You’ve reached your free article limit
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 was always a fantasy to think that the Senate Committee on the Budget’s hearing on oil disinformation would actually be about oil disinformation. It was still shocking, though, how far off the rails things ran.
The hearing concerned a report released Tuesday by the committee along with Democrats in the House documenting “the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.” This builds on the already extensive literature documenting the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate dissemination of lies about climate change and its role in causing it, including the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt and a 2015 Pulitzer Prize-nominated series from Inside Climate News on Exxon’s climate denial PR machine. But more, of course, is more.
The new stuff in the joint congressional report includes evidence that fossil fuel companies accepted the validity of climate research internally while publicly attacking it, and that they hailed technologies like carbon capture and algae-based fuels while privately doubting they would ever achieve meaningful scale. The report also details how all six entities it investigated — fossil fuel companies Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP, plus the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — slow-walked the investigation, providing redacted documents in response to subpoenas and withholding others altogether.
“If the companies had fully complied in good faith,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the House committee’s ranking Democrat, in his prepared remarks, “who knows what else we might have uncovered?”
The thing about these kinds of political exercises is that, well, they’re political. While there is indisputable value in investigating and recording the industry’s misdeeds, a congressional hearing is no venue for the earnest pursuit of truth.
The various members of the Senate Budget Committee took turns yanking Raskin off-message — and that included the Democrats. Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, went into full denial mode, speaking of “climate change alarmism” and concluding that “there’s literally nothing we can do about this other than adapt.” When Sen. Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, had his turn, however, he subjected Raskin to volleys of questions about forest fires and plastics, neither of which were a subject of the (to be clear, extensive) committee report.
My personal favorite moment in the hearing came after the break, when Raskin gave way to a panel of energy policy and disinformation experts including Sharon Eubanks, who led the Department of Justice case against Big Tobacco. In her opening statement, Eubanks stated plainly and clearly an idea she and others (both outside and inside the federal government) have been propounding for years.
“The similarities between the conduct of the tobacco industry and the petroleum industry form a solid and appropriate basis for investigating the petroleum industry,” she read into the congressional record. “Furthermore, we should not waste any more time wringing our hands about what can be done. There exists solid evidentiary basis to move forward with a request to the Department of Justice to investigate the actions of the fossil fuel industry.”
But that’s not even the good part.
Sen. Bernie Sanders was midway through a line of questioning about how such a prosecution might go down when he stumbled a bit asking about the damages paid in the tobacco case. “I don’t remember exactly what the settlement for tobacco was — it was huge,” he said, when Eubanks cut in.
"It wasn’t a settlement. I won,” she told Sanders. “The companies were forced to change the way they do business." And that, she went on to say, is the point of all this — not extracting money, although that’s nice too, but rather to force companies to operate in a more open and honest fashion.
The companies, for their part, are unsurprisingly unruffled by this latest demonstration of their deceitful behavior. “These are tired allegations that have already been publicly addressed through previous Congressional hearings on the same topic and litigation in the courts,” an Exxon spokesperson told Bloomberg yesterday. “As we have said time and time again, climate change is real.”
In one thing, at least, Exxon isn’t wrong: These allegations are tired. I myself am not a lawyer, of course, but it might be time to listen to Eubanks. She seems to know what she’s talking about.
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 additional clean capacity would represent nearly 3% of North America’s existing total.
North America has about 37.5 gigawatts of total virtual power plant capacity, according to energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie’s latest estimate, published last year. That capacity is spread across roughly 2,000 VPPs, which aggregate distributed energy resources like batteries, smart thermostats, and heat pumps to cut, shift, or supply electricity when the grid is under strain — effectively turning them into a single, coordinated power plant.
On Thursday, Google and VPP operator Voltus announced plans to add another 1 gigawatt of clean capacity over the next three or four years — or nearly 3% of North America’s existing total. Under Voltus’ “bring your own capacity” model, Google will fund the VPP to help meet its booming data center power needs, while Voltus will enroll businesses and households across the PJM Interconnection, the notoriously overstrained grid region spanning parts of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, compensating them for their participation either directly or through electricity bill credits.
The announcement expands on a three-year, 100-megawatt deal the two companies signed in June, extending their commitment through 2040. Voltus CEO Dana Guernsey told me that the smaller deal gave the companies a starting point for a much more ambitious partnership. “It’s a lot easier to explain to people how you’re going to 10x if you’ve already 1x, and so we had to start somewhere,” she said. “We always had our eyes set on bigger things.”
Earlier this month, Voltus closed an oversubscribed $225 million Series D round led by Generation Investment Management to scale its VPP portfolio to 20 gigawatts by 2030. The first phase of the Google partnership is also oversubscribed, Guernsey told me. While that flexible power won’t come online until next year, this means Voltus has already lined up over 100 megawatts of accredited capacity that PJM can count on to deliver when needed, much as it would a natural gas plant or solar-plus-storage installation.
In the meantime, the VPP operator says its broader PJM portfolio has already demonstrated what it can do. Last week, an unseasonably warm stretch of fall weather required PJM to activate its Emergency Load Response Program twice. With 46 gigawatts of generation offline for planned maintenance or construction and another 15 gigawatts unexpectedly unavailable, “distributed resources came through,” Guernsey posted on LinkedIn. “This is how a modern grid should work.” Based on preliminary data, she told me that Voltus delivered about 105% of its committed load reduction during the events.
And VPPs can do more than help avert emergencies. Grid operators are increasingly calling on distributed resources for routine grid management too, such as to ease daily price spikes, reduce emissions when the sun or wind isn’t available, or relieve congestion on a local line. “It’s nearly constant. I think soon we’ll be able to say it’s like every hour,” Guernsey told me.
So far this year, Voltus has reduced electricity demand in PJM by more than 200 gigawatt-hours. Now the company plans to lean more heavily on batteries, particularly at commercial and industrial sites, to accelerate its growth. Guernsey told me that with battery costs falling, electricity prices rising, and fixed payments to participants through 2040, the math now works to deploy batteries at scale, without exposure to unpredictable wholesale electricity prices.
She’s betting that other hyperscalers will see the value in large-scale battery deployments too. Most of the buzz today has revolved around hyperscalers bringing their own generation online — both to secure power faster and head off community opposition by paying their own way. Thus far, Google is the only hyperscaler committed to bringing its own distributed capacity through a VPP. But getting the big players to embrace these new “bring your own capacity” contracts, which Voltus launched last September, is central to its growth strategy.
Guernsey has likened these novel capacity contracts to the corporate renewable power purchase agreements that Google also helped pioneer in the early 2010s. Now she sees a similar opportunity for VPPs to move from a promising concept to a mainstream procurement tool.
“There’s been this notion that we’re coming up on an inflection point for a very long time,” she said of the VPP market. “And I want to be able to say we came up on the inflection point, we went past it, and now we are scaling. And this is an awesome proof point.”
The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate by a quarter point, the central bank announced Wednesday afternoon, its first rate change since Chairman Kevin Warsh took his seat in May and its first rate hike in over three years.
The federal funds rate will now sit between 3.75% and 4%. According to projections by regional Federal Reserve presidents and members of the Board of Governors, the central bank expects to hike rates one more time this year.
In its now characteristically brief statements, the Federal Open Market Committee said that the hike “will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2 percent goal” for inflation. Inflation is currently running at 3.4% and has been above the Fed’s 2% target since 2021.
The FOMC’s (brief) statement explaining the hike pointed to “resilient” domestic spending and “robust” capital investment. It characterized the economy as “expanding at a solid pace,” albeit with “elevated” uncertainty due to “geopolitical developments.”
This combination of factors — high oil prices due to the partial shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and high investment in data centers — have helped push up yields on Treasury bonds, which helped maneuver the Federal Reserve into its rate hike. These rising Treasury yields have made raising capital more difficult for sectors besides artificial intelligence, very much including the capital-intensive renewable and clean energy industries.
Warsh attributed higher Treasury yields to “economic strength, competition for capital, and geopolitics,” in his press conference following the rate announcement. The yield on the 10-year treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of money throughout the economy, rose to over 5% on the news, the highest level since 2007.
The August Electricity Price Hub data is in.
It’s another hot and expensive summer.
Across the country, average household electricity bills are up 2.7% in the first eight months of the year, according to the latest update to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, tacking on $4 per month to the typical bill. This level of rise is consistent with the pace set in 2024 and 2025, but faster than 2021 and 2023.
As we’ve discussed before, some of the fastest growth in prices comes either in the Atlantic Seaboard — with Washington, D.C., Virginia, and New Jersey all having year over year growth rates of at least 7.5% — thanks largely to increased demand and capacity payments in the PJM Interconnection marketplace. Another standout so far this year is Hawaii, which is uniquely dependent on imported oil to power its grid and has seen its 12-month trailing average prices rise by over 8% so far this year.
California, which is well known for seeing especially sharp price increases in recent years largely due to wildfire-related costs, has seen somewhat restrained bill growth so far this year across the state, with the 12-month-rolling average bill rising just 3% in the past 12 months and prices going up 4%. (That price level is still quite high, however, at almost 32 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to a national average of around 19.)
Rates charged by Southern California Edison, one of the state’s big three investor-owned utilities, are up almost 15% in the past year, averaged across its baseline regions. The MIT researchers attribute this increase to two major factors: one, a decrease in the California Climate Credit, which is paid out to electricity customers from the state’s emissions cap-and-invest program. This year, the credit for Southern California Edison ratepayers is $72, applied to bills in July and August in tranches of $36. Last year, by contrast, Southern California Edison handed out $112 in two tranches, April and October.
The second factor in Southern California Edison’s inflated bills is an increase in the fixed charge portion of the bills ratepayers receive. Following changes in California state law designed to distribute the cost of the grid more equitably, SCE revamped its rate structure at the end of last year to include a “Base Services Charge” of $24 per month for customers not enrolled in any special rate program. At the same time, SCE instituted a roughly 10% decrease in its per-kilowatt-hour electricity rate in order to protect lower-income ratepayers (who would pay a fixed charge substantially lower than the baseline $24). PG&E moved to a similar system earlier this year.
When it introduced the new rates in November of last year, SCE said that “medium energy users” would likely see little change in their bills. Price Hub data suggests, however, that the typical household has seen a bill increase from the new service charge of 13%, even before accounting for the smaller climate credit.