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:
And that’s before we start talking about the tens of billions of dollars of investment required.

Donald Trump could not have been more clear about his intentions. Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro may be sitting in New York’s Metropolitan Detention Center on drugs and weapons charges, but the United States removed him from power — at least in part — because the Trump administration wants oil. And it wants American companies to get it.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said over the weekend in a press conference following Maduro’s removal from Venezuela.
The country’s claimed crude oil reserves are the largest in the world, according to OPEC data, standing at just over 300 billion barrels, compared to around 45 billion in the United States and 267 billion in Saudi Arabia.
But having reserves and exploiting them are very different things. Before oil producers can start pumping, both the Venezuelan government and the U.S. oil companies will have to traverse several geopolitical and financial steps. Some of these could take weeks; others may take years. The entire process will cost tens of billions of dollars, if not more, at a time when oil prices are low. And American oil companies may well be leery about investing in a country with a long history of instability when it comes to foreign investment.
Venezuela produced over 3 million barrels per day though the 1960s until the late 1990s. Then came nationalization, decades of underinvestment, and harsh sanctions imposed in Trump’s first term to pressure the Maduro government, and most recently, a U.S. naval blockade imposed in December. As of last year, production had fallen to around a million barrels per day.
About 120,000 barrels per day winds up at U.S. Gulf Coast refineries built to process its heavy sour crude, courtesy of a rare license to operate granted to Chevron. (Chevron shares were up in early trading Monday morning.) But “for the most part, the Venezuela oil story has been a small amount of production all going to China,” Greg Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told me.
To get a sense of where Venezuela’s oil production capacity sits in the international context, Texas alone has produced more oil every year since 2018 than Venezuela’s all-time peak production of 3.7 million barrels per day in 1970. Canada, which produces a comparably heavy and sour crude, produced over 5 million barrels per day in 2025.
The immediate question is whether the United States will lift its blockade and allow oil to flow more freely. Venezuela’s monthly exports dropped dramatically in December to 19 million barrels, down from 27 million the month before, according to S&P Global Commodities data.
“If that happens,” oil analyst Rory Johnston told me about the potential to lift the blockade, “those barrels will still largely go to China.”
But even that is in question.
When asked on Face the Nation how the United States would “run” Venezuela, as Trump indicated, without an active military presence in the country, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the blockade would be a key pressure point. “That’s the sort of control the president is pointing to,” he said. The blockade “remains in place,” Rubio added, “and that’s a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes.”
Even if the blockade were lifted, the next question over the medium to long term would be the lifting of U.S. sanctions, which have been in effect on Venezuela’s oil industry in their harshest form since 2019. With very few exceptions, these have prevented U.S. and other large oil companies from getting further involved with the country.
Sanctions are “why American companies either can’t or won’t buy Venezuela oil, and that keeps other buyers from not buying it as well,” Brew told me. “That’s another source of downward pressure on Venezuela oil exports.”
Even after it’s no longer literally illegal to work with Venezuela, however, there’s still the logistical and financial questions of long-term investments in Venezuela’s oil sector.
Venezuela would have to repair its connections to the international financial system, which have been strained by its defaults on tens of billions of debt. It would also likely have to overhaul its own laws around foreign investment in its oil industry that favor its state oil company PDVSA, according to Luisa Palacios, a former chairperson of Citgo, the (for now) majority-Venezuelan-owned energy company. Only then would U.S. oil companies likely have a plausible case to re-invest.
The next question is whether that investment would be worth it.
“Foreign companies are looking for an improvement in governance, the restoration of the rule of law, and an easing of U.S. oil sanctions,” Palacios wrote in a blog post for the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy. “If the Venezuelan government were to commit to these reforms in a serious way (and the United States was therefore prepared to remove sanctions), an increase in oil production of 500,000 b/d-1 million b/d within a 2-year horizon, while optimistic, seems plausible” — though nowhere near the country’s 3.7 million-barrel peak.
Jefferies analyst Alejando Anibal Demichelis came to a similar conclusion in a note to clients, adding that “further increases beyond that level could be much more complex and costly.”
To get from here to there would require extensive investment in an environment where oil is plentiful and cheap. Oil prices saw their largest one-year decline last year since the onset of COVID in 2020.
“This is a moment where there’s oversupply,” Johnston told me. “Prices are down. It’s not the moment that you’re like, I’m going to go on a lark and invest in Venezuela.”
Venezuela will need that confidence to generate the necessary investments. The country’s oil industry “desperately needs more operational and financial support,” according to analysts at the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, which has estimated that it would require some $15 billion to $20 billion of investment over a decade to get production from existing operations to increase by 500,000 barrels per day.
Within six months to a year, Brew told me, “the volume of exports that could realistically be expected to increase is 200,000 to 400,000 barrels a day.” And that figure assumes “the stars align” in terms of the blockade, sanctions relief, and investment.
The “best case scenario,” Brew told me, is that tens of billions of dollars of U.S. investment flows into Venezuela as the blockade is lifted, sanctions are removed, and Venezuela reforms its laws to allow more foreign investment.
“Even there, I think realistically, it takes two years to get production from 1 million to 2 million barrels a day, and it costs a lot of money in a period amidst price conditions that are expected to be fairly soft,” he said.
As a rough guideline for what’s feasible over the long term, Iraq’s oil production rose from about 2 million barrels per day in 2002 to 4.7 million barrels by the end of the next decade, according to Wood Mackenzie. But that was at a time when oil prices were generally rising.
In any case, more oil is more oil, and it’s hard to see how Venezuela’s exports could get much lower. Industry analysts largely concluded that the operation to remove Maduro and put the United States in the driver’s seat would exert at least a mild downward pressure on oil prices.
But do major American oil companies want to get involved in the first place? “We’ve been expropriated from Venezuela two different times,” ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods told Bloomberg last year. Both Exxon and ConocoPhillips left the country in 2007 rather than accept new contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company.
Brew is pessimistic. “I don’t see much of an upside in the short term,” he told me. That’s because the potential profits from reinvesting could be meager. When Maduro came to power in 2013, U.S. oil prices were over $90 a barrel, compared to around $60 today.
“But apart from commercial incentives, there is the incentive of, Okay the president wants us to do this. We can do it,” Brew said, but he cautioned, “I don’t think he’s in a position to leverage major US oil companies to go into Venezuela, simply by his own personal inclinations,” Brew said. “They’re going to need to see it make commercial sense. And right now it simply doesn’t.”
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 cost crisis in PJM Interconnection has transcended partisan politics.
If “war is too important to be left to the generals,” as the French statesman Georges Clemenceau said, then electricity policy may be too important to be left up to the regional transmission organizations.
Years of discontent with PJM Interconnection, the 13-state regional transmission organization that serves around 67 million people, has culminated in an unprecedented commandeering of the system’s processes and procedures by the White House, in alliance with governors within the grid’s service area.
An unlikely coalition including Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, and the governors of Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee (Republicans), plus the governors of Maryland, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Carolina (Democrats) — i.e. all 13 states of PJM — signed a “Statement of Principles” Friday demanding extensive actions and reforms to bring new generation onto the grid while protecting consumers.
The plan envisions procuring $15 billion of new generation in the region with “revenue certainty” coming from data centers, “whether they show up and use the power or not,” according to a Department of Energy fact sheet. This would occur through what’s known as a “reliability backstop auction,” The DOE described this as a “an emergency procurement auction,” outside of the regular capacity auction where generation gets paid to be available on the grid when needed. The backstop auction would be for new generation to be built and to serve the PJM grid with payments spreading out over 15 years.
“We’re in totally uncharted waters here,” Jon Gordon, director of the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, told me, referring to the degree of direction elected officials are attempting to apply to PJM’s processes.
“‘Unprecedented,’ I feel, is a word that has lost all meaning. But I do think this is unprecedented,” Abraham Silverman, a Johns Hopkins University scholar who previously served as the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ general counsel, told me.
“In some ways, the biggest deal here is that they got 13 governors and the Trump administration to agree to something,” Silverman said. “I just don't think there's that many things that [Ohio] Governor [Mike] DeWine and or [Indiana] Governor [Mike] Braun agree with [Maryland] Governor [Wes] Moore.”
This document is “the death of the idea that PJM could govern itself,” Silverman told me. “PJM governors have had a real hands off approach to PJM since we transitioned into these market structures that we have now. And I think there was a real sense that the technocrats are in charge now, the governors can kind of step back and leave the PJM wrangling to the public service commissions.”
Those days are over.
The plan from the states and the White House would also seek to maintain price caps in capacity auctions, which Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro had previously obtained through a settlement. The statement envisions a reliability auction for generators to be held by September of this year, and requested that PJM make the necessary filings “expeditiously.”
Shapiro’s office said in a statement that the caps being maintained was a condition of his participation in the agreement, and that the cost limit had already saved consumers over $18 billion.
The Statement of Principles is clear that the costs of new generation procured in the auction should be allocated to data centers that have not “self-procured new capacity or agreed to be curtailable,” a reference to the increasingly popular idea that data centers can avoid increasing the peak demand on the system by reducing their power usage when the grid is stressed.
The dealmaking seems to have sidestepped PJM entirely, with a PJM spokesperson noting to Bloomberg Thursday evening that its representatives “ were not invited to the event they are apparently having” at the White House. PJM also told Politico that it wasn’t involved in the process.
“PJM is reviewing the principles set forth by the White House and governors,” the grid operator said in a statement to Heatmap.
PJM also said that it would be releasing its own long-gestating proposal to reform rules for large load interconnection, on which it failed to achieve consensus among its membership in November, on Friday.
“The Board has been deliberating on this issue since the end of that stakeholder process. We will work with our stakeholders to assess how the White House directive aligns with the Board’s decision,” the statement said.
The type of “backstop procurement” envisioned by the Statement of Principles sits outside of PJM’s capacity auctions, Jefferies analysts wrote in a note to clients, and “has been increasingly inevitable for months,” the note said.
While the top-down steering is precedent-breaking, any procurement within PJM will have to follow the grid’s existing protocols, which means submitting a plan and seeking signoff from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Gordon told me. “Everything PJM does is guided by their tariffs and their manuals,” he said. “They follow those very closely.”
The governors of the PJM states have been increasingly vocal about how PJM operates, however, presaging today’s announcement. “Nobody really cared about PJM — or even knew what they PJM was or what they did — until electric prices reached a point where they became a political lightning rod,” Gordon said.
The Statement is also consistent with a flurry of announcements and policies issued by state governments, utility regulators, technology companies, and the White House this year coalescing around the principle that data centers should pay for their power such that they do not increase costs for existing users of the electricity system.
Grid Strategies President Rob Gramlich issued a statement saying that “the principle of new large loads paying their fair share is gaining consensus across states, industry groups, and political parties. The rules that have been in place for years did not ensure that.”
This $15 billion could bring on around 5.5 gigawatts of new capacity, according to calculations done by Jefferies. That figure would come close to the 6.6 gigawatts PJM fell short of its target reserve margin after its last capacity auction, conducted in December.
That auction hit the negotiated price caps and occasioned fierce criticism for how PJM manages its capacity markets. Several commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have criticized PJM for its high capacity prices, low reserve margin, and struggles bringing on new generation. PJM’s Independent Market Monitor has estimated that planned and existing data center construction has added over $23 billion in costs to the system.
Several trade and advocacy groups pointed out, however, that a new auction does not fix PJM’s interconnection issues, which have become a major barrier to getting new resources, especially batteries, onto the grid in the PJM region. “The line for energy projects to connect to the power grid in the Mid-Atlantic has basically had a ‘closed for maintenance’ sign up for nearly four years now, and this proposal does nothing to fix that — or any of the other market and planning reforms that are long overdue,” AEU said in a statement.
The Statement of Principles includes some language on interconnection, asking PJM to “commit to rapidly deploying broader interconnection improvements” and to “achieving meaningful reductions in interconnection timelines,” but this language largely echoes what FERC has been saying since at least its Order No. 2023, which took effect over two years ago.
Climate advocacy group Evergreen Action issued a statement signed by Deputy Director of State Action Julia Kortrey, saying that “without fixing PJM’s broken interconnection process and allowing ready-to-build clean energy resources onto the grid, this deal could amount to little more than a band aid over a mortal wound.”
The administration’s language was predictably hostile to renewables and supportive of fossil fuels, blasting PJM for “misguided policies favored intermittent energy resources” and its “reliance on variable generation resources.” PJM has in fact acted to keep coal plants in its territory running, and has for years warned that “retirements are at risk of outpacing the construction of new resources,” as a PJM whitepaper put it in 2023.
There was a predictable partisan divide at the White House event around generation, with Interior Secretary Burgum blaming a renewables “fairy tale” for PJM’s travails. In a DOE statement, Burgum said “For too long, the Green New Scam has left Mid-Atlantic families in the dark with skyrocketing bills.”
Shapiro shot back that “anyone who stands up here and says we need one and not the other doesn’t have a comprehensive, smart energy dominance strategy — to use your word — that is going to ultimately create jobs, create more freedom and create more opportunity.”
While the partisan culture war over generation may never end, today’s announcement was more notable for the agreement it cemented.
“There is an emerging consensus that the political realities of operating a data center in this day and age means that you have to do it in a way that isn't perceived as big tech outsourcing its electric bill to grandma,” Silverman said.
Editor’s note: This article originally misidentified the political affiliation of the governor of Kentucky. It’s been corrected. We regret the error.
“Additionality” is back.
You may remember “additionality” from such debates as, “How should we structure the hydrogen tax credit?”
Well, it’s back, this time around Meta’s massive investment in nuclear power.
On January 9, the hyperscaler announced that it would be continuing to invest in the nuclear business. The announcement went far beyond its deal last year to buy power from a single existing plant in Illinois and embraced a smorgasbord of financial and operational approaches to nukes. Meta will buy the output for 20 years from two nuclear plants in Ohio, it said, including additional power from increased capacity that will be installed at the plants (as well as additional power from a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania), plus work on developing new, so-far commercially unproven designs from nuclear startups Oklo and TerraPower. All told, this could add up to 6.6 gigawatts of clean, firm power.
Sounds good, right?
Well, the question is how exactly to count that power. Over 2 gigawatts of that capacity is already on the grid from the two existing power plants, operated by Vistra. There will also be an “additional 433 megawatts of combined power output increases” from the existing power plants, known as “uprates,” Vistra said, plus another 3 gigawatts at least from the TerraPower and Oklo projects, which are aiming to come online in the 2030s
Princeton professor and Heatmap contributor Jesse Jenkins cried foul in a series of posts on X and LinkedIn responding to the deal, describing it as “DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC.”
“Additionality” means that new demand should be met with new supply from renewable or clean power. Assuming that Meta wants to use that power to serve additional new demand from data centers, Jenkins argued that “the purchase of 2.1 gigawatts of power … from two EXISTING nuclear power plants … will do nothing but increase emissions AND electricity rates” for customers in the area who are “already grappling with huge bill increases, all while establishing a very dangerous precedent for the whole industry.”
Data center demand is already driving up electricity prices — especially in the area where Meta is signing these deals. Customers in the PJM Interconnection electricity grid, which includes Ohio, have paid $47 billion to ensure they have reliable power over the grid operator’s last three capacity auctions. At least $23 billion of that is attributable to data center usage, according to the market’s independent monitor.
“When a huge gigawatt-scale data center connects to the grid,” Jenkins wrote, “it's like connecting a whole new city, akin to plopping down a Pittsburgh or even Chicago. If you add massive new demand WITHOUT paying for enough new supply to meet that growth, power prices spike! It's the simple law of supply & demand.”
And Meta is investing heavily in data centers within the PJM service area, including its Prometheus “supercluster” in New Albany, Ohio. The company called out this facility in its latest announcement, saying that the suite of projects “will deliver power to the grids that support our operations, including our Prometheus supercluster in New Albany, Ohio.”
The Ohio project has been in the news before and is planning on using 400 megawatts of behind-the-meter gas power. The Ohio Power Siting Board approved 200 megawatts of new gas-fired generation in June.
This is the crux of the issue for Jenkins: “Data centers must pay directly for enough NEW electricity capacity and energy to meet their round-the-clock needs,” he wrote. This power should be clean, both to mitigate the emissions impact of new demand and to meet the goals of hyperscalers, including Meta, to run on 100% clean power (although how to account for that is a whole other debate).
While hyperscalers like Meta still have clean power goals, they have been more sotto voce recently as the Trump administration wages war on solar and wind. (Nuclear, on the other hand, is very much administration approved — Secretary of Energy Chris Wright was at Meta’s event announcing the new nuclear deal.)
Microsoft, for example, mentioned the word “clean” just once in its Trump-approved “Building Community-First AI Infrastructure” manifesto, released Tuesday, which largely concerned how it sought to avoid electricity price hikes for retail customers and conserve water.
It’s not entirely clear that Meta views the entirety of these deals — the power purchase agreements, the uprates, financially supporting the development of new plants — as extra headroom to expand data center development right now. For one, Meta at least publicly claims to care about additionality. Meta’s own public-facing materials describing its clean energy commitments say that a “fundamental tenet of our approach to clean and renewable energy is the concept of additionality: partnering with utilities and developers to add new projects to the grid.”
And it’s already made substantial deals for new clean energy in Ohio. Last summer, Meta announced a deal with renewable developer Invenergy to procure some 440 megawatts of solar power in the state by 2027, for a total of 740 megawatts of renewables in Ohio. So Meta and Jenkins may be less far apart than they seem.
There may well be value in these deals from a sustainability and decarbonization standpoint — not to mention a financial standpoint. Some energy experts questioned Jenkins’ contention that Meta was harming the grid by contracting with existing nuclear plants.
“Based on what I know about these arrangements, they don’t see harm to the market,” Jeff Dennis, a former Department of Energy official who’s now executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance, an energy buyers’ group that includes Meta, told me.
In power purchase agreements, he said, “the parties are contracting for price and revenue certainty, but then the generator continues to offer its supply into the energy and capacity markets. So the contracting party isn’t siphoning off the output for itself and creating or exacerbating a scarcity situation.”
The Meta deal stands in contrast to the proposed (and later scotched) deal between Amazon and Talen Energy, which would have co-located a data center at the existing Susquehanna nuclear plant and sucked capacity out of PJM.
Dennis said he didn’t think Meta’s new deals would have “any negative impact on prices in PJM” because the plants would be staying in the market and on the grid.
Jenkins praised the parts of the Meta announcement that were both clean and additional — that is, the deals with TerraPower and Oklo, plus the uprates from existing nuclear plants.
“That is a huge purchase of NEW clean supply, and is EXACTLY what hyperscalars [sic] and other large new electricity users should be doing,” Jenkins wrote. “Pay to bring new clean energy online to match their growing demand. That avoids raising rates for other electricity users and ensures new demand is met by new clean supply. Bravo!”
But Dennis argued that you can’t neatly separate out the power purchase agreement for the existing output of the plants and the uprates. It is “reasonable to assume that without an agreement that shores up revenues for their existing output and for maintenance and operation of that existing infrastructure, you simply wouldn't get those upgrades and 500 megawatts of upgrades,” he told me.
There’s also an argument that there’s real value — to the grid, to Meta, to the climate — to giving these plants 20 years of financial certainty. While investment is flooding into expanding and even reviving existing nuclear plants, they don’t always fare well in wholesale power markets like PJM, and saw a rash of plant retirements in the 2010s due to persistently low capacity and energy prices. While the market conditions are now quite different, who knows what the next 20 years might bring.
“From a pure first order principle, I agree with the additionality criticism,” Ethan Paterno, a partner at PA Consulting, an innovation advisory firm, told me. “But from a second or third derivative in the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, you can make the argument that the hyperscalers are keeping around nukes that perhaps might otherwise be retired due to economic pressure.”.
Ashley Settle, a Meta spokesperson, told me that the deals “enable the extension of the operational lifespan and increase of the energy production at three facilities.” Settle did not respond, however, when asked how Facebook would factor the deals into its own emissions accounting.
“The only way I see this deal as acceptable,” Jenkins wrote, “is if @Meta signed a PPA with the existing reactors only as a financial hedge & to help unlock the incremental capacity & clean energy from uprates at those plants, and they are NOT counting the capacity or energy attributes from the existing capacity to cover new data center demand.”
There’s some hint that Meta may preserve the additionality concept of matching only new supply with demand, as the announcement refers to “new additional uprate capacity,” and says that “consumers will benefit from a larger supply of reliable, always-ready power through Meta-supported uprates to the Vistra facilities.” The text also refers to “additional 20-year nuclear energy agreements,” however, which would likely not meet strict definitions of additionality as it refers to extending the lifetime and maintaining the output of already existing plants.
A third judge rejected a stop work order, allowing the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project to proceed.
Offshore wind developers are now three for three in legal battles against Trump’s stop work orders now that Dominion Energy has defeated the administration in federal court.
District Judge Jamar Walker issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the stop work order on Dominion’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project after the energy company argued it was issued arbitrarily and without proper basis. Dominion received amicus briefs supporting its case from unlikely allies, including from representatives of PJM Interconnection and David Belote, a former top Pentagon official who oversaw a military clearinghouse for offshore wind approval. This comes after Trump’s Department of Justice lost similar cases challenging the stop work orders against Orsted’s Revolution Wind off the coast of New England and Equinor’s Empire Wind off New York’s shoreline.
As for what comes next in the offshore wind legal saga, I see three potential flashpoints:
It’s important to remember the stakes of these cases. Orsted and Equinor have both said that even a week or two more of delays on one of these projects could jeopardize their projects and lead to cancellation due to narrow timelines for specialized ships, and Dominion stated in the challenge to its stop work order that halting construction may cost the company billions.