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:
Newsom signed over a dozen climate-related bills this weekend, but these stood out.

California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, signed more than a dozen climate and clean energy-related bills into law on Saturday. As the Golden State is one of the nation’s most important labs for climate policy, there were three developments in particular that I think will be interesting to keep an eye on as they progress over the next few years.
First, and probably most relevant on a national level, Newsom put his signature on two bills that will require large businesses to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions as well as any risks to their business due to climate change. I wrote about these bills a month ago when they were up for a vote in the state Assembly. They mirror similar policies under consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission that could soon be adopted at the federal level, but go further because they apply to private companies in addition to publicly-traded firms.
The new laws were sold as a measure to help investors understand how exposed different companies are to future carbon regulations or climate change risks, but they could also go a long way to standardize the reporting of corporate emissions data. That data could help activist groups hold companies accountable for their climate promises and help consumers compare the sustainability efforts of different brands. The next step will be for the California Air Resources Board to develop rules for the new disclosure system by 2025, with reporting to begin in 2026. I’ll be following that rulemaking process closely, as it’s likely to bring up ongoing debates about how companies should account for emissions from indirect sources, like their purchased electricity and supply chains, as well as how to account for carbon offsets.
The second development is a set of laws that are designed to help California overcome major obstacles for its inchoate offshore wind industry. Almost a year ago, the federal government auctioned off the first-ever leases to develop offshore wind in the Pacific, selling five parcels in total. California sees offshore wind as an essential component of its climate goals, as it has the potential to generate power at night when the state’s abundant solar resources disappear. But because the continental shelf drops off abruptly just a few miles from the California shore, plunging thousands of feet, the turbines will have to be built on floating platforms — a much more expensive proposition than the wind projects under development on the East Coast, which are already threatened by cost overruns.
These will be big, risky, projects, and developers need certainty that there will be a buyer for the energy at the end of the road. But it would be hard for a traditional utility to make that kind of commitment at this point, Molly Croll, the director of Pacific offshore wind at the trade group American Clean Power, told Canary Media last month. “It’s new technology,” she said. “It requires some new infrastructure; it requires a contract signed much longer in advance of commercial operation than typical renewable projects require.”
Under the new legislation, California will set up a central procurement program, tasking the Department of Water Resources, which owns and operates hydroelectric power plants in the state, to enter into long-term energy purchase agreements with wind developers. This is similar to programs in place in the northeast, like the New York State Energy and Research Development Agency’s offshore wind solicitation program. Notably, the department will also have the authority to enter into similar contracts with other expensive, risky, but potentially game-changing clean electricity projects like geothermal power plants and energy storage facilities. Meanwhile, a second bill that Newsom signed will get the ball rolling for the state to develop strategies to upgrade its port infrastructure to support the new industry.
The third development is interesting mainly because it’s one of those ideas that sounds so obvious that after you hear it, you can’t believe it’s not already a thing. The new law will enable the state to make use of the tens of thousands of miles of land it owns alongside highways for clean energy development. It instructs the California Department of Transportation to develop a plan to lease the land to utilities or other entities to build solar, storage, and transmission projects.
A recent analysis commissioned by the nonprofit advocacy group Environment California found that just three counties in southern California — Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Diego — together have 4,800 acres of suitable space for roadside solar development, which, if filled with panels, could power more than 270,000 homes. The group Environment California also points out that this could be a way to generate revenue for the state through lease fees and energy sales.
Land use for solar is contentious, especially in California, and putting as much as possible in the rights-of-way alongside highways could avoid battles over the use of undeveloped or agricultural land.
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.