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:
Here’s the climate case for the Department of Energy buying millions of barrels of oil.

This might sound like heresy from a climate-change reporter, but here goes: President Joe Biden should start buying oil soon. A lot of it.
Specifically, he should begin refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, a set of subterranean salt caverns that line the Gulf Coast and can store hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. Over the past year or so, Biden sold 180 million barrels of oil from these caverns, but now it’s time to start buying that oil back. Doing so would help Biden’s domestic agenda and allow him to execute the trade of the century, generating billions of dollars in profits for the federal government.
But it would also help the climate. And every day that goes by without refilling that oil, Biden squanders his credibility and loses his clout. It’s time for the president to seal the deal.
But let’s back up.
Last year, Biden did something that — at least according to experts — should have been impossible. He tried to lower gas prices. And then he did it.
The SPR was key to the magic trick. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, oil prices spiked. By mid-March, the U.S. benchmark price for a barrel of oil — which had lingered in the $60 range for much of 2021 — reached $110. Gas hit $4.14 a gallon.
So Biden announced that the government would sell 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR over the course of six months. Despite initially rising, oil prices eventually dropped. In October, Biden formalized the SPR strategy and promised to keep oil in a goldilocks window. When oil hit $67 to $72 a barrel, he said, the Energy Department would begin refilling the SPR. That number was chosen because it’s slightly above the “breakeven” price, the price-per-barrel that American drillers need in order to turn a profit.
This pledge virtually guaranteed that the government would profit from Biden’s trade: It sold high in 2022, then it would buy low in 2023 and beyond.
There’s only one problem: It hasn’t started buying yet.
In March, oil sank below the $72 mark for two weeks, but the Energy Department didn’t start refilling the SPR. Instead, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm offered excuses as to why the department needed more time to start repurchases. Eventually, the OPEC+ cartel — annoyed that Biden hadn’t taken action yet — cut production and brought oil prices out of the refill range.
That was a profound missed opportunity — but now the White House has another chance. Earlier this week, oil fell back into the $67 to $72 range.
Here are three reasons that Biden needs to be as good as his word and buy oil — for the climate’s sake, for the country’s, and for his own.
1. When gasoline gets too cheap, the climate suffers. When oil is inexpensive, people use more of it, and they think less of using it in the future. They let their car idle longer in the driveway, and they choose to drive places that they might otherwise walk or bike to. All of that, of course, results in more carbon pollution.
Yet the real danger happens as people integrate cheap gasoline into their plans for the future. Then consumers and businesses buy bigger, more inefficient trucks and SUVs to drive around town, or they put off buying hybrids — or electric vehicles — because the fuel savings aren’t worth it. Even if the oil price eventually goes back up, those gas-guzzling vehicles remain in the fleet for years, contributing to a higher baseline of oil demand than would otherwise exist.
That’s how persistently cheap oil could drag down Biden’s climate policy. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has argued that even though electric vehicles cost more upfront, they’re “cheaper to own” than gas cars; the Environmental Protection Agency has made a similar case about its clean-cars proposal, which aims for EVs to make up two-thirds of new car sales by 2032. Those calculations are true right now, but they depend on oil prices remaining in a certain window: If gas gets too cheap, then all bets are off about EV affordability — especially if the price of lithium or another important mineral spikes, as some analysts expect.
I should add: This argument is, like, the opposite of counterintuitive. Virtually every climate-policy proposal from across the political spectrum — whether it’s implementing a carbon tax or blowing up pipelines — aims to make fossil fuels more expensive. Because if fossil fuels are more expensive, fewer people will use them. That’s the whole idea.
And refilling the SPR would certainly raise oil prices, in the same way emptying it lowered them. Which brings me to:
2. The federal government is squandering a rare moment to assert its authority in the global energy market. Since 2010, fracking and the shale revolution have turned America into the world’s largest oil producer and a net-oil exporter. Last year, the United States produced 20% of the world’s oil, more than Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. On paper, at least, the long-held dream of multiple presidential administrations — that the U.S. achieve “energy independence” — has come true.
But it’s not true in reality. That’s because power within the global oil market rests not with the biggest producer per se, but with the biggest swing producer: the country or countries that can ramp their oil production up or down at will. Right now, an informal cartel of countries called “OPEC+” — made up of the traditional OPEC countries plus Russia — has that power.
In a way, you can think of the global oil market as a giant, very fancy bathtub. Water can only enter the tub from a few dozen big faucets. (These are the oil-producing countries) And the water exits the system as it runs down a giant drain. (Oil exits the market when it’s refined into a fuel and burned, or when it’s turned into a chemical or plastic.)
In such a system, who gets to decide how full the tub is? It’s not the person with the biggest faucet, but whoever can turn their faucet on or off.
That’s what makes OPEC+ so powerful: It can turn its tap on and off. When OPEC+ decreases the flow of oil, oil prices rise; when it opens the tap, they fall. It helps, yes, that OPEC+ produces 40% of the world’s oil, but what really matters is that it can adjust its own faucet.
The United States, meanwhile, has the world’s largest faucet, but no ability to turn it on or off. In the OPEC countries, state-run companies produce oil, so governments can decide to ramp up or ramp down their country’s production as need be. But in America, hundreds of private companies and investors decide when to open new wells and increase production. Our faucet goes on and off in response to circumstances outside anyone’s control.
That was why the White House’s SPR gambit was such a neat trick. In essence, the Biden administration found a way to turn up the United States’ faucet, refilling the world’s tub and lowering oil prices for Americans. It has the opportunity to do the opposite now. By filling the SPR immediately, Biden can use the bathtub, in effect, like turning down a faucet — and therefore establish a floor under the global oil price. (Because the SPR would buy oil specifically from American producers, he would do so in a way that helps the domestic economy.)
But Biden must act now to do so. Oil is a physical thing; it can’t be delayed and appealed like a legal deadline. If Biden doesn’t seize the moment now, while oil is in this price window, then OPEC+ could cut supply again, boosting the oil price and robbing Biden of any clout and leaving America at the whim of international price setters. (This isn’t a hypothetical concern: Paranoid Democrats should consider what Biden would do — and whether he’d be able to act — if Saudi Arabia and Russia decided to, say, slash oil production a month before next year’s presidential election.)
3. Yet these wonky arguments are somewhat beside the point. There’s one overriding reason why the government must refill the SPR immediately: because President Biden said that it would.
President Biden — and the Department of Energy — are engaged in a once-in-a-generation experiment to revive “a modern American industrial strategy.” Biden wants to reshape markets, make big public investments, and push American companies to make productive and innovative decisions that help the middle class and better the planet. This is going to be hard. It’s going to be fraught. And no matter what, it’s going to require credibility: Business leaders must believe that Biden will do what he says — and that he won’t renege on commitments when politics intervene.
If Biden squanders his credibility on the SPR, the effect will be neither immediate nor dramatic. But the SPR failure will seep into his policymaking and eat away at his authority. Executives will second-guess the president’s commitment to labor, childcare, or renewables.
Presidents are said to have a “bully pulpit,” but Teddy Roosevelt coined that term to describe how the president’s words can shape economic outcomes that the Executive Branch has no explicit power over. The bully pulpit, in other words, is a major tool of industrial policy. If Biden doesn’t practice what he preaches, his will cease to exist.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Palisades’ progress, Taliban minerals, and New York’s climate superfund
Current conditions: Tropical Depression Five is barreling northwest from the Caribbean to Houston • In the Pacific, Hurricane Karina has strengthened into a Category 4 storm, but it’s unlikely to make landfall anywhere • The surface temperature of the Yellow Sea is nearly 85 degrees Fahrenheit, fueling storms across South Korea.
President Donald Trump is among the few politicians in America willing to stand 10-toes-down in defense of the need to build out more data centers. In a post Monday on Truth Social, the president admonished communities that reject data centers as misguided and foolish. “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data reign.” Still, he said “plenty of other places” want them. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame,” he wrote. “China could not be happier with this anti data center movement.” It’s not a popular stance. Heatmap Pro’s latest polling shows that three-quarters of Americans now oppose data centers built in their backyards.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down the state’s Climate Change Superfund Act on Monday, ruling that the 2024 law is invalid under the federal Clean Air Act. The law set up a cost recovery scheme whereby fossil fuel companies would pay into a fund used to finance climate change adaptation-related infrastructure projects. The state’s argument rested in part on the Trump administration’s decision earlier this year to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, which gave the agency authority to regulate climate pollution. That move “cannot be reconciled” with the administration’s argument that the CAA preempts New York’s law, the state said. Judge Brenda K. Sannes dismissed that reasoning in her decision, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in American Electric Power v. Connecticut from 2011, which, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo put it, “established companies’ protection from federal public nuisance claims over greenhouse gas emissions. That decision sprang from the Court’s earlier 2007 decision that the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gas emissions — which the EPA is now contesting.”
The case was one of at least four the Trump administration has pursued against states attempting to make fossil fuel companies cover the costs of adapting to climate change. Judges have already ruled against its attempts to prevent Hawaii and Michigan from suing fossil fuel companies, however a case against a similar superfund law in Vermont is still pending. “New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law,” Adam Gustafson, principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Energy and Natural Resources Division and the administration’s lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”
A sign of how much an industry is really booming is whether startups begin popping up to provide ancillary services. Here’s a prime example of the artificial intelligence buildout’s energy boom: The AI energy software provider Verse told Heatmap exclusively for this newsletter that it now has 30 gigawatts of power under its platform’s management. The company’s flagship product, Aria, is an intelligence platform for data center companies that brings utility bills, contracts, power purchase agreements, and live power usage data under one dashboard. The company also helps manage on-site assets such as batteries. “You can't solve for speed, cost, risk, and carbon while your supply contracts, your load, and your flexible assets sit in separate silos,” Seyed Madaeni, Verse’s chief executive and co-founder, said in a statement.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
When Holtec International starts the Palisades nuclear plant back up, the facility in western Michigan will be the first in the nation to return to life after a permanent shutdown. Once complete, the Palisades restart will set off a series of other projects, including some to repower defunct nuclear plants in Pennsylvania and Iowa. That makes each milestone in the Palisades project notable — but the one it reached Monday is particularly promising. Holtec started loading fuel into the reactor, setting the stage for it to return to service potentially before the end of the year, months before the official March 2027 start date. “Loading fuel into the Palisades reactor is an important milestone and a reflection of the tremendous effort of the men and women who have brought this plant to this point,” Fadi Diya, Holtec’s chief nuclear officer, said in a statement. Palisades’ completion won’t just kick off more restarts. Holtec also plans to build its first two 300-megawatt small modular reactors at the site. Based on the industry’s standard pressurized water technology, the company has received hundreds of millions from the Department of Energy to support its construction.

Commerce can, at times, be the ultimate salve. Raw materials flowed from the U.S. to British factories even after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Japanese and German automobiles dominate American roads decades after those nations’ defeats in World War II. As memories of war fade, Americans buy nearly $200 billion in Vietnamese goods each year, helping to transform the Southeast Asian country into a top manufacturing hub. Now the Taliban is making its pitch to Washington’s wallet. The Islamist group now leading Afghanistan said it would “absolutely” welcome U.S. investments in the rural, mountainous, and underdeveloped Central Asian country’s mining, infrastructure, or agriculture industries. “Relations between Afghanistan and the United States should not be assessed through the lens of the past 20 years of war, but rather on the basis of future co-operation,” Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi told the Financial Times at his office in Kabul. “Our economic policy is open.”
Meanwhile, from China to the U.S., lithium producers are posting what Bloomberg called “bumper profits.” Demand for energy storage is soaring, especially as countries seek to insulate themselves from the effects of the Iran War energy shock. As a result, Chinese companies such as Tianqi Lithium and Ganfeng Lithium Group reported their strongest net income in three years during the first six months of 2026. North Carolina-based Albemarle said global lithium demand had grown 45% compared to a year earlier. Australia’s PLS Group, meanwhile, “swung a $377 million profit in the 12 months to June 30 from a loss the year before,” the newswire reported.
You don’t need to be an expert in emerging markets to recognize the potential for solar. Countries that haven’t yet extended grid networks into rural areas can electrify villages using panels that are increasingly cheap and flooding into places such as sub-Saharan Africa, as I told you last week. You won’t need deep connections in those countries to start investing in that renewable energy potential, either. The startup Odyssey Energy Solutions, as my colleague Katie Brigham put it, “acts as a middleman between local installers and global capital providers that want exposure to developing markets but typically wouldn’t take the risk of financing small companies in unfamiliar environments.” This morning, the company told Katie exclusively, it’s announcing that it has raised another $74 million to fund its buildout.
Across the Global South, distributed energy is “leapfrogging a centralized grid,” Odyssey’s cofounder told Heatmap.
As old and increasingly strained as the U.S. electric grid is, Americans can still mostly count on it to keep the lights on. The average U.S. resident experiences just a few hours of power outages each year thanks to the country’s sprawling electricity distribution system. But that level of reliability is far from standard globally. Across parts of Africa, Asia, and South America, grids can be fragmented, undersupplied, and unreliable, forcing businesses to turn to expensive diesel generators for backup power — or even as their primary source of electricity when the grid can’t reliably reach them.
But as energy demand surges across the Global South, diesel prices rise with the ongoing Strait of Hormuz closure, and costs for solar and batteries continue to fall, the economics of energy in emerging markets are rapidly shifting. Commercial and industrial customers are increasingly turning to distributed solar as a reliable, affordable supplement — or alternative — to a conventional grid connection. The problem is that the small and midsize local companies capable of building these projects often lack the cash to purchase panels and batteries upfront. Equipment suppliers, meanwhile are often reluctant to extend them credit because they see the small businesses as too risky.
Odyssey Energy Solutions is built to solve that disconnect. Founded in 2017, the startup acts as a middleman between local installers and global capital providers that want exposure to developing markets but typically wouldn’t take the risk of financing small companies in unfamiliar environments. After raising a $15 million Series A in 2023, the company announced on Tuesday that it has closed a $74 million fundraising round — $27 million of equity, $47 million of debt — to expand its financing and procurement platform, deepen its presence in core markets such as Nigeria and India, and widen its business in Mexico and adjacent Latin American countries.
“It’s the same story as cell phones leapfrogging landlines,” Emily McAteer, Odyssey’s co-founder and CEO, told me. “It’s distributed energy leapfrogging a centralized grid.”
Today the company has about 6,000 commercial and industrial solar installers on its platform across more than 50 countries, and has facilitated over $3.6 billion in financing for distributed energy projects. Odyssey is planning to use its latest funding to expand beyond solar into other offerings, including financing batteries for electric two- and three-wheelers such as motorcycles and rickshaws, common modes of transit in many of its markets.
Whether it’s solar or motorcycles, Odyssey’s model works much the same way: The company places equipment orders on behalf of installers, letting them pay off the cost over time, after their own customers pay them first. While Odyssey places many small orders rather than large bulk orders with suppliers, its high transaction volume gives it significant purchasing power, allowing it to negotiate far better prices than a small business could. That lets Odyssey earn a margin on the equipment it sells while still offering installers a better deal than they would be able to secure independently.
For the installer, McAteer explained, it’s a pretty straightforward process, “You come to Odyssey’s procurement platform; you upload [the materials you need]. We come back, give you some options and good pricing on the [photovoltaic panels], the inverters, the batteries. You buy from us; you put a little bit down — a small deposit — and then the rest of the payment is due once you’ve gone and built your system, you’ve commissioned, and you’ve been paid by your client.”
Fronting that equipment cost requires significant debt on Odyssey’s own balance sheet. But because installers repay Odyssey once their projects are built, debt is a cheaper way to secure that working capital than equity, which is why it makes up the bulk of this latest funding round. McAteer says the company expects to raise another $50 million in debt over the next six months specifically to fund the extended payment terms it offers installers.
Working with thousands of these small and medium sized businesses also gives Odyssey another valuable asset: a wealth of data on their projects and performance over time. In 2021, the company acquired remote monitoring and controls startup Ferntech, giving it visibility into things like a solar project’s energy output and how customers are using that power. The data then feeds into Odyssey’s underwriting tools, giving prospective investors and lenders a way to evaluate which installers are creditworthy.
That matters because while Odyssey can help small businesses get equipment, these installers still require longer-term institutional capital from the likes of banks or development finance institutions to build their projects and support their ongoing operations. By giving capital providers a window into which installers are reliable and what projects perform well, Odyssey helps derisk the fragmented distributed energy market.
The company’s timing is certainly fortuitous. In Nigeria, one of Odyssey’s primary markets, the cost of diesel has risen over 93% in a matter of months this year due to supply disruptions in the Middle East. That’s thrown the country’s energy markets into disarray, as the country spends roughly three times as much on power from backup diesel generators as it does on grid electricity.
“There is more diesel generator capacity than there are power plants connected to the grid,” McAteer said of Nigeria. “So you already have distributed energy resources — just not renewable resources — powering the grid.” The near doubling of diesel prices has made solar and storage more compelling than ever for the country and the continent as a whole. Governments in many African countries are already offering cash incentives to distributed energy developers once their projects are up and running as part of a broader electrification push backed by a $30 billion joint commitment between the World Bank and the African Development Bank.
India, another core market for Odyssey, has also set ambitious clean electricity goals, aiming to install 500 gigawatts of non-fossil capacity by 2030, while also requiring solar cells to be manufactured domestically. At the same time, the country’s booming data center buildout is poised to drive up electricity demand, putting strain on an already unreliable grid that also depends on backup diesel power. Together, these trends are fueling a solar surge in the country — a wave that Odyssey wants to capture. India is now on track to become the world’s second largest solar market by annual installations this year, according to BloombergNEF — overtaking the U.S. and trailing only China.
“Pretty much in any market where we work, there’s just a lot happening that’s all converging around distributed energy as the future,” McAteer told me. If she’s right, some of the nations with the world’s weakest grids could be the ones best positioned to build what comes next.
A bill awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature would require utilities to at least offer to subsidize home electrification.
Going into this final stretch of the summer, I’m keeping an eye on California. Today is the last day for the state legislature to pass bills as part of its 2026 session, and lawmakers have already sent some interesting clean energy proposals to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.
On Friday, the legislature passed the Home Energy Choice Act, a bill supporting the transition to all-electric homes in the state, which builds on a growing set of policies and programs I’ve been writing about called “non-pipeline alternatives.”
Natural gas companies are constantly replacing and expanding the pipelines that deliver gas to people’s homes, but these kinds of investments are starting to look less prudent in states that are trying to transition off of fossil fuels. Utilities recover the costs of pipelines over decades through the rates their customers pay; but as people start to electrify their homes, there will be fewer customers to absorb those expenses, risking ballooning energy bills. Non-pipeline alternative programs typically require utilities to consider options for deferring or even avoiding these investments.
Sign up to get Heatmap Daily in your inbox:
Several states have created pilot programs that enable utilities to take the money they would have spent replacing an aging pipeline and instead use it to help customers go electric. Two years ago, California lawmakers authorized such a pilot focused on decarbonizing entire neighborhoods, but the implementation has been slow. The deadline for utilities to submit proposals for the first round of pilot projects isn’t until next April.
The Home Energy Choice Act would complement that program. Whereas the pilots are designed to work around replacing gas mains, the larger pipes that run down the middle of streets, the new bill would target gas service lines, the smaller pipes that connect individual homes to the mains.
In some ways, the new bill is more aggressive than the existing pilot program. In the case of the pilots, the utility has to get 67% of a neighborhood onboard before seeking approval from the utility commission to decarbonize. The new program would set no such threshold. Every time a utility identifies a service line that needs to be replaced, it will have to offer the customer at the end of the line a financial incentive to electrify instead. If Governor Newsom signs the bill, it will be the first law in the country to require investor-owned utilities to offer their customers non-pipeline alternatives.
Still, it’s entirely up to the customer whether or not to accept the incentive, so it’s unclear how effective it will be. The bill doesn’t specify how much money the utility has to offer, punting that decision to the state’s regulators. But it does say the incentive has to be lower than the average cost of a service line replacement so that it creates net savings for the utility — and therefore for the utility’s ratepayers. Service line replacements average $35,000 to $55,000 in California, according to an evaluation of the Home Energy Choice Act by University of California, Los Angeles, researchers. Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental groups that backed the bill, propose a base incentive of $15,000 per home, with a bump to $20,000 for homes in disadvantaged communities.
While that might sound substantial, it’s not going to be enough, in many cases, to cover the entire cost of heat pumps, an electric water heater, an electric or induction stove, and an electric clothes dryer. The UCLA study pins average costs for whole-home electrification in California at upwards of $25,000.
Homeowners will be able to combine the incentive with other state subsidies, but that can get complicated. One of the biggest challenges with these kinds of programs is that planning a whole-home electrification project is essentially a full time job.
Last fall, I wrote about an incentive program run by the utility Con Edison in New York State called Electric Advantage. It’s similar to California’s neighborhood pilots, in that it targets gas mains instead of service lines. If all the homeowners served by a main agree to go electric, ConEd will cover 100% of the cost of replacing their gas-powered appliances with electric versions, plus installing insulation and air sealing. My story was about Julie Liu, a contractor the utility hires to manage these projects. Liu fronts the cost of the retrofit and handles all of the scheduling and coordination between electricians, plumbers, insulation specialists, and other building professionals. She braids together various incentives to get the job done for as little money as possible. And what I learned in writing about her is that she was basically one of a kind — ConEd hadn’t been able to find anyone else to do what she did.
That leads me to one of my big questions about this California bill: Will the gas companies manage the retrofits themselves, contract with third parties like Liu, or just give the money directly to homeowners? The bill doesn't specify, so that’s something utility regulators will have to work out if Newsom signs it into law.
I also wonder about relying on utilities to sell the idea of electrification to customers, especially since not all natural gas companies in California offer electricity service. How hard will they try to lose business? The bill does contain some safeguards to ensure the companies make a concerted effort, such as requiring that they notify customers of the climate and health benefits of going electric and of additional incentives they might be eligible for. The UCLA report recommends that regulators create additional incentives to get utilities on board, such as giving them a generous rate of return on the cost of the program.
Despite these questions, the bill looks well-suited for this moment of concerns about energy affordability, with its focus on reducing capital spending and maintaining customer choice. Newsom has until September 30 to veto it or sign it into law.