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:
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.
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.
That almost certainly means another rate hike in December.
Just about everything is getting more expensive — and it’s doing so faster than expected.
Overall prices rose 0.4% in October from September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, compared to the 0.3% analysts were expecting. Helping lead the way was energy, which got 0.7% more expensive overall in October, thanks largely to gasoline (a 1% hike), electricity (a 0.9% hike), and fuel oil (2%).
Because of the government shutdown, the BLS did not have full year-over-year price change data other than for gasoline, which was 37% more expensive now in October of this year compared to last year. Meanwhile, in Maine specifically, heating oil prices rose a shocking 80% from last October to this one.
Electricity prices went up from 18.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in October of last year to 19.9 cents this year, according to preliminary data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. That’s a jump of over 7.5%, though one largely due to a change in the timing of a bill credit in California. Stripping out that change, the year over year price hike was around 3.8%.
Economy-wide prices are up just over 4% compared to this time last year, according to estimates from Bloomberg. The October price jump surpassed expectations even after stripping out changes to the price of food and energy, leading investors to conclude that the Federal Reserve will likely raise interest rates in December. That would follow a hike in September — the first since 2023 — and a decision in October to leave rates unchanged.
While newly installed Fed Chair Kevin Warsh has been averse to previewing his own expectations for future rate hikes, other members of the Federal Open Market Committee have been less reticent.
Speaking before the release of the inflation numbers Tuesday, Chris Waller, a member of the Federal Reserve board of governors, said that if core inflation had risen more than 0.2% from September to October, he was open to a half-point increase instead of the quarter-point many analysts expected.
Lorie Logan, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a member of the Fed’s rate-setting committee, said in a speech Tuesday that interest rates were “adding to inflationary pressures,” and that rate hikes would likely be necessary.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond, a common benchmark for borrowing costs throughout the economy, rose to right around 5% Tuesday.
“We remain confident that they will raise rates again” by at least a quarter point, “and unless there is significant progress in negotiations with Iran and a consequential decline in energy prices, they will position themselves to raise rates again as soon as the next meeting or in March 2027,” Jefferies analyst Thomas Simons wrote in a note to clients Tuesday.
The economic and monetary policy situation has put the renewables energy industry into something of a pickle. High electricity prices are generally a boon to anyone selling power, including wind and solar developers, while higher interest rates are a burden to anyone who has to finish a big construction project funded with borrowed money before generating any revenue, like wind and solar developers.
Higher inflation also affects developers as input costs rise for projects that can take months or years to complete. And when interest rates rise, the value of future payments from electricity sales falls.
That’s what happened to the Danish wind developer Orsted, who reported a $500 million impairment on its U.S. wind operations “as a result of the 75 basis points increase of the long-dated U.S. interest rates during the third quarter,” its chief financial officer Trond Westlie said on the company’s November 5 earnings call.
The residential solar company Sunrun, which also reported earnings last week, illustrated the peril and opportunities of higher rates and higher prices.
“To the extent interest rates are sustained at current levels, our capital costs would increase from levels realized throughout 2026,” Danny Abajian, chief financial officer of Sunrun, said on the company’s earnings call. “We expect to increase prices further in 2027 as utility rates continue to rise.”
Members wanted to seize the moment at a post-midterms Heatmap event in Washington, D.C.
Key House Democrats batted back against waiting until the next Congress to do a major permitting reform bill.
Speaking at a Heatmap event in downtown D.C. on Tuesday morning, multiple House Democrats — Representatives Nikki Budzinski of Illinois and George Whitesides and Scott Peters, both of California — all threw cold water on the idea that Democrats should wait until next year, when they will have full control over both houses of Congress, to advance a permitting bill like the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, a.k.a. BAAJA.
“I disagree with that,” Budzinski, who is also vice-chair for policy for the New Democratic Coalition, a large bloc of Democrats, told me. Under the incoming Democratic majority, she said, it may be more challenging to convince Republicans to jump the fence to get to the 60 votes needed in the Senate.
“On these big issues, the question is, do we want to legislate for legislation to become law? Or legislate to talk about issues?” she asked. “I’m done after the last two years of doing messaging bills on the floor. I think this is a very unique opportunity.”
This push for a pause has come most forcefully from the likely incoming chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, Jared Huffman, who outlined his reasoning in an exclusive interview with me in October. Likely incoming Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Jeff Merkley echoed Huffman’s view ahead of the Senate vote to proceed on the permitting bill Monday night, saying this should be taken up by the next Congress, instead. The Senate motion succeeded on a vote of 73 to 25.
Both I and Heatmap founding editor Robinson Meyer asked lawmakers at the Heatmap event what they thought of Huffman and Merkley’s argument. All of them were quite bearish on the idea of a future deal between a Democratic Congress and Trump White House.
Peters went the furthest, summing up his view on the argument with two words: “That’s hokum.”
“That’s just not true,” he told me. “There’s no reason to expect that Jeff Merkley and Jared Huffman are going to do a better deal. I think the more likely thing is that they’re just not going to do a deal.” Instead, he advocated for using “the leverage we’ve just got” to advance the deal already on the table.
“Trump is a two-year problem,” he added. “We’re trying to solve a 30-year problem.”
Whitesides called Huffman, a fellow Californian, “a good friend and a very smart guy.” Of Huffman’s position on permitting, however, “I’m not totally sure that’s true,” he said
“The concern that people have is primarily around, can we trust this administration with anything, and how much of [the] decisions do you make [about] the next two years versus the next 20 years?” Whitesides told Rob. “And I think Senators [Sheldon] Whitehouse and [Martin] Heinrich are people that I trust on a fundamental level on issues of climate, of environment, of smart permitting reform.”
Heinrich, who spoke with Rob at Tuesday’s event, also attacked the notion of waiting, saying that he’s seen this suggestion fail “over and over again.” “When is that a real thing? Give me a break. We should do a lot more in the next Congress. Let’s get this as the floor and then let’s raise the floor everywhere we possibly can,” he said.
Heinrich noted a bizarre event the previous night, just as the Senate was preparing to vote on the motion to proceed. After previously endorsing BAAJA and reportedly striking a deal to advance wind farms in exchange for permitting reform legislation, Trump suddenly told reporters at a White House press briefing that the bill wasn’t finished being negotiated.
“I will not approve wind turbines because wind turbines are a major loser,” Trump said.
To Heinrich, this served to underscore why he will “take a win” with Trump “wherever I can get one, because it is fleeting and he is what he is.”
“My phone blew up” in the aftermath of Trump’s comments, Heinrich added. “The White House was like, sorry, he just says stuff. We all know that, right?”
Ray Long, CEO of renewable energy advocacy nonprofit ACORE, said onstage at the Heatmap event that Trump’s comments were actually “a nothingburger on our end.” He argued that while the wind approval blockade is a “real issue,” the legislation “will help to address this” by giving wind developers new statutory language to their benefit in court. (ACORE was a sponsor of the event.)
“That real check and balance on the system through the courts is working and this bill will only help to underpin unfortunately the future litigation that may have to come out as a result of this,” Long said.
Current conditions: The City of London has issued a pollution warning after fireworks launched in celebration of Guy Fawkes Day and Diwali created a dangerous haze over the British capital • The first snow of the season is coming to the northern parts of the Great Lakes and Northeast • The Southeast, too, is bracing for frost and chilly temperatures by the end of the week.
The Senate has permitted permitting reform to progress — or, as my colleague Jael Holzman put it, the bill “survived its first test.” On Monday evening, the chamber voted 73 to 25 to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA. The cloture vote — an initial procedural step to end debate on a bill and move to a final vote — split the Democrats who won new terms in last week’s election. Senators Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and Ruben Gallego of Arizona all voted yes; Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Cory Booker of New Jersey voted no.
The vote drew swift condemnation from the conservation groups that overwhelmingly opposed the legislation from the start. “Sadly, the Senate has failed to learn a striking lesson from last week’s midterm elections — that Americans are fed up with unchecked aggression from Big Tech and the out-of-control construction of AI data centers,” Jim Walsh, the policy director at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement. The solar industry’s main lobby, on the other hand, praised the vote. “Americans urgently need lower energy costs, a better electric grid, and more energy made in the U.S.A. This bipartisan legislation delivers all three,” Tim Pawlenty, the chief executive at the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement. Despite lending his support to the vote in a Sunday night statement, President Donald Trump threw a wrench into negotiations, stating from the podium of the White House briefing room Monday afternoon that he would not approve any new wind farms — a major stipulation for Democratic support of the bill. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat who helped broker the deal, brushed it off, telling reporter Nico Portuondo, “He’s 80” and “didn’t get the memo.” The initial cloture vote is no guarantee of passage. Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican, raised concerns over Native American groups’ opposition to the bill and said she was not certain she would vote yes, despite casting a ballot to advance the legislation Monday.
After Southern Company completed work on the nation’s first two new reactors in a generation back in 2023 and 2024, the U.S. went through what I called a nuclear dry spell. Then in March, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Bill Gates’ reactor developer TerraPower a construction permit for its debut plant in Wyoming. In September, the agency greenlit the Tennessee Valley Authority’s project to build what could end up being the country’s first small modular reactor, a water-cooled GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy BWRX-300, at the federally owned utility’s Clinch River site. Now the NRC has given Amazon-backed X-energy the agency’s first construction permit for a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in nearly six decades. On Monday, the NRC greenlit the Long Mott Generating Station, designed to support chemical giant Dow’s Seadrift Operations plant on the Texas Gulf coast. The thumbs up for X-energy’s Xe-100, an 80-megawatt reactor that’s cooled with helium instead of water, marks what the NRC called “several regulatory firsts” for the agency. It’s the first approval of a facility meant to provide both electricity and heat; the first for a reactor that’s designed to be refueled while it’s still operating; and the first review of a reactor of its kind to use the agency’s new 18-month licensing pathway. NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said in a press release that this demonstrates the agency is capable of completing “rigorous safety reviews on predictable timelines that move advanced nuclear technology from design to construction.”
X-energy’s won’t be the nation’s first commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, however. That was the Fort St. Vrain plant, Colorado’s only nuclear station, which shut down in the early 1990s after only a few years due to operating challenges. X-energy has told me it’s taken a lot of lessons from that plant’s failure into account in its design. The NRC permit offers “further validation” of the company’s plans, X-energy CEO J. Clay Sell said in a statement. “This is an important day,” he added. “Getting the construction permit earlier than expected is reflective of the thorough and efficient work of the NRC.”

A coalition of landowners is suing the Louisiana Public Service Commission for fast-tracking Meta’s vast data center complex in the state. In a lawsuit filed Monday, the trio of groups argued that regulators violated the state constitution by adopting a “lightning directive” pathway that allowed utility giant Entergy to skip steps designed to protect ratepayers as it sought approval for seven gas plants and transmission lines to serve the Facebook owner’s largest-ever data center, known as Hyperion. “We want our elected officials to be accountable to the people who elected them,” Dustin McAnn, a cattle farmer whose land is affected by the directive, told New Orleans Public Radio — “not to corporations, not to NDAs, not to secrecy, but to the people who elected them to the office they serve.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Until this summer, Seth Cohen served as the Trump administration’s bulldog in the Department of Energy, pushing to overhaul what the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency saw as unnecessary hurdles to building new nuclear power infrastructure. He left in June to return to the private sector. Now he’s looking to bring that same streamlining to data center construction. On Monday, he announced the launch of Mavria, a startup to design and deploy modular data centers in weeks rather than years. The company told The Wall Street Journal that it had raised a $130 million Series A at a nearly $1 billion valuation. Mavria’s first product line is called Terrain, a modular data center that can be hauled in by truck.
“The fundamental design philosophy for Terrain was, instead of asking the supply chain to bend to our designs, why not bend to the supply chain?” Cohen told me by phone yesterday. “With our projects, we’re going in and trying to match with communities that actually want us there in the first place — or, if they’re skeptical of data centers, where we can earn their trust and figure out how we can come in as a productive and beneficial member of the community.” Working on nuclear power, he said, taught him how to select good locations for infrastructure that carries political baggage. “The closer you go to a nuclear plant, the more popular nuclear becomes,” Cohen said. “We believe in a world where data centers will be more popular the closer you are to a Terrain deployment.”
The market for liquified natural gas — the version of the fuel that’s superchilled to liquid form for easy transport in tankers — is booming as prices skyrocket in response to the U.S. war in Iran, the Russian war in Ukraine, and cold weather in Europe. But could a bust be looming? A new analysis by the investigative site Gas Outlook found that a “tidal wave of new LNG capacity is coming and the war may ultimately lead to a deep market downturn in the years ahead.”
“While some LNG exporters are raking in record profits from war-time pricing, the boom could quickly turn to bust,” the outlet wrote, citing analysts. “Indeed, the LNG market was headed for a colossal glut prior to the war. That supply overhang has been delayed, but not wiped out.” Gas consumption actually declined a small amount this year, according to the latest estimates from the Global Carbon Project, contributing to a slight, 0.4% projected decline in global emissions from fossil fuels in 2026. Other factors in that decrease include the proliferation of clean energy and electric vehicles and the oil supply shock from the war in Iran.

Greta Thunberg rose to prominence in 2019 as a teenage protester who inspired students to boycott school over global inaction on climate change. In recent years, however, the Swedish activist has diversified her political portfolio to include virtually any left-wing movement in the Western world. She has become a high-profile figure in global protests against Israel, twice attempting to sail a flotilla to Gaza. She’s also appeared in support of the riots that tore through France in recent weeks. But after five years without attending a United Nations climate summit, Bloomberg found the now 23-year-old Thunberg standing in a long security line at COP31 late Monday afternoon at the start of the conference in Antalya, Turkey. “We’ve had 31 COPs now, and we’re still speeding in the wrong direction,” she told the newswire.