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:
That means more electrification, more stockpiling, and more coal.

Much of the world — or at least much of Asia — seems to be responding to the energy stress caused by the Iran War by attempting to reshape itself in China’s image.
The oil, refined products, and natural gas that is supposed to be flowing through the Strait of Hormuz was largely destined for Asian countries, which are now learning a harsh lesson in the dangers of foreign fossil fuel dependence.
One country whose economy has been relatively resilient to the crisis, however, is China.
That’s despite the fact that China is the world’s second-largest consumer of oil (and its largest importer) and its third-largest consumer of gas (and largest consumer of liquified natural gas). But it has not seen the same type of immediate crisis that other Asian energy importers have. It may be the No. 1 customer of oil coming through the Strait of Hormuz (and especially Iranian oil, which is still flowing), but its main policy adjustment the government has made since the United States and Israeli attack has been to limit exports of refined products. It also came into the crisis with stockpiles of oil estimated at 1.4 billion barrels, more than three times the amount of oil the International Energy Agency coordinated the release of.
In the short run, many Asian countries, especially poorer ones, are embracing energy use restrictions, including limitations on driving and raising temperatures in government buildings, while some richer countries are able to increase supply by rebooting nuclear plants and upping capacity limitations on coal-fired power plants.
In the longer run, several countries are making investments in energy sources that are less dependent on imported fossil fuels. In Vietnam, the developer behind a planned liquified natural gas project asked the government to allow it to instead build a solar and batteries project. The Southeast Asian nation also inked a deal with Russia to work on its first nuclear power project.
There’s also early data of bottom up as well as top down embracing of electrification, with exports from Chinese EV juggernaut BYD increasing and “bustling showrooms across Asia,” Bloomberg News reported.
This has largely been China’s playbook. China’s energy policy has seen huge pushes in electrification, renewables, and clean energy, both at home (38% of its electricity comes from clean sources, and it’s responsible for more than half of world solar and wind capacity additions) and abroad, where China is the leading supplier of solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles, and has made deliberate efforts to dominate global supply of clean energy technology through exports.
But the country is not pursuing a crash decarbonization policy in order to bring emissions down as fast as possible, in line with global targets. Instead, as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer and Lauri Myllyvirta of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air explained on a recent episode of Shift Key, China’s energy policy is based around several goals, some of which line up with decarbonization, and some of which don’t.
The first is energy security, and specifically mitigating dependence on seaborne imports of fossil fuels, which can mean both stockpiling oil and embracing renewables. The second is domestic air quality, which means strict particulate pollution policies, moving heavy industry closer to power sources in the south and west of the country and away from large cities in the east, and seeking to replace coal home heating with natural gas. And the third, as Myllyvirta put it, is “wanting to make sure that China has technological leadership [and] market leadership” in the energy technologies of the future, which can explain the industrial policy efforts around solar, batteries, and electric vehicles and their development into world-leading export industries.
This is also an approach to energy policy that’s perfectly consistent with burning and buying a lot of fossil fuels, as many Asian countries are looking to do today, with coal utilization going up as countries scramble to find new sources of imported natural gas.
Several energy analysts have forecasted that China’s experience of the Iran crisis will lead to increased stockpiling worldwide, and thus become a new source of incremental demand for oil, even if global demand for oil in transportation plateaus or falls.
“Countries that have been building their strategic storage — most notably China — look prescient today. Others may respond by starting to do the same,” a team of Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note to clients in the early weeks of the Hormuz crisis. “On paper, that is ‘inventory building.’ In practice, it behaves like incremental demand: persistent buying on dips, greater willingness to pay for security of supply, and a higher floor under the price distribution than we assumed before the Strait went quiet.”
And you can’t build stockpiles of oil to cushion disruptions to global trade without buying the oil in the first place. Those stockpiles presume that your economy maintains some base-level dependence on oil, which has become increasingly undesirable of late. China is also investing heavily in the coal-to-chemical sector, using coal as a feedstock for petrochemicals instead of oil or natural gas, which is carbon-intensive in the extreme.
Other countries are looking in the short run to increase coal output. While China has a largely domestic supply of coal, there are fewer bottlenecks for seaborne coal like the Strait of Hormuz for oil, as the former is available at scale from several countries (Indonesia, South Africa, Australia) that are not stuck behind a narrow and geopolitically volatile strait.
The other short-term lever some Asian countries can pull is nuclear power. Taiwan is looking to restart nuclear plants that it shut down last year, while several Southeast Asian countries had already made plans to build up their nuclear power resources. And earlier this week, Sri Lanka announced plans to rush forward a solar and batteries project and to look abroad for funding for a hydroelectricity project.
To the extent that any of these countries now experiencing energy hardship may be able to imitate the Chinese model, it will come at a substantial cost, not just in building up stockpiles that may go unused or infrastructure projects that are abandoned, but in closer links — and even dependency on outside sources for energy technology, cars, and critical minerals — on a rising regional hegemon instead of the vagaries of the world oil and gas market.
Countries may try to become more Chinese, but to China, they may just be customers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.