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.
1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.
2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.
3. Pulaski County, Arkansas – Entergy has dropped the lawsuit it filed against an Arkansas newspaper over the publication of a power deal with Google.
4. Darlington County, South Carolina – We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a focus on a GOP-leaning county rejecting a renewables moratorium.
A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.
I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.
Let’s start with the data center dividend proposal. Walk my readers through it.
Data center dividends came from the idea that, ideally in the AI revolution, we want all Americans to benefit. Especially rural Americans. You look at the landscape today, the majority of AI data centers are being built in rural America. It’s critical they’ll benefit from the massive wealth AI will unlock.
There’s lots of ways to make that happen. People point to the jobs AI data centers will build out, for example. But with data center dividends, we take the logic of the Alaska Permanent Fund and we apply it to America’s rural counties, which are sitting on a proverbial gold mine right now but lack any kind of public mechanism allowing them to benefit from that in a maximal way.
If you look at the tax revenue these data centers create, which is astronomical, how do we distribute this tax revenue in a way where it has the most tangible impact on the families living there? We believe data center dividends are the best way to do that – after allocating money for schools, public safety, and infrastructure, it allows these counties with tens of millions of dollars left over to distribute them as they see fit. They should distribute that money to the men and women who make those data centers happen in the first place.
The most effective form of a dividend would take a direct payment: a cash payment, a physical check, a direct deposit. Or the form of credits paying back property taxes, utility bills, an endowment for scholarships. There’s a number of different forms this can take.
Hopefully this gets the conversation going about how we can make these work for everybody.
Who do you want to see set up this dividend mechanism? How’s your approach to implementation?
The report is addressed to county commissioners. I’m thinking of commissioners who represent both sides of the political spectrum facing this huge backlash. Many of them want to do good by their communities and their voters, even if it means doing a data center, in places where it’s difficult to explain right now. Dividends make this indisputably clear.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of an enterprising county commissioner who sees the merits in the data center buildout and wants to break out of the political storm. It’s important to note data centers can be a huge economic boon for communities, in ways that can impact lives positively.
Have any communities – counties, as you noted – taken this idea up yet? Are there any models for this proposal?
The best analogue is West Feliciana, Louisiana, which is the case study we feature. West Feliciana made an agreement with a data center developer where in lieu of taxes, they make direct payments of about $90 million a year to the parish. That triples the community’s tax budget every year. It leaves ample room not only for essential services but dividends afterwards. Louisiana then passed a law – Act 434 – that allowed West Feliciana to remit some of those payments to residents as a tax credit. This bill first provided the opportunity for the parish to even remit those payments as cash, but it was changed in the legislature to make it a credit. That’s the closest we’ve gotten so far.
As far as reaching out to individual counties, we’re a think tank. We put ideas into the universe. We haven’t had anyone reach out to us since the publication of the report so far but we’re hoping they will.
Your report does lay out how there’s a bottleneck in development and this could help with easing it. Do you see an impetus to put ideas like the dividend out there right now, in light of the increased data center scrutiny in this year’s midterms?
Our publication is irrespective of the midterms. But it is tied to the fact that a bottleneck facing the data center buildout includes it becoming a politicized issue. We’re of the belief these projects shouldn't be political at all. One way to break through the noise is by showing how they can benefit those involved in construction and residents who live there. Data centers are critical infrastructure; other forms of critical infrastructure aren’t being politicized. Our efforts are to demonstrate how these shouldn’t be political.
When it comes to the future of AI data center regulation, this proposal is obviously geared towards incentivizing a resolution to the bottleneck through using resources produced from data centers – namely, new investment.
Where does your organization stand on the increased push for environmental or siting regulation on AI data centers?
I’m not familiar with what you might be referring to there.
I mean, there’s all kinds of proposals at the federal level and in states for everything from being required to pay for infrastructure upgrades to being required to use closed-loop cooling to siting restrictions, like temporary moratoria.
What I’m asking is, what else do you as an organization believe when it comes to regulating AI data center development at the federal level? State level?
We believe data centers should work for the communities where they’re being built. That’s important. So the concept of BYOP – Bring Your Own Power – we very much support that idea. We think the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is a great proposal because ultimately we want data centers, with them being critical infrastructure, to not only strengthen our national security but strengthen the communities where they’re being built.
Some states are rejecting data centers. We think that’s a mistake because it's something that’ll ultimately short-change the people who live there. For the states that do decide to build data centers, it's up to them what regulations make data centers more sustainable over time.
There’s increased public discussion for policy on AI development – as an organization, do you see any role in the federal government making policy here with a national data center law?
We think AI will be key to America’s prosperity over the long-term. We have concerns about the regulation of open-source artificial intelligence; bitcoin is a form of open-source software and open-source money. We believe intelligence should be something available to all Americans. That’s our concern with talk about regulating AI right now, it feels like a ploy for regulatory capture.
But what about national policy on AI data centers? Does your think tank support the national legislature doing a federal data center bill or is that something best for localities or states?
It depends on the bill. Are you talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ national moratorium?
With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.
The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”
If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.
Two of the busier House members on this issue are Scott Peters, a Democratic former environmental lawyer from San Diego, and Gabe Evans, a first term Colorado Republican representing a suburban and rural district north of Denver that includes wind farms and crude oil production. “The district that I represent truly is an all of the above energy district,” Evans told me.
Their latest effort is a bill aimed at smoothing out permitting for transmission development, especially interregional transmission. Last week, the two congressmen unveiled the CLEAR Act, seeking to apply a stricter set of standards for lawsuits against transmission projects that aligned with how natural gas and hydropower projects are treated under the Federal Power Act (it’s much harder to sue to stop these projects). Earlier this year, the two also sponsored the CERTAIN Act, a more comprehensive streamlining of federal permitting for energy infrastructure projects.
“We’re proud to have a lot of our work as the foundation for this, and I think if they send us over something that includes this, it’s got a really good chance of passing in the House,” Peters told me. Evans added that bringing forward bipartisan bills “gives a little bit more impetus to the Senate to know that the House is looking for these things.”
While the Senate’s deal will be up to the senators, Peters told me he envisions a broad permitting package that could include reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act to shorten permitting timelines, preventing the president from nixing individual projects, and reform Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which effectively devolves power to tribes and states to block a variety of interstate projects. “I think it’s coming together pretty well,” Peters said. “Obviously, we’re waiting for white smoke from the Senate.”
A permitting reform package may be one of the last major bills several bipartisan-minded House members get to vote on.
Election day is about six weeks off, and while Peters will likely have an easy time getting reelected for this eighth term, Evans is in a tough race. His purple-hued district is a target for the House Democratic campaign arm, which is hoping to flip it to former Colorado House of Representatives member Manny Rutinel, who worked as a lawyer at the environmental group Earthjustice. The Cook Political Report rates the race as toss-up, and Nate Silver gives Rutinel a roughly 75% to win.
But Rutinel won’t be getting any campaign help from Peters.
When I asked Peters about the timing of releasing a bill that could boost an endangered Republican’s bipartisan bona fides less than two months before an election, Peters told me that he and Evans had been working on it “for a while,” and that “my colleagues know that I’ve worked with Republicans to get problems solved.”
He said he wasn’t “participating in Gabe’s election” and wasn’t giving any money to his campaign, but also that he wouldn’t campaign Evans’ challenger, despite the opportunity to bolster his own caucus.
Peters is not shy about praising Evans. “What I appreciate about Gabe is that it takes a little bit of initiative to separate yourself from the majority — particularly when you’re in the trifecta — and do your own thing. He’s been a good partner in helping find ways to reduce process and make things go faster,” he told me.
Evans told me that he and Peters met early in this Congress, as Evans was getting settled into his new office in the Longworth building. “We’ve built the relationship over the last two years with a lot of the different areas that we’ve collaborated on.”
“I always try to meet the members of my committee and find out who will work with me. And I was fortunate to find Gabe,” Peters said.
“I do want to win the majority in the next Congress,” Peters went on, but “the norm should be that we figure out ways to work together to solve problems, and, you know, we’ll let the voters of Colorado 8 decide who to send me.”
Evans, for his part, told me that he had to work with Democrats to get anything passed as a member of a minuscule Republican minority in the Colorado statehouse, and that the 40-plus members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have agreed not to campaign against each other. “There’s 385 other members that you can go pick fights with,” he said.