Grist

When Congress approved a $1 billion Energy Resilience Fund for Puerto Rico in 2022, the money was desperately needed. Multiple hurricanes had battered the island’s notoriously fragile electric grid, and lawmakers envisioned the money supporting rooftop solar and battery systems that could provide resilient backup power during emergencies.

The Biden administration’s Department of Energy developed a plan to distribute the funds to about 40,000 low-income Puerto Ricans, many of whom live with health conditions requiring access to reliable power. Biden officials envisioned a network of solar and battery systems that would keep medically vulnerable Puerto Ricans safe during storms and reduce reliance on the island’s unstable grid.

The Trump administration has different ideas.

The plan all but disappeared after President Trump took office last year. Trump’s DOE has since redirected a large share of the funds to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, or PREPA, the bankrupt utility that operates the island’s grid. The money is now poised to shore up PREPA’s fleet of power plants, which largely run on fossil fuels, and $50 million will fund a new natural gas pipeline. The administration has defended the decision by arguing that PREPA’s infrastructure improvements will ultimately benefit a broader swath of the island’s population.

The process by which Trump’s DOE unilaterally redirected the resilience funds, seemingly against Congress’ intent, has so far been shrouded in secrecy. But public records obtained by Grist under the Freedom of Information Act shed new light on how Trump’s political appointees engineered the change. The documents show that the DOE gave PREPA unusually favorable treatment, in part by soliciting no competing bids for the funds, fast-tracking the review process, and using Trump’s executive order announcing an “energy emergency” as the justification for the award. 

Read Next Trump is trying to kill clean energy. The market has other plans. Matt Simon

Most eyebrow-raising, perhaps, was the way that the DOE waived its typical requirement that grant recipients pony up substantial funding of their own to contribute to project costs. Exceptions are sometimes made for indigent recipients or economically distressed communities, but for large organizations such as PREPA — which has nearly $4 billion in annual revenue — the agency typically requires a 50 percent cost share. 

In PREPA’s case, the DOE accepted just a 1 percent cost share, noting that the utility was under “significant financial stress” and that waiving the cost-share requirement is “necessary in order to provide a more stable foundation for Puerto Rico to begin to perform long-term energy planning and repairs.”

Some critics who have worked at the agency in the past are unsatisfied with this explanation.

“The 1 percent cost share is potentially unprecedented for a DOE award of this size, and to a recipient with this much cash flow,” said a former Biden administration DOE official, who spoke under condition of anonymity due to concerns it would affect their current employment. The former official noted that in order for such an exception to be legal, it must have been made by the secretary of energy, Chris Wright, himself. “Congress decreed that cost-share waivers are only supposed to be available via a secretarial determination. They weren’t intended to be used often, and they haven’t been.” 

A spokesperson with the Office for Electricity at the DOE said that the agency “carefully evaluated procurement options and determined that a noncompetitive, sole-source award to PREPA was justified” and that achieving the goals of the energy resilience fund required the use of PREPA. The spokesperson acknowledged that the “reduction from the standard 50 percent cost share is significant,” but noted that the determination was made under authority provided by the Energy Policy Act. 

“PREPA continues to face severe fiscal constraints while maintaining responsibility for critical generation and transmission infrastructure,” the spokesperson said. “Requiring a 50 percent cost share would not have been feasible and would have delayed urgently needed grid stabilization and repair activities, undermining the core purpose of the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund.”

The agency seemed well aware that its decision to award the funds to PREPA without considering competing applicants — and without seeking congressional approval for reallocating the funds from their intended use — would likely draw scrutiny. A section titled “Sensitivities” in a memo drafted by the head of the agency’s Grid Deployment Office highlighted that the decision to waive a 30-day congressional notice period, not seek other bids, and “the cost-share reduction may generate negative commentary, as the initial monies were planned to fund solar installations for multi-family housing (limited to common areas), community-based healthcare facilities.” The memo also went on to state that the “sole source designation to PREPA may raise objections to fairness, and perceived undue favoritism.” (“Sole source designation” is the term of art for a noncompetitive award to a single vendor.)

Puerto Rico’s electric grid has long been fragile. The average resident on the island experienced more than 70 hours of outages in 2024. When Hurricane Maria made landfall in 2017, the island’s more than 3 million residents lost power for weeks. It took PREPA more than nine months to restore power to some parts of the island. In the aftermath of the deadly disaster, Congress allocated more than $17 billion to modernize the grid. But almost a decade later, PREPA has completed very few projects with that massive influx of funding, and the utility has continued to navigate bankruptcy proceedings since 2017. The resilience funds being redirected to PREPA are in addition to this earlier allocation. The DOE memo acknowledges these issues, noting that “all parties involved are in less than desirable financial condition.” 

“It is really surprising that DOE would plan to send these sums to PREPA itself, given its record of federal spending,” the former Biden administration official added.

Still, Trump’s DOE came to the conclusion that PREPA was best suited to receive the funds. The memo argued that even if the agency had undergone a time-consuming competitive process — one that would have taken 18 months — it would have ultimately selected PREPA because the operator has sole ownership of the island’s grid. “Given the urgency of the situation, there is no other entity in Puerto Rico with the breadth of capability, asset ownership, and legal mandate to execute energy emergency response, grid stabilization, and recovery projects at this scale,” according to the document.

Read Next Solar was poised to help Puerto Ricans survive blackouts — until Trump axed nearly $1B in funding Naveena Sadasivam

Last month, more than 40 congressional Democrats sent Secretary Wright a letter demanding to know why the agency had redirected the resilience funding. The lawmakers asked for a briefing that would detail the agency’s justification for moving funds to PREPA. 

“DOE’s lack of transparency, wasteful reuse of the funding, disregard for congressional intent, and potentially illegal cancellation of contracts — combined with the resulting increase in energy poverty and loss of energy security — raise serious questions about the Department’s uses of the Puerto Rico-Energy Resilience Fund,” the letter said. 

The lawmakers were particularly concerned about the funds being used to build a natural gas pipeline. On its website, the DOE does not detail funding of the pipeline directly but instead refers to the project as “fuel supply security between San Juan and Palo Seco.” In internal documents, however, the DOE plainly notes that it intends to allocate $50 million to construct a natural gas pipeline. According to reporting in El Nuevo Día, a Puerto Rican publication, local authorities have already been working on building a natural gas pipeline connecting power stations in San Juan and Palo Seco, which is about 9 miles away. 

“Trying to force a liquefied methane pipeline project onto the people of Puerto Rico would help lock in the need to import fuels — keeping methane gas prices exorbitant for decades to come, putting ratepayers on the hook for funding it, and adding to already astronomical electricity costs,” the lawmakers’ letter reads. 

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Inside the government’s push to divert Puerto Rico solar funds to a bankrupt utility on Jun 17, 2026.

Georgia’s legislature has allotted $2 million for the first year of the Georgia Farmland Conservation Fund. Farm landowners across the state have applied for a piece of that funding to protect their land from development — for housing, warehouses, data centers, and other uses. Applicants will find out in August if they’ve been selected.

Some 30 states have what are known as “purchase of agricultural conservation easement” programs, though the amount of funding varies a great deal from state to state. Texas allocates $2 million annually, while Florida set aside $300 million in 2022 and $100 million in 2024. Georgia’s law, modeled after these initiatives, was passed in 2023, established a formal program to coordinate federal, state, and local match funding, and created an advisory council to review and approve proposals. The legislature passed the initial round of funding in 2024, and the first round of applications closed May 20.

The easements allow landowners to sell the future development rights for their land to an organization, like a land trust. An appraisal process determines the value of those development rights, and the farmer and easement holder negotiate the details of their agreement. The landowner receives an upfront payment, half of which comes from the state funds. The rest is match funding, which could come from a land trust, local government, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which allocates $450 million annually to match dollars in state conservation programs. The landowner can continue farming, growing and harvesting timber, or however else they use their land. They can even sell the land — just not to a developer who will turn it into housing, a strip mall, or an industrial site.

“It’s a compelling alternative to our farming landowners that are feeling a lot of financial crunch and are just being inundated with offers for selling out,” said Katherine Moore, president of the Georgia Conservancy, which advocated for the new state fund.

Those offers to sell can vary widely, depending on location, development plans, and many other factors. Prices in the sale of transitional land — property changing from one use to another — ranged from just over $6,000 to more than $260,000 per acre in 2025, according to a report by Saunders Land, a real estate brokerage and management firm. The value of a conservation easement varies widely too for similar reasons, though a landowner would typically receive less money for an easement than they would in an outright sale, since they’re selling rights rather than the land itself.

One such farmer is Russ Moon, who grows corn, soybeans, and strawberries and raises cattle on his family farm in Madison County, Georgia, outside of Athens. His family has worked that land for four generations, around 100 years. He wants to keep it that way and pass the farm on to his kids one day. Moon said he’s watched more housing and development come to the area over the years. It’s appealing to many, he said, to live near the University of Georgia in Athens and also enjoy the bucolic rural setting. Other farms around him have already sold, he said, and he’s worried that if left unchecked, the development rush will fundamentally change the community.

The irrigation system waters a field on Russ Moon’s family farm outside Athens, Georgia. Russ Moon

“Selling the land is really not an option,” he said of his own plans. “I intend on remaining in agriculture for as long as possible.” 

Moon said he’d only sell if forced to. But that could happen someday, for him or for his kids when they take over. Farming can be an unstable business, subject to weather and changing crop prices and global markets.

“There may be a day where they have to sell, but I don’t want the land to be developed,” he said. “That’s my desire, that’s my family’s desire.”

Some of Moon’s land is in a conservation easement, which he entered into directly with a land trust in 2019. The state’s new conservation fund aims to protect more land in a similar way by providing state funding to help facilitate such deals. 

It’s a critical step, said Moore of the Georgia Conservancy.

“It is unprecedented for Georgia to have such a program, which is a little wild when you think that, you know, agribusiness in total is our number one economic engine in the state,” she said.

Even though agriculture is Georgia’s leading industry, farmers face mounting pressure to sell to developers. The state could lose some 800,000 acres of farmland by 2040, according to the Georgia Department of Agriculture.

“That means 10 percent of our farmland will be gone in the next 15 years or so,” said state agriculture commissioner Tyler Harper. “And that’s a staggering statistic.”

That’s a concern not only because farms provide food and jobs and are a big part of the state’s economy, but also because of the potential climate impacts. 

Converting farmland to other uses can increase greenhouse gas emissions, according to the American Farmland Trust. Topsoil often has to be removed to pave the land, releasing the carbon that’s stored in it. Uses like low-density residential development or industrial operations often produce more emissions than farming. Conservation easements, on the other hand, can encourage farming and management practices that sequester more carbon, and they often protect non-agricultural land adjacent to fields — like woods and wetlands.

State leaders often tout the booming economy, proudly calling Georgia the number one state to do business. But that gives Moon pause.

“The whole time we keep being the number one place to do business, we’re hurting our number one industry,” he said. That damage could be permanent. “Once you develop a piece of property, you’re never going to — it’s never going to go back. You lose farmland, it’s gone forever,” Moon said.

He hopes that getting more farmland into conservation can help maintain some balance before it’s too late.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Georgia is losing farmland fast. Is a state conservation fund enough to save it? on Jun 17, 2026.

The oceanic phenomenon known as El Niño, which increases temperatures worldwide, has officially begun, according to U.S. weather forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. 

Meteorologists have warned that this could be the strongest El Niño this century. It is expected to drive extreme weather events around the world, including both severe droughts and heavy rainfall, likely leading to major disruptions in agricultural production and food security. 

El Niño is part of a cyclical, naturally-occurring weather pattern that redistributes warm air, surface water temperatures, and moisture across the tropical Pacific Ocean. During El Niño, trade winds that typically blow east-to-west from the Americas to southeast Asia slow down or sometimes reverse. Normally, these winds push warm water along the Equator — but during El Niño conditions, that warm water shifts back east. Although El Niño does not follow a specific timeline, it typically occurs every two to seven years. 

Beginning in the summer, El Niño typically peaks around December or the following January. (The pattern was named El Niño — Spanish for little boy — by fishermen in South America who noticed warmer waters around Christmas time, and associated it with the birth of Jesus Christ.) That means the most significant impacts of the cyclical weather phenomenon may not be felt until months from now. NOAA’s most recent calculations show a high likelihood of a “very strong” El Niño, meaning average surface temperatures in the Pacific jump by more than 2 degrees Celsius. (Some experts are calling this year’s a “super” El Niño, although some agencies, like the World Meteorological Organization, reject this language.)  

Because it impacts a “diverse set of geographies,” said Weston Anderson, a climate scientist at the University of Maryland, so “there is no one set of impacts.” El Niño can contribute to severe droughts in one part of the world and heavy rainfall in others — both of which can disrupt growing seasons in key breadbaskets of the world. 

But the ways in which this year’s El Niño will interact the effects of global warming — and what that means for food security — is something scientists are still actively observing and untangling. 

The typical impacts of El Niño to the continental U.S. and Canada during Northern Hemisphere winter. NOAA

“That question is still really important open science,” said Jennifer Burney, a professor at Stanford’s Doerr School of Sustainability whose work focuses on climate and food security. 

History can give us some examples. In 1877, one of the strongest El Niños ever recorded was associated with historic droughts across Asia, as well as in parts of Brazil and northern Africa. These droughts, “along with colonial policies contributed to famines in many regions which were really devastating,” said Deepti Singh, an associate professor at Washington State University who co-authored a study on this period of global famine. 

The fatalities associated with these famines, upwards of 50 million people, said Singh, “are humbling to think about.”

The last El Niño occurred in 2023 and 2024. It was one of the five strongest El Niños ever recorded, according to the World Meteorological Organization, or WMO, and is considered to have contributed to the historic temperatures in 2024, making it the hottest year on record. 

That year came with devastating consequences for growers, especially in arid regions where agricultural producers primarily rely on rainfall to irrigate their crops. Droughts driven by El Niño across southern Africa contributed to increased food insecurity and malnutrition in several countries. 

Burney noted that in some vulnerable regions, local governments may have adaptive strategies in place to grow key crops earlier in the growing season or to increase imports during El Niño years, which can help offset food insecurity. But even in those cases, local farmers who depend on growing and selling crops to support themselves and their families may still experience economic setbacks. In other words, certain policies may ensure there’s “enough food,” but “that’s not going to take care of the people whose livelihoods depend on” agriculture, Burney said. 

This year, El Niño conditions are expected to impact a number of growing areas — another setback for agricultural producers who have faced higher input costs stemming from the Iran War. Although the United States and Iran are potentially set to unveil an agreement to reopen the all-important Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil flows, farmers worldwide have already been impacted by fertilizer shortages and price hikes since the passage closed this spring. 

Weather variability fueled by El Niño will add to growers’ woes. India, where the majority of the world’s rice comes from, is projected to have a weaker monsoon season, which could reduce yields. Drier, hotter conditions could lead to diminished maize production in southern Africa. The southern U.S. states, from California all the way to the eastern seaboard, will experience a wetter year than normal, which could lead to flooding and upend crop production. 

But the exact way that this El Niño will unfurl is yet unknown. As El Niño interacts with the additional warming and moisture currently in our atmosphere caused by climate change, “there is likely to be a change in which regions are likely to be affected” by extreme weather, said Singh. Still, she added, we can expect “the severity, extent, and likelihood” of extreme weather events like droughts “to be higher” in today’s warmer climate.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The ‘super El Niño’ is here. What happens next could upend food systems worldwide. on Jun 16, 2026.

When investor Phil Tagami first proposed building an export terminal in Oakland, California, more than a decade ago, he probably didn’t anticipate the firestorm of litigation and controversy that would follow, in a saga that has now spanned three presidential administrations. There were early rumors that the terminal would export coal, much to the consternation of local residents, but Tagami said in a newsletter that the naysayers were “misinformed.” It was all downhill from there.

Tagami and others entered into a development agreement with the city of Oakland in 2013 after the city decided to redevelop a defunct army base on the city’s west side. At the time, Tagami was adamant that the developers were interested in building an all-purpose bulk terminal and capturing some of the traffic that Oakland was losing to other West Coast ports. But two years later, Oakland residents and environmental groups had their suspicions confirmed when the Salt Lake Tribune reported that the developers had quietly entered into an agreement to use the terminal to ship coal from Utah to buyers overseas. The revelation sparked intense backlash in the progressive city, and the ensuing conflict has put both the developers and the city on the hook for million-dollar losses at various times, though litigation is ongoing. 

Now, in the latest twist, the U.S. Department of Energy has stepped in to provide up to $75 million for building the terminal. The funding is the latest effort by the Trump administration to prop up the country’s coal industry — the Energy Department’s announcement last week also included over $400 million in support for coal-fired power plants — even as the fossil fuel’s role in generating U.S. electricity continues to collapse. Over the last year, the administration has loosened regulations that apply to the country’s coal fleet, ordered aging plants scheduled for retirement to keep running, and shifted the responsibility of overseeing coal contamination to states. 

The administration also argues that homegrown coal is still valuable abroad.

“For too long, limited West Coast export capacity has constrained America’s ability to move coal and other energy resources to global markets,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a press release announcing the funding. Investing in the terminal would help in “advancing American energy dominance,” he added. 

Critics counter that the federal funding is the latest attempt to prop up a dying industry.

Ben Eichenberg, an attorney with the San Francisco Baykeeper, an environmental group in the Bay Area, said that terminal construction “really hasn’t gone anywhere because there’s no money to build” the facility. “The Trump administration stepping in and saying they’re going to supply that money gives it a new lifeline,” he said. “This terminal project was drowning, and they’ve just been thrown the life preserver.”

The Energy Department’s Hail Mary is unlikely to end the embattled terminal’s long saga. After Oakland officials learned a decade ago that the developers intended to transport coal through the terminal, they held public hearings and eventually passed an ordinance and adopted a resolution that barred the storage of coal anywhere in the city. That set the stage for the first round of lawsuits against the city.

Oakland’s development agreement stated that it would provide regulatory certainty for the terminal backers by locking in the regulations that existed at the time. In other words, the city wasn’t allowed to change the rules about what the terminal could be used for after development started. The developers sued Oakland on these grounds, claiming that the city had violated the terms of the agreement by passing the new anti-coal-storage ordinance, thereby affecting the developers’ ability to proceed with their project. 

The agreement did, however, make an important exception. New rules can be applied to the terminal if the city determines that the absence of those rules would put the people of Oakland in “substantial danger.” The city had held public hearings and collected evidence of the threat posed by coal dust, but the developers argued that the record was insufficient — and ultimately the judge overseeing the case agreed. He found that “the record is riddled with inaccuracies, major evidentiary gaps, erroneous assumptions, and faulty analyses, to the point that no reliable conclusion about health or safety dangers could be drawn from it.”

Crucially, the judge did not claim that the transport of coal through Oakland does not pose a threat to residents, or that the city didn’t have the right to pass an ordinance banning coal. A higher court also agreed with that decision and affirmed the ruling. 

“The fight was not about whether coal is safe or dangerous, but it was about the terms of the development agreement,” said Colin O’Brien, an attorney with Earthjustice, the nonprofit that represented the San Francisco Baykeeper and the Sierra Club as an intervenor in the proceedings. 

After suffering a loss in the courts, the city tried a different tack. The developers had signed a lease with the city, which required them to meet certain construction milestones. Because of the years spent litigating the terms of the development agreement, the developers hadn’t begun construction. Oakland officials cancelled the lease on these new grounds, dragging the city into its next round of legal battles. The developers sued in state court in 2018, arguing that the city’s own decisions had prevented them from meeting the construction deadlines. The court once again sided with the developers, as did a higher court on appeal last year.

By then, Insight Terminal Solutions, the company that was slated to operate the terminal, had filed for bankruptcy in Kentucky and decided to pursue claims against the city. During the bankruptcy proceedings last year, the company claimed that the protracted legal battles with Oakland were to blame for its financial woes — and that it was owed more than $650 million in damages. A sympathetic bankruptcy court judge agreed with the firm’s rationale, but on appeal in a federal district court, the ruling was vacated late last year, much to the historically cash-strapped city’s relief. 

Despite the influx of federal support for the terminal, the project’s backers still have a long road ahead. The terminal needs to secure a range of permits, including air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality District, and local advocates have already mounted a campaign to require stringent regulations for the facility. (Tagami and another representative of California Capital & Investment Group, the lead developer of the project, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

For their part, environmental groups are keeping a close eye on the permitting process.

“We’re going to do everything in our power to protect the community in San Francisco Bay from the pollution that this coal terminal represents,” said Eichenberg. “We’ll be evaluating all of those permits and any additional action that we can take to protect the community and fulfill our mission.”

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Even $75M from Trump may not save Oakland’s embattled coal terminal on Jun 15, 2026.

Last year, Marie Tai needed a better way to keep her condo cool. Her window air-conditioning units were borderline ineffective, even running at full blast. Summers have been getting more intense in Tai’s Boston neighborhood because of a rapidly warming climate, and she had just adopted a 16-year-old cat named Mittens, who was still recovering from being hit by a car.

Tai had already been considering a heat pump, an all-electric appliance that heats and cools spaces and lets homeowners ditch polluting fossil fuels. But three contractors had quoted her prices ranging from about $28,000 to $40,000. Tai, who heads finance and administration at Harvard University’s Project Zero, thought those estimates seemed excessive for her 1,000-square-foot, two-bedroom place. So she had hit pause on the project.

But with Mittens’ well-being front of mind, Tai renewed her heat pump search last spring. Through Facebook, she found an opportunity to participate in a program that aggregates demand, organized by Laminar Collective, a local startup that does research on the tech and coordinates installations.

These heat pump group-buy initiatives let installers purchase equipment in bulk and spend less time chasing leads, accruing savings that they can pass on to customers. Tai, tantalized by Laminar’s menu of low prices for a heat-pump setup, decided to give it a shot.

Read Next American homes need heat pumps, not space heaters Matt Simon

After a representative from the startup visited her home to check what heat pump size and configuration would fit her needs, Tai signed up for a ductless minisplit system for $20,000 — thousands less than even her lowest initial quote. She then also took advantage of an additional $8,500 state rebate and eight-year financing with 0% interest.

The new equipment has been life-changing, Tai said.

She no longer has to buy fuel oil for heating in the winter, and the heat pump is so efficient that last year she saved roughly $1,300 on her energy bills. In contrast to the old, noisy window ACs, the new system’s wall-mounted, air-filtering indoor units ​“are so quiet,” she said. Her allergy symptoms have improved. And Mittens is comfortable and doing well, she noted. ​“I couldn’t be happier.”

Like Tai, homeowners in communities across the U.S. are signing up for an unusual way of buying heat pumps: together. Companies, nonprofits, and local governments are increasingly offering programs that coordinate consumer demand to secure meaningful discounts of around 10% to 20%, which can translate to roughly $3,000 to $6,000 per installation. It’s like a group buying a pack of muffins at Costco rather than each buying a muffin at Starbucks.

The bulk-buy approach is taking off as the Trump administration demolishes electrification incentives. Last year, the Republican-led Congress eliminated a $2,000 federal tax credit for home heat pumps. Late last month, the administration said that it won’t allow home energy-efficiency rebates to be used by people looking to get off gas.

Read Next What’s behind your eye-popping power bill? We broke it down, region by region. Naveena Sadasivam & Clayton Aldern

While heat pumps reduce pollution and typically cut owners’ energy bills, they can be a pricey proposition up front. Whole-home installations typically range from $17,000 to $30,000, depending on the property size, insulation, climate, and many other factors, according to electrification advocacy nonprofit Rewiring America.

“Even though homeowners often save significantly over time, the first quotes can bring real sticker shock,” said Cole Merrick, founder and CEO of VoltHub, an online heat-pump installation marketplace.

VoltHub and heat-pump general contractor Vayu organized a California group-buy program this spring to serve the counties of Los Angeles and Orange and the greater San Francisco Bay Area. They’re offering another one this summer.

Most heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning replacements are emergencies, and these jobs will continue to make up the majority of Vayu’s business, said founder and CEO Shreyas Sudhakar. But for households that can hold off on getting a heat pump installed, group buys are ideal, he noted.

The process entails a waiting period, which can be several weeks to about six months, as the slots fill up and the installer determines the final pricing. The installer then confirms individual quotes with customers — who can decide not to move forward without penalty — and schedules the work.

Heat pump group buys come in different forms. They can be organized at the grassroots level, offered by a contractor, or run by a third party that aggregates demand over a limited time window. Through a competitive bidding process, the third party vets qualified installers and chooses one or more to carry out the jobs.

Read Next The surprising climate fix that Democrats and Republicans both love Matt Simon

The collective bargaining approach has succeeded in the past. Nonprofit Solar United Neighbors has led similar group buys for rooftop solar since 2007, helping thousands of households net deals on installations.

Now, the organization is partnering with iChoosr, an international company that helps households electrify, in order to get group deals for heat pumps, too. Using iChoosr’s Switch Together platform, people in select areas can sign up to unlock group discounts for the all-electric appliance, as well as solar and batteries. Since 2023, more than 5,100 U.S. homeowners have gotten their solar panels or batteries via iChoosr, which earns a fee from participating vetted installers for jobs they get through the platform, said Fred Wu, a director of community engagement for the company.

iChoosr was already running successful bulk-purchasing programs for heat pumps in the U.K. and the Netherlands, and launched its first offerings in the U.S. last year with Solar United Neighbors. They opened one program in the Colorado Front Range and another in the Washington, D.C., area in July, closed those lists in September, and finished up the installations — for about 90 households — by the end of the year.

On the heels of that success, iChoosr reran group buys in both regions this spring. More than 1,000 households have signed up expressing interest so far.

This year, the company will also launch new programs in the metro areas of Houston and Dallas, Chicagoland, and northern Arizona around Flagstaff, partnering with nonprofits and local governments at no cost to them, Wu said.

For contractors, these bulk-buy initiatives are a boon.

They cut down on the installers’ sales and marketing costs, thanks to word of mouth and publicity from third parties like iChoosr. Home electrification contractor Elephant Energy, which is working with iChoosr to deploy the Colorado heat-pump installations, saves about $300 per project, said CEO and co-founder DR Richardson. Elephant has also run its own community bulk buys across its California, Colorado, and Massachusetts markets, he noted.

Group-buy initiatives smooth out demand by allowing for planned installations when business naturally slumps. Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning work is highly seasonal, with most people calling an HVAC technician during the first heat wave or cold snap.

“For a lot of businesses, two months will make up 70% to 80% of the revenue for the year,” said Sudhakar of Vayu. ​“So to be able to have some guaranteed revenue that is on the books and [can] fill downtime is really valuable.”

But heat pump group-buying programs aren’t ubiquitous yet. Wu of iChoosr recommends that homeowners who are interested but not in a rush contact city and county leaders to let them know that they’d like to get a bulk deal going in their area.

“We’re continuously trying to expand the program,” Wu said. ​“The first thing we need … is a local government that wants to bring this to their constituents.” These partnerships lend credibility and visibility to the group initiatives, since local governments help promote them.

Tai in Boston was grateful to be part of Laminar Collective’s heat-pump bulk buy. It not only helped her save money but also provided her time to get her questions answered without the sales pressure she felt from one-on-one solicitations. ​“It’s empowering,” she said. After she told her neighbor about her experience, they got their heat pump that way, too.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Want a deal on a heat pump? Team up with your neighbors. on Jun 14, 2026.

Millions of people around the world are having their lives upended by floods, storms and heatwaves worsened by the climate crisis. Those forced to flee their home countries, however, are finding that the door to the US is more firmly shut than ever.

Neither US nor international law recognizes environmental hazards, such as climate-related displacement, as a valid cause to claim asylum or gain entry through other migration pathways, despite the mounting toll of disasters caused by an overheating planet.

But those who have managed to get to the US through other means after being displaced in this way now find themselves in an even more precarious position following Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, with little hope of a new system to help others forced from their homes by climate impacts.

For some, that pathway to the US has been particularly perilous. When Hurricane Mitch crashed into Honduras, killing 7,000 people, one affected family surveyed the unsalvageable ruins of their home and realized they had a lifeline – to move to the US.

Read Next The biggest climate migration problem may be that there’s not enough of it Julian Hattem

Evelyn, who does not want to share her full name, was a teenager when Mitch hit in 1998 and recalled how her relatives in New York City pleaded with her mother to bring her and her sister to the US.

“There were bodies and dead animals floating in the water, the house was messed up, the furniture was all gone – doors, windows gone. It was so, so sad,” said Evelyn. “I got sick because of the mosquitoes and didn’t have any services to rebuild the house because our country is very poor. My uncle and aunt were just like, ‘OK, just bring the kids over here, don’t stay. It’s dangerous.’”

Storms of the deadly ferocity of Mitch are even more likely now because of a hotter atmosphere and ocean that has rapidly heated up from the burning of fossil fuels.

Yet Trump’s migration crackdown has made it far harder for people like Evelyn to flee to the US now. “Every day it’s more barriers,” said Evelyn, who still lives in New York and has two daughters, one studying to be a lawyer, the other a doctor. “It’s sad to know that people will not be able to apply for a status or something to help their situation and also help the people back home.”

Some migrants in the US have faced living in countries rocked by climate shocks and conflict.

“I was invited to come here and be part of this country and now all of a sudden you try to make me go back after establishing a life here?” said a doctor from Sudan, who moved to the US several years ago and did not want to be named. The doctor faces the prospect of deportation under a new Trump administration edict that has blocked all entry to the US from Sudan and dozens of other countries.

Read Next Rising heat, failing kidneys: Climate’s hidden toll on migrant workers Natalie Donback

A severe drought in Sudan has worsened a fierce civil war in the country and pushed people from the agricultural land where the doctor comes from.

“People have had to abandon their lands because there isn’t enough water, millions have fled,” he said. “There is climate change and the difficulty of people sharing resources and the conflicts are affected by that. I would rather stay home and do my medical training here but many factors forced me to leave the country.”

Droughts are being exacerbated by rising global temperatures, researchers have found, and a leading cause of the 250 million people worldwide who have been displaced by environmental factors in the past decade, according to the United Nations.

Displaced people in certain countries can also be affected by wars or fall victim to gangs or other violence as a result of their movement. These secondary impacts are often the ones that compel them to flee over international borders and gain sanctuary elsewhere.

“It was always hot, no rain,” said another man, from Somalia and now applying for asylum in the US, about the drought in his own country. Somalia, like Sudan, has been racked by civil war.

“People from the farming lands, they’re dying, with no water,” he added. “Also the animals, they die because when it’s not raining, everything will dry, people die, animals die, and all the people they run from the farm and come to the city. So everything can get hard.”

Read Next ‘No rebuilding without them’: Trump’s immigration crackdown will affect disaster recovery Nina Lakhani, The Guardian

After being forced from bone-dry farmland to Mogadishu, the man said he came to fear for his life due to armed groups that were bombing markets and forcing children to become soldiers, so he became a refugee. He now faces new fears in the US after the Trump administration effectively shut down the asylum system, other than to white South Africans.

“Now we are getting a lot of attacks from the government,” the man said. “I don’t know why. I don’t understand what the problem is. It’s scary with the government here, how they are treating people.”

People uprooted from countries like Sudan and Somalia now face an almost impossible situation in terms of entry to the US, according to Felipe Navarro, associate director of policy and advocacy at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.

“If you were displaced by climate change, that door is closed,” he said. “I don’t think climate displacement comes into the administration’s thinking; it’s probably not intentional. They just have a general hatred for certain nationalities and races. This administration doesn’t really care about climate change at all.”

Some Democratic lawmakers have in recent years attempted to introduce a climate-related visa that would cover people fleeing extreme weather disasters. However, with the political mood swinging strongly against migrants, advocates’ hopes of reform have dwindled, even as the number of displaced has ballooned.

“It’s hard to predict the long-term effects of these policies,” said Navarro. “When we close doors, though, people always find another path to move.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Every day it’s more barriers’: how the US is shutting out climate refugees on Jun 13, 2026.

For decades, American politicians have been slow to take on climate change and curb carbon dioxide emissions, under the assumption that doing so might pass along costs to their voters. Ironically, their failure to rein in fossil fuel emissions has yielded the same result: Expenses for everyday Americans have soared as a result of more extreme flooding, fires, and heat.

“What’s striking is that already, households are bearing serious costs,” said Kimberly Clausing, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She co-authored a paper from earlier this year finding that families were paying between $400 and $900 more each year because of the effects of climate change, with the costs above $1,300 in the 10 percent hardest-hit counties, many of them found in Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, Colorado, and California. 

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that the annual inflation rate reached 4.2 percent in May, the highest rate in three years. Though the war in Iran is mostly responsible for this recent increase, a surprising number of Americans are attributing the general economic pinch they’re feeling to the changing climate. Two-thirds of U.S. voters agree that global warming is affecting the cost of living to some degree, according to new survey data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, including most Democrats and moderate Republicans. Of those two-thirds, a majority of them said that climate change was driving up what they pay for groceries, utility bills, and home insurance.

Rising energy prices were at the top of people’s lists, a concern that some climate advocates are tapping into ahead of the midterm elections this November. On Monday, the LCV Victory Fund, a political action committee, announced that it will target “energy bill voters” with messages about how clean, affordable energy can trim their monthly expenses, and how Republicans have held back renewable power. That follows successes for Democrats in the off-year elections in 2025, where energy prices played a role in state races in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia.

There are many factors pushing up electricity prices, but in some parts of the country, efforts to revamp the electric grid to handle more extreme weather is the primary reason. In California, utilities are upgrading their infrastructure to reduce wildfire risk; in the Southeast, they are rebuilding after hurricanes and flooding and billing their customers for it. In Arizona, residents are cranking up the air conditioning during scorching heat and paying more for power simply because they’re using more AC.

Technicians conduct maintenance at electric facilities among the ruins of beachfront structures after the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles.
Qian Weizhong / VCG via Getty Images

Even Republican-leaning voters — 42 percent of conservative Republicans, and 57 percent of moderate ones — are linking their rising costs to global warming, according to the Yale survey. “It makes perfect sense that they would do so, given the results from our study, which show that the geographically rural areas are actually facing some of the highest costs,” Clausing said. From wildfires to hurricanes, rural areas are often facing the brunt of the damage. Her study found that the largest household costs occurred in parts of the West, the Gulf Coast, and Florida.

Utility bills, despite being a top political issue, are actually one of the smaller price-point impacts of climate change, according to Clausing’s research: Households are spending an average of about $35 more on electricity per year, compared with an extra $356 on homeowners’ insurance premiums, the biggest cost. Clausing, who owns a house in Portland, Oregon, said the insurance premium on her home skyrocketed from around $1,000 five years ago to about $2,200 today — an increase that her insurance company said was to help recoup the costs of wildfire damage in Oregon.

Another major category of costs in Clausing’s study was the health effects of climate change. As wildfire smoke grows more common, exposing people to harmful particulate matter, it’s leading to early deaths. The estimated economic damage of these premature deaths works out to $103 for every household in the United States each year. That’s not to mention the other ways climate change damages the public’s health, from lengthening allergy seasons to expanding the geographic spread of infectious diseases as temperatures warm, allowing ticks and mosquitoes to explore new territories. 

But it seems like many Americans haven’t made the connection: Only 35 percent of those in the Yale survey who agreed that climate change was driving up prices saw a link to higher health care costs. That’s because these health risks haven’t been adequately communicated to the public, said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “Health is one of the most powerful ways we have of saying, ‘Actually, this affects our lives right here, right now. It’s already affecting the people and places and things that we love,’” he said.

Read Next What’s behind your eye-popping power bill? We broke it down, region by region. Naveena Sadasivam & Clayton Aldern

Though most of the respondents thought climate change made groceries more expensive, it’s hard to measure the effect of extreme weather on food costs, according to Catherine Wolfram, a co-author of the study and a professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management. That’s mainly because the United States’ food supply comes from all over the world, mitigating the impact of, say, a drought in Brazil or a heat wave in the Great Plains. Still, other research has found that hot summers can lead to higher food prices, with more increases projected as the world warms. 

As the effects of global warming grow more extreme, it’s becoming clear that they’re posing a problem for the budgets of lower-income Americans. Clausing is studying ways to design policies that tackle climate change without burdening poor families, through rebates or other mechanisms that can offset costs. 

“I’m glad people are connecting the dots,” Clausing said. “I think, at the moment, if you pursue better climate policy, the benefits to households, for the country as a whole, would exceed the costs.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What’s driving up your expenses? Many Americans say climate change. on Jun 12, 2026.

Travis Terry lives in Forest Hills, a neighborhood in Queens about 5 minutes from an abandoned rail line. He describes the tracks, last used in 1962, as a “blight” plagued by illegal dumping. “It’s been sitting there for 65 years now,” he said, “and those of us in the community, we got tired of what it had become.” 

Terry has long seen great potential for a green space that would allow people to easily bike to Forest Park, the borough’s third largest park. He’s pursued this vision since 2011, advocating for a proposal, called QueensWay, to convert the 3.5 miles of idle railway into a 47-acre park.  

But some would rather the tracks, once the Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Rail Road, become a subway line running north-south through New York’s largest borough. 

Andrew Lynch doesn’t see why it can’t be both. “When I saw this debate, I was like, ‘Man, none of you guys want to work together. Let me show you what’s up,’” Lynch told Grist. He wrote a blog post in 2016 outlining a project with rail service and green space. That led to the formation of QueensLink, a proposal to extend the subway’s M Train line and create 33 acres of parkland. 

All these years later, the two ideas remain at odds, a dispute that mirrors debates in other cities over how to repurpose such infrastructure — whether as transit, green space or some combination of the two. Nationwide, more than 25,000 miles of rail have been converted to recreational trails. The Atlanta Beltline is among the most prominent examples with its 22-mile loop of trails and parks, though plans to include light rail have stalled.

The debate in New York is happening even as the city continues expanding its subway system. It is spending $5.5 billion on the Interborough Express to connect Queens and Brooklyn, and $7.7 billion on phase two of Manhattan’s Second Avenue Subway. Queens, meanwhile, has shown steady growth since the pandemic, and residents make more commutes by car than those in any other borough. New York also has a history of ambitious rail-to-trail projects, including The High Line, and officials have spent more than a decade investing in equitable park access.

This long-running question now confronts Mayor Zohran Mamdani. While QueensWay’s first phase is expected to begin construction later this year, supporters of QueensLink are urging city and state officials not to foreclose the possibility of restoring rail service.

As an assemblyman representing parts of Queens, Mamdani expressed support for QueensLink in 2023. As mayor, however, he included $43 million for the QueensWay park project in his $124.7 billion annual budget. “The City remains committed to expanding green and open space across the boroughs and is actively exploring all available funding options to make that a reality,” a mayoral spokesperson told Grist.

Lynch said QueensLink supporters were “miffed” and “shocked” by that decision. A City Hall official told Grist the decision to finance the park does not preclude building the rail line as well.

Phase one of QueensWay, which would create a 5-acre linear park, is set to begin later this year. Phase Two, which would have added a 1.3 mile extension, was to be paid for with a $117 million grant from the federal Reconnecting Communities initiative, but Congress rescinded funding for that program when it passed the Big Beautiful Bill. 

Read Next Your local park is bringing in the green (and by that, we mean money) Matt Simon

Mamdani’s staff recently told QueensLink supporters that the park project’s first phase is too far along to stop, according to Lynch, and said the administration will not rezone the land as park space. That preserves the possibility of also building the subway line, a point former Mayor Eric Adams’ administration made when it said one does not preclude the other. However, Lynch thinks the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA, which operates much of the region’s transit network, would balk at building a line on park land. 

Lynch said QueensLink is looking for Governor Kathy Hochul, who appoints the MTA’s board and plays a major role in drafting its budget, to support the project. Her office directed Grist to the MTA and New York City Hall for comment. 

The nonprofit Trust for Public Land has supported the park project since 2011. Tamar Renaud, its New York State director, said QueensWay will boost equity by eventually serving four of the 20 neighborhoods with the least amount of accessible park acreage. With 28 schools around the rail line, it would improve recreation for kids, while making the area more bikeable and walkable. “It was really about reconnecting communities that had been separated through these big infrastructure projects,” she said. 

QueensWay supporters see their project as more practical. A 2019 MTA report found that the QueensLink rail line would cost $8.1 billion, but the agency has since revised that to $5.9 billion and estimated it would serve 39,000 daily riders. “Reactivating the Rockaway Beach Branch with NYCT service has a high cost and serves a relatively modest number of riders,” the agency concluded. “This project would reduce auto usage and provide additional rail connections, but compared to other projects, the benefits are average for sustainability and resiliency.”

Advocates for the park project, on the other hand, put its cost at around $350 million. “I think we all recognize that after all these studies there wasn’t going to be a train,” Terry said.

Railway supporters argue the MTA’s cost estimate is high and its ridership estimate low. They hired the consulting firm Transportation Economics & Management Systems to evaluate the report; it placed the cost closer to $3.5 billion. A New York University report estimated it would serve around 75,000 daily riders; another found it would take 14,800 cars off the road each day. 

Eric Goldwyn, an expert on public transit project costs at the NYU Marron Institute, said QueensLink might not hugely boost ridership but that it would benefit operations by allowing busy trains on Queens Boulevard to run at a higher capacity. 

In Goldwyn’s view, QueensLink is the project that harmonizes rail and park. Like Lynch, he thinks the advancement of QueensWay would not be a good sign for QueensLink. “Once that first spade of dirt is turned over, the odds become… longer,” he said. “It’ll be harder and harder to envision QueensLink in the way that it’s been proposed.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What is the best use for old railroad tracks? New Yorkers have opinions. on Jun 12, 2026.

This story is made possible through a partnership between Grist and The Flatwater Free Press, Nebraska’s first independent, nonprofit newsroom focused on investigations and feature stories.

Applause echoed through the halls of the Gage County courthouse. The county board had just approved new, more stringent wind energy regulations, and the overflow crowd of residents couldn’t contain themselves. 

Few in the crowded courthouse that day in September 2020 beamed brighter than Larry Allder. The Cortland-area resident helped lead the yearslong charge against wind energy’s looming expansion into the county. 

“It’s been a long road,” he told The Voice News after the vote.

Now six years later, another historically controversial energy source — nuclear power — could be coming. Last month, the Nebraska Public Power District, or NPPD, announced a list of four potential sites for a new nuclear power plant. Gage County, south of Lincoln on the border with Kansas, is on it. This time, though, Allder has no plans to mount an opposition.

“I think that’s a great idea. I like nuclear energy,” Allder said. “I think it’s the way of the future.”

Despite a legacy that often invokes fear, there are signs nuclear development won’t face the backlash that other energy sources, especially renewables, have generated for Nebraskans in recent years. “They were just trying to stick the wind turbines really close to my property, and I do not like wind energy,” Allder said. He considers the turbines to be “ugly.” More substantively, Allder thinks that wind and solar projects produce “very inefficient and very costly and very intermittent power.” Nuclear, however, he said, is “clean and it doesn’t take up much land space.”

Grist spoke with leaders in the four communities identified by NPPD — Beatrice, Sutherland, Norfolk, and Brownville— and most said their communities are open to a new nuclear project.

“I think the general consensus is still that we’re supportive of nuclear energy,” Madison County Commissioner Troy Uhlir said. “There’s definitely more people speaking up and saying, ‘No, not here,’ (but) it’s not overwhelming.”

Beatrice Mayor Bob Morgan said his community is excited to be in the top four site options.

In Sutherland, a few residents have voiced questions on safety, said Scott Meyer, chairman of the village board. Both Uhlir and Meyer believe those concerns can be calmed by education. 

“What I find pleasing and reinforcing is that there is a lot of support out there,” NPPD CEO Tom Kent told Grist. “Those communities are really interested in hosting and being a location for this kind of development, and Nebraska has always been a state that’s been very supportive of nuclear power.”

Read Next For first time, Americans are getting more of their electricity from solar than coal Tik Root

Nationally, lawmakers in both parties have begun embracing nuclear power, as have everyday people like Allder. It also is being eyed by utilities, lured — amid growing demand for electricity — by its ability to generate large amounts of power without spewing climate-warming greenhouse gases.

Technological advancements offer another selling point. The next generation of nuclear power plants aims to solve problems the industry has historically grappled with, including their high costs, lengthy constructions, and safety concerns.

Proponents of nuclear say that advanced reactor plants like small modular reactors, or SMRs, could solve those problems that have long beset the industry. These reactors are also expected to be flexible, generating more or less power as needed, which can work well with renewables, said Joseph Giitter, a former senior executive at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And the latest innovation wave has generated a massive amount of support from private tech companies and investors who are betting on nuclear as a solution for the spike in electricity demand from data centers. 

While projects involving new nuclear designs have started in Tennessee, Wyoming, and Washington, Nebraska is probably a decade away from seeing a new nuclear plant, which is why it’s important to start research now, Kent said. 

“When nuclear takes off, it’s going to take off quick. So we want to be ready to be in that first set of fast follower orders, right? Or we’ll miss the middle of the next decade,” he said.

NPPD was recently awarded over $27 million in cost-shared funding by the Department of Energy to apply for a federal permit needed to site a new nuclear plant. According to Kent, the funding will cover less than half of the application costs. In terms of designs, Kent says NPPD is considering designs similar to the small reactors being tested in Wyoming and Tennessee. But it remains to be seen whether this next generation of nuclear reactors can deliver what its proponents promise. 

The utility is also open to large-scale reactors, like the ones installed at Plant Vogtle in Georgia — a cautionary tale for Nebraska.

Georgia’s two new nuclear reactors started producing power in 2023 and 2024, 15 years after the utility applied for a license, according to the Associated Press. These reactors are more advanced than most operating in the U.S.. The project wrapped up years behind schedule and, at more than $30 billion, was over budget. In the end, the new reactors led to rate hikes for power customers, which fueled public backlash. 

Southern Company’s CEO, Chris Womack noted its subsidiary Georgia Power faced unique obstacles, including a nearly nonexistent workforce and supply chain, complications posed by the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and the bankruptcy of the design contractor. 

But nuclear projects have historically run into significant delays and gone way over budget, said Edward Kee, CEO of Nuclear Economics Consulting Group. Large or small, these projects in the U.S. can be a gamble for utilities and their rate payers.

For context, NPPD’s Cooper Nuclear Station, which opened in 1974 and is the state’s only commercial nuclear plant in operation, cost about $313 million to build. Adjusted for inflation, that price tag translates to roughly $2.1 billion in today’s dollars. Omaha Public Power District’s now-retired Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, which started operating in 1973, cost about $165 million to build. That would be roughly $1.2 billion today.

Sometimes, that gamble pays off, as happened in south Texas where, 20 years later, customers are experiencing lower power rates, Kee said. But in other cases, the projects never made it to completion. Since 2010, there have been at least 11 canceled commercial nuclear power reactor plans, according to the NRC. 

While new advanced reactors may minimize issues seen in Georgia, they too carry financial risks because they haven’t been tested, Giitter said. 

“The promise of the technology is there, but it hasn’t been proven yet,” Giitter said.

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Nuclear in my backyard: A Nebraska utility is skirting the public backlash that plagues wind and solar on Jun 12, 2026.