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:
If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed much longer, things will get really bad, really fast.

It’s been a month since the Strait of Hormuz was effectively closed, and the “shockwave” of higher prices and economic disruption may finally be emanating past the Indian ocean.
While global oil prices have risen since the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran that began on February 28, the Brent and West Texas Intermediate benchmarks ($114 and $105) are still well short of all-time highs, despite the fact that the world is experiencing the largest physical disruption to the oil industry in modern history.
“With each passing day, an estimated ~11-12 million barrels per day of oil, condensate, and refined products is not reaching global markets,” Jefferies analyst Lloyd Byrne wrote in a note to clients over the weekend. That’s out of around 100 million barrels per day of global oil production, and about what two Indias would consume. During the 1970s oil shocks, the supply shortage was roughly 4 million barrels per day.
Because demand for liquid fuels is relatively inelastic (your commute doesn’t get shorter when oil prices rise), the price increases necessary to induce the “demand destruction” that brings supply and demand back into balance is quite high. Analysts such as Commodity Context’s Rory Johnston argue that blocking the strait could send oil to $200 a barrel or higher.
That global cataclysm hasn’t happened yet. But if this goes on much longer, the chances it does only get higher and higher.
That’s because, oil analysts say, the world has so far been able to draw down stocks of oil that aren’t being freshly pumped out of the Middle East and shipped from the Persian Gulf. These include 400 million barrels that are being withdrawn from the world’s strategic energy reserves, as well as the release of Russian and even Iranian oil from sanctions, allowing it to flow into the broader economy.
“The oil market did not underreact. It just had buffers,” the energy consulting firm Rystad said in a note last week.
But, Rystad oil analyst Paola Rodriguez-Masiu wrote, “those buffers are now largely consumed, and the system that absorbed the initial shock is not the system operating today.”
Rystad estimates that 500 million barrels total have been “lost” from the market, about equal to the reserve release and de-sanctioning. That means the market will have to begin to make do with less oil.
Rystad is not the only firm calling a turning point. “The cumulative losses are now large enough to matter in end-use markets,” Morgan Stanley analyst Martijn Rats wrote in a note to clients Monday.
The market’s other buffers were time and space: After traffic through the strait stopped, oil continued to arrive in refineries all over the world on tankers that already were on the water before the attacks began.
“The time lag in global arrivals also helps explain why the physical market is only now starting to bite,” Rats wrote.
JPMorgan analyst Natasha Kaneva has described a kind of rolling shortage emanating from the Persian Gulf, based on how long it takes tankers to arrive. Oil takes anywhere from 10 to 20 days to arrive at ports in Asia from the Persian Gulf, meaning that customers there are “already feeling the squeeze as pre-closure cargoes have largely dried up.” While for the Atlantic Coast of the United States — which imports only around 250,000 barrels per day from the Persian Gulf, out of around 6 million annual imports to the U.S — it takes a month to six weeks for tankers to arrive after they set out.
Already, Rats wrote, some 2.5 million barrels per day of refining capacity in Asia is offline because refineries can’t get their hands on sufficient oil. In Australia, 600 gas stations “have run out of at least one type of fuel,” the country’s energy minister told parliament last week. In South Korea, Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol told local media that the country could impose nationwide restrictions on driving if crude gets above $120 a barrel, Reuters reported.
After Asia comes Africa, especially East Africa, where in Kenya, fuel started running short last week. Shell Chief Executive Wael Sawan warned attendees at the CERAWeek energy conference that shortages could hit Europe in April.
Then comes the United States. The West Coast is effectively the farthest eastern point of the Asian fuel market. There, gasoline has already hit $5.88 a gallon, compared to the $3.99 national average and $4.64 a month ago. But while so far the shock is being experienced as higher fuel prices for transportation, Kaneva warns that in California, it is “likely to evolve into a physical supply challenge by late April and May, as replacement options dwindle and competition for suitable crude intensifies.” That raises the alarming prospect of gas stations running empty.
The Trump administration has also been actively intervening to keep prices low, whether through coordinated releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or well-timed announcements of supposed breakthroughs in negotiations or partial ceasefires.
But the effectiveness of this jawboning may have been as much due to the delay of the oil shockwave as to anything the president did or didn’t say or do.
Despite President Trump telling the Financial Times on Sunday that Iran had already undergone “regime change” after the death of much of its pre-war leadership and that “the negotiations are going very well,” both Brent and WTI are up on the day Monday.
“The global oil system today is not the system that absorbed the first two weeks of the shock,” Rats wrote. “Spare capacity is trapped behind Hormuz. Inventories are lower. Freight is less flexible. Products are tighter. The distance between a manageable disruption and a disproportionate price move has collapsed.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Arthur made landfall over Texas just hours after strengthening into the first named storm of the Atlantic hurricane season • Temperatures in Spain, France, and Portugal are forecast to eclipse 104 degrees Fahrenheit by this weekend • A fast-moving wildfire is scorching homes in the Beacon Hill area of Spokane, Washington.
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed a 14-paragraph memorandum of understanding with Iran to end the war. Under the deal, which is set for tougher negotiations over the fine details within 60 days, the Strait of Hormuz will reopen, the U.S. will lift sanctions on Iran and unfreeze billions of dollars, and Tehran will continue expanding its civilian nuclear program with a pledge not to seek an atomic weapon. Oil markets responded to the milestone with mixed results. The benchmark prices for oil produced in the U.S. and Europe tumbled about 2% on Wednesday, while the standard for crude from the United Arab Emirates jumped over 3%.
In other macroeconomic news: The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it was leaving its benchmark interest rate unchanged for the fourth straight time. Speaking at his first policy meeting since taking office, Kevin Warsh, Trump’s newly appointed Fed chairman, promised to “deliver price stability.” But CNN noted that most of Warsh’s colleagues signaled in their economic outlooks that they anticipated hiking rates again later this year. Rate cuts, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin has written, are key to boosting renewables, whose upfront costs make them sensitive to interest rates on capital.
The Department of the Interior has agreed to pay the developer Invenergy $765 million to cancel its four offshore wind leases, an amount equal to what the company paid the federal government for access to the areas. Like the administration’s previous deals to kill off as-yet-unbuilt offshore wind projects, Invenergy’s agreement is structured as a legal settlement. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo explained, the deal follows a similar $928 million arrangement with TotalEnergies announced in March, and an $885 million agreement with several joint ventures in April. That brings the total amount the administration has agreed to pay to end offshore wind leases to more than $2.5 billion to date.
A group of state attorneys general filed a legal challenge to those previous deals earlier this month that questions their use of the Judgment Fund, a functionally unlimited well of cash the federal government can use to settle ongoing or imminent lawsuits. Here’s Emily with more on the Judgment Fund and why using it may be tricky for the administration to defend.
Among the most poignant critiques of solar energy are its intermittency and the amount of land needed to generate vast quantities of power. Batteries are quickly solving the first part of that equation. But data from a new interactive map the Solar Energy Industries Association published this morning shows that solar today takes up just 0.04% of the total U.S. land area, and 0.07% of prime American farmland. There were zero states where solar used more than 0.5% of prime farmland, according to the data, which was shared exclusively with Heatmap. In fact, nearly every state has more abandoned prime farmland than solar-developed parcels. Nationally, there are 43 acres of abandoned prime farmland for every acre of solar on prime farmland. As a particularly jarring point of comparison, golf courses alone use 2.6 times as much prime farmland as solar, while suburban development just since 2014 uses roughly six times as much. “America depends on our land to grow our food, build our communities, and power our lives,” Tim Pawlenty, the newly-appointed chief executive of SEIA and a former Republican governor of Minnesota, told me in a statement. “Responsible land use means balancing all of those needs. This map helps provide important context by showing that solar and agriculture can thrive together. Solar development uses a very small amount of farmland compared to many other common land uses, while also delivering affordable energy, local tax revenue, and reliable income for farmers and landowners.”

Solar, meanwhile, hit a major milestone in California. In the first five months of 2026, utility-scale solar generation in the California Independent System Operator surpassed natural gas power, according to a new analysis from the Energy Information Administration. Compared to the same five-month period in 2024, this year saw a 21% increase in solar generation. Gas-fired generation, meanwhile, sank by 60%.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Estonia’s parliament has passed a new bill creating the Baltic nation’s first complete set of rules for producing nuclear energy and overseeing its safety, NucNet reported, a key step toward building the NATO country’s first atomic power station. Meanwhile, Swiss lawmakers just rejected a bid to slow down legislation to allow for construction of new reactors again. Switzerland’s Council of States, its upper house of parliament, blocked a motion to refer a nuclear bill to the Federal Council ahead of a planned vote later this week.
In Sweden, the parliament approved legislation to streamline permitting for mining and processing uranium. The bill also included an amendment to open up more coastal sites to reactor development, World Nuclear News reported.
The U.S. is seeing the start of a solar manufacturing boom, perhaps best exemplified by the opening of the first fully integrated plant in Qcells’ factory. Now Soltec, a startup that manufactures tracking equipment to maximize power production, has launched a new line of hardware that it says is completely compliant with new restrictions on foreign imports. The company said it had spent the past year “reorganizing its U.S. supply chain with a clear objective: to provide customers with a highly localized supply network capable of meeting the domestic content requirements” of new federal rules. “By localizing its U.S. supply chain, Soltec helps customers pursue Made-in-USA tax benefits while improving cost competitiveness, delivery certainty, and resilience against tariffs, freight volatility and broader geopolitical disruptions,” Mariano Berges, Soltec’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The objective is to protect U.S. customers and provide greater execution certainty for their projects in an increasingly complex market environment.”
In case you were wondering where former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem may turn up, here’s your answer: copper mining. The current special envoy to the Shield of the Americas, a pact of right-leaning Western Hemisphere countries, has joined NovaRed Mining, a junior miner that holds two early-stage copper exploration assets in Canada. Noem, who is taking an adviser role, boasts “extensive experience spanning economic development, infrastructure, energy, agriculture, national security and public-private collaboration,” the company said in a press release.
A natural gas well in Kansas is not the same as an offshore wind farm in Maine.
It happened again. The Trump administration has struck a deal with an offshore wind developer to cancel another round of projects. My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has the full story: The Chicago-based company Invenergy has accepted $765 million to give up four offshore wind leases off the coast of New York, California, and Maine.
These deals might be legally suspect — Democratic state attorneys general sued to block them a few weeks ago — but the administration says more are coming. “The Department of Justice looks forward to continued cooperation from companies that are reevaluating their energy investments,” the official press release about today’s deal intones. I have to applaud the federal lawyer who chose the phrase “continued cooperation” here; it is suitably menacing while implying that developers who give in to the racket are somehow complicit.
If you read Heatmap, you knew a deal like this might be coming. As Emily writes, she predicted that Trump would target Invenergy for a deal back in April. Eyes now turn to the German developer RWE, which is sitting on two more leases and hasn’t yet taken a bargain.
Most observers have seen these deals as a front in the president’s war on wind power. And, of course, they are. But they should also be viewed as part of Trump’s peculiar attack on the economy of coastal states.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
By Heatmap’s tally, the Trump administration has now terminated the leases for more than 14 gigawatts of planned offshore wind capacity, or roughly enough to power at least 6 million to 7 million homes. More than half of those gigawatts were initially planned to go to New York and New Jersey’s strained power markets (and on from there to New England and the Mid-Atlantic).
Another 3.4 gigawatts were planned for Maine’s power grid. Maine already suffers from some of the highest power bills in the country, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub; its rates have risen more than 10% in the past year.
California was slated to get another 4 gigawatts, and the Carolinas were due the last remaining gigawatt.
What’s funny — or perhaps fishy, given the maritime setting — is that administration officials seem to realize that they shouldn’t be taking so much electricity generation off the map. Today’s Invenergy deal includes a new quasi-quid pro quo arrangement: In exchange for giving up its offshore wind leases, Invenergy agreed to develop natural gas or geothermal power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. (Previous deals countenanced only fossil fuel development, so I suppose this counts as a “win.”)
But of course, as Hilary Bright, who leads the pro-wind group Turn Forward, argued this afternoon, that doesn’t work. “These buyouts are not one-for-one ‘swaps’ for another kind of energy,” she said in a statement. These wind farms were meant to bring new generation capacity online in some of the country’s most stressed power markets. It doesn’t work to cancel them, then build new power plants in the middle of the country. New York is particularly power-constrained at the moment and faces a risk of summertime blackouts as soon as the end of this decade. Invenergy’s wind leases in the tristate area — or, as FIFA would call it, New York/New Jersey — were closer to operation than any of its other projects.
If and when blackouts arrive in Gotham, will New Yorkers look back and remember this moment? Or — somewhat more importantly to Trump — will voters in Maine and North Carolina, both of which have elections this November that will help determine the balance of the Senate. Whatever happens, we’ll be watching it here at Heatmap.
The deal with developer Invenergy includes a commitment to build geothermal generation in addition to natural gas.
In the third deal of its kind, Trump’s Interior Department has agreed to pay the energy developer Invenergy $765 million to cancel its four offshore wind leases, an amount equal to what Invenergy originally paid the federal government for them.
Like the preceding deals, the administration structured the refund as a legal settlement with Invenergy. That means the government will pay the company out of the Judgment Fund, a reserve of taxpayer dollars overseen by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department that’s set aside to settle litigation that’s either ongoing or imminent.
The Invenergy agreement follows a similar $928 million arrangement with TotalEnergies announced in March, and an $885 million agreement with several joint ventures in April. That brings the total amount the Trump administration has agreed to pay to cancel offshore wind leases to more than $2.5 billion to date. The agency has not yet posted the settlement publicly, but the previous agreements were predicated on hypothetical lawsuits that the offshore wind developers would have filed if the Trump administration had paused activity on their leases, which it threatened to do based on national security concerns.
The key difference in the Invenergy agreement is in the quid pro quo. The other settlements specified that the companies would only be eligible for payment after investing an equal amount into U.S. oil and gas projects. In exchange for walking away from its offshore wind leases, Invenergy promised not only to develop natural gas-fired power plants, but also geothermal power generation projects — which are emissions-free.
Invenergy is a diversified power developer that builds solar, storage, wind, and natural gas generation. The company currently has more than 30 gigawatts of solar in its development pipeline and 10 gigawatts of natural gas. It has not yet built a geothermal power plant, but it has leased 139,000 acres of federal land to explore geothermal development. It’s also a member of the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium, a group of states, investors, and companies working together to scale the technology.
Invenergy holds one offshore wind lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey that it purchased in 2022 for $645 million, where it was developing its Leading Light project before work stalled last November. It also has a lease off the coast of California that it acquired for $112 million, also in 2022, and two in the Gulf of Maine, for which it paid about $9 million in 2024.
In a blog post published Wednesday, Invenergy said the deal with the Trump administration would “bring more megawatts to the grid and advance projects that can move forward today,” implying that the projects the company will build instead of offshore wind will come online faster.
The problem with Trump’s quid pro quos across all of these deals is that there’s no guarantee the companies wouldn’t have invested the same amount of money into the same projects regardless of whether they were reimbursed for their offshore wind leases. In the case of Total, the settlement is explicit that projects the company had already committed to invest in prior to the deal qualify.
After the administration announced the second round of offshore wind lease buyouts in April, making it clear the strategy was not a one-off settlement with Total but a new strategy to squash the industry, I named Invenergy as one of two developers that could be next. The other one that seems positioned to reach a similar deal is RWE, a German energy company with plans to develop 15 natural gas plants in the U.S. RWE paid $1.1 billion in 2022 to purchase a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey for a project called Community Offshore — the most any company has paid to date for U.S. offshore wind development rights. It also bought a lease in the Pacific for $121 million, and another in the Gulf of Mexico for about $4 million.
In a press release, the Interior Department signaled its intention to broker more such agreements. “The Department of Justice looks forward to continued cooperation from companies that are reevaluating their energy investments,” it said.
Legal experts I’ve spoken with are skeptical that any of these settlement agreements comply with federal law. The government’s leasing statutes generally do not allow companies to walk away from their agreement and receive a refund.
Earlier this month, a group of seven attorneys general from Northeast states challenged Trump’s deal with TotalEnergies in court. They alleged that there was no actual disagreement between the parties that would legitimize use of the Judgement Fund. They also argued that under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the statute governing offshore wind, the Interior Department was required to hold a hearing to investigate whether continued activity on the lease would cause serious harm to the environment or national security before cancelling it.
The Trump administration has lost every lawsuit thrown its way so far challenging its actions on offshore wind. Last week, it quietly gave up its own appeal of a federal court’s December decision vacating Trump’s Day One Executive Order to halt wind energy approvals. The Invenergy deal suggests that this was less a sign of surrender in Trump’s wind war than part of a pivot to other strategies.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include the press release from the Department of the Interior.