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.
Did a battery plant disaster in California spark a PR crisis on the East Coast?
Battery fire fears are fomenting a storage backlash in New York City – and it risks turning into fresh PR hell for the industry.
Aggrieved neighbors, anti-BESS activists, and Republican politicians are galvanizing more opposition to battery storage in pockets of the five boroughs where development is actually happening, capturing rapt attention from other residents as well as members of the media. In Staten Island, a petition against a NineDot Energy battery project has received more than 1,300 signatures in a little over two months. Two weeks ago, advocates – backed by representatives of local politicians including Rep. Nicole Mallitokis – swarmed a public meeting on the project, getting a local community board to vote unanimously against the project.
According to Heatmap Pro’s proprietary modeling of local opinion around battery storage, there are likely twice as many strong opponents than strong supporters in the area:
Heatmap Pro
Yesterday, leaders in the Queens community of Hempstead enacted a year-long ban on BESS for at least a year after GOP Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, other local politicians, and a slew of aggrieved residents testified in favor of a moratorium. The day before, officials in the Long Island town of Southampton said at a public meeting they were ready to extend their battery storage ban until they enshrined a more restrictive development code – even as many energy companies testified against doing so, including NineDot and solar plus storage developer Key Capture Energy. Yonkers also recently extended its own battery moratorium.
This flurry of activity follows the Moss Landing battery plant fire in California, a rather exceptional event caused by tech that was extremely old and a battery chemistry that is no longer popular in the sector. But opponents of battery storage don’t care – they’re telling their friends to stop the community from becoming the next Moss Landing. The longer this goes on without a fulsome, strident response from the industry, the more communities may rally against them. Making matters even worse, as I explained in The Fight earlier this year, we’re seeing battery fire concerns impact solar projects too.
“This is a huge problem for solar. If [fires] start regularly happening, communities are going to say hey, you can’t put that there,” Derek Chase, CEO of battery fire smoke detection tech company OnSight Technologies, told me at Intersolar this week. “It’s going to be really detrimental.”
I’ve long worried New York City in particular may be a powder keg for the battery storage sector given its omnipresence as a popular media environment. If it happens in New York, the rest of the world learns about it.
I feel like the power of the New York media environment is not lost on Staten Island borough president Vito Fossella, a de facto leader of the anti-BESS movement in the boroughs. Last fall I interviewed Fossella, whose rhetorical strategy often leans on painting Staten Island as an overburdened community. (At least 13 battery storage projects have been in the works in Staten Island according to recent reporting. Fossella claims that is far more than any amount proposed elsewhere in the city.) He often points to battery blazes that happen elsewhere in the country, as well as fears about lithium-ion scooters that have caught fire. His goal is to enact very large setback distance requirements for battery storage, at a minimum.
“You can still put them throughout the city but you can’t put them next to people’s homes – what happens if one of these goes on fire next to a gas station,” he told me at the time, chalking the wider city government’s reluctance to capitulate on batteries to a “political problem.”
Well, I’m going to hold my breath for the real political problem in waiting – the inevitable backlash that happens when Mallitokis, D’Esposito, and others take this fight to Congress and the national stage. I bet that’s probably why American Clean Power just sent me a notice for a press briefing on battery safety next week …
And more of the week’s top conflicts around renewable energy.
1. Queen Anne’s County, Maryland – They really don’t want you to sign a solar lease out in the rural parts of this otherwise very pro-renewables state.
2. Logan County, Ohio – Staff for the Ohio Power Siting Board have recommended it reject Open Road Renewables’ Grange Solar agrivoltaics project.
3. Bandera County, Texas – On a slightly brighter note for solar, it appears that Pine Gate Renewables’ Rio Lago solar project might just be safe from county restrictions.
Here’s what else we’re watching…
In Illinois, Armoracia Solar is struggling to get necessary permits from Madison County.
In Kentucky, the mayor of Lexington is getting into a public spat with East Kentucky Power Cooperative over solar.
In Michigan, Livingston County is now backing the legal challenge to Michigan’s state permitting primacy law.
On the week’s top news around renewable energy policy.
1. IRA funding freeze update – Money is starting to get out the door, finally: the EPA unfroze most of its climate grant funding it had paused after Trump entered office.
2. Scalpel vs. sledgehammer – House Speaker Mike Johnson signaled Republicans in Congress may take a broader approach to repealing the Inflation Reduction Act than previously expected in tax talks.
3. Endangerment in danger – The EPA is reportedly urging the White House to back reversing its 2009 “endangerment” finding on air pollutants and climate change, a linchpin in the agency’s overall CO2 and climate regulatory scheme.