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:
It’s all about Iran and Saudi Arabia.
What starts in Israel can turn the global energy market upside down. That’s a lesson from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which started almost exactly 50 years ago with a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on Israel and helped kick off an embargo from Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to punish the United States for supporting the Israeli military.
But despite the superficial similarities between the two conflicts, few analysts expect spiraling oil prices — at least not yet.
“Neither Israel nor its direct neighbors are large oil producers. Hence, we judge the near-term risk to oil supply as limited,” Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note to clients. “That could change in case the conflict were to extend to other countries in the region.”
The risk to oil supplies largely stem from how the conflict in Gaza affects oil-producing nations in the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran.
“The big risk to oil is the odds of the conflict escalating into the Persian Gulf. There could be disruption to oil flows stemming from a U.S. or Israeli escalation against Iran, if it becomes clear that Iran was directly involved in the conflict,” Eurasia Group analyst Greg Brew told me. “That could come in the form of a U.S. crackdown on Iran oil exports — which the U.S. has been disinclined to do this year — which would trigger an Iranian response in the Persian Gulf.”
Rory Johnston, founder of Commodity Context, said that up to one million barrels per day of Iranian exports were at risk if Israel and the United States determined Iran was responsible for the attacks and responded accordingly. “Will Israel attack Iranian infrastructure in retaliation? U.S. sanctions enforcement has been weak over the past year as part of a suite of efforts aimed at getting Iran back in some kind of nuclear deal — does that reverse?”
“If the U.S. or Israel decides to take the fight to Iran, [it] would spin things out in a way that would disrupt oil flows and push prices upward,” Brew told me.
The other major player is Saudi Arabia, which was in the process of negotiating a U.S.-brokered deal to formally recognize Israel, which would be a tectonic shift in the politics of the Middle East.
Last week, oil prices actually declined meaningfully thanks to optimism about the Saudi-Israeli-American deal. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that “Saudi Arabia has told the White House it would be willing to boost oil production early next year if crude prices are high,” explicitly in order to help pave the way for a deal with Israel.
Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia announced that it would cut production down by a million barrels a day to nine million, a move which immediately raised suspicions that it would, intentionally or not, damage the Biden administration by leading to a hike in gas prices. Towards the end of last year, average gas prices fell as low as $3.09 per gallon, before rising to $3.87 in August. They are around $3.80 today.
The Biden administration has been trying to navigate twin goals of containing consumer prices — including for gasoline — and transitioning away from fossil fuels. Alongside the unprecedented investments in clean energy from the Inflation Reduction Act, this has meant using federal policy to lower gasoline prices by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last year and then trying to bolster U.S. production in the short term by buying oil at prices just above the breakeven price for profitable drilling.
Last Wednesday, OPEC announced that Saudi Arabia and Russia would maintain its previously announced production cuts through the end of this year. Prices for Brent crude went over $96 a barrel late last month and then fell to $84 by the end of the last week, before jumping up to around $87.50 today.
“At least part of last week’s…selloff was the news that the Saudis were negotiating with the Biden admin officials regarding Riyadh officially recognizing Israel, and as part of that deal Saudis were saying that they might ease the current production cuts early next year,” Johnston told me.
“Hard to imagine that the prospects of such a deal remain as strong given what we know Israel is going to do in Gaza in retaliation. Indeed, wedging Israel and Saudi exactly like this is one of the working theories for Iran’s possible involvement.”
At least so far, Israel and the United States have been cautious about blaming Iran for the attacks, thus likely limiting fears that the global energy market will spin out of control. For now.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Through at least 2034, if the state’s largest utility gets approval.
Georgia is arguably the heart of the Inflation Reduction Act economy. The state has been a magnet for manufacturing companies seeking to supply batteries, electric cars, and solar cells in order to capture the law’s generous tax credits for domestically built green technology.
While some of the power that supplies these facilities (not to mention data centers also flocking to the state) is clean — the only new U.S. nuclear reactors built this decade are in Georgia, and 38% of electricity generation for the state’s largest utility, Georgia Power, came from non-carbon-emitting sources in 2024 — the state is now planning to bolster its natural gas and coal fleets to support its enormous projected load growth.
Georgia Power released its 2025 Integrated Resource Plan on Friday, laying out to state regulators its forecasts for electricity demand and how it intends to bolster and adjust its fleet to meet the new usage. These exercises almost always feature eye-popping demand estimates and corrections and addendums to older plans to account for even more electricity growth than had been previously projected.
This time around, Georgia Power says it expects 8,200 megawatts of load growth through the end of 2030, which is already about 2,000 megawatts more than what it expected during its last planning exercise, when it updated its 2022 plan in 2023. To get a sense of the scale of this growth, the new Vogtle nuclear reactors have a little over 1,000 megawatts of capacity each. Together, they took 11 years and over $30 billion to build.
Georgia Power also expects 7% annual growth through the end of 2030, more than double the 3%annual growth through the end of the decade that utility planners expect nationwide.
That new power won’t just be powering data centers. It will also run much of the green economy that the Biden administration tried to build up.
“New and expanding economic development projects in Georgia have progressed more rapidly and on a larger scale than in previous years,” Georgia Power said in its filing. “Growth in emerging industries such as electric transportation (‘ET’), data centers, and solar manufacturing have accelerated since 2021.”
The report also said that by the middle of last year, “the manufacturing sector led in both investment and job creation in Georgia, representing 53% of job growth and 54% of capital investment in the state.”
Hyundai opened a plant making electric SUVs outside of Savannah in 2024, while Kia makes electric SUVs near the Alabama border after making a $200 million investment in the plant. Also last year, the Korean solar company Qcells started making solar panels in Dalton, Georgia and other components in Cartersville; another Korean company, SK Group, has plants in Commerce that make batteries for Volkswagen and Ford. And in the final days of the Biden administration, Rivian got a $6.6 billion Energy Department loan for its planned plant between Atlanta and Athens.
One reason manufacturers come to Georgia is for the power, Tim Echols, the vice-chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, argued in an Atlanta Journal Constitution op-ed Thursday: “Southern Co. and Georgia Power have a reputation for reliability,” he wrote.
And for the foreseeable future that Georgia Power plans for, that means some of its most polluting and carbon-emitting power plants will stay open.
The utility said it would continue operating its four-generator Plant Bowen coal facility, two units of which were previously scheduled to retire by 2028, as well as maintaining over 1,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity at two other plants that had previously been scheduled to shut down at the end of 2028. Georgia Power is asking state regulators to approve operation of the coal plants through at least 2034.
In the update to its previous IRP, Georgia Power extended the life of a coal plant operated by its sister utility Mississippi Power and proposed adding 1.4 gigawatts of generators that could run on natural gas or oil.
Compared to 2022, “the Company now projects capacity needs that necessitate both the extension of existing coal and gas-steam units along with the procurement of new capacity resources,” Georgia Power said in its IRP Friday.
Georgia Power’s parent company, Southern Company, still has a goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, but said in the filling that “the feasibility of continued progress toward a low-carbon future, including a net-zero future, is highly dependent on the continued use of natural gas and continued technological advancements that will facilitate a reliable and economic low-carbon electricity supply.”
The utility also wants to upgrade existing gas-fueled and hydroelectric plants, as well as acquire an additional 1,100 megawatts of new renewables, adding up to 4,000 megawatts of procurements. Georgia Power’s previous update to its 2022 IRP called for the construction of new oil and gas plants, which were approved by regulators last year.
"Georgia Power's 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) includes adding up to 4,000 megawatts of new renewable energy resources by 2035, including 1,000 MW by 2032, and more than 1,000 miles of new transmission lines. Clean energy resources and transmission solutions are vital to reducing customer costs and maintaining the high level of reliability Georgians have grown accustomed to,” Simon Mahan, executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association, said in a statement.
Whether Canadian tariffs would even apply to electricity is still a question — but if they did, things could get expensive.
Donald Trump reemphasized on Friday that he intends to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico beginning February 1, and while that date is rapidly approaching, the details remain sparse. Although the president has suggested the duties will be sweeping, covering everything from cars to lumber to oil, their impact on one key commodity — electricity — is very much in question.
The U.S. imports thousands of gigawatt hours of electricity from Canada every year, worth in the billions of dollars. While electricity from Canada makes up less than 1% of our nationwide power consumption, it’s a significant and growing source of low-cost, low-carbon power for some regions, especially the Northeast. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to cut off power exports into the U.S. entirely in retaliation for the tariffs. But even if he doesn’t, if the tariffs apply to electricity imports, then power flows across the border would still likely decline. That’s because domestic natural gas-fired power would suddenly become much more economical.
“Electricity from Canada competes against natural gas power plants,” Pierre-Olivier Pineau, a professor at the University of Montreal’s business school who studies electricity markets, told me. “The gas power plants would be so happy to have these tariffs.”
But whether the tariffs would or could apply to the trade of electricity is still a big open question. While it would be technically and administratively feasible to tax imports of electricity, Pineau told me, there’s no system set up to do that right now. “Electricity doesn’t go through customs,” he said.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
The U.S. International Trade Commission, the federal agency that advises on international trade and tariffs, told me it was not “able to speculate on tariffs being applied to electricity or how that would be done.” The public affairs officer sent me a report from the Commission, however, which confirmed that it would be unprecedented. It states that “imports of electrical energy are not considered to be subject to the tariff laws of the United States.”
Regardless, officials in Maine and Massachusetts began warning about the impacts of potential tariffs on electricity last week. Governor of Massachusetts Maura Healey told business leaders that tariffs could increase electricity costs by $100 million to $200 million statewide, as approximately 5% to 10% of the electricity New England consumes comes from Canada. (I reached out to the Independent System Operator for New England, but the grid operator had no more clarity on whether or how tariffs on power imports would work. “We do not have expertise in international trade, and we’d be looking for guidance if or when a tariff is implemented. Beyond that, we’re not able to speculate at this time.”)
The U.S. generally imports electricity from Canada in two different ways. Some of it is part of a “firm contract.” For example, the New York grid operator has a contract with Hydro-Quebec, a Canadian hydropower company, through 2030, to import up to 900 megawatts of capacity at a fixed rate. Hydro-Quebec also has an agreement with Vermont to supply about 25% of its annual electricity needs through 2038. John-Thomas Bernard, an energy economist at the University of Ottawa, told me that for those contracts, if the 25% tax applied, it would be passed directly onto customers.
But most of the electricity the U.S. consumes from Canada is purchased in a daily or hourly market, where U.S. grid operators just buy whatever is cheapest. Tariffs would essentially force Canadian producers out of that market, Bernard said. “The bulk of what would have to be replaced on the U.S. side will come from gas.”
Whether this would produce a noticeable cost increase for consumers would largely depend on the price of natural gas. In 2023, imports to New York from Quebec dropped precipitously because a drought reduced hydropower capacity, but natural gas prices were also especially low, so electricity prices were not significantly higher.
Low natural gas prices are not guaranteed in the long term, of course. “Natural gas prices are very market driven, and the more we are reliant on natural gas in the northeast, the more demand you put on that supply, the more those prices are going to go up,” Daniel Sosland, president of the New England-based environmental nonprofit the Acadia Center, told me.
And if the tariffs remained in effect in 2026, New Yorkers would be hit much harder. That’s when the Champlain Hudson Power Express, a power line that will deliver 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower into New York City, is expected to be completed. The line will supply some 20% of New York City’s electricity demand.
“I don’t know what the point of all this is,” Sosland told me. Electricity trade between the U.S. and Canada brings mutual benefits, he said. “The idea of tariffs and trying to create a fence along the system is going to be very destructive to customer cost, to clean air, to power reliability, because it’s going to foreclose all these other options that are on the table right now that provide benefits on both sides.”
The exception to all of this is a small population of about 58,000 ratepayers in the state of Maine who live near the border and get virtually all of their electricity from New Brunswick, Canada. William Harwood, the public advocate for Maine, estimates these communities could see an increase of $6 to $7 per month on their electricity bills. Harwood didn’t have any additional insight into whether the tariffs would or could apply to electricity — he was merely looking into the impacts on constituents if they did. “They are electrically part of Canada,” he said.
Editor’s note: This story originally misstated a unit of energy when referring to Canada’s energy exports. It’s gigawatt hours, not gigawatts. It’s been corrected.
This story also has been updated to reflect Trump’s continued emphasis that tariffs will begin February 1.
On Cabinent confirmations, NYC’s congestion pricing, and Orsted
Current conditions: Flowers are blooming in Moscow as parts of Russia experience unseasonally warm weather • The UK is being battered by yet another storm after Éowyn and Herminia brought back-to-back flooding events • An atmospheric river is expected to soak Northern California this weekend.
The Cabinet confirmations continue. Doug Burgum was confirmed yesterday as the new secretary of the Interior Department, where he will be in charge of executing President Trump’s plans to “drill, baby, drill.” He’ll also oversee the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management. One of his first priorities will be to carry out the president’s executive order pausing new offshore wind leasing and permitting. During his confirmation hearings, Burgum suggested that “clean coal” could help with decarbonization, backed up Trump’s disdain for wind power, and dodged questions seeking reassurance about his commitment to protecting federal lands. More than half of the Senate Democrats voted for Burgum’s confirmation.
President Trump is reportedly considering ways to cancel New York City’s congestion pricing. The tolling program – the first in the nation – came into effect in early January and has produced “undeniably positive results,” according to Janno Lieber, CEO of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. It has prevented some 1 million vehicles from entering lower Manhattan, significantly reduced congestion and commuting times, and made bus services more efficient. Weekday ridership on some bus routes has increased by nearly 15%, and subway ridership has grown by 7.3%. “Better bus service, faster drive times, and safer streets are good for all New Yorkers,” Lieber said.
MTA
The Department of Transportation this week moved to carry out some of President Trump’s executive orders aimed at eliminating all Biden-era policies that “reference or relate in any way” to climate change, “greenhouse gas” emissions (quotes are theirs), and environmental justice. A memorandum from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy gave all administrations and agencies operating under DOT purview 10 days to produce a written report listing any policies relating to these climate issues and then another 10 days to terminate those policies. Duffy’s order also canceled a 2023 DOT policy that required all agencies to consider climate change adaptation and resilience in planning. The DOT employs 55,000 people across various bureaus including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and many others.
Mads Nipper is out as CEO of the world’s largest offshore wind developer. Orsted is replacing Nipper tomorrow with the company’s current deputy chief executive and chief commercial officer, Rasmus Errboe. The decision comes just 10 days after Orsted announced a $1.7 billion write-down in the U.S., which it blamed on challenging economic conditions like high interest rates and general uncertainty about the offshore wind industry. Nipper’s departure isn’t all that surprising – he held on after the company announced huge impairments from abandoning some U.S. projects in 2023. The latest write-downs were the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” one source told the Financial Times. In a statement, Errboe acknowledged the “headwinds” facing the industry, and said “offshore wind remains crucial for the green transition, and we’re deeply committed to pursuing our vision of a world that runs entirely on green energy.”
More than $2 trillion was invested in the global energy transition last year, according to BloombergNEF’s annual energy Transition Investment Trends report. That’s 11% more than was spent in 2023, and a new record. But … investment growth seems to be slowing, and it still falls short of the $5.6 trillion that experts say will be needed each year between now and 2030 to have a shot at reaching net zero by 2050. The report contains lots of interesting statistics. For example:
“If Trump makes good on his threats to tariff oil imports from Canada and Mexico, then he will cost the American oil and gas industry tens of billions of dollars while causing gasoline prices to rise across much of the country.”
–Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer on how Trump might be about to wreck U.S. oil refineries