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:
And the 2034 contest will likely be even worse, for different reasons.

Generally speaking, it’s not a roaring sign of success when your sports tournament results in an 11,400-word Wikipedia article titled, “List of 2022 FIFA World Cup Controversies.” Still — not to be deterred by pesky little details like “extreme heat,” “flagrant sportswashing,” or “gross human rights violations” — FIFA has given a satisfied nod to the disaster that was Qatar 2022 and decided to do it all over again.
On Wednesday, FIFA announced that the 2030 World Cup hosting rights will be jointly awarded to three different continents: Europe, in the form of Spain and Portugal; Africa, in the form of Morocco; and South America, where Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay with each host one match at the start of the tournament in celebration of its centennial. The decision also effectively — and suspiciously — clears the way for Saudi Arabia to host the 2034 tournament, since it leaves only Asia and Oceania eligible to make a bid by the deadline later this month (and Asia’s soccer confederation has already conveniently endorsed Saudia Arabia).
Setting aside for a moment the possibility of bringing the tournament back to the Arabian Peninsula only a dozen years after Qatar, the 2030 World Cup decision is also seriously questionable. For one thing, human-driven climate change pushed temperatures in the three main host countries of Spain, Portugal, and Morocco to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in April of this year, with the occurrence of such heatwaves on the rise. A summer tournament in seven years is likely to be sweltering and dangerous for the athletes. (None of the host cities are expected to be safe to even consider for such an event by 2088, one study found).
Fire season also begins on the Iberian Peninsula in June and July, when the tournament is traditionally held. This year, Spain and Portugal experienced their worst wildfires since 2017, when 100 people were killed. It’s conceivable that in 2030, matches will have to be canceled or postponed due to air quality concerns (then again, if this year was any indication, that could also be a problem for the North American World Cup in 2026).
Then there is the fact that the continental trifecta will require “an unprecedented amount of travel across distances and time zones, including 13-hour flights from Buenos Aires to Madrid,” The Associated Press reports. That’s taxing not just on the athletes and fans who decide to make the transatlantic journeys, but also results in unnecessarily wasteful emissions by spreading the tournament across hemispheres, rather than containing it in a smaller region or country where alternate forms of transportation could at least be considered between matches. If it was so important to FIFA that the centennial return home to Uruguay, perhaps it should have just … given South America the hosting responsibilities?
Of course, far more worrying is what the 2030 World Cup locks in: Saudi Arabia as the likeliest 2034 host. The petrostate would face almost all the same criticisms as Qatar, if not worse. The tournament, for example, will almost certainly need to be held in the winter again to avoid exposing athletes and fans to the deadly summer heat; it plays right into the hands of the Kingdom’s multi-billion-dollar sportswashing strategy; it will require new buildings and massive air conditioning capabilities that are inherently environmentally taxing; and it essentially rewards and legitimizes a nation that has largely avoided consequences for its egregious human rights violations because of the power vested in it by its fossil fuel reserves — reserves that, of course, are also responsible for the warming and destruction of our planet.
It’d be almost funny if it weren’t all so shameless. (Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has “built close ties to FIFA president Gianni Infantino in the past six years,” the AP dryly notes). But at least with this sort of lead time, we can get a head start on compiling the Lists of 2030 and 2034 FIFA World Cup Controversies. There’ll be plenty.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A proposed change in how the agency implements an obscure Cold War-era law would impose onerous reporting requirements on renewables and pipelines.
Democrats in Congress claim that a new Trump administration proposal will have a chilling effect on the energy sector by subjecting renewables and fossil fuel pipelines alike to an obscure, rarely cited Cold War-era law requiring detailed information on foreign farmland ownership be submitted to the Agriculture Department.
In late June, the Agriculture Department released a proposal to change implementation of the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978, which requires companies to provide information to the federal government on foreign investors in farmland holdings, acquisitions, and sales. If finalized, the new rule would expand the definition of “agricultural land” in regulation to include all renewable energy facilities and pipeline corridors by explicitly tying the term to those industries’ formal codes under the North American Industry Classification System.
Top Senate Democrats on Monday argued that taken together with expanded investor reporting thresholds and land boundary mapping requirements, this rule change “may exceed what is necessary” to deal with national security issues around farmland ownership.
One of the letter’s signatories, Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, has previously joined the GOP in railing against foreign companies purchasing U.S. farmland as a potential national security concern. And indeed, there certainly exists a broader bipartisan anxiety around Chinese influence on essential industries, e.g. mining and critical minerals. That Fetterman is now joining climate hawks Martin Heinrich and Sheldon Whitehouse in opposing the administration’s move is a striking moment of unity, especially as Fetterman bats away beltway rumors that he’ll flip parties.
The letter demands a briefing from the Agriculture Department that includes the proposal’s “anticipated impacts on the energy, infrastructure, and agricultural sectors,” as well as the legal basis for changing its definition of “agricultural land.”
“[W]e are concerned that USDA’s proposed rule may exceed what is necessary to address those objectives, have unintended national security consequences, and may create substantial compliance burdens on agricultural producers, landowners, infrastructure operators, energy developers, and investors that could undermine efforts to address rising energy and food prices without a corresponding national security benefit,” the letter reads.
As I have previously written, the USDA is an increasingly vital organ in the Trump administration’s war on renewable energy projects, and focusing its laser beam at project development on what it calls “prime” farmland. Trump also recently tapped country music star John Rich to be his “special envoy for American landowners,” which directly led to the USDA working with people fighting solar on farmland in upstate New York.
The Trump change goes after pipelines as well as renewable energy, although logic suggests that solar development could be more vulnerable due to the sheer acreage often required for utility-scale project construction and property setbacks.
The Agriculture Department responded to my request for comment with a statement: “As Secretary [Brooke] Rollins has noted before, the regulations governing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 are extremely outdated and need to be updated to better reflect today’s conditions. USDA looks forward to considering all public comments before finalizing the rule.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include the statement from USDA.
Americans paid $217 on average for electricity last month, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
July is typically the season of high electricity bills, and this year is no exception.
Nationally, the average electricity bill spiked to $217, an all-time high, according to new data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. That’s up from $177 in June, and $215 last July. Meanwhile, electricity rates were 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, virtually unchanged from June and slightly higher than July of last year.
Throughout the country, many ratepayers are seeing higher costs and charges in the portion of their bill covering the cost of power generation.
Once again, some of the most notable electricity price and bill trends were seen in the mid-Atlantic region, the heart of the data center boom and the anchor area of the PJM Interconnection. The region also includes Virginia, where Florida utility and energy developer NextEra is attempting to acquire the commonwealth’s dominant utility, Dominion.
In July, Dominion customers saw typical generation charges rise to $155 a month, up from $124 a year ago. Overall bills for Dominion customers were about $259 this past month.
The higher bills are in part due to the “fuel charge rider” that went into effect this past month to help recover about $1 billion in additional generation costs claimed by the utility. Those charges stem in part from higher fuel costs this past winter, when natural gas prices spiked to their highest level since the winter of 2022-23, Dominion officials said in a filing to the state’s utilities regulator. The MIT researchers estimate that the fuel charge added around $53 to July bills, up $12 from July of last year.
In neighboring Delaware, bills were $216 a month in July, a record high, while prices were around 19 cents per kilowatt-hour. Customers of the state’s main utility, Delmarva Power, saw a near 20% hike in the supply charge in their standard service offerings, as prices rose from around 16 cents per kilowatt-hour from last year.
The Delaware Public Service Commission voted at the beginning of last month to allow an interim rate increase of about $3 per month for the typical customer, which went into effect July 9. Soon after, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed a law giving the state’s regulators more discretion to reject putting certain utility costs into the rate base and thus limit subsequent price hikes requested by utilities. The governor’s office described the law as a mechanism “to prioritize prudent spending over unchecked cost recovery.”
The energy developer is backing off after a Heatmap report.
Clearway says it is backing off its plans to build a data center and gas power plant on federal land, days after Heatmap revealed the energy developer’s proposal.
Last week, I reported that Clearway asked the Trump administration’s Bureau of Land Management to swap a five year-old application for a solar farm’s permits with “a proposed data center and natural gas facility.” Clearway’s chief development officer John Woody had written in a letter to BLM dated April 3 that the swap was “the result of a shift in our internal development priorities” and intended “to better align with the goals of our Administration.” He also noted the plans were in “exploratory early stages.”
This news fit a trend. I obtained Clearway’s letter right after reporting on a different solar project on federal land that was being swapped for a data center. But it turns out, the company’s internal thinking continued to shift: on Friday, they reached out to me saying they are now nixing the data center and gas plant, after concluding it wasn’t the right call for their business.
“Since our initial filing, we’ve evaluated how to make the best use of this public land in a way that serves its intended purpose: the public interest. As a clean energy developer and operator, our focus in Nevada remains solar and battery storage,” Clearway said in a statement it provided to me from an unnamed spokesperson. “We are in the process of amending our application to reflect the state’s growing demand for low-cost, reliable energy.”
In addition, Clearway on Monday sent a letter to BLM formally alerting the agency it has no plans to build the data center, which it also provided to me.
When I first broke news of Clearway’s plans, I said it was an apparent aberration – they oversaw relatively few fossil projects and had never worked in data centers. I chalked this pivot up to yet another energy developer changing its tune with the winds of national politics. Now that the company is apparently sticking to its guns, I’m mostly just left wondering what happened here – and relieved some still remain committed to zero-emissions power in the booming business of electrons.