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:
It sure looks that way, at least. Democrats should start coming up with a plan.
For the first six months of President Trump’s term, the big question was about what would happen to the Inflation Reduction Act. We now have something like an answer.
President Trump’s memorably named One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed many of the IRA’s most important clean energy tax credits, including incentives for wind, solar, and electric vehicles. And while it’s still unclear whether the Trump administration will let developers actually use the tax credits that remain on the books — especially the now-denuded credits for wind and solar — fewer “unknown unknowns” remain about what might come next.
So I’ve been trying to figure out where climate and energy policy might go from here. And one story that I keep coming back to is the flashing red lights around what could become a serious electricity affordability crisis.
It’s now widely understood that electricity demand is rising in the United States for the first time in a generation. The Energy Information Administration projects that electricity use will grow 1.7% in the next few years, after increasing by just 0.1% per year from 2005 to 2020. That growth is projected to come from new data centers, new factories, the (now) slow(er) but (still) steady adoption of electric vehicles, and population growth.
What is less well understood is how poorly the United States is prepared to match this rise in electricity demand with an equivalent increase in supply. To some degree, American electricity prices are already rising: So far this year, utilities have received or requested permission to increase customers’ bills by $29 billion, according to a July report from PowerLines, a think tank and advocacy group. That’s a large number in its own right, and it’s more than twice as much as had been approved at this time last year.
But when you look across the power system, virtually every trend is setting us up for electricity price spikes:
On top of all this, of course, the Trump administration has made it much more uncertain which new solar, wind, and battery projects will be able to secure tax credits — and with them, secure bank financing.
None of these trends alone would guarantee price increases or electricity supply constraints. But taken together, they reveal an electricity system that is coming under a variety of strains.
In the 2010s, cheap natural gas and technological advances in energy efficiency pacified much of the power system. We won’t have the same luxury this decade.
This is all going to be bad for the economy, bad for the climate, and bad for climate policy.
It’s a setback for the U.S. economy because, as President Trump somewhat alluded to in his second inaugural address, energy is a key input to virtually every other economic process, including manufacturing. But it’s especially bad for climate policy. The dominant plan to decarbonize much of the U.S. economy is to “electrify everything” — cars, appliances, home heating, and even many industrial processes. Americans will be far less eager to electrify everything if electricity is expensive.
If energy price hikes do arrive, Democrats are going to have a relatively straightforward time communicating about them in a narrow political sense. The story is just too simple: Democrats passed a law to encourage clean energy called the Inflation Reduction Act. Republicans repealed it. Energy prices inflated. QED.
That story alone might be too contrived, but the evidence we have suggests that OBBBA will raise energy bills. The REPEAT Project at Princeton University — led by Jesse Jenkins, my Shift Key podcast cohost — has a new report out projecting that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will increase Americans’ electricity bills by $165 a year by the end of the decade. (If the law is allowed to stick around, and in the absence of intervening policies, it could raise bills by hundreds of dollars a year by the middle of next decade.)
OBBBA’s explosion of the federal deficit will make the situation worse: By expanding the deficit for such little public gain — that is, merely to memorialize earlier tax cuts, not even to make new ones — the Federal Reserve will have a more difficult time cutting interest rates in the future. That will in turn make it even more difficult for utilities and developers to finance new energy projects.
The political story will be so compelling here, I think, that Democrats will come under a lot of pressure to reinstate the wind and solar tax credits. And maybe they should do that — it could make sense as part of a larger energy or permitting deal. But stacking more solar and wind on the grid will not on its own lower people’s electricity bills.
Going into 2028, Democrats will need an actual plan to stabilize or cut electricity costs. They will need ideas about how (and whether) to speed up permitting, restructure wholesale power markets, and build new power plants in order to stabilize the power grid.
One thing that’s already clear is that in this inflationary environment, states like New York with publicly owned power authorities are able to intervene more forcefully in their own power markets than states that lack such capability. That’s because the state itself can act to build its own large-scale power plants. New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently directed the state’s power authority to build a new nuclear power plant upstate in order to grow the supply of zero-emissions electricity. Using their state own power authorities, governors in other states — or even the federal government, with an entity like the TVA— could take a similar step.
With all that said, I’ve been trying to come up with a scenario under which these price hikes will not materialize. In the late 2010s, for instance, America’s liquified natural gas exports surged essentially from zero, but domestic consumers didn’t see significant price hikes because drillers increased gas production to match the exports. Maybe that could happen again. And maybe utilities will — and this would, to be clear, be horrible for the climate — run their aging coal plants much more than they once anticipated doing.
Or maybe load growth won’t be as bad as we think. When Jesse and I spoke to Peter Freed, Meta’s former director of energy strategy, for Shift Key, he told us that the current data center boom is different from any previous buildout because of the presence of speculators. For the first time, he said, speculative data center developers are buying up prospective sites and requesting utility-scale hookups with the expectation that they will find a tenant for the data center in the future. In other words, the demand side of the electricity system is filled with an unusual amount of froth at the moment.
We also know that, more generally, the demand side of the power system is a mess. In the past few years, climate analysts have gotten used to talking about the power grid’s interconnection queue — that is, its supply side. But the demand-side queue — the process that lets new data centers, factories, and other new electricity users connect — is even more broken. In some jurisdictions, it’s little more than an Excel file that projects move up and down within as local politics requires.
We also know that one source of new demand — one planned factory or, more often, one data center — will sometimes apply to hook up to multiple states or utilities at the same time. It will get utilities to bid against each other, suss out the best construction sites and power rates, and only relatively late in the process make a final decision about where to build.
So if I were putting together a bear case for electricity demand, I would start here. Maybe aggressive data center speculators are bidding in multiple utilities, driving up projections across many states. That’s causing utilities to freak out about their supply, leading them to project the need for a lot of new investment — and, with it, a lot of electricity rate increases. But as data center speculators actually begin to build (or abandon) projects — and as some of the air inevitably comes out of the AI boom — some of this projected demand will start to evaporate. Perhaps the data centers that do get built will find ways to reduce their power usage, too.
Even this story won’t fully eliminate load growth on its own, though. Data centers make up the largest share of new electricity demand, but even then, they’re not the majority of it. The rest comes from, roughly, new factories, the slow electrification of the vehicle fleet, and new residential construction. But let’s say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act succeeds in hobbling the electric vehicle sector in the United States, many EV and battery factories get canceled, and fewer Americans buy EVs overall. Calculate in a mild recession, too, since all the AI and EV investment will be drying up.
In that world, most new sources of power demand really will be in abeyance. That’s how some of these power projections might not come true. But in most other scenarios, it’s time to hold on — and for blue-state leaders to think about how they can find cheap, zero-emissions electrons, as soon as possible.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob talks to Peter Brannen, author of the new book The Story of CO2 Is the Story of Everything.
How did life first form on Earth? What does entropy have to do with the origins of mammalian life — or the creation of the modern economy? And what chemical process do people, insects, Volkswagens, and coal power plants all share?
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob chats with Peter Brannen, the author of a new history of the planet, The Story of CO2 Is the Story of Everything. The book weaves together a single narrative from the Big Bang to the Permian explosion to the oil-devouring economy of today by means of a single common thread: CO2, the same molecule now threatening our continued flourishing.
Brannen is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author of The Ends of the World, a history of mass extinctions on Earth. He is an affiliate at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: Why do we have a surplus of oxygen in the air in the first place? It was, for me, also something I did not understand at all before I read the book.
Peter Brannen: So there’s this common trope that two out of the next three breaths you have is from phytoplankton the ocean, or a quarter of it is from the Amazon alive today. And there’s a sense in which that’s true because oxygen and CO2 are being exchanged very quickly in the biosphere. But there is something like 800 times more oxygen in the air than can be produced by the entire biosphere. And all of the oxygen that’s produced by the rainforest, say — the rainforest is a living system where everything else is consuming that organic matter and feeding off of it. And it’s kind of a wash — just as much oxygen is created by the trees as is consumed by the bugs and fungi and jaguars and all the things that are living in the rainforest that are feeding off those plants and respiring that plant matter back to things like CO2 and water. So on a net scale it’s a wash.
So that gets you a planet with close to zero oxygen, and instead we have this absurd abundance of this thing that wants to react with everything. And the only way you can do that is if, say, you imagine a tree and when it dies, rather than being decomposed by fungi and beetles and on and on, that tree suddenly gets buried in sediment and falls into the crust and becomes part of the rock record, and the oxygen it made in life is not used in its own destruction. And by shielding that tree in the earth, you leave this surplus of oxygen in the air. And over all of Earth history, as a vanishingly small amount of this organic matter, things like plants and algae, do make it into the rock record, they leave an equivalent gift of oxygen in the air as a surplus.
We are more familiar with plant matter in the crust where it’s economically exploitable — we call those fossil fuels. So in a weird way, the fact that me and you can breathe — I don’t think a lot of people attribute that to the fact that there’s fossil fuels in the ground. Luckily most, you know, quote-unquote fossil fuels are very diffuse in mudstones, and they’re not economically exploitable. And we’re never going to run out of oxygen by burning fossil fuels because, you know, we worry about CO2 going up in parts per million and oxygens in whole percent. So, you know, it is true that for every molecule of CO2 we burn we’re bringing down oxygen by an equivalent amount, it’s just not that concerning.
But yeah, there is this astounding way of reframing, of looking at the world where the plant surface is breathable only because of what’s happened in the rocks beneath it.
Mentioned:
Peter’s book, The Story of CO2 Is the Story of Everything
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Is the “turbine crisis” coming to an end? Or at least the end of the beginning?
One of the few bright spots for renewables this year has been that their main competitor for energy generation, natural gas, has been in a manufacturing crunch. An inability (or unwillingness) to ramp up production of turbines, the core component of a gas-fired power plant, to meet rising energy demand is cited regularly by industry executives and financiers to explain why renewables are the best solution to quickly getting power. And it’s reflected in the data; planned additions to the grid are overwhelmingly solar and storage.
But now there might be more turbines coming. Mitsubishi Heavy Industry chief executive Eisaku Ito told Bloomberg over the weekend that it aims to double its capacity to build gas turbines over the next two years.
The industry is essentially an oligopoly of three suppliers: Mitsubishi, GE Vernova, and Siemens Energy. Due to the high level of capital investment necessary to build turbines, there’s little chance of the triumvirate expanding. This means it’s a seller’s market. Developers describe having to be vetted by their suppliers for a product that might get delivered in five years, instead of suppliers fiercely competing for new business. That means for the turbine crisis to be truly reversed, executives (and investors) at Mitsubishi’s two competitors will have to be convinced that large-scale capacity expansions are worth it.
Something that might help them reach that conclusion is if capacity expansion plans are met with a higher stock price. In another ominous development for the renewable energy industry, Mitsubishi’s stock price went up in response to the news. Renewable developers have enough problems on their hands without having to worry about a gas turbine industry that could supply more and more megawatts over the medium term.
Gas turbine manufacturers have been trying to navigate the tension of fulfilling orders for new gas turbines and avoiding costly investments in new capacity that might not actually be utilized should the AI boom peter out, let alone if public policy makes it much more difficult to build new fossil-powered generation.
Up until now, manufacturers — and their investors — have seemed content with heavy demand and constrained supply. Going into the weekend, the stock prices of the gas turbine industry powerhouses GE Vernova, Siemens, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry had risen 86%, 79%, and 69% so far this year.
But Mitsubishi Heavy Industry’s stock bump on Tuesday indicates that investors are not completely averse to capacity expansion. Yet at the same time, executives across the industry are careful to portray themselves as thoughtful and prudent stewards of capital.
Ito emphasized that the planned capacity expansion would not mean reckless investments, telling Bloomberg “the goal is to be as lean as possible” and that there would be work on the efficiency of the production process to address spiraling costs of turbine manufacturing.
“The executives seem keen to stress that this expansion will be lean and efficient,” Advait Arun, a climate and infrastructure analyst at the Center for Public Enterprise and the author of a much-cited Heatmap article on the turbine shortage, told me. “There’s a tension between getting over their skis by expanding overmuch while also killing the goose that’s laying their golden egg by not expanding.”
The pressure to build is immense — but so is the industry’s hard-won reticence about expansion.
Gas turbine orders are likely to hit a new record this year, according to S&P Global Commodities Insights, and the industry might be unwilling to go further.
“Past boom-and-bust cycles have made the industry cautious in its investments, and turbine demand in the early 2030s is uncertain,” S&P analysts wrote.
Siemens Energy chief executive Christian Bruch had told Morgan Stanley analysts in a note released Tuesday that the company had “no intention” of increasing capacity beyond working to expand the facilities it already has. He also said the company’s constraints are its own supply chain issues, namely the blades and vanes used in the turbines
And GE Vernova has been practically bragging about how far back they have reservations for turbines. “Our pipeline of activity for gas demand is only growing, but it is growing at even more healthy levels for 2029 deliveries, 2030, 2031,” the company’s chief executive Scott Strazik said on an earnings call in July.
And Wall Street has been happy to see developers get in line for whatever turbines can be made from the industry’s existing facilities. But what happens when the pressure to build doesn’t come from customers but from competitors?
A federal appeals court on Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to kill former President Biden’s $20 billion green bank program, which would have provided low-cost loans for solar installations, building efficiency upgrades, and other local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The three-judge panel overturned a lower court’s injunction temporarily requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to resume payments, and ruled that most of the plaintiffs’ claims were contract disputes and belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. If the case now moves to the Court of Federal Claims, the plaintiffs would only be able to sue for damages and any possibility of reinstating the grants would be gone. But they could also petition to appeal the decision.
Congress created the grants, known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as part of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. It authorized Biden’s EPA to award $20 billion to a handful of nonprofits that would then offer financing to individuals and organizations for emission-reduction projects, mostly geared toward low-income or otherwise disadvantaged communities. The agency fully obligated the funds last August to eight nonprofits that would “create a national financing network for clean energy and climate solutions across the country.”
Then Trump took office and ordered his agency heads to pause and review all funding for Inflation Reduction Act programs. EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin targeted the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for termination, making a big show of a covert recording of a former agency employee comparing Biden’s efforts to get climate money out the door after the election to “throwing gold bars off the edge” of the Titanic. Nevermind that this particular program had been fully obligated prior to the election, and recipients had already started to announce investments as early as October.
The nonprofit awardees sued the Trump administration, and the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary injunction on the EPA’s grant terminations in mid-April, mandating that the funds continue to be paid out while the case proceeded. The EPA appealed that injunction, leading to today’s ruling.
In her opinion for the majority, appeals court Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dismissed the nonprofits’ claims that the EPA’s grant terminations were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. She wrote that the dispute was “essentially contractual” and therefore did not belong in the district court to begin with. The nonprofits had also alleged that the EPA violated the constitution's separation of powers in attempting to cancel the grant agreements, as Congress had given explicit direction to the agency to award the funds by September 2024. While Judge Rao allowed that the district court had jurisdiction over this particular claim, she ruled that it was “unlikely to succeed” on the merits.
This decision, if it stands, means the case is basically over, David Super, an administrative law expert at Georgetown Law, told me. The plaintiffs could ask to have it transferred to the Court of Federal Claims if they wish to pursue monetary damages, but that’s likely a losing proposition since Judge Rao — unusually, according to Super — went on to opine that the plaintiffs would have no case there, either.
The plaintiffs could, however, ask for a rehearing by the full D.C. circuit. “Given that this is a very important case, both legally and practically, I think they would have a good chance of getting reheard,” Super said.
There was one other important point in the decision. While this case has been playing out, Congress rescinded any “unobligated” funding — money that hasn’t yet been spent or contracted out — from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as part of Trump’s tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the remaining balance in the fund was just $19 million, essentially the cost of program administration. But the Trump administration has argued in the ongoing court case that the law rescinded the full $20 billion. Judge Rao disagreed, writing that the law “did not render this appeal moot.”
This is the latest in a series of wins for the Trump administration over the termination of grant funding. Last week, the D.C. district court dismissed a challenge brought by nonprofits over the termination of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants, another Inflation Reduction Act program, on the grounds that it belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. The Supreme Court also issued a similar opinion in August regarding grant funding from the National Institutes of Health that was terminated on the grounds of a shift in agency priorities.
The evaporation of $20 billion in clean energy funding is no small loss, but Super said the consequences could also be much more systemic, threatening the viability of federal grantmaking as a tool to stimulate private capital. “If these commitments are utterly unenforceable, then no one's going to do business with the federal government,” he said.