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:
The entire global energy economy has shifted — and yet somehow the administration’s agenda remains exactly the same, just more urgent.

The energy crisis brought about by the Iran War has not changed the Trump administration’s priorities. Officials are still pushing the same litany of pro-fossil fuel policies now as they have since as far back as the 2024 campaign — but it has given them a new sense of verve. With 20% of the world’s oil production and 20% of the liquified natural gas market affected in some way or another by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one might think a change of course might be called for. But no — now more than ever, U.S. officials are saying, it’s time for the Trump energy agenda.
Here are a few examples from recent days of U.S. officials using the energy shock to advance Trump-favored policies:
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has been acting as an energy project pitchman, promoting a long-discussed LNG project in Alaska that would bring gas from the state’s North Slope some 800 miles to a terminal on its Pacific Coast at Cook Inlet.
The project has been talked about for decades, but its high price (last estimated at around $44 billion — though that was in 2015) and uncertainty about LNG demand have prevented it from getting underway. While the project’s developer, Glenfarne Group, has won preliminary commitments from Asian buyers, it has yet to get final commitments or make a final investment decision.
Burgum has been a cheerleader for Alaska LNG since before the current war with Iran, saying in December that the project “strengthens U.S. energy security, creates jobs for Alaskans, and reinforces our commitment to a permitting system.” When he made a brief stop in Anchorage earlier this month on his way to an energy conference in Tokyo, he used the opportunity to sell Alaska LNG alongside the state’s governor, Mike Dunleavy.
“We have enough energy to be able to sell to our friends and allies so they don’t have to buy from our adversaries or be threatened by our adversaries in terms of their supply chains,” Burgum told reporters, according to the Anchorage Daily News. “So that policy is more important than ever.”
The conference itself had been planned before the war in Iran began. Upon landing there, Burgum told Bloomberg that the “urgency” around investing in and buying U.S. energy “had gone up,” due to the war.
Adam Prestidge, president of Glenfarne’s Alaska LNG project, echoed Burgum at a state legislative hearing on Monday, according to the Daily News.
“The direct impacts of the events in Iran have been a real acceleration and intensification,” Prestidge told legislators. Late last week, Dunleavy called for legislation creating a property tax exemption for the project to ease its path to completion, a sign that it’s gathering steam and may actually, finally come to fruition.
For months, American officials have badgered Europe to revise rules on methane emissions set to go into effect next year, which will require energy importers to demonstrate that the “monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements” for preventing methane emissions in export countries are “equivalent to those applied domestically in the E.U.,” or else face penalties. Late last year, American diplomats told European Union officials that the U.S. should be exempt from the rules and from any penalties for noncompliance, The New York Times reported. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has argued that the rules would be ineffective and would constitute “regulatory overreach.”
Earlier this week, the American ambassador to the European Union, Andrew Puzder, told Bloomberg that Europe is “going to need to reduce the regulatory requirements and restrictions that it has in place,” adding that “It could be a very severe energy crisis if Europe doesn’t act,” given the conflict in the Gulf.
The Trump administration has also leveraged the energy crisis to keep the E.U. in line on trade, with Puzder telling the Financial Times that the bloc should approve the trade deal negotiated by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last July lest the E.U. risk losing “favorable” access to liquified natural gas. A key component of the deal was a minimum tariff on European Union goods — part of the set of tariffs that was thrown out by the Supreme Court last month. Trump quickly implemented a temporary global tariff on all imports, however, and the European Parliament voted on Thursday to advance their side of the deal, eliminating many tariffs on U.S. goods.
Wright has also been calling on American oil producers to drill more, a more or less constant mantra from throughout Trump’s political life.
“Prices went up to send signals to everyone that can produce more: ‘Please, produce more,’” Wright said during a speech Monday at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston. At the same time, he said that “prices have not risen high enough yet to drive meaningful demand destruction,” and pointed to Trump administration efforts to keep prices contained, such as releasing 172 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Burgum was similarly optimistic about oil prices, telling Politico earlier this week that high prices would last “weeks not months.”
So far, there’s little evidence that American oil drillers are substantially overhauling their investment plans. Oil investors still prefer to see “capital discipline,” meaning that the impetus for substantially increased drilling may have to be permanently higher prices — exactly what the Trump administration doesn’t want.
“Capital discipline in key U.S. operators — both oil and gas-focused — is still in place, despite recent uptick in oil prices,” Mizuho analyst Nitin Kumar wrote in a note to clients Wednesday. One executive told the Mizuho analysts that “resource depth, service costs, and cost of capital” are “key barriers to a short-term supply response” from shale drillers. Kumar wrote that “this, in our view, is positive for commodity prices over the longer term, even assuming a deescalation of hostilities in the Middle East.”
On March 10, the U.S. Energy Information Administration bumped up its forecast for American oil production in 2026 by 500,000 barrels per day, to 13.8 million barrels. That same forecast assumed that Brent crude prices would remain above $95 per barrel “over the next two months.”
By far the most effective price intervention since the war began has been Trump’s various indications that it will be over soon. Oil benchmarks fell substantially after Trump announced a five-day moratorium on hitting Iranian energy infrastructure on Monday and as reports of negotiations to possibly end the war emerged, with West Texas Intermediate Crude falling from almost $100 a barrel to around $87 before rising back up to $93. Trump extended his deadline to Iran Thursday for another ten days to April 6.
Trump’s hostility toward renewables is also largely unchanged — just days after the Department of Justice declined to appeal a ruling in favor of an offshore wind project, the administration struck a deal with French energy company TotalEnergies that, in effect, trades an offshore wind lease for investment in natural gas.
“The irony in all of this is it’s driving many, many more countries to look to China for all the different electricity technologies,” Josh Freed, senior vice president for the climate and energy program at Third Way, a center-left think tank, told me. “This is a real own goal by the United States by abandoning domestic development of electricity technology.”
Nor, in a more unstable and uncertain energy world, is the U.S. seeking to become a major exporter of green technology to countries that are looking to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. The administration has yanked funding from dozens of green industrial projects and overseen a dramatic fall in electric vehicle sales, while battery capacity is being converted for use by data centers.
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 spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”