, although neither raised rates as much as Tampa.)
The data also shows places where higher-income earners have aggressively pursued efficiency upgrades to lower their usage. In the LA Department of Water and Power service area in California, usage is down more than 11% overall between 2020 and 2025, one of the biggest drops in our dataset. But the lower usage is more evenly distributed month to month, indicating that things like solar adoption and efficiency programs are likely behind the drop, rather than cost pressures. (Rates there still rose more than 28%, or about $15 per month.)
Even doing everything right wasn’t enough to save customers in the end — households that cut their electricity use still saw their bills rise by an average of $20 a month, our data shows.
Perhaps most concerning, though, is the relentless upward trajectory. PowerLines reports that utilities have submitted $9.4 billion in new requests in the first quarter of 2026 alone. Heatmap and MIT’s numbers show that 79% of utilities raised rates in 2025, and 55% have raised them again already this year.
But the advocates I talked to stressed that utilities have more agency than they get credit for. Take Kentucky Power, for example, with its voluntary disconnection protections. “It just shows that you don’t necessarily have to make disconnections to be financially solvent,” Woolery of the Mountain Association pointed out. Or take Ouachita Electric in Arkansas, which passed a 4.5% rate decrease after investing in efficiency upgrades in consumers’ homes through a pay-as-you-save model.
But that’s the rare exception. For most customers, relief is not obviously on the way. Signs increasingly point to the imminent onset of a super El Niño, which could bring punishing, climate-change-intensified heat waves across the United States. The July 2025 record in Tampa will almost certainly not stand; someday, it’ll be the second-hottest summer, or the third. In a few decades, it might even look cool.
And still there will be bills to pay.