Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

How the Iran War Is Fueling a Coal Comeback

The Strait of Hormuz disruption is “gravy” to producers of the world’s dirtiest fuel.

•
Smoke from a bombing and pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Library of Congress

2025 was supposed to be the year of peak global coal, or at least close to it. As recently as December, the International Energy Agency forecasted that 2025 coal demand would be similar to 2024, at around 8.8 billion tons, and would begin to decline by 2030.

There were promising signs that this story would pan out — coal demand in China, the world’s largest consumer, may have peaked in 2024 or 2025. Coal-fired power generation was also falling in India, the world’s second largest coal consumer, for the first time since the 1970s.

Then came “the greatest global energy security threat in history,” as IEA chief Fatih Birol put it.

Until February 28, about a fifth of global oil production and a fifth of liquified natural gas flowed through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the United States and Israel struck Iran, however, the strait has been effectively closed. The IEA has projected that, on net, global oil production would fall by 8 million barrels per day in 2026 due to shut-in production as a result of the war. Iranian airstrikes have also knocked out almost a fifth of Qatar’s LNG production, damage that will likely take several years to recover from.

Middle Eastern fossil fuels largely go to Asia, where oil and gas feed the region’s power plants, cars, and petrochemical factories. In their absence, Asian countries are scrambling to keep power generation steady. That often means (re)turning to coal.

“Last year I put my flag in and called peak coal in seaborne markets,” Anthony Knutson, global head of thermal coal markets research at Wood Mackenzie told me. Now that the strait is closed, however, “It’s still plateauing — it’s a longer plateau, and then a drop-off.”

That’s because, he said, “everybody runs back to energy security.”

Rich Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that are unable to get the gas they’ve already contracted for are having to decide between ramping up coal output or paying for gas in the extremely expensive spot market. How much coal generation actually rises “is a function of how much spot gas can be purchased” and “how much pain they’re willing to take on gas prices,” Knutson said.

The more expensive gas becomes, the more these countries will opt for coal.

“If LNG prices stay relatively high due to the impact of the war, we would expect thermal coal to take market share from gas in the seaborne markets,” Jefferies analyst Lloyd Byrne wrote in a note to clients earlier this week. “The most price-sensitive customers in Asia will switch to coal,” a team of Jefferies analysts wrote in a separate note.

In South Korea, the government lifted limits on capacity utilization in the nation’s coal fleet. Thailand restarted coal units after spot LNG prices nearly doubled. Japan’s policy before the crisis was to cap coal utilization at 50% and to eventually phase it out entirely; now it’s planning to lift limits on coal output, Nikkei reported.

China and India, Knutson said, will likely turn to domestic coal production, while the rest of Asia will be looking to increase imports from Australia, South Africa, Russia, and Indonesia.

Evidence of gas-to-coal switching is showing up on the supply side as well as the demand side. Indonesia, the world’s largest coal exporter, was planning to cut production from 790 million tons to 600 million tons because, Knutson said, it was worried the market was oversupplied and prices were depressed. Now the government is allowing coal miners to increase production.

But whether this is a temporary surge in coal use (and emissions) or a permanent reordering of the energy system depends on the duration and intensity of the shock, and markets and analysts still seem to think markets will return to something like normal.

Like other energy commodities, coal prices have been volatile this month as President Trump continues to hint that he would prefer the war to end soon while the strait remains closed. Coal prices have shot up to around $140 per ton Thursday, compared to around $101 at the beginning of the year. While still a sizable increase, it’s nowhere near the dislocations seen in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when coal prices jumped to above $420 per ton. That volatility means that few analysts expect any long term increase in investment or production, which in turn makes the increase in demand almost pure profit for producers.

“You’re not going to open a new pit. You’re not going to buy new mine fleets. This is gravy right now,” Knutson told me.

Though other parts of the world — e.g. Eastern Europe — also depend on coal, the increase in demand will likely be confined to Asia, S&P analyst Wendy Schallom told me in an email. She expects “incremental coal generation in Europe in Q2 to be limited by both the reduced coal generating capacity and the seasonally low power demand,” she said.

That also means the long-term story of coal might not be disturbed if the market views the disturbance to LNG exports as essentially temporary. S&P’s long term forecast hadn’t changed, Schallom told me. While Knutson said that coal production is “going to be marginally higher going forward,” he added, “it’s not a game changer.”

🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

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.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

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.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

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.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

Climate Races to Watch This November

These seven elections could change state energy policy.

Watching voting.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

No matter how well Democrats do in the House and Senate in November, it’s unlikely to mean anything new on climate policy in Washington, D.C., for as long as Donald Trump remains in the White House.

That is not true when it comes to the other elections this year.

Several states are on the verge of a possible Democratic trifecta, meaning unified control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion. It’s a position that could enable such states to either top off existing climate and energy policies passed in the last decade or to make the first real run at climate legislation in recent history.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue