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:
On Chilean copper, Chinese offshore wind, and American uranium

Current conditions: A tornado that formed amid the storms pummeling the Midwest touched down in northwest Indiana and killed two • The Philippines’ Mount Kanlaon erupted 150 meters into the air in at least the fourth eruption on the archipelago this month • The swarm of earthquakes that started rattling northern Louisiana last week is continuing.
Oil prices surged 8% as Iran refused to start ceasefire talks with the United States and vowed to drive oil prices up by more than 100%. In a statement, Ebrahim Zolfaqari, a spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military command headquarters, said the world should “get ready for oil to be $200 a barrel” as “we will never allow even a liter of oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz for the benefit of the United States, the Zionist regime, or their partners.” Living up to its threat, Iranian missiles struck three ships Wednesday attempting to cross the narrow channel in the Persian Gulf through which about one-fifth of the world’s hydrocarbons typically flow. The U.S. military, after vowing to safely shepherd ships via the waterway, turned down requests yesterday for an escort, The Wall Street Journal reported. During a televised appearance Wednesday with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said the Strait would reopen “hopefully in the next few weeks.” Later that evening, during an interview that aired on CNN, President Donald Trump said the strait was in “great shape,” promising, “We’re going to look very strongly at the strait.”

In the meantime, the International Energy Agency agreed to release more than 400 million barrels of oil from the world’s strategic reserve, by far the largest disbursement in history. Wright’s Department of Energy, too, will release 172 million barrels onto the market to keep prices down. The U.S. just refilled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which the Biden administration tapped to battle surging inflation a few years ago. In fact, U.S. crude exports fell last year for the first time since 2021, in large part due to efforts to redirect flows to the national stockpile, according to analysis the Energy Information Administration just released. All that stored oil will only cover about a month of global demand, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote yesterday, succinctly summarizing the stakes like this: “This oil supply shock is very, very bad.”
Big money is pouring into the U.S. congressional race to replace former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene in her conservative district in northwest Georgia. The first big spend came from Leading the Future, a super PAC backed by artificial intelligence companies that raised more than $125 million last year. According to Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Greg Bluestein, the group is spending $500,000 to back Republican Clay Fuller, Trump’s favored candidate, ahead of next month’s special runoff election. Taylor Greene, a right-wing populist who resigned from office following a public fallout with the president, emerged as a fierce critic of the AI industry’s data center buildout. Georgia led the nationwide push to ban data centers, with a state lawmaker introducing what The Guardian called one of the country’s first bills to put a moratorium on the buildout.
With copper prices at a record high, shifting political winds in major mining countries matter more than ever. All eyes, as I told you last month, are now on one of South America’s richest countries. On Wednesday, Chile inaugurated José Antonio Kast as its new president, replacing the copper- and lithium-rich nation’s most left-wing leader in half a century with its farthest-right head of state since the fall of former dictator Augusto Pinochet. The sea change comes just a month after Chile became the latest country to sign onto an 11-nation minerals accord with Washington, according to Buenos Aires Times. One of the first moves Kast is expected to make is placing mining under the country’s economic development ministry, and appointing Daniel Mas — an agribusiness executive with no background in mining — to be in charge. “Supporters of the model argue that tighter alignment between mining and economic policy could improve coordination on investment and competitiveness,” reporter Agustín de Vicente wrote in the Valparaíso-based mining trade publication Reporte Minero. “Critics, however, warn that mining’s technical complexity, long project cycles and strategic importance require dedicated expertise and institutional focus.” The next big priority will be permitting reform for the mining industry. The prospects for the green hydrogen industry are less clear. Under leftist President Gabriel Boric, the government last year approved a $423 million green hydrogen project, part of a burgeoning industry in the country. The Boric administration unveiled a finalized national strategy for green hydrogen just a week before the inauguration. Whether Kast holds to that plan remains to be seen, but it’s more likely he’ll overhaul the policy.
On the opposite side of the global copper supply chain, Mongolia is demanding earlier payments and a larger share of the sweeping Oyu Tolgoi copper mine the country co-owns with Rio Tinto. The government of President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, which owns a 34% stake through the state-owned Erdenes Mongol LLC, said it considers the current agreement unfair and wants dividend payments on a faster schedule in addition to a 60% share of returns. “These discussions reflect our continued commitment to working together to achieve Oyu Tolgoi’s full potential for the benefit of all partners,” Rio Tinto told Mining.com.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Dajin Heavy Industry, a Chinese manufacturer of offshore wind foundations, has begun promoting its plans to go public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, offshoreWIND.biz reported. The privately-owned Beijing-based company has so far self-funded its expansion, including a new assembly plant in Tangshan, the development of a fleet of deck carriers for transporting turbine components, and direct investments into wind and solar projects across China. It’s a sign of how much China’s wind industry is growing. As I reported in Monday’s newsletter, global wind installations hit a record high last year as Chinese companies surged into dominance, seizing eight of the top 10 manufacturer slots. Last October, Matthew wrote that a Chinese company’s new factory in Scotland augured the eventual takeover of one of Europe’s few strong domestic energy industries.
The Canadian mining startup Myriad Uranium has announced plans to double the size of its Copper Mountain Uranium Project in Wyoming, increasing the total holdings from about 9,439 acres to 18,351 acres. The expansion, the company said, came after a recent “high-resolution radiometric and magnetic survey” revealed that the deposit likely stretches east of where the existing project has already explored. “Confidence is increasing that we now have one of the largest uranium projects in the United States,” Myriad CEO Thomas Lamb said in a statement. “As uranium prices rise, a progressively larger share of our endowment will transition into economic viability, offering strong leverage to the steadily increasing price of uranium.”
If I were a cornier writer, I would earnestly try to come up with a Sonic pun. University of Oxford researchers found that ultrasound-repellers could save hedgehogs from cars. A study published Wednesday in Biology Letters demonstrates for the first time that hedgehogs can hear high-frequency ultrasound, highlighting the possibility that repellers could deter the mammals from scurrying into roads where they’re frequently killed by cars. “Having discovered that hedgehogs can hear in ultrasound, the next stage will be to find collaborators within the car industry to fund and design sound repellents for cars,” Sophie Lund Rasmussen, the assistant professor who served as lead researcher on the paper, said in a press release. “If our future research shows that it proves possible to design an effective device to keep hedgehogs away from cars, this could have a significant impact in reducing the threat of road traffic to the declining European hedgehog.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.
The local government of Boulder City, Nevada had previously rejected a proposal for the computing facility, which would draw power from the existing electricity supply.
The U.S. government for the first time approved a data center on federal lands. What the Trump administration is pitching as a demonstration of bureaucratic speed and ambition in the era of artificial intelligence, however, is turning into the same sort of mysterious backroom deal that’s upsetting other communities.
On Monday, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it would allow a large AI data center to be built on a plot of federal land technically within the limits of Boulder City, Nevada. The approval was initially granted as a right-of-way in 2023 for the second phase of a solar project known as Townsite Solar, to be built by a joint venture between Skylar Opportunities LLC, a subsidiary of Houston energy trader Bill Perkins’ investment firm, and renewables developer Arevon. (Ironically, Perkins also just launched an ETF to profit from higher electricity demand.)
Earlier this year, the LLC overseeing the project — itself named Townsite Solar 2 — notified the city that it would change tack and instead construct a large data center on the site. There would be no new power generation installed — rather, the facility would hook up directly to an existing substation. This time, the backlash was immediate and fierce, and led Boulder City’s planning commission to reject the data center within city limits.
Quietly, Townsite Solar 2 had prepared a backup plan: The project would shift to federal land that was already approved to use for the second phase of the solar farm. It wasn’t until early July that the Boulder City government and its residents learned that BLM had given Townsite Solar 2 permission to advance the data center without any new public hearings or comment periods. According to BLM, the data center would be essentially like a solar farm, so it wouldn’t require any new review.
“The BLM concluded that the new proposed action — a data center — is essentially the same,” city government attorney Brittany Walker told the Boulder City council at a July 14 public hearing. “This is a departure from previous precedent and procedure as the BLM essentially sweepingly approved a new land use without following processes in federal law.”
Boulder City is now fighting the federal assessment. Walker claimed at the July 14 hearing they weren’t notified ahead of time that Townsite Solar 2 would be so quickly approved and built on this parcel of federal acreage, a form of government-to-government communication often required under federal land use planning statutes.
Mystery continues to swirl around what BLM did here — and how Townsite Solar 2 got the agency to do it.
Nada Culver, who served as No. 2 at BLM under the Biden administration, told me that BLM had veered from the usual course of business in approving this data center. Consulting local governments before a decision is made “sits at the heart” of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, which is the primary statute governing BLM’s land use decision-making, she said. Both that law and the National Environmental Policy Act are “supposed to involve the government actually looking at environmental impacts and sharing them. so it’s not responsible or arguably even legal for the BLM to say, ‘We aren’t going to look at those impacts or share them with the public,” she added.
Boulder City officials have said this is the first major data center approval on federal lands, to their knowledge. Culver told me she believed that to be true, and hadn’t heard of such a thing happening before. “This isn’t a niche BLM issue, so to try and say this is just another use when we’re all surrounded with this loud discussion at the national level about data centers is particularly stark.”
Patrick Donnelly of the Center for Biological Diversity told me his organization and the Sierra Club, another legacy conservation group, are planning a separate legal challenge, one they say is intended to stop more such swaps from happening. Donnelly noted that at least two more data center projects — both powered by on-site gas — are poised to start the federal permitting process at any moment, according to the BLM’s online materials.
“This is the first one, and it’s going to set the stage for these things on public lands, and we can’t let this happen,” he told me.
The timing of this fight couldn’t be worse for the Trump White House, as officials try to pivot towards a “feel your pain” message ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. On Thursday, utilities and data center developers joined Trump cabinet officials at the Environmental Protection Agency for a joint event promoting the administration’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a voluntary set of industry practices geared toward ensuring the cost of AI infrastructure isn’t borne by those living near it.
With the BLM’s decision to advance the data center on federal land, Boulder City will lose an estimated $2.3 million in annual leasing and taxation revenue that it would’ve received if the project were built on city land, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. If the project is built on BLM land, Boulder City officials have said they’ll still be forced to front the cost for water and sewage hookup to the facility, as well as road maintenance.
Townsite Solar 2 told me in an unattributed statement that it wants Boulder City “to receive the greatest possible revenue and contribution benefits from the project, regardless of siting on federally-owned or city-owned land.”
“TS2 wants the project to provide meaningful, measurable benefits for Boulder City residents, local businesses, and the broader community. Our goal is to develop a responsible, sustainable project that Boulder City can be proud of and that can serve as a national model.”
The people I talked to for this story were largely flummoxed at BLM’s determination that the data center would be “essentially like” the solar farm that was approved in 2023. “These are two unrelated projects,” Culver told me. “I find it very hard to see how this would not trigger the need for a new analysis or public engagement.”
BLM’s logic made my head hurt, too. Among other things, the agency said “both proposals will use the exact same location, same acreage, and same perimeter,” and “both are proposals for industrial uses that will operationalize cutting-edge technologies that are predominantly electrical and solid state in nature.” The agency also claimed the data center was just like the solar farm because construction would take approximately the same amount of time, and would involve facilities and changes that “are visually geometric and less than 30 feet in height.”
You could describe a data center this way, but you could also describe any other number of things this way: a grocery store, a factory, a rollercoaster.
When I asked BLM for comment, a spokesperson simply sent me back the text used in the press release announcing Townsite Solar 2’s data center approval. A press representative for Townsite Solar 2 declined to provide details about who handled government affairs for the data center project, except to say that it hadn’t hired any federal lobbyists.
Some of Trump’s loudest critics told me they think this deal happened because Arevon, a joint partner described as a key financier in the project’s application with Boulder City, hired lobbyists with The Bernhardt Group, a government relations firm created last year by former Trump Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. Arevon hired the firm around the same time Townsite Solar 2 initiated the process to use the federal land for the data center, according to federal disclosures.
I have a history with Bernhardt. After leaving the Trump administration in 2021, Bernhardt went on to run the Trumpworld think tank America First Policy Institute and released a tell-all book, You Report to Me, that called for the bureaucracy to stand down against — as he put it to me — “the interests of the executive.” (I interviewed him around the time of its publication, after which he gave me an unsolicited copy of the book that I keep at my bedside as a form of dark humor.)
These days Bernhardt’s firm represents oil interests, including energy companies, mining, and large-scale agricultural interests that use lots of water (think: almonds). But it’s also pitching itself to the AI energy commentariat. In May, the former Interior secretary authored an op-ed in The Washington Examiner calling for rapid investment in U.S. artificial intelligence infrastructure. He then took to right-wing TV network Newsmax to promote the column, arguing that people fighting to stop data centers were just trying to “oppose the president’s vision for energy dominance.”
It would be easy to point at these federal disclosures and online comments and claim this bizarre data center land use swap is the work of a familiar Trump-era boogeyan. Except Arevon was effusive to me in saying that is not what happened here. In a statement, the company said that it’s a passive member of the joint venture, holds less than 25% ownership stake, and has “not directly hired consultants or lobbyists for this project.”
I didn’t get a response from Overwatch, a data center engineering and design firm contracted to help with the project. Overwatch does have a director of government affairs, but their hire was announced months after the application would have been submitted to BLM.
This leaves us sleuths to conclude the likeliest reason this happened is also the most obvious one: Trump just wants data centers on federal lands, and this was a way to make that happen. What happens next will have enormous implications for the future of data center development and federal land use in the United States, especially if more companies facing federal permit stonewalling seek to turn their solar farm permits into permission to build AI infrastructure.