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:
Home to two million people, the Gaza Strip sits squeezed between Israel and the Mediterranean Sea on a bit of land just twice the size of Washington, D.C. Gaza is the smaller part of Palestine’s two territories; you could walk the length of its southern border with Egypt in under three hours. But land is not the only thing that’s long been in short supply in Gaza. As the war between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules the region, has made clear, Gaza is also increasingly bereft of water.
Over the course of the tragic war, water infrastructure has played an unprecedented role. In the aftermath of Hamas’s massacre and kidnapping of Israeli civilians on October 7, the Israeli government took measures to halt drinking water — as well as aid, food, and electricity — from entering the Strip. First, on October 9, Israel shut off the pipelines that usually send water into Gaza and halted deliveries by truck. And while it turned back on some of the pipelines on October 15, it didn’t restart the electricity or the fuel shipments that power Gaza’s desalination and wastewater treatment plants.
Yet these harsh measures in recent weeks belie a much longer-term problem, as a deeper dive into the region’s infrastructure reveals. Palestinians in Gaza have not had access to safe or ample drinking water for decades.
“The water crisis that Gaza is facing is a chronic crisis,” Dr. Shaddad Attili, the former Palestinian minister of water and head of the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) from 2008 to 2014, told me. “But now water is being used as a weapon. If they don’t get killed by missiles, they will die from the contaminated water that they’re using.”
The Israeli Defense Forces, the water authority in the West Bank, and COGAT, the Israeli body responsible for the government activities in the Palestinian territories, all did not reply to requests for comment by the time of publication.
There are three natural water resources that run through Israel and Palestine: the Jordan River Basin on the eastern border; the Mountain Aquifer, which runs directly through the West Bank; and the Coastal Aquifer, on which Israel is upstream and Gaza is downstream. The majority of the water comes from these three sources, but since the region is a desert geography, water is generally in short supply.
Israel acquired control over all the water that runs through the Israeli and Palestinian territories in the Six-Day War in 1967 when it seized the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights in the north from Syria. In November of that year, Israel introduced a military order stating that Palestinians could not construct any new water infrastructure without first obtaining a permit from the Israeli army. Israel gave, and continues to give, these permits sparingly.
Today, the water discrepancy is striking. While there are eight times more Palestinians living in the West Bank than Israeli settlers, 70% of the water output is given to the settlements, where it is largely used for farming, according to an April 2023 report on the West Bank’s water deprivation by the Israeli humanitarian organization, B’Tselem.
During the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990s, the West Bank won some rights to run their own pumping stations in select parts of the territory. Today, they still need to earn permits from the Israeli military in order to build new pumping stations. Gaza used to pump their water from the Coastal Aquifer, but developments over the past 30 years have made that water inaccessible.
Prior to this war, the water situation in Gaza was already dire. The World Health Organization said that Gaza’s water supply was unable to meet the minimum requirement for daily per capita water consumption.
Gaza has some unregulated pumping stations that pull water up from the aquifer, but they’re not a major cause of the problem. The Coastal Aquifer extends from a town called Binyamina in Northern Israel to the Sinai Desert in Egypt. Just 2% of the total aquifer passes through Gaza. Through the late 1990s, it supplied drinkable tap water to most of Gaza’s residents. While it historically has provided 95% of their freshwater, it’s unusable now for a few reasons.
First, Gaza’s population growth rate is among the highest in the world, with almost half of the population under 18 years old in 2022. High population growth means the already scarce groundwater can no longer replenish fast enough to meet demand.
But there are deeper problems with the water’s quality. Seawater seeps into the aquifer since it’s so close to the coast and untreated wastewater has polluted the aquifer for decades to a point that it’s no longer safe to drink. In 2020, a study in the journal Water said that the quality of groundwater in the Coastal Aquifer had “deteriorated rapidly,” largely due to Israeli pumping.
“At least 95% of the freshwater (from the aquifer) is either inaccessible or not drinkable,” said Jordan Fischbach, director of planning and policy research at The Water Institute and author of a report on the public health impacts of Gaza’s water crisis in 2018.
As a result, the Coastal Aquifer — the primary source of Gaza’s water — is essentially out of commission. Residents of Gaza are now left with only about 20% of their needs filled.
But those sources have also proven to be unreliable.
The first are the pipelines, which were built with funding from international humanitarian aid. The pipelines run from Israel-controlled fresh aquifers and the water is paid for by the Palestinian National Authority (PA) in the West Bank. These are the pipelines that Israel stopped sending water from following Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians.
But even in the best of times, the pipelines only supply around 10% of the water demand in Gaza. Attili from the Palestinian National Authority said that the water is combined with some of the unsafe brackish water in order to increase volume.
The second source of water are small-scale desalination plants, which turn seawater into potable water, but they rely on electricity to run.
Usually they provide another 10% of Gaza’s water, but when Israel halted the importation of fuel and shut down electricity transmission into Gaza, these plants stopped running too.
However, even when electricity and fuel are available, over one-third of plants are not monitored, maintained, or officially regulated. “A number of construction materials, fuel and other things you would need to build and power drinking and wastewater facilities are considered ‘dual use.’” said Fischbach, meaning they could also be used to build weapons. “These are types of materials that are restricted by both Egyptian and Israeli authorities.”
A 2021 study showed that 79% of desalination plants are unlicensed and 12% of water samples tested showed dangerous contamination levels.
“Desalination is necessary to get anything even close to drinking water quality and only a fraction of [desalination plants] are actually licensed and monitored” said Fischbach. “Many of them are producing water that we would still consider below drinking water quality.”
He added that most of them don’t run to their capacity anyways because they are so energy intensive and Gaza doesn’t have enough electricity.
Gaza also gets water from water trucks controlled by humanitarian aid or delivered by the Palestinian National Authority. This water passes directly through Israeli land, which means Israel was able to easily halt deliveries in the wake of the Hamas attacks.
In recent weeks, some residents of Gaza have resorted to drinking sea water or brackish water directly from the Coastal Aquifer. Not only are these not sources of freshwater, they are also further polluted by untreated sewage running through the region.
Israel’s decision to cut electricity to Gaza also meant that the wastewater treatment plants can’t run. Treated wastewater is used for showering and other sanitation uses. But when it’s not processed through a plant, wastewater runs into the aquifer and groundwater, further polluting what’s left of their drinking sources.
While the situation is worse due to the lack of electricity from the war, Gaza has never had ample wastewater treatment plants.
“For two decades now Palestinians have been prevented from building and maintaining the infrastructures that keep wastewater out of the aquifer,” says Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins, a cultural anthropologist and professor at Bard College. She is the author of Waste Siege: the Life and Infrastructure of Palestine.
In the West Bank, the aquifer is deep, carrying around 340 million cubic meters of water every year, so wastewater that has been somewhat treated can be further cleaned by soil and rock as it seeps through the aquifer. But Gaza’s aquifer is very shallow — its estimated to carry only about 55 million cubic meters per year —, and therefore cannot clean the water. Instead, it needs extensive infrastructure.
“In Gaza, you would need an incredibly high sophistication of technology to permit the wastewater to go safely into the ground,” says Stamatopoulou-Robbins. “Even the kind of concrete containers that would hold wastewater are not permitted to be maintained or built.”
In addition to the plants themselves, you would need piping to connect buildings to the wastewater treatment plants, she adds. “So all of the conveyance technology and infrastructure which is expensive anywhere in the world, all of that is subject to Israeli controls and tends to be prevented.”
As is the case with desalination plants, neither Israel nor Egypt allows the necessary materials into Gaza for building wastewater treatment plants because those materials are also considered dual-use materials.
Even as Israel turned the water and electricity back on, there are questions around how many of these desalination and wastewater treatment plants have been bombed and are no longer running.
As far as logistically turning off these resources, it’s fairly straightforward. “The ability to shut off electricity transmission is quite easy,” said Fischbach. “It’s just flipping a switch — the same way with a rolling blackout. Fuel imports are also easy. Nothing is going into Gaza. As far as drinking water lines, you can just not pump that water. So the logistics are easy.”
Several reports of hygiene related diseases spreading through cramped spaces are surfacing in recent days. Doctors in Gaza are saying that patients are showing signs of disease caused by overcrowding and poor sanitation. Children are suffering from diarrhea, lung infections, and rashes.
“The desalination plants are out of service because there’s no electricity, the sewage treatment plants are out of service because there is no electricity. And because our people now take refuge in shelters, there is a hygiene problem,” said Attili. “I have gone to so many conferences where we say water is a tool for cooperation, not conflict, and they all agree, but now the international community remains silent.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The Environmental Protection Agency just unveiled its argument against regulating greenhouse emissions from power plants.
In federal policymaking, the weight of the law can rest on a single word. When it comes to reducing planet-warming emissions from the power sector, that word is “significantly.” The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate any stationary source of emissions that “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
The EPA has considered power plants a significant source of dangerous greenhouse gases since 2015. But today, Trump’s EPA said, actually, never mind.
A proposed rule published in the Federal Register on Wednesday argues that U.S. fossil fuel-fired power plants make up “a small and decreasing part of global emissions” and therefore are not significant, and do not require regulation under the law. The rule would repeal all greenhouse gas emission standards for new and existing power plants — both the standards the Biden administration finalized last year, which have been tied up in court, as well as the standards that preceded them, which were enacted by Obama in 2015.
In a separate proposal, the EPA also took steps to repeal limits on mercury and hazardous air pollutants from coal plants that were enacted last year, reverting the standard back to one set in 2012.
The argument that U.S. power plants make up a small sliver of global emissions and thus aren’t worth addressing is like having “a five-alarm fire that could be put out if you send out all the trucks, and you don’t send any of the trucks because no one truck could put the fire out by itself,” David Doniger, a senior attorney and strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “We just think that is a wacky reversal and a wacky interpretation of the Clean Air Act.”
When you add up every plug, power button, and light switch across the country, electricity usage produces 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year. Over the past 30 years, American power plants have contributed about 5% of the total climate pollution spewed into the atmosphere worldwide.
In the global context, that may sound small. But in a recent report titled “The Scale of Significance," New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity estimated that if U.S. power plants were a country, it would be the sixth biggest emitter in the world, behind China, the European Union, India, Russia, and the remainder of U.S. emissions. The report also notes that U.S. actions on emissions make other countries more likely to follow, due to technological spillovers that reduce the cost of decarbonization globally.
In addition to the significance finding, the EPA gave two other reasons for repealing the power plant rules. It argued that “cost-effective control measures are not reasonably available,” meaning there’s no economic way to reduce emissions at the source. It also said the new administration’s priority “is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.”
The first argument is an attempt to say that Biden’s standards flouted the law. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could not simply tell states to reduce emissions from the power sector, which is what the Obama administration had initially tried to do. Instead, the agency would have to develop standards that could be applied on a plant-by-plant basis — so long as those rules were “cost-reasonable” and “adequately demonstrated.”
To comply with that ruling, Biden’s EPA based its standards on the potential to install carbon capture technology that can reduce flue gas emissions by 90%. The regulations would have required existing coal plants to install carbon capture by 2039, or else shut down. (To the chagrin of many energy system observers, the administration chose not to apply limits to existing gas-fired power plants.) But while fossil fuel companies and utilities had, in the past, asserted that carbon capture was viable, they deemed the standards impossible to meet.
Trump’s EPA is now agreeing. “In 2024,” Zeldin said on Wednesday, “rules were enacted seeking to suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment, to make all sorts of industries including coal and more disappear, regulate them out of existence.”
When Trump moved to overturn Obama’s power plant regulations during his first term, his EPA did not contest the significance of the sector’s emissions, and simply enacted a weaker standard. A week before he left office, the agency also finalized a rule that set the threshold for “significance” at 3% of U.S. emissions — which exempted major polluters like refineries, but still applied to power plants.
This time, Trump has a new apparent game plan: Strip the Clean Air Act of its jurisdiction over greenhouse gases altogether. Today’s action was the first step; EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has said the agency will similarly “reconsider” emissions rules for cars and oil and gas drilling. But the cornerstone of the plan is to reverse what’s known as the “endangerment finding” — the 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases present a threat to public health and welfare, and therefore are one of the pollutants EPA must address under the Clean Air Act.
“The Trump administration is trying to say, don’t worry about the Clean Air Act. It will never apply, so you can go back to your old ways,” said Doniger. But if the argument that power plant emissions are insignificant is a stretch, appraising greenhouse gas emissions as benign is inconceivable, he said. “The endangerment finding was based, in 2009, on a Denali-sized mountain of evidence. Since then, it’s grown to Everest-size, so there’s no way that they would be able to put together a rational record saying the science is wrong.”
These highly technical questions of whether emissions are “significant” or whether carbon capture is “adequately demonstrated” could soon be determined by a group of people who lack both the expertise to answer them and the inclination to wade through thousands of pages of atmospheric science and chemical engineering documents: judges.
Last year, the Supreme Court overturned a long-held precedent known as Chevron deference. That ruling means that the courts are no longer required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of statute — judges must make their own determinations of whether agencies are following the intent of the law.
When environmental groups begin challenging the EPA’s repeals in court, judges are “going to be bombarded with the need to make these highly technical, nuanced decisions,” Michael Wara, a lawyer and scholar focused on climate and energy policy at Stanford University, told me. He said the reason Chevron deference was established in the first place is that judges didn’t want to be making engineering decisions about power plants. “They felt extremely uncomfortable having to make these calls.”
The conservative Supreme Court overturned the precedent because of a sense that political decisions were being dressed up in scientific reasoning. But Wara doesn’t think the courts are going to like being put back into the role of weighing technical minutia and making engineering decisions.
“It’s a past that the courts didn’t like and they tried to engineer a way out of via the Chevron doctrine,” he said. “I would expect that we’re going to see a drift back toward a doctrine that looks a little bit more Chevron-like, maybe less deference to agencies. But it’s hard to predict in the current environment what’s going to happen.”
Look more closely at today’s inflation figures and you’ll see it.
Inflation is slowing, but electricity bills are rising. While the below-expectations inflation figure reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Wednesday morning — the consumer price index rose by just 0.1% in May, and 2.4% on the year — has been eagerly claimed by the Trump administration as a victory over inflation, a looming increase in electricity costs could complicate that story.
Consumer electricity prices rose 0.9% in May, and are up 4.5% in the past year. And it’s quite likely price increases will accelerate through the summer, thanks to America’s largest electricity market, PJM Interconnection. Significant hikes are expected or are already happening in many PJM states, including Maryland,New Jersey,Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with some utilities having said they would raise rates as soon as this month.
This has led to scrambling by state governments, with New Jersey announcing hundreds of millions of dollars of relief to alleviate rate increases as high as 20%. Maryland convinced one utility to spread out the increase over a few months.
While the dysfunctions of PJM are distinct and well known — new capacity additions have not matched fossil fuel retirements, leading to skyrocketing payments for those generators that can promise to be on in time of need — the overall supply and demand dynamics of the electricity industry could lead to a broader price squeeze.
“Trump and JD Vance can get off tweets about how there’s no inflation, but I don’t think they’ll feel that way in a week or two,” Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America, told me.
And while the consumer price index is made up of, well, almost everything people buy, electricity price increases can have a broad effect on prices in general. “Everyone relies on energy,” Amarnath said. “Businesses that have higher costs can’t just eat it.” That means higher electricity prices may be translated into higher costs throughout the economy, a phenomenon known as “cost-push inflation.”
Aside from the particular dynamics of any one electricity market, there’s likely to be pressure on electricity prices across the country from the increased demand for energy from computing and factories. “There’s a big supply adjustment that’s going to have to happen, the data center demand dynamic is coming to roost,” Amarnath said.
Jefferies Chief U.S. Economist Thomas Simons said as much in a note to clients Wednesday. “Increased stress on the electrical grid from AI data centers, electric vehicle charging, and obligations to fund infrastructure and greenification projects have forced utilities to increase prices,” he wrote.
Of course, there’s also great uncertainty about the future path of electricity policy — namely, what happens to the Inflation Reduction Act — and what that means for prices.
The research group Energy Innovation has modeled the House reconciliation bill’s impact on the economy and the energy industry. The report finds that the bill “would dramatically slow deployment of new electricity generating capacity at a time of rapidly growing electricity demand.” That would result in higher electricity and energy prices across the board, with increases in household energy spending of around $150 per year in 2030, and more than $260 per year in 2035, due in part to a 6% increase in electricity prices by 2035.
In the near term, there’s likely not much policymakers can do about electricity prices, and therefore utility bills going up. Renewables are almost certainly the fastest way to get new electrons on the grid, but the completion of even existing projects could be thrown into doubt by the House bill’s strict “foreign entity of concern” rules, which try to extricate the renewables industry from its relationship with China.
“We’re running into a set of cost-push dynamics. It’s a hairy problem that no one is really wrapping their heads around,” Amarnath said. “It’s not really mainstream yet. It’s going to be.”
In some relief to American consumers, if not the planet, while it may be more expensive for them to cool their homes, it will be less expensive to get out of them: Gasoline prices fell 2.5% in May, according to the BLS, and are down 12% on the year.
Six months in, federal agencies are still refusing to grant crucial permits to wind developers.
Federal agencies are still refusing to process permit applications for onshore wind energy facilities nearly six months into the Trump administration, putting billions in energy infrastructure investments at risk.
On Trump’s first day in office, he issued two executive orders threatening the wind energy industry – one halting solar and wind approvals for 60 days and another commanding agencies to “not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases or loans” for all wind projects until the completion of a new governmental review of the entire industry. As we were first to report, the solar pause was lifted in March and multiple solar projects have since been approved by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, I learned in March that at least some transmission for wind farms sited on private lands may have a shot at getting federal permits, so it was unclear if some arms of the government might let wind projects proceed.
However, I have learned that the wind industry’s worst fears are indeed coming to pass. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for approving any activity impacting endangered birds, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with greenlighting construction in federal wetlands, have simply stopped processing wind project permit applications after Trump’s orders – and the freeze appears immovable, unless something changes.
According to filings submitted to federal court Monday under penalty of perjury by Alliance for Clean Energy New York, at least three wind projects in the Empire State – Terra-Gen’s Prattsburgh Wind, Invenergy’s Canisteo Wind, and Apex’s Heritage Wind – have been unable to get the Army Corps or Fish and Wildlife Service to continue processing their permitting applications. In the filings, ACE NY states that land-based wind projects “cannot simply be put on a shelf for a few years until such time as the federal government may choose to resume permit review and issuance,” because “land leases expire, local permits and agreements expire, and as a result, the project must be terminated.”
While ACE NY’s filings discuss only these projects in New York, they describe the impacts as indicative of the national industry’s experience, and ACE NY’s executive director Marguerite Wells told me it is her understanding “that this is happening nationwide.”
“I can confirm that developers have conveyed to me that [the] Army Corps has stopped processing their applications specifically citing the wind ban,” Wells wrote in an email. “As I have understood it, the initial freeze covered both wind and solar projects, but the freeze was lifted for solar projects and not for wind projects.”
Lots of attention has been paid to Trump’s attacks on offshore wind, because those projects are sited entirely in federal waters. But while wind projects sited on private lands can hypothetically escape a federal review and keep sailing on through to operation, wind turbines are just so large in size that it’s hard to imagine that bird protection laws can’t apply to most of them. And that doesn’t account for wetlands, which seem to be now bedeviling multiple wind developers.
This means there’s an enormous economic risk in a six-month permitting pause, beyond impacts to future energy generation. The ACE NY filings state the impacts to New York alone represent more than $2 billion in capital investments, just in the land-based wind project pipeline, and there’s significant reason to believe other states are also experiencing similar risks. In a legal filing submitted by Democratic states challenging the executive order targeting wind, attorneys general listed at least three wind projects in Arizona – RWE’s Forged Ethic, AES’s West Camp, and Repsol’s Lava Run – as examples that may require approval from the federal government under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As I’ve previously written, this is the same law that bird conservation advocates in Wyoming want Trump to use to reject wind proposals in their state, too.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers declined to comment after this story’s publication due to litigation on the matter. I also reached out to the developers involved in these projects to inquire about their commitments to these projects in light of the permitting pause. We’ll let you know if we hear back from them.