You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
What a “whole of government” approach to energy looks like for the next White House.

Within days of stepping into the White House in 2021, President Biden introduced his “whole of government” approach to tackling climate change. Now, months out from Trump’s inauguration, it's looking like the returning president may emulate that whole of government strategy for his energy agenda — of course, to much different ends.
Trump announced last week that he would create a National Energy Council (or is it the Council of National Energy?) to “oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE.” Doug Burgum, Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Interior, would sit at the helm. Over the weekend Trump announced his nominee for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, who would also be part of it.
It’s not unusual for presidents to create new councils or offices within the White House to help implement their policy goals. Biden established a National Climate Task Force made up of cabinet secretaries and department heads to facilitate communication and coordination across the federal government. From the little information we have so far about Trump’s plans, it seems he’s creating a similar body to implement his promise of opening up the floodgates for oil and gas production. Here’s what we know.
In a statement announcing Burgum as his nominee for Secretary of the Interior, Trump said Burgum would also be chairman of the “newly formed, and very important, National Energy Council, which will consist of all Departments and Agencies involved in the permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation, of ALL forms of American Energy.” A few days later, he also named Wright to the council.
Trump has not named other members yet, but the description implies that his EPA pick, Lee Zeldin, his Transportation Secretary nominee, Sean Duffy, and his Secretary of Commerce candidate, Howard Lutnick, are all likely contenders to join Burgum and Wright.
Membership in the group is likely to be similar to that of Biden’s Climate Task Force, with one exception. Biden’s group was chaired by appointed White House climate advisors — his climate “czars,” if you will — Gina McCarthy and John Podesta, rather than Senate-confirmed agency heads. As Interior Secretary, Burgum’s sphere of influence over energy production would typically be limited to oil and gas leasing and solar and wind development on federally-owned lands and waters. But as the head of Trump’s energy council, he could play a larger role orchestrating energy policy across the federal government, Justin Vaughn, a political scientist at Coastal Carolina University who studies presidential cabinets told me.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox each day.
Trump's main directive for the council is to cut red tape for energy projects and focus on “INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation.” He goes on to describe his vision for “energy dominance” as one where the U.S. can “sell energy to our friends, including all European Nations, which will make the world a safer place.” That may be an allusion to plans for approving new liquified natural gas export terminals and expedite permitting for these facilities — items high on the industry’s wish list for the Trump administration. (Trump intends to give Burgum a role on the National Security Council, in addition to the Energy Council, where Burgum could also have a voice in foreign trade policy.)
Another goal Trump mentions in the Burgum announcement is “dramatically increasing baseload power” for the electric grid, which he says will reduce costs for consumers and businesses. That could mean clearing hurdles to build new natural gas power plants, as well as nuclear and geothermal power plants.
The Energy Council won’t have unilateral authority to do any of this. Its primary power will be the ability to convene leaders from different parts of the executive branch and agencies for regular meetings, Costa Samaras, a professor at Carnegie Mellon who served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as the Principal Assistant Director for Energy during much of the Biden presidency, told me. The meetings might be a place to track progress on Trump’s overarching goals, flag certain rulemakings that are underway, or develop subgroups to work on specific issues like permitting or leasing. At this point, it’s not clear whether the council could do much more than that.
Samaras objected to Trump’s stated goal of “energy dominance,” arguing that the U.S. already is energy dominant. Oil exports reached a record high in 2023. The U.S. has produced more crude oil than any other nation, ever, for the past six years in a row.
If Trump truly wants to cut costs for consumers, his council should focus on increasing the grid’s transmission capacity, which would “unlock clean energy that is waiting in the interconnection queue,” Samaras said. “I see that as the lowest hanging fruit.”
Vaughn cautioned against reading too much into the council at this point. “When presidents create these offices or councils within their White Houses, it is typically symbolic to show that they're prioritizing something,” he said. What will matter is whether the group actually meets regularly or whether it gets staffed up. For example, Biden created a whole new White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy with a full staff to support the Climate Task Force.
“Sometimes they are very influential. Sometimes they basically exist on paper. And so it remains to be seen,” said Vaughn.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob talks with Evergreen Action’s Lena Moffitt and Pete Wyckoff about why they support BAAJA, even in spite of its flaws.
The Senate will likely vote next week on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, a bill to reshape the federal permitting process.
The proposed legislation has divided the environmental community and the set of interest groups often aligned with Democrats. The Wilderness Society and Earthjustice are opposed, and the Sierra Club wants big changes. The AFL-CIO and the National Urban League support the measure.
One of the few environmental nonprofits to affirmatively endorse the bill — and not express concerns or just stay silent — is Evergreen Action, a relatively young think tank and advocacy group that is entirely focused on climate change, clean energy, and decarbonization. “Despite the monumental election, I do not believe that a better deal is around the corner. The time to act is now,” Lena Moffitt, its executive director, said in a statement last week. “We have to start building clean energy at scale.”
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Lena Moffitt, Evergreen’s executive director, and Pete Wyckoff, its vice president of policy. They discuss why Evergreen endorsed the bill, how Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act experience led to this moment, and what still keeps them up at night about the bill. They also chat about how — even if the bill passes — big changes will be needed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Mentioned:
“Why We’re Supporting the Permitting Bill,” by Lena Moffitt
Senate Permitting Deal Wins First Vote
The Last-Minute Changes to the Senate Permitting Deal, Explained
Martin Heinrich on What’s Next for Permitting Reform
Previously on Shift Key: Why Permitting Reform Is a Historic Victory Over Utilities
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Formed through a joint venture between Wärtsilä and RCT Solutions, Valo helps utilities, independent power producers, and developers navigate market and grid complexity without sacrificing system performance. Learn more at valoenergy.com.
Every year Giving Green researches the top climate nonprofits and sends 100% of every dollar donated to its Giving Green Fund straight to them. Make your first gift before the new year, and it will be matched up to $1,000. Go to GivingGreen.earth/Shift.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Smoke from the raging fires in Indonesia may go down as this year’s deadliest climate tragedy.
It’s a morbid game to try to name the worst climate disaster of 2026. In Europe this summer, a series of extreme heat waves killed an estimated 50,000 people. In September, a thawing Himalayan glacier collapsed, sending a wall of water cascading through Tibet and Nepal, killing at least 1,500 people, with nearly 6,000 still missing months later. And this past January, authorities feared hundreds of migrants died while trying to cross the Mediterranean during Cyclone Harry, including 50 in one shipwreck alone.
But the disaster that will result in perhaps the greatest and longest-lasting tragedy is the one unfolding right now in Indonesia.
Wildfires in Sumatra and Kalimantan have burned more than 7 million acres in what is likely a record year for the fire-prone islands. The blazes have destroyed critical wildlife habitats, including rainforests occupied by orangutans, Sunda pangolins, and Javan leopards. But it’s not the direct human deaths from the fires, the habitat loss, or the historic acreage burned — those being the typical headline numbers for gauging how “bad” a given fire or fire season is — that best tell the story of the impacts, in this case.
Rather, it is the toxic smoke blanketing Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Timor-Leste. For months, those emissions have been in every breath taken by the region’s 12.5 million inhabitants, about 4% of the world’s population.
In Indonesia alone, authorities estimate the smoke has caused 400,000 respiratory infections. As of a few weeks ago, more than 75,000 cases had been recorded in children between birth and age 5. “Behind those numbers are worried families, parents keeping watch, and children struggling to breathe,” Herawati Supolo-Sudoyo, a trustee of the Indonesian Open Science Voice Foundation and chair of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences’ Commission on Medical Sciences, said during a recent public health webinar. “Babies certainly cannot say, ‘My chest feels tight.’ They rely on us to protect their breath.” (That’s according to an automated YouTube translation of her remarks.)

Children are especially vulnerable to wildfire smoke because their lungs are not fully developed, and they breathe in more air relative to their body weight than adults. Reports from local hospitals are harrowing. “Yesterday, in the inpatient ward, I saw three toddlers struggling to breathe,” one mother, whose 14-month-old died suddenly after experiencing shortness of breath, told BBC Indonesia (as translated by Mongabay). The Indonesian Philanthropy Association, a nonprofit, has taken to describing the children of Indonesia as the “lost generation” due to the suspected physical and cognitive toll of the relentless smoke exposure. Timor-Leste, which borders Indonesia to the west, has one of Asia’s youngest populations, with about 44% of its inhabitants under 18.
“We must not wait until these children are adults to calculate the losses,” Supolo-Sudoyo said.
There seems little doubt that the smoke is a climate-change-fueled public health crisis. A new study by World Weather Attribution, released Thursday, found that while the super El Niño is the primary cause of the severe reduction in rainfall that helped fuel the fires, Indonesia’s drought was “then exacerbated by record heat throughout the fire season, which was made possible due to human-caused climate change,” Theodore Keeping, a research associate with WWA, said during a press call about the findings. (The study, which uses peer-reviewed methods, has not yet been peer-reviewed itself.)
Indonesia’s fire season was about 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter due to climate change, compared to about a third of a degree Celsius hotter due to the current El Niño, WWA reports. “We also found that this year’s record-breaking heat would have been virtually impossible without climate change, even in a similar El Niño state,” Keeping said.

Smoke is still a relatively new way of quantifying the impact of a wildfire. Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health and creator of the school’s wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool, told me that though researchers have been studying smoke toxicity for years, the bad U.S. fire seasons in 2018 and 2020 helped accelerate interest and urgency. “Really high visibility and growing interest leads to a lot more studies that then enhance our knowledge about the details of this hazard,” he said of the recent spike in smoke-related research.
For example, new research released just last month by researchers at Harvard indicates that wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy is related to higher instances of autism in children. Separately, a study about chronic wildfire smoke exposure linked the pollution to an estimated 24,100 deaths in the lower 48 states every year — more than twice the number killed in drunk-driving accidents. Looking only at Indonesia, researchers linked smoke exposure in the womb during the region’s severe 1997 fire season to poorer health outcomes by age 17.
Still, coverage of wildfires largely focuses on how many people were killed by direct flame impacts, or how many acres or buildings burned. A “megafire,” for example, is a nonscientific term used by the media to describe how large a fire is physically, but not the thousands of miles further its smoke will travel. The National Interagency Coordination Center’s Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report, the end-of-year summary of fire season impacts in the United States, doesn’t even mention smoke exposure. Deadly and destructive fires in Maui and Los Angeles stand out in memory, but the hazardous air quality in the Midwest this season from the Canadian wildfires may turn out to cost as many or more lives. (Smoke toxicity and chronic exposure also complicate the cost-benefit analysis of a favorite tool of progressive fire managers: prescribed burns.)
In fact, research about smoke toxicity and widespread exposure to particulate pollution increasingly suggests that emissions might be the marquee impact of wildfires. While 30 people died directly from the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in L.A., one research paper estimated the loss of life was closer to 440, partially due to the deaths attributable to wildfire smoke in addition to stress, disruptions to the health-care infrastructure, and mental health impacts.

“The difficulty with all of this is that the smoke deaths are difficult to track,” Hayden told me. “They’re not, for instance, showing up on death certificates. While the smoke itself is very visible in the air and leads to nice photos, the impacts are much harder to take photos of.”
That’s certainly the case in Indonesia, where photos show people going about their lives in a cloud of yellow smoke, and in Singapore, where run clubs have moved their workouts into malls to try to avoid the pollution. But while a smoke-exacerbated heart attack isn’t a front-page image, to Hayden’s point, the pictures do reveal something else: just how ill-prepared our infrastructure and public health systems are for dramatic smoke events like these.
What can be done about wildfire smoke? You can invest in a really good air purifier — and use it correctly — which works so long as you can afford it, and if your home isn’t drafty to begin with, and if it isn’t too hot out that you need to open a window to stay cool at the same time. You can wear the right kind of mask, too, but it needs to fit properly and it won’t filter out gases or the smallest toxic particles. And while you can evacuate to protect yourself from an encroaching wildfire, outrunning the smoke might require you to travel hundreds of miles or, as is the case for those in Southeast Asia, literally leave your country.
In that sense, we are thinking about wildfire impacts wrong, too. Fires aren’t a hazard contained neatly within evacuation zones; the “wildland-urban interface” and “wildfire-prone landscape” describe an environment fires may erupt in, but not what they’re contained to. Whether you’re in Los Angeles or New York City, Minneapolis or Madrid, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur, the smoke will find you.
We need a ratepayer protection pledge for natural gas, too, argue two energy systems experts.
Everyone is talking about high energy prices, which were a major factor in the midterm elections. And it’s not just electricity: Families are paying 16% more for natural gas now than they were just two years ago. Within a few more years, the boom in electricity demand from data centers could add enough natural gas power plants to expand America’s gas power generation capacity by a third. Some back of the envelope math shows that the additional costs to regular customers from this expansion could total more than $23 billion across all retail gas and electricity prices by 2030.
Large users choosing gas will raise costs for the more than 70 million households in America paying a gas bill every month. It’s simple supply and demand. Some data center developers are working with utilities to connect to the grid, but many others are building their own off-grid power plants that would burn natural gas to power their operations. That would require a massive gas infrastructure build-out on top of the supply pressure, raising costs still further.
Earlier this year, hyperscalers and AI companies signed the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, committing to pay the full costs of their energy and infrastructure, “no matter what,” to avoid increasing energy costs for other customers. Agreeing to limit cost increases for energy is a good start, but the details of that pledge focused only on electricity customers, and it’s not enough to solve the problem. Almost nothing has been said on what that means for natural gas customers, or how data centers should help contain gas costs for families. As the 120th Congress, newly elected governors, and state legislators across the country consider the fastest ways to tackle volatile energy prices, they should consider a Gas Customer Protection Pledge to protect consumers from data centers contributing to surging natural gas bills.
All this new gas demand from data centers could increase costs for the rest of us in at least three ways. First, if history is any indication, the sheer volume of increased gas use will both raise gas prices and make them more volatile. Price volatility hurts poorer consumers more, with surprisingly high bills derived from market dynamics over which they have little control. Second, the pipelines, compressor stations, and other infrastructure needed to bring gas to these new facilities will cost money. Because the vast majority of utilities in America pass through both the cost of the fuel itself and the investments required to build and maintain infrastructure, these additional costs will be borne by all customers, not just the data centers.
And third — perhaps most importantly — during periods of peak system stress like winter storms or summer heat waves, all this additional gas going to data centers will make price shocks more severe. In the case of Winter Storm Fern last January, for example, natural gas prices from Chicago to Boston were 19 to 42 times higher than the national average price from the prior year.
So, how can government officials prevent all this from happening? A Gas Customer Protection Pledge would fill the gaps in the already agreed upon objective not to raise energy cost for average customers. Mirroring the points from the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, here’s how that might work.
To address energy affordability in the long run, finite resources are best spent moving energy systems off fossil fuels to improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the meantime, we must make efforts today to control natural gas costs. America’s energy affordability crisis needs answers today, not down the road.
Now is the time for a Gas Customer Protection Pledge that builds out the other half of the commitment already made by hyperscalers and AI companies not to increase energy bills for other customers.