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:
Wealth bias shows up in the strangest places — including, according to new research, PurpleAir sensor data.
Everyone loves a public good, and one of the classic examples is clean air. When I breathe in clean air, no one else gets any less of it, and you can’t exclude people from enjoying it.
But how do we know whether the air we’re breathing is clean? And is that information a public good?
A team of economists from universities across the U.S. published some answers to those questions this week in a working paper via the National Bureau of Economic Research.
As their research subject, the economists looked at PurpleAir, which promises more localized and frequently updated air quality readings beyond what the Environmental Protection Agency can provide. Once purchased (for a price of $229 to $339, depending on the model) and installed, the censors report their air quality readings to a map that anyone can access. The company’s sales took off in 2020 after the epochal wildfires up and down the West Coast.
The study considered air quality readings from PurpleAir monitors in California from 2019 to 2021, including the fires and the consumer response to them. Then the researchers matched those readings with census tracts and the demographic information associated with them.
What they found is that PurpleAir monitors tend to be “clustered” within certain geographic areas, and that those geographic areas tend to be wealthier. Not surprisingly, pricey air monitors have a customer base demographically similar to that of other gadgets bought by early adopters. In other words, PurpleAir monitors’ locations don't so much track pollution levels as demographics.
On Thursday afternoon, the PurpleAir map showed 15 outdoor sensors in and around Bakersfield, California, a majority Hispanic city of 400,000 people in California’s Central Valley that the American Lung Association ranks as either the most or the third most polluted American city, depending on the metric. There were 13 active, meanwhile, in the famously ritzy San Francisco neighborhood of Pacific Heights, with a population of around 20,000. (We reached out for comment to both the researchers and PurpleAir but hadn’t gotten a response from either as of press time.)
Of course, the relationship between income and pollution is not random — quite the opposite. On the global and national levels, there is an inverse relationship between air pollution and income, with people in low income areas more exposed to harmful pollution.
While the economists called their finding “unsurprising,” they also said it raised the concern that the monitors “may actually increase health inequalities” by allowing people in better-covered areas to “improve their health through avoidance behavior,” thus making it so “the benefit from these monitors are more likely to accrue to the higher income individuals that adopted them.” Since PurpleAir monitors “are more present in less polluted areas,” the data they collect has less “social value … since the places that would benefit the most from information that could encourage pollution avoidance behavior are precisely the ones least likely to have this information.”
This means that “in areas where pollution is the highest, and thus avoidance behaviors are potentially the most effective, people have less knowledge of their pollution levels, even when conditioning on income and education.”
The researchers found similar correlations of PurpleAir monitor usage and race, with “monitor adoption … lowest in areas with a higher share of Black or Hispanic populations.”
These findings also mean that the people spending money to learn about the air quality where they live are also getting very little value from their monitors, as they are both less likely to live in a heavily polluted area and more likely to be well served by existing air monitors. In the slightly bloodless language of academic economics, the authors wrote, “Technophiles may purchase monitors for reasons that are quasi-independent from the value of information that the monitor provides, including a competitive desire to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ and thus drive high levels of spatial correlation in monitor adoption.” If people are getting PurpleAir monitors because their neighbors are, it’s probably a sign that they don’t need one.
For the public to truly realize the promise of more particularized and frequently updated public health data, collection can’t merely be left up to the vagaries and patterns of the consumer electronics market. An “optimal” policy, according to the researchers, “will require supplemental provision of monitors where the private market falls short” — or to put it more bluntly, government action. Public health will have to be public.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
For those keeping score, that’s three more than wanted to preserve them last year.
Those who drew hope from the letter 18 House Republicans sent to Speaker Mike Johnson last August calling for the preservation of energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act must be jubilant this morning. On Sunday, 21 House Republicans sent a similar letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith. Those with sharp eyes will have noticed: That’s three more people than signed the letter last time, indicating that this is a coalition with teeth.
As Heatmap reported in the aftermath of November’s election, four of the original signatories were out of a job as of January, meaning that the new letter features a total of seven new recruits. So who are they?
The new letter is different from the old one in a few key ways. First, it mentions neither the Inflation Reduction Act nor its slightly older cousin, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, by name. Instead, it emphasizes “the importance of prioritizing energy affordability for American families and keeping on our current path to energy dominance amid efforts to repeal or reform current energy tax credits.” The letter also advocates for an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy development that has long been popular among conservatives but has seemed to fall out of vogue under Trump 2.0.
Lastly, while the new letter repeats the previous version’s emphasis on policy stability for businesses, it adds a new plea on behalf of ratepayers. “As our conference works to make energy prices more affordable, tax reforms that would raise energy costs for hard working Americans would be contrary to this goal,” it reads. “Further, affordable and abundant energy will be critical as the President works to onshore domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and good paying jobs, particularly in Republican run states due to their business-friendly environments. Pro-energy growth policies will directly support these objectives.”
As my colleagues Robinson Meyer and Emily Pontecorvo have written, tariffs on Canadian fuel would raise energy prices in markets across the U.S. That includes some particularly swingy states, e.g. Michigan, which perhaps explains Rep. James’ seeming about-face.
Republicans’ House majority currently stands at all of four votes, so although 21 members might not be huge on the scale of the full House, they still represent a significant problem for Speaker Johnson.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the fact that Rep. James did not unseat Democrat Carl Marlinga in 2022 as the district had been newly created following the 2020 census.
Three companies are joining forces to add at least a gigawatt of new generation by 2029. The question is whether they can actually do it.
Two of the biggest electricity markets in the country — the 13-state PJM Interconnection, which spans the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest, and ERCOT, which covers nearly all of Texas — want more natural gas. Both are projecting immense increases in electricity demand thanks to data centers and electrification. And both have had bouts of market weirdness and dysfunction, with ERCOT experiencing spiky prices and even blackouts during extreme weather and PJM making enormous payouts largely to gas and coal operators to lock in their “capacity,” i.e. their ability to provide power when most needed.
Now a trio of companies, including the independent power producer NRG, the turbine manufacturer GE Vernova, and a subsidiary of the construction firm Kiewit Corporation, are teaming up with a plan to bring gas-powered plants to PJM and ERCOT, the companies announced today.
The three companies said that the new joint venture “will work to advance four projects totaling over 5 gigawatts” of natural gas combined cycle plants to the two power markets, with over a gigawatt coming by 2029. The companies said that they could eventually build 10 to 15 gigawatts “and expand to other areas across the U.S.”
So far, PJM and Texas’ call for new gas has been more widely heard than answered. The power producer Calpine said last year that it would look into developing more gas in PJM, but actual investment announcements have been scarce, although at least one gas plant scheduled to close has said it would stay open.
So far, across the country, planned new additions to the grid are still overwhelmingly solar and battery storage, according to the Energy Information Administration, whose data shows some 63 gigawatts of planned capacity scheduled to be added this year, with more than half being solar and over 80% being storage.
Texas established a fund in 2023 to provide low-cost loans to new gas plants, but has had trouble finding viable projects. Engie pulled an 885 megawatt project from the program earlier this week, citing “equipment procurement constraints” and delays.
But PJM is working actively with a friendly administration in Washington to bring more natural gas to its grid. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently blessed a PJM plan to accelerate interconnection approvals for large generators — largely natural gas — so that it can bring them online more quickly.
But many developers and large power consumers are less than optimistic about the ability to bring new natural gas onto the grid at a pace that will keep up with demand growth, and are instead looking at “behind-the-meter” approaches to meet rising energy needs, especially from data centers. The asset manager Fortress said earlier this year that it had acquired 850 megawatts of generation capacity from APR Energy and formed a new company, fittingly named New APR Energy, which said this week that it was “deploying four mobile gas turbines providing 100MW+ of dedicated behind-the-meter power to a major U.S.-based AI hyperscaler.”
And all gas developers, whether they’re building on the grid or behind-the-meter, have to get their hands on turbines, which are in short supply. The NRG consortium called this out specifically, noting that it had secured the rights to two 7HA gas turbines by 2029. These kinds of announcements of agreements for specific turbines have become standard for companies showing their seriousness about gas development. When Chevron announced a joint venture with GE Vernova for co-located gas plants for data centers, it also noted that it had a reservation agreement for seven 7HA turbines. But until these turbines are made and installed, these announcements may all just be spin.
Featuring China, fossil fuels, and data centers.
As Republicans in Congress go hunting for ways to slash spending to carry out President Trump’s agenda, more than 100 energy businesses, trade groups, and advocacy organizations sent a letter to key House and Senate leaders on Tuesday requesting that one particular line item be spared: the hydrogen tax credit.
The tax credit “will serve as a catalyst to propel the United States to global energy dominance,” the letter argues, “while advancing American competitiveness in energy technologies that our adversaries are actively pursuing.” The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association organized the letter, which features signatures from the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Clean Energy Buyers Association, and numerous hydrogen, industrial gas, and chemical companies, among many others. Three out of the seven regional clean hydrogen hubs — the Mid-Atlantic, Heartland, and Pacific Northwest hubs — are also listed.
Out of all of the tax credits for low-carbon energy, the hydrogen subsidy, which was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, is among the most generous. It pays up to $3 per kilogram of hydrogen produced, depending on how emissions-intensive the process is. For context, a 15 ton-per-day plant in Georgia owned by hydrogen producer Plug Power has the potential to earn up to $45,000 per day in tax credits.
But the total price of the tax credit depends on how much clean hydrogen production takes off, and the industry is still in its infancy. When the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a research group at the University of Pennsylvania, estimated the fiscal impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, it placed the total cost for the hydrogen credit at $49 billion over 10 years, compared to more than $260 billion for renewable energy and nearly $400 billion for electric vehicles.
Tactically, Tuesday’s letter draws on all of the Trump administration’s favorite talking points. It warns that nixing the tax credit will mean ceding the hydrogen technology war to China, noting that the country now produces more than 60% of the global supply of electrolyzers — equipment that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. It also says that hydrogen fuel cells are already being used by tech companies to power data centers.
And even though the tax credit was designed specifically to subsidize “clean” hydrogen, the letter mostly ignores this distinction, painting hydrogen production as an extension of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas companies have the infrastructure, workforce, and supply chains to lead the global hydrogen economy, it says. It points out that hydrogen can be produced from “natural gas, biogas, biomethane, as well as any electricity source (i.e. nuclear energy),” but does not mention wind, solar, or geothermal.
Investment in the nascent hydrogen industry was essentially on hold for more than two years while companies eager to take advantage of the tax credit waited for the Biden administration to finalize eligibility rules. But even after Biden’s Treasury Department published those rules in early January, how the Trump administration will view the program remained uncertain. “Our industry is now poised to invest billions of dollars in deployments and manufacturing facilities across the country,” the letter says. “However, that private sector investment is at risk due to the uncertainty around this crucial incentive … We need to ensure that we do not miss this hydrogen moment and respectfully request that you maintain the Section 45V tax credit.”
Intense debate and controversy surrounded the development of the rules for claiming the tax credit, and while the Biden administration tried to strike a compromise, some in the industry still found the rules too strict. I asked the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association whether it wanted Congress to make any changes to the tax credit or to simply preserve it but hadn’t heard back as of publication time.
But some of the signatories have already expressed their intent to request changes. In December, the American Petroleum Institute sent a memo to the incoming Treasury Department outlining its key priorities and “asks.” It says the Biden administration’s hydrogen tax credit rules were “overly restrictive and raised concerns about qualifying pathways for natural gas.”