Intense Heat to Push Biggest US Grid's Power Use to 12-Year High
Electricity use on the biggest US grid, which serves nearly a fifth of Americans from Washington DC to Illinois, is expected to climb to a 12-year high as intense heat spurs air conditioning needs.
A heat wave will start baking the mid-Atlantic on Saturday with temperatures climbing to 100 F in Washington on Monday, 13 degrees above average, according to AccuWeather.com. Households and businesses relying on the grid managed by PJM Interconnection LLC may use as much as 158.5 gigawatts at about 5 p.m. ET, according to the system operator. That would make it the highest hourly peak demand since July 2013 and is above this summer's anticipated high, PJM data show.
The all-time high for electricity demand was set in 2006, at nearly 165.6 gigawatts.
PJM's demand growth is rebounding after languishing for the better part of a decade, as new data centers cropped up in Northern Virginia and spread across the grid. More efficient appliances and light bulbs had halted growth for years. Consumer costs are starting to climb as well, especially after an auction last year to procure supplies rose to a record high for a 12-month period that started June 1.
Power prices for Monday soared to average at $200 a megawatt-hour in exchange-traded contracts, a roughly five-fold increase from Friday's day—ahead price, said Gary Cunningham, director of market research at Tradition Energy.
'The swath of heat stretching from the central plains to the big apple will bring near record heat to many metropolitan areas, but is happening early enough in the year that power demands should fall shy of records in most areas,' he said.
The East Coast areas relying on PJM will endure much higher and more volatile prices than parts of the Midwest, he said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
9 hours ago
- Mint
Intense Heat to Push Biggest US Grid's Power Use to 12-Year High
Electricity use on the biggest US grid, which serves nearly a fifth of Americans from Washington DC to Illinois, is expected to climb to a 12-year high as intense heat spurs air conditioning needs. A heat wave will start baking the mid-Atlantic on Saturday with temperatures climbing to 100 F in Washington on Monday, 13 degrees above average, according to Households and businesses relying on the grid managed by PJM Interconnection LLC may use as much as 158.5 gigawatts at about 5 p.m. ET, according to the system operator. That would make it the highest hourly peak demand since July 2013 and is above this summer's anticipated high, PJM data show. The all-time high for electricity demand was set in 2006, at nearly 165.6 gigawatts. PJM's demand growth is rebounding after languishing for the better part of a decade, as new data centers cropped up in Northern Virginia and spread across the grid. More efficient appliances and light bulbs had halted growth for years. Consumer costs are starting to climb as well, especially after an auction last year to procure supplies rose to a record high for a 12-month period that started June 1. Power prices for Monday soared to average at $200 a megawatt-hour in exchange-traded contracts, a roughly five-fold increase from Friday's day—ahead price, said Gary Cunningham, director of market research at Tradition Energy. 'The swath of heat stretching from the central plains to the big apple will bring near record heat to many metropolitan areas, but is happening early enough in the year that power demands should fall shy of records in most areas,' he said. The East Coast areas relying on PJM will endure much higher and more volatile prices than parts of the Midwest, he said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Indian Express
US raises security concerns over China's planned London embassy
The United States has voiced concern over China's plan to build a new embassy in London, saying it could give Beijing access to sensitive communications near one of Britain's key financial centres. The comments, reported by The Guardian, have stirred uncertainty over whether the embassy project will go ahead. The site in question, Royal Mint Court, lies close to the City of London and Canary Wharf areas connected by underground data cables. Security officials fear the location could pose a risk, and the UK government is now reviewing the plan. Campaigners who have opposed the embassy for years say the issue has become more political since Washington got involved. 'They seem to be struggling to make the right decision,' Dave Lake, a local resident and head of the campaign against the embassy, told The Guardian. 'It was a straightforward inquiry but because of this, that and the other, particularly the Americans getting involved, it's made it all up in the air.' The UK government rejected planning permission for the embassy two years ago due to security concerns. But it has since taken over the decision from local authorities and is expected to make a final call by September 9. China bought the 2-hectare site in 2018 for £255 million. Demonstrations against the plan have continued, with fears that a Chinese embassy in the area would increase surveillance and draw further protests. Lake added: 'We know there are cables running underground, and we know the capabilities of the Chinese. In the early conversations, it was just about our security.' Former British diplomat Charles Parton, who advised Parliament's foreign affairs committee, said the matter depends on what kind of data passes through those cables. Speaking to The Guardian, he said: 'There are two ways to look at it. One is to say you can't use the site; the other is to say reroute the cables. How difficult is it to reroute them? I don't know.' Parton said embassy upgrades are normal in diplomacy, but added that 'if the security issue is resolved satisfactorily, then why shouldn't both countries go ahead and build new embassies?' The White House raised its concerns shortly after the US and UK signed a trade deal during the G7 summit in Canada this week. A US official told The Sunday Times, as quoted by The Guardian, 'The United States is deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies.' The Dutch parliament has also flagged worries over the site's location. Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, who lives in the UK, told The Guardian, 'It is really unbelievable when not only the US government but also the Dutch government express their concerns.' Simon Cheng, a former Hong Kong consulate worker now in the UK, said the site could increase surveillance risks for people in exile. 'The UK government needs to think twice,' Cheng said. 'It's not only the closest ally that has given a warning but also others. We have concerns about our security here.' The Chinese embassy defended its proposal, saying it had followed UK rules and listened to all stakeholders. A spokesperson told The Guardian the embassy would help China carry out its diplomatic duties and deepen cooperation. The spokesperson added, 'Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government's decision. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.'
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the profits. Banks are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the banks. The world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars more. Bloomberg Last year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil fuels. Live Events Banks saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their words. To meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right direction. Bloomberg Meanwhile, the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that time. You might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an emergency. But if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at risk. Given the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
