You’ve reached your free article limit
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.
On Greenland’s deepsea mining ban, Indonesia floating nuclear, and a solar boom
Current conditions: Hurricane Trudy has weakened from its peak as a Category 2 storm but still threatens up to 8 inches of rain as it swirls off Baja California • A nor’easter is howling through the Mid-Atlantic this week, hammering the coast with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • A humid overcast has settled over Paris this week as French authorities struggle to regain control after protests over living costs gave way to anarchic riots.
At least 47 major data center projects have been delayed, withdrawn, or blocked so far this year, according to data the regulatory intelligence service RegLayer shared with the Financial Times — and that may be a “conservative estimate.” Just 35% of planned data centers are “credible,” analysts told the newspaper, as more than 1,000 communities across the United States now have restrictions on artificial intelligence infrastructure. The data comes as investors look increasingly jittery about AI following ChatGPT-maker OpenAI’s missing a key revenue metric this year.
Those findings stand in contrast with the numbers from our data service, Heatmap Pro. Based on our research, at least 107 projects faced cancellation so far this year, putting 2026 on track to beat last year, which saw 108 proposals nixed.
Unless you’re living off the grid and away from any social media (if so, I’m jealous), then you can probably surmise that not-in-my-backyard opposition prevails in many such cases against proposed data centers. That makes selling would-be neighbors on the projects critical. New polling by the advocacy group GoodPower found that a binding promise to protect local electricity rates boosts support for the projects upward by as much as 14 points. Such a pledge worked primarily on the 78% of voters who distrust data centers. Another potential winner: Pair a data center with renewables. At least 46% of respondents to the poll said their support would increase if a project were powered by renewables. The survey spoke to 2,610 registered voters last month and oversampled in states with at least 200 data centers completed: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
Greenland wants to find ways to exploit its mineral riches in hopes of generating enough income from industries other than fishing and tourism to eventually wean off subsidies from the governments of Denmark and the European Union. Earlier this month, as you may recall, the self-governing Danish island gave a project the green light. But the government in Nuuk doesn’t want miners harvesting metals from the seabed surrounding the Arctic island, which are fertile fishing grounds and could, in theory, lead to mineral production without meaningful infrastructure to create jobs for Greenlandic people. Last week, the Greenlandic Parliament adopted a resolution requiring the government to draft legislation banning deep-sea mining. All members present voted to approve the proposal, according to Sermitsiaq, a leading newspaper in Nuuk. The ban would, if adopted, last until the end of 2029, with the possibility of an extension for two years at a time.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Long before the race for small modular reactors kicked off, Russia launched a floating nuclear power station and sailed the vessel up to the Arctic to power a small town. Now, as you may recall, the state-owned Russian nuclear company Rosatom is making plans to build more floating nuclear plants, and it has a major nuclear newcomer nation as an offtaker. Last week, NucNet reported, Rosatom announced a deal with Indonesia’s state-owned PT Pembangkit Listrik Nuklir to supply electricity to northern Indonesia from at least two floating nuclear plants with a capacity of 200 megawatts each.

Over the past decade, small-scale and rooftop solar systems increased from 18,812 gigawatt-hours to 92,979 gigawatt-hours, an increase of over 394%. That’s according to a new analysis from the Energy Information Administration, which found that California, Arizona, Texas, Florida are the regions with the most abundant solar resources. Even though the state has worse solar resources in general, New York ranked fifth as a result of growing capacity. Still, the rate of growth in generation has slowed over the past three years. l
The Trump administration is pulling out all the stops for Alaskans who want to drill and transport fossil fuels, mine minerals, and log trees. Now he’s easing rules on hunters. A new final rule from the National Park Service has revived a hunting method the Biden administration banned in 2024: Baiting bears with doughnuts soaked in bacon grease. Hunters use the baits to lure bears to close range before shooting them. “Some hunters prefer to use strong-smelling, high-calorie foods like pastries, doughnuts, meat scraps or fish remains to lure bears from miles away,” The New York Times reported. “But some conservationists say the practice is unethical and risks making the bears accustomed to human food, which could endanger people.”
What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?
One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?
Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.
Solving the energy side of the equation is a major hurdle for Jupiter, largely because of permitting delays and legal challenges.
In mid-September, the New Mexico Supreme Court lifted a stay it placed on consideration of the project’s state air permitting application. But on Wednesday, the Santa Fe New Mexican published emails between the New Mexico Environment Department and Project Jupiter staff detailing that independent emissions modeling showed pollution would be greater than predicted by the developers, after they had already requested permission to emit more CO2 than the state’s three largest cities combined. A final decision on the air permit was expected in November; the emails suggest the deadline may slip further. After the emails were reported, Oracle declared it would try to reduce emissions from the site by more than 30%.
At the same time, the New Mexico Justice Department is opposing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act for a gas pipeline key to powering the project. The state’s attorneys assert the agency improperly failed to examine how the data center’s use of the pipeline would affect the environment. This week, a dozen GOP attorneys general representing states with large gas industries wrote FERC insisting they ignore the state’s protests, arguing that a recent Supreme Court ruling – known colloquially as Seven County – meant the federal government doesn’t need to look at the data centers gas pipelines are feeding when the lines are reviewed. Oracle has declared a “force majeure” over the pipeline delay. Rumors have circulated that trucks may just bring gas in for operations; company representatives told the Dona Ana County Commission this week those claims were “misinformation.”
Amidst these delays and potential legal conflicts, I’ve sought to understand whether projects like these – large data centers racing to operate within the next year or two – would be affected by enactment of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, a major permitting reform deal negotiated in part by New Mexico’s senior senator, Energy and Natural Resources chairman Martin Heinrich.
In Washington D.C., this legislation is exciting many constituencies, including energy industry types, policy wonks, business-friendly climate advocates. At the same time, more conservation-minded environmental groups opposed to provisions benefiting the fossil fuel industry are leaning into an argument that the legislation would accelerate a new era of gas-dominant data center construction.
Last week, I wrote about the environmentalists’ argument. I also examined the parts of the bill unlocking a new transmission build-out and requiring data center ratepayer protection. If enacted, FERC would have to require utilities to charge data centers not only for the costs of new grid upgrades but the charges incurred for using the grid, too. As my colleague Robinson Meyer has written, by forcing AI infrastructure operators to pay for both embedded and incremental energy costs, the legislation would essentially mean data centers paying both to reduce rates and build new energy generation. We’re seeing in real time what happens when you don’t deal with the transmission connection system while building new grid upgrades: companies will often opt to just build their own private off-grid fossil fuel islands. In Texas, for example, we’re seeing transmission hook-up delays lead to companies just building their own gas plants instead. This is not to say companies won’t still go off the grid if this bill passes, but it’s a serious consequence of our dilapidated energy system worth considering.
So I decided to evaluate Project Jupiter as a test case. How might the permitting bill affect this project and other big data centers at a stage like it?
For starters, let's say what the permitting bill does not do. It wouldn’t change the Clean Air Act. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed, as well as potentially one of the nation’s biggest CO2 emitters if permitted as proposed. Nothing in the bill would affect requirements that the project adhere to national air emissions standards, so it wouldn’t affect the New Mexico Environment Department’s pending decision around the project’s air permits.
Enacting BAAJA could potentially affect this sprawling data center project in extremely hypothetical ways. It would reduce legal risks associated with future interstate gas pipelines under development expected to potentially branch out to Project Jupiter, including the Desert Southwest Expansion pipeline. It’s easy to understand in the words of Robert Pattinson in Primetime how this looks: like an easier path to expanding gas generation in this area.
On renewables, the bipartisan permitting deal would codify new permitting certainty and timeline provisions that claim to make it easier for companies to pursue solar development on federal acreage managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Project Jupiter just concluded a request for proposals to procure two gigawatts of renewable energy including solar power to meet the developers’ pledge to achieve 100% carbon matching by 2031 and Thiagarajan previously told the commission they’ve examined potentially getting energy from solar projects nearby on BLM lands.
But all of this is too theoretical and the case for any individual early-stage energy project too. Not to mention that we have no idea how the Trump administration would implement this certainty language, even for Project Jupiter.
To me, if people want to earnestly understand how the bipartisan permitting bill might actually affect data centers, they need to fully consider how making it easier and more transparent to hook up to the existing electric grid could reduce how much on-site gas generation is used at AI data center operations.
Delays in state permitting for the off-grid fuel cell plant have led Project Jupiter’s developers to consider what turning to the power grid would look like. In early September during a Dona Ana County commission meeting, Oracle executive vice president Mahest Thiagarajan told the panel, “If we end up in a situation where the air permit is not actually approved, I do have to work with a grid provider. Whether it is actually part of the grid or they built the grid for me could be TBD.”
“It doesn’t need to be on the grid, but I need [a] source of power to help power the data center,” Thiagarajan said.
Commission chair Manuel Sanchez replied that the microgrid plans were established in their community benefit agreement but he supported proposals requiring data center developers paying for upgrades and directly paying to reduce electricity rates for nearby residents. “It’s actually provided a downward pressure on rates,” Sanchez said, referring directly to such a policy created by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Thiagarajan agreed. “My current plan is to continue to work with NMED [the New Mexico Environment Division] and get the off-grid site. If for any reason we have to, because I don’t have the air permit and I have to build the site, I strongly believe it has to come with me bringing down pressure to the rates. Period. I don’t think that’s a question of, I’m not increasing the rates. I actually have to come in and say, I am lowering the rates here.”
If Congress enacted this permitting bill in the lame duck, would Project Jupiter ditch plans to be off grid? It’s challenging to prove or disprove such a hypothetical. Representatives for the project did not respond to requests for comment. But we know any attempts at grid hookups without greater ratepayer protections are only leading to more conflict locally; this week, when Project Jupiter tried proposing a hook up to the grid for emergency power, the county commission fumed. Right now, the plan is still to power Project Jupiter with the gas fuel cell generation on site.
As I concluded this research, I noticed Heinrich’s office has actually promoted news coverage about what his efforts to enact data center ratepayer protections would do to Project Jupiter.
In early August, as the Senate was leaving for a summer recess, his office republished a Santa Fe New Mexican article about legislation the senator authored – the GRID Savings Act – and its potential impact on Project Jupiter. The article claimed that if Project Jupiter was unable to get its air permit, they’d be able to get power a different way under his proposal. The local news outlet also quoted an email from Sanchez, the county commission chair, stating that Heinrich’s bill “could be an avenue for Project Jupiter to fulfill their requirements if the air permit is denied.” Sanchez did not respond to requests for comment.
So I asked Senator Heinrich’s office for comment about this republished article, as well as if his permitting deal would indeed help ensure Project Jupiter was completed and came online. To conclude this story, here is their full statement:
The Senator has been clear that building big things responsibly means putting communities first. As he stated in his interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Project Jupiter botched community engagement from the start.
BAAJA is about making sure we build the energy infrastructure we need while keeping costs down for families and small businesses in New Mexico and across the country. The legislation would help get new energy generation, primarily clean energy, on the grid. By getting the energy onto the grid, states like New Mexico, which has enacted the Energy Transition Act, can continue working to ensure the energy powering our grid is increasingly clean.
The Senator has fought to ensure that growing energy demand doesn’t come at the expense of New Mexicans’ electricity bills by requiring data centers to pay for all of their associated transmission costs, rather than those costs shifting onto ratepayers. Ultimately, the Senator strongly believes that any major development, including data centers, should come as a benefit to the communities that host them, not a burden — and that starts with meaningful community engagement and real benefits for New Mexicans.
To be clear, BAAJA is federal legislation focused on energy infrastructure and grid connectivity. It does not ‘permit’ data centers. State and local government approval is still required. The Senator's legislation addresses the federal energy infrastructure challenges associated with a grid that cannot keep up with demand; it does not circumvent the state and local processes that determine whether Project Jupiter moves forward.
Media representatives for Project Jupiter did not respond to requests for comment.
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.
2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.
3. Cumberland County, N.J. – The Vineland data center project is impacting the sector’s reputation in the Garden State.
4. Hood County, Texas – It looks like this corner of Hill Country is going back to court over a data center.