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:
Some producers were already renegotiating contracts due to rising costs. Then came “Liberation Day.”

Expanding U.S. liquified natural gas exports has been a key priority for Trump and part of his strategy to “unleash U.S. energy dominance.” But his tariffs could make it harder for projects that are still early in their development to succeed.
After taking office, Trump swiftly reversed the Biden administration’s slow-walking of permits for LNG export terminals and issued key approvals for two big new projects in Louisiana, Calcasieu Pass 2 and Commonwealth LNG. They add to a pipeline of roughly eight other projects that have received key federal approvals but have not yet reached a final investment decision, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
Cost inflation was a concern for these projects prior to this week’s tariffs, said Ben Cahill, the director of energy markets and policy at the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis. The previously announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum were already set to make building these projects more expensive, Cahill told me in an email.
Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a research scholar focused on natural gas at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, noted that U.S. liquified natural gas companies were already trying to renegotiate contracts with buyers due to rising costs. “For the moment U.S. LNG is still interesting,” she said in an email, “but if costs increase too much, maybe people will start to wonder.”
The effect of the new round of global tariffs on these projects is much harder for experts to predict, and is changing by the day. Some countries may choose to increase their U.S. LNG imports to try to close their trade deficits and appease Trump. Morningstar analysts issued a note on Thursday predicting a favorable market for Venture Global, the developer behind Calcasieu Pass 2, as it’s looking for buyers, and “could offer the quick and easy victory both Trump and foreign leaders want.”
But the tariffs (not to mention the uncertainty about how long they’ll last) could also turn off potential buyers from signing long-term contracts with the U.S. They may begin to look elsewhere, or impose retaliatory tariffs, as China has already done.
China imposed 15% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. LNG back in February, in response to Trump’s first round of tariffs. Not a single tanker of U.S. LNG has gone to the country since then. Now the country has retaliated to this week’s escalation with an additional 34% tariff on U.S. goods.
That may sound bad for America’s LNG industry, but China is a relatively small buyer right now — only about 5% of U.S. exports went to China last year. That number is set to rise rapidly over the next few years, however, as Chinese companies have signed a number of long-term contracts with U.S. LNG projects that are about to come online. “In a few years from now, assuming nothing has changed and the volumes are growing, that will become more and more complicated,” Corbeau said. “That is very likely to force Chinese buyers to look elsewhere for new LNG contracts. I would bet that the Chinese companies will try to get out of the contracts with the U.S. LNG projects that have not taken [final investment decision] yet.”
Erica Downs, a senior research scholar focused on China at the Center on Global Energy Policy also noted that U.S. LNG developers may have been counting on additional financing for new projects coming from China. “I suspect that what's happening now with the trade war is going to mean that you're not going to see Chinese companies enthusiastic about investing in U.S. LNG projects — although who knows if the Trump administration even wants that,” she told me.
Nearly half of U.S. LNG exports went to Europe last year, and a third went to Asian countries. The biggest buyer was the Netherlands, followed by France, Japan, and South Korea. The U.K. and India were also major customers.
Leading up to this week, European leaders had suggested they were willing to buy more U.S. LNG if it would help avoid being slapped with tariffs by Trump. Clearly, that willingness to buy didn’t pay off. As Politico reported, EU diplomats struggled even to begin talks with the Trump administration to work out a deal. They still could, but Corbeau pointed out in a LinkedIn post Friday morning that it would be tough for the EU — or any other country — to make up their trade deficit with the U.S. simply by boosting LNG imports.
It’s also unclear what leverage these leaders have, as EU governments mostly don’t have a financial stake in their energy companies and can’t tell them from whom to buy fuel. European utilities “may not be so keen to bow to political whims and contract U.S. LNG, or any LNG for that matter,” Corbeau wrote in a recent blog post. Gas consumption in the block is on track to decline, and upcoming environmental regulations on imported gas could rule out U.S. sourcing if Trump also makes good on his plans to repeal U.S. methane pollution regulations. “The EU needs U.S. LNG for the moment, but they may choose not to increase their exposure,” Corbeau told me.
Other countries may simply become wary of increasing their reliance on U.S. energy. “Nobody wants to have to rely on the trade relationship with Trump if this is how he's going to treat his trading partners,” Elan Sykes, the director of energy and climate policy at the Progressive Policy Institute told me. “The environmental and energy security considerations used to both favor the U.S.,” said Sykes. “Now one of them is somewhat unclear, and the president is actively destroying our country's export market value proposition.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It’s an off-off-cycle election year, but there are still a handful of key elections going on in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia.
With the Trump administration disassembling climate policy across the federal government, state elections are arguably more important to climate action than ever.
Here are the key races we’re watching where clean energy, public transit, and other climate-oriented policies are on the ballot.
There are only 10 states in the country that hold elections for a Public Service Commission, a small group of regulators who oversee utility companies, and Georgia is one of them. As Charles Hua, the executive director of the nonprofit PowerLines, recently put it, these officials are the “Supreme Court justices” of energy. They preside over what kinds of infrastructure gas and electric utilities will build, where they’ll build it, and how much rates will go up as a result.
The election in Georgia is long overdue after being held up by a lawsuit the last two election cycles. Two of the five current commissioners have served three extra years without being re-elected by voters. During that time, the commission has approved six rate increases for customers of Georgia Power, the largest utility in the state, in part to pay for major cost overruns on new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Now Georgia Power is proposing a major expansion of natural gas power — about 10 nuclear reactors’ worth — mostly to meet data center demand.
The two seats are held by Republicans Fitz Johnson and Tim Echols. They are being challenged by Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johson, who have vowed to push for Georgia Power to meet demand with clean energy.
Energy costs are at the center of the governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia this year, and Democrats and Republicans are making opposite arguments about how to lower them. In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill has vowed to freeze utility rates and clear red tape to “open the floodgates on new cheaper and cleaner energy projects,” including solar, battery storage, and nuclear. Her opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, thinks the key to lower prices is pulling out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a 13-state cap and trade program that incentivizes cleaner power generation and raises money for climate-friendly projects. He also wants to repeal the state’s electrification goals for vehicles and buildings and ban offshore wind development.
A similar fight is playing out in Virginia, although there it’s tied more to the state’s rapidly multiplying data centers. Virginia is already home to 13% of global data center capacity, with more coming online. A recent state legislative report warns that customers are looking at increases of $14 to $37 per month by 2040 as a result.
The Democratic candidate for governor, former U.S. Representative Abigail Spanberger, wants to expand solar and wind power and invest in building efficiency. She’s also advocated for data centers to “pay their fair share” of new energy infrastructure, and said she will encourage them to pilot advanced clean technologies like small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen. She’s running against Winson Earle Sears, the current lieutenant governor of Virginia, who has questioned the reliability of renewable energy, arguing for an all-of-the-above strategy that includes “clean coal.” While “beautiful clean coal,” it may be one of Trump’s favorite energy sources, the reality is, it’s still just coal.
The governor’s seat isn’t the only one that’s up for grabs in Virginia. Whoever wins will need the House of Delegates on their side. Democrats currently have a razor thin 51-seat majority, and all 100 seats are on offer. Even a blue wave in the House doesn’t guarantee strong climate action, however, according to the nonprofit advocacy group Climate Cabinet. “Which candidates win will determine whether Virginia expands on” its climate law, the Clean Economy Act, “or backslides,” the group said in a “races to watch” memo.
Voters in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the whole of Mecklenburg County, will be asked whether to increase their sales tax by 1% to fund new transportation projects. Roughly 60% of the estimated $20 billion raised by the tax will go toward the expansion of rail and bus service. Charlotte is among the fastest-growing cities in the country. During a legislative hearing this summer, State Senator Mujtaba Mohammad said an average of 130 people move to the area each day. “We are experiencing longer commutes, more car accidents, higher car insurance premiums, more pedestrian-related accidents and less revenue to address our crumbling critical infrastructure," he said.
The Charlotte Area Transit System finalized a new long-range plan this year to foster “transit-oriented communities,” by increasing bus frequency, extending service hours, adding microtransit options to underserved neighborhoods, and adding 43 miles of new rail. But the plan is only possible with funding from the sales tax.
Sales tax increases are a common way to raise money for public transit systems — legislators in California recently voted to put a sales tax increase on next year’s ballot to address a looming fiscal cliff for transit in the Bay Area. Illinois also voted last week to increase the sales tax in the Chicago area by 0.025% to raise money for its ailing transit system, among other measures.
A few smaller elections where climate is also on the ballot this year, according to Climate Cabinet:
A new report from the Rhodium Group finds that the range of likely temperature outcomes has essentially not changed since 2023.
It’s that time of year when COP, the annual United Nations climate conference, draws near, and a flood of reports assess how much progress the world has made (or not made) to limit global warming. Given the sharp reversal in U.S. climate policy under President Trump, it may seem inevitable that the future will look bleaker than before. His administration has spent the past nine months dismantling nearly every bit of domestic climate policy implemented by its predecessor, and has even managed to thwart international efforts at climate cooperation.
The annual climate outlook from the Rhodium Group, a U.S. energy and climate research firm, offers a somewhat hopeful counterpoint to that narrative, however. It finds that the range of possible climate futures has essentially not changed in the past two years.
A full decade has passed since the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change, and in that time the world has avoided the most catastrophic scientific projections. In 2015, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, projected that global average temperatures could increase by as much as 7.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century without significant shifts in policy and advancements in technology. Now, the Rhodium Group estimates that warming is highly unlikely to exceed 3.9 degrees by 2100, and could be limited to 2 degrees.
The numbers themselves are not hopeful. This is a vast range in terms of the potential impacts implied, and even 2 degrees of warming should not be considered “little.” The IPCC estimates that compared with a scenario that limits warming to 1.5 degrees, more than twice as many people would be exposed to severe heat at least once every five years in a world 2 degrees warmer; ice-free summers in the Arctic would occur 10 times more often; the number of plant, animal, and insect species that lose at least half their habitat would be two to three times larger; and crop yields and fisheries would suffer roughly twice the losses.
Putting those dire projections aside, what’s interesting is that this 2- to 3.9-degree range is about the same as what the Rhodium Group forecast when it published its first Climate Outlook report in 2023. Also relatively unchanged: a finding that global power sector emissions will peak within the next decade, and that total emissions will likely remain constant or subtly decline through 2060, but then go up again as Global South countries see more rapid economic development in the latter half of the century.
The reason the numbers haven’t changed much, despite some seemingly dramatic policy changes that have occurred in the interim, has to do with Rhodium’s unique approach to projecting the future.
Many of the reports that come out around this time, such as the UN’s annual Emissions Gap Report, try to assess where the world is headed based on currently enacted policies as well as pledges, such as the “nationally determined contributions” that countries submit to the UN. Those might include promises like, “We’ll build X quantity of renewable energy by 2030,” or “We’ll protect X amount of our forests.” The models assume that these policies and pledges are fixed. They do not contemplate future ramp-ups or potential reversals. They also use fixed assumptions about GDP and population growth, oil prices, technology costs, etc.
A recent report by Wood Mackenzie, for example, estimates that temperatures will climb to 2.6 degrees by 2060, and then models a few other potential discrete scenarios, including one that shows what it would take to limit warming to 2 degrees.
The limitation of this approach is that the trajectory for each variable these models use is deeply uncertain, Hannah Pitt, one of the authors of the Rhodium report, told me. “Even a small change in GDP growth can have really big implications for emissions — likewise for oil prices and renewable costs and all that,” she said. “We try to take into consideration the wide range of uncertainty we have in the future of those core drivers of emissions.” That requires modeling thousands of scenarios with different combinations of how those underlying drivers might evolve.
Then, rather than assuming that policies on the books today remain static, Rhodium uses data on how climate and energy policy has historically responded to economic inputs like oil prices and GDP growth, in different parts of the world to project how policy might change going forward, using a carbon price as a proxy for policy ambition.
This approach takes into account such a wide range of possibilities that the results aren’t likely to change much year to year. Both in 2023 and now, the modeling incorporated the prospect that a Trump administration or something like it could reverse some progress, and that energy demand could soar. “We are looking at the long-term evolution of policy, not the administration fluctuations,” Pitt explained. It would take a true step-change in policy or a major technological breakthrough to produce a noticeable change in the trajectory, she said.
What are those breakthroughs? At this point, they aren’t a mystery. Cheaper clean firm power — like advanced nuclear, fusion, or geothermal — would be a huge help. Solutions for decarbonizing flying and shipping are also on the list. We also need to make it affordable to produce iron, steel, cement, and petrochemicals with far fewer emissions.
On the policy side, bending the curve might mean something like stricter electric vehicle requirements. As mentioned earlier, economic development in the Global South is expected to shift emissions back upward later this century — in part because if policy evolves the way it has historically, and if more and more people around the world are buying cars, the cars may not be 100% electric, and emissions from transport will go up.
None of this is to say that the Trump administration’s actions will have no effect on warming. Recall the report’s expansive range of future warming scenarios of 2 to 3.9 degrees — it’s very possible that policies enacted today will push the world closer to one or the other. A separate recent Rhodium study that dives into the specifics of U.S. policies found that emissions in 2035 could be 0.8 to 1.2 gigatonnes higher than what the group projected in the same report last year, largely due to Trump’s policies.
It should be comforting that one administration can’t veer the world too far off course — although by that same logic, we can’t expect a single administration to shift projections in a positive direction, either. A "breakthrough" in something like decarbonized cement will likely happen over years, through a feedback loop of sustained policy support and technological development.
There is no “too late” when it comes to addressing the technology and policy gaps the report highlights, Pitt said “Of course, the sooner the better,” she said. “But the difference between a 2.8-degree future and a 2.5-degree future saves lives. So the effort to drive these technology costs down is worthwhile, even if it doesn’t happen on the timeline that we would hope.”
Utilities are bending over backward to convince even their own investors that ratepayers won’t be on the hook for the cost of AI.
Utilities want you to know how little data centers will cost anyone.
With electricity prices rising faster than inflation and public backlash against data centers brewing, developers and the utilities that serve them are trying to convince the public that increasing numbers of gargantuan new projects won’t lead to higher bills. Case in point is the latest project from OpenAI’s Stargate, a $7-plus-billion, more-than-1-gigawatt data center due to be built outside Detroit.
The project was announced Thursday by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who focused heavily on the projected economic benefits of the projects while attempting to head off criticism that it would lead to higher costs. In the first sentence of her press release, she said that the project will “create more than 2,500 union construction jobs, more than 450 jobs on site and 1,500 more across the county.” Also, it “will be one of the most advanced AI infrastructure facilities in the U.S., especially when it comes to its efficient use of land, water, and power.” Oh, and it “will not require any additional power generation to operate.”
The utility set to power the project, DTE Energy, released its quarterly earnings Thursday, as well, which described a 1.4-gigawatt project it had already executed. In a presentation for analysts and investors, DTE said that the new data center would pay for “required storage through a 15-year energy storage contract,” and that it would “support affordability for existing customers as excess capacity is sold.”
On a call with analysts, DTE Energy chief executive Joi Harris further asserted that the project has “meaningful affordability benefits to our existing customers.” As the data center ramps up, she explained, it can use existing excess capacity on the grid. By the time it reaches full strength, it will enjoy the benefits of “nearly $2 billion of incremental energy storage investments and additional tolling agreements to support this data center load.”
Who will pay for energy storage and tolling agreements? A DTE spokesperson, Jill Wilmot, clarified in an email that “DTE will meet the 1.4 gigawatts of demand from the data center with existing capacity,” and that “new energy storage will be built — and paid for by the customer” — that is, Stargate — “to help augment times of peak demand, ensuring continued reliability for all customers.”
Data centers help spread out the fixed costs of the grid more widely, Wilmot went on. “Data center development in DTE’s electric service territory will not increase customer rates,” she said, adding that “DTE is ensuring the data center will absorb all new costs required to serve them — in this case, battery storage. Our customers will not pay.”
That said, Wilmot did not answer a question about whether there would be any network or transmission upgrades necessary. She told me that she expected DTE would make a filing for the project with Michigan regulators later Friday.
Consumer advocates were skeptical of the utility’s claims. “When you are talking about new demand as massive as what would be created by this data center, we can’t afford to just take DTE at its word that other customers won’t be affected,” Amy Bandyk, the executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, told me in an email. She called for Michigan regulators “to require DTE and the data center customer to agree on a tariff specific to that customer that includes robust protections against cost-shifting and provisions that any incremental costs will be solely covered by this new customer.”
More utilities and data center developers are trying to explicitly head off claims that data centers are driving up electricity rates. In another recent data center announcement for a multi-billion-dollar project in West Memphis, Arkansas, Google and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission said that “Google will be covering the full energy costs for the West Memphis facility and will be ramping up new solar energy and battery storage resources for the facility.”
Drew Marsh, the chief executive of Entergy, the utility serving the project, confirmed on an earnings call earlier this week that Google “will protect energy affordability for existing customers by covering the full cost of powering the data center in West Memphis.” He also said that in Mississippi, where Amazon has announced a $16 billion project, “customer rates would be 16% lower than they otherwise would have been due to these large customers.”
So why are utilities — which, after all, get paid by ratepayers for the investments they make in their systems — telling their investors about all the money they’re not charging ratepayers?
In short, utilities and developers know they’re on political thin ice, and they don’t want to kill the golden goose of data center development by stoking a populist backlash to rising electricity prices that could result in either government-mandated slashing of their investment plans, caps on the rates they can charge, or both.
“Looking ahead, we anticipate the central issue will be how utilities protect residential customers from costs associated with large-load customers, or else face potential consequences from regulators,” Mizuho analyst Anthony Crowdell said in a note to clients earlier this week. “Data centers, and their associated load, have the potential” to “cause political push-back.”
This is already happening across the country. The frontrunner in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, for example, has promised to freeze electricity rates, which have seen a sharp runup in recent years. Indiana Governor Mike Braun, a Republican, said in a recent statement that “we can’t take it anymore,” in reference to rate hikes. Indiana has also rejected a number of proposed data centers, as I covered earlier this year.
This means that utilities will have to think carefully about how and to whom they allocate costs arising from data center development and operation.
“Allocation of cost will be pivotal as the current ’pocketbook issues driving a lot of the U.S. political debate could create some challenging regulatory outcomes should data centers put pressure on customer bills,” Crowdell wrote.
But what’s said in an announcement to the media or to investors may not always reflect the reality of utility cost allocation, Harvard Law School professor Ari Peskoe told me.
“Don’t trust a utility press release or comment from a CEO of a monopoly that says Hey, these rates are good for you,” he told me.
Peskoe told me to pay close attention to the regulatory fillings utilities make for their data center projects, not just what they tell the press or investors. “Are the utilities themselves actually making these claims as strongly as their CEOs are making them in investor calls? And then once we do have a regulatory process about it, are they being transparent in that regulatory process? Are they hiding a lot of details behind the confidentiality claims so that only the participants in that proceeding actually get to see the details?”
Peskoe also pointed to other costs that might be incurred in the course of data center development that get socialized across the rate base but aren’t necessarily directly tied to any one development, like the transmission and network upgrades, that have contributed to large price increases in the PJM Interconnection territory.
“What you’re looking for is a firm contract that ensures the data center is going to be paying for every penny that the utility is incurring to provide service, so that it’s paying for all the new infrastructure that’s serving it,” Peskoe said. Without that, all you have is a press release.