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:
Here’s what the American Conservation Coalition hopes to hear at the first Republican debate.
After the first Republican presidential debate wraps up in Milwaukee on Wednesday night, the candidates will be invited to an unusual reception. The official afterparty has been sponsored by the American Conservation Coalition, a young conservative advocacy group that has made a name for itself advocating for Republican Party leaders to act on climate change.
The group was founded in 2017 by Benji Backer, a student at the University of Washington who wanted to see the party return to its Rooseveltian environmental roots, and was convinced that his peers felt the same. While polls consistently show that climate change is not a priority for Republican voters — many don’t even consider it a threat — the picture changes when broken down by age, with younger generations wanting the government to do more on the issue.
The ACC has since grown into a network of about 20,000 members and helped pass a handful of bipartisan bills under both the Trump and Biden administrations, including the Great Outdoors Act, which directed billions to the National Parks Service for deferred maintenance, and the Growing Climate Solutions Act, designed to help farmers engage in carbon markets. In general, the ACC wants to see the government invest more in innovation, conservation, and domestic energy production, and mostly get out of the market’s way. Most recently, it has been pushing for Congress to streamline environmental reviews to speed up energy development, an issue often summarized as “permitting reform.”
But the ACC has faced an uphill battle. Climate change is still polarizing in Congress, and solutions are increasingly framed by conservative officials and pundits in culture war terms. Now, gearing up for the first presidential election since the group’s founding, the ACC hopes to convince Republican candidates, who have been mostly reticent about the warming planet, to start talking about it. “Fewer than half of Americans believe that Biden's climate policies are taking the country in the right direction,” the ACC’s new president, Christopher Barnard, told me, citing a recent Pew survey. “That offers an incredible opportunity for Republicans to offer a more compelling alternative, and right now, we're not really doing that.”
I spoke to Barnard just after he landed in Milwaukee on Tuesday about the "electoral ticking time bomb" Republicans face, what questions he wants candidates to speak to at the debate, and the group's hopes for sponsoring the afterparty. Our conversation has been lightly edited for concision and clarity.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
What has the American Conservation Coalition been up to in 2023 so far?
The 118th Congress marks the first time in quite a while that we've had Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives. We've looked at that as an opportunity for Republicans to take a seat at the table when it comes to pushing for policy that can help tackle climate change, strengthen energy security, and reduce emissions. And so we've done a lot of engagement on Capitol Hill on things like permitting reform, nuclear energy, the farm bill, nature-based solutions, critical minerals.
We feel like we're in a really interesting moment right now, where, from our perspective, all of the top solutions to climate and energy problems are things that conservatives can not only get behind, but can actually lead on.
When you say the top solutions are things that Republicans can lead on, are you seeing that leadership in this Congress?
Yeah. Especially on the policy side of things, we saw how much McCarthy and Congressman Graves and Chairman Westerman have been pushing for permitting reform. We obviously got a taste of that in the debt ceiling negotiation. We would like to see much more and that's something that Republicans are still pushing for, which I think is the number one thing right now we can do to tackle climate change.
There is still a little bit of a disconnect between that and their rhetoric on the issue. When it comes to nuclear or critical minerals or permitting reform, there's really a huge opportunity for Republicans to retake the climate and environmental conversation and say, Look, these are conservative, limited-government, small market-based solutions, that would actually really help climate change more than say, the Green New Deal. And they're not really putting it that way. So while I've been pleased with some of the policy progress, we want to see Republicans be bolder and more ambitious and really start saying the things that are going to win them back the youth vote that they've lost.
What kinds of questions do you hope to see the presidential candidates asked about climate change tomorrow?
If I were to ask them a question, I would ask, what do you tell a young conservative, who loves America, who is also concerned about environmental and climate issues? What is your positive vision of the future to tackle this problem?
I think there's a tendency for questions around climate change to be loaded with words that are quite partisan. For example, the term climate crisis is incredibly unpopular with Americans in general and obviously Republicans don't respond very well to that. But asking about things like how do you tackle pollution? How do you make sure that we have a thriving planet for future generations? How do you ensure clean energy, all-of-the-above energy? Those are all things that Republicans are actually very on board with.
Also, what their plan is for American strength on the international stage. Battery technologies, EVs, wind and solar, critical minerals, all these crucial components of the clean energy future are being taken over by China because they see what's going to happen. They want to be the Saudi Arabia of clean energy, and we cannot allow that to happen. So any Republican answer on foreign policy should include, what are we going to do to be the most innovative country in the world? To have secure supply chains? To work with our allies? I think those are interconnected with other issues that Americans and Republicans care about, which is national security, energy security, etc.
What other climate-related messages or policies does the ACC want to hear the candidates talk about?
ACC has a platform called the Climate Commitment with six big ideas to tackle climate change rooted in limited government, market-based, conservative ideals. Some of those that I think would make perfect sense for a Republican candidate to bring up would be the importance of unleashing all American energy. So it's not just fossil fuels, but it’s unleashing nuclear energy, unleashing wind and solar, getting the government-imposed barriers out of the way of these energy sources and allowing them all to thrive and compete in the marketplace.
I think another one is how America's rural communities, farmers, ranchers, hunters, can be part of tackling climate change and protecting the environment. Those are super conservative, red parts of the country that actually have a huge role to play, whether it's farmers implementing sustainable practices on their land that reduces emissions, or rural communities hosting clean energy sites. There's so much that rural communities can do to be part of the solution.
What does it mean for ACC to be sponsoring the afterparty for the debate? What are you hoping to get out of it?
It’s to show that Republicans take this issue seriously now. They understand that they have a huge electoral ticking time bomb if they don't talk about it. We've seen already in the last few months how some of the impacts of climate change, whether it's heat waves, or whatever else it might be— people are realizing the importance of this.
ACC hosting this shows that it's entirely possible to be both an environmentalist and a conservative. They are, in many ways, two sides of the same coin. That's really the message that we want to bring to this, and to push Republicans, especially those standing up on the stage, to come up with a compelling vision of how they're going to tackle this issue that young conservatives can get excited about.
What did you mean when you said they have an electoral ticking time bomb?
If you look at demographic numbers, by 2028, millennials and Gen Z will be a majority of potential voters. By next decade, they will be over 60% of potential voters. Polling routinely shows that climate and environment are the top three, top five issues for them.
And young people are increasingly swinging elections. We saw in the midterms that in all the key Senate races that Republicans lost, young people showed out in historic numbers and overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. If Republicans don't regain the trust of young people on this issue, they face losing an entire generation of voters that are increasingly prioritizing this.
At this after-party, if you're coming face to face with the candidates, and you're trying to convince them why they should make climate change a bigger part of their campaign, what’s your argument? When right now, the majority of the Republican Party does not see it as a priority?
We know that this is an issue that matters enormously in general elections, whether it's trying to peel off independent voters, whether it's suburban moms, whether it's young voters. In some districts, it's just a few thousand votes that can make the difference. So I would tell them you need to, at the very least, have a bit of a platform to go off if you were to get to a general. I think DeSantis is really well-positioned for this, because he can point to his strong conservation track record in Florida in his time as governor — a lot of work on clean air, clean water, healthy communities. Base voters won't be upset about that, but that also allows him a jumping off point for a general election.
There's plenty of examples around the country of red states where governors have embraced things like EVs or wind and solar because they're creating jobs in their state. Wind and solar are much more popular with Republicans than people might think. And so I think there's ways that you can talk about this issue that don't evoke a negative reaction.
Which candidates are you most looking forward to hearing from tomorrow night?
I'm interested in seeing what DeSantis has to say after his campaign faltering, and seeing if he can stage a comeback and what that might look like. And in the past, ACC has been impressed by things that Tim Scott has said and done. I'll be interested to see what his “happy warrior” approach will look like in the debate. We did a video with Nikki Haley about what the conservative alternative to the green New Deal looks like, and so I’m interested to see what she's going to bring to the table.
What does it say to you that Donald Trump has decided not to participate in the debate tomorrow?
I was honestly very disappointed by it. Because my general sense is that if you want to have the American people vote for you, you should be willing to stand on stage and make that case why they should vote for you.
Read more about the Republican primary:
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 took a lot of scrutiny and a lot of patience, but the city council is finally making progress against natural gas infrastructure.
Susan Albright, a city councilor in Newton, Massachusetts, was reviewing the latest batch of requests from the local gas utility in early July when one submission caught her off guard. The company, National Grid, regularly asks the city for permission to tear up stretches of road in order to replace aging gas mains and service lines. But this time, the utility wanted to install a new 46-foot pipeline leading to Newton Crossing, a mixed-use housing development that’s currently under construction.
“I thought, Oh my god,” Albright told me. “Here we are trying to get rid of pipe, and here’s some new pipe that they’re asking for.”
Such “grant of location” requests used to be a rubber stamp exercise for the Public Facilities Committee, of which Albright is the chair. But more recently, they’ve become contentious. Activists have started showing up to public meetings to question the necessity of pipeline work. Could the pipes be repaired instead of replaced? Or even better, retired? Could the houses served by them be electrified?
To get ahead of public outcry about a brand new pipe, Albright sprung into action. She pulled up plans the housing developer had filed with the city and learned that the apartments were intended to be all-electric. The developer had requested a gas connection solely to serve commercial businesses on the ground level. Albright found a contact for the project and picked up the phone.
“Is there any possibility that you could go electric for your commercial?” she recalled asking, explaining the connection between natural gas and climate change, and the city’s goal of weaning off gas. “At first he was very reluctant,” she told me. “But then he called me back and said that he’s willing to try it.” His ability to do so will depend on whether the electric utility can supply enough power. Nonetheless, Albright had successfully pushed a vote on the request to a later date. “We will review that grant of location at our meeting on July 28, and hopefully he will withdraw it, but we don’t know,” she said.
The city committed to transitioning away from natural gas by 2050 as part of its Climate Action Plan, enacted in 2019. Although residents have started to electrify their homes, the city hasn’t been able to slow down investment into the gas system. The story of Newton Crossing illustrates a strategy that has finally begun to move the needle. Councilors and activists have begun doggedly scrutinizing each of National Grid’s requests in hopes of finding alternatives that avoid investing more ratepayer money into a gas system that is — or should be — on a path toward obsolescence.
Progress has not been linear, and almost all of these attempts have so far failed. But the city does seem to have gotten the company’s attention. Earlier, in June, National Grid came to Newton with a different kind of request — an invitation to embark on a collaboration together with the local electric utility, Eversource, to proactively plan the city’s transition away from gas, and in doing so, begin to create a model for the company, the state, and possibly the country.
“I’m so excited to be here today because this is the first of its kind,” Bill Foley, National Grid’s director of strategy and transformation told the Public Facilities Committee while presenting the proposal. “We’ve never sat down with Eversource, National Grid, and another community to talk about how we’re going to broadly electrify a community.”
The subterranean network of natural gas pipes that runs under Massachusetts is old and leaky, with some sections dating back to the late 19th century. Utilities in the Commonwealth have always been required to address dangerous leaks, but in 2014, the state passed a law incentivizing more proactive measures to replace or repair leak-prone pipes. It was a matter of public safety as well as environmental protection — the methane that seeps out can kill tree roots in addition to being a powerful greenhouse gas.
The law created the Gas System Enhancement Program, or GSEP. Each fall, companies would file annual plans to the Department of Public Utilities outlining all the pipeline repair and replacement projects they aimed to complete in the coming year. In return, they’d get quicker approvals from regulators and be able to recover the costs more quickly from ratepayers.
In the years since, utilities have spent billions of dollars replacing thousands of miles of pipelines. Simultaneously, the state has fleshed out its plans to tackle climate change, making it clear that electrifying buildings would be a key component. As a result, the tide of public opinion about the pipeline program shifted. Replacing aging pipes may actually be worse for the climate, many activists now believe, since it means putting major investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure, thereby increasing inertia in the energy system and possibly delaying the transition to carbon-free solutions.
Former mechanical engineer Peter Barrer is one of those activists. Barrer lives in Newton, and has become an expert on the local gas network and the state’s pipeline policies. Using public data filed with state regulators, he calculated that out of the $18 million National Grid spent to address aging pipes under the GSEP program in Newton in 2023, only about $200,000 went to repairs, with the rest going to replacements. (National Grid later disputed the number, reporting that it spent $3 million on repairs that year.)
Barrer is concerned that the GSEP gives the company cover to spend excessively on pipeline replacements, which earn them larger profits than repairs. Other analysts have reached similar conclusions. Last year, the energy research consultancy the Brattle Group submitted testimony to state regulators on behalf of the Massachusetts attorney general’s office arguing that utilities are increasingly using GSEP to make everyday capital improvements. The level of spending “goes far beyond remediating immediate risks to safety caused by gas leaks,” the consultants wrote.
Barrer’s research on GSEP led him to a potential point of leverage with National Grid. When the utility wants to dig up a street, it has to submit a Grant of Location request to Newton’s Public Facilities Committee, which is then subject to a public hearing.
Newton is a progressive city that has long been at the forefront of climate action in the state. It’s one of 10 communities granted permission by the state to ban gas hookups in new buildings. (The Newton Crossing development got its permits before the policy went into effect.) The city council has also passed an ordinance requiring the largest existing buildings to reduce their emissions to net-zero by 2050.
While the Public Facilities Committee doesn’t have the power to deny National Grid’s Grant of Location requests, Albright, the city councilor, told me, the meetings do present an opportunity to engage with the utility. Members and the public can ask questions and delay approvals. Barrer and other activists began using the requests as an opportunity to highlight the paradox of the city approving new gas infrastructure.
One particularly contentious fight began last October over a replacement on Garland Road, a street known for hosting a “Sustainable Street Tour,” during which residents spoke about their experiences greening their homes with solar, insulation, EVs, and heat pumps. “Bells kind of rang in my mind,” Barrer told me. “Here’s a great place to fight National Grid.”
The gas company argued that the Garland Road pipeline, 600 feet of cast iron from the 1920s, was simply too high-risk. “National Grid cannot agree to delay replacement long enough to determine if the Garland Rd customers that still use their gas service for one or more uses are willing to have their gas service disconnected,” Amy Smith, the director of the company’s New England Gas Business Unit, wrote in an email to Albright in January. “In addition, even if all customers on Garland Rd agree to have their gas service cut off, we do not currently have a mechanism to fund the costs of full electrification of each home.” The Committee signed off on the project.
But activists continued to challenge it. A resident of Garland Road, Jon Slote, surveyed his neighbors and found that all were either neutral or supportive of electrification. He also put together a cost comparison and found that the capital cost of electrifying the homes was 18% to 41% lower than that of replacing the pipeline.
National Grid didn’t budge. One of the reasons the block couldn’t be electrified, Smith explained to Barrer in emails that I reviewed, was that this segment of pipe “plays a critical role in providing pressure support for approximately 120 homes in the area. Maintaining minimum pressure is vital for both safety and reliability.”
Barrer told me he’s skeptical that replacing the pipe is the only solution, but acknowledged that the issue is real.
Perhaps Barrer’s biggest grievance, though, is that National Grid frequently makes requests that are not in its regulator-approved plans. Nearly 60% of the money the company spent in 2023 and was able to recover through the expedited GSEP process went to such projects, he found. A related issue: GSEP plans often don’t disclose the full extent of each project. “This is important for municipal planning,” Barrer told me. If the public can’t see in advance which areas the company is planning to work on, he said, “there’s no opportunity for the city to investigate. Maybe there’s streets on there that we can get support for electrification.”
He described the fight over gas pipelines in Newton as “a David and Goliath situation.” Activists want the opportunity to get ahead of these projects and figure out alternatives, he said, but aren’t given enough notice or details. “They have all the cards. They have a monopoly on gas, and they also have a monopoly on information.” He wants the state legislature to help them put up a fairer fight by passing two new bills that would require the utilities to disclose more information, sooner.
Albright, meanwhile, told me she thinks National Grid has acted in good faith. “The people that I’ve been working with, I trust that they’re trying to do the best for the company and for us as customers. I mean, they don’t want these pipes to explode.”
For about a year, Albright said, she has been having conversations with Smith of National Grid about what the city could do to start getting off gas. At the end of 2024, Smith came back with an offer — National Grid would work with Newton on an electrification pilot project. The company has since provided the city with a list of streets to consider for the pilot — mostly dead ends on the outskirts of the gas system, areas where taking out a stretch of pipe won’t affect other customers downstream.
Meanwhile, a lot has changed at the state level. Late last year and continuing into this spring, lawmakers and regulators enacted new policies to reform GSEP and better align it with the Commonwealth’s clean energy plans. That meant focusing on the highest risk pipes, prioritizing repairs instead of replacements, lowering the cap on spending for companies, and enabling them to spend some of the money on alternatives to pipelines, including electrification projects.
Perhaps these changes help explain what led National Grid to approach Newton earlier this summer with its proposal to collaborate. At the Public Facilities Committee’s June 18 meeting, representatives from National Grid and Eversource spent nearly three hours explaining their “integrated energy planning” effort, figuring out how to transition from gas to electricity while containing costs and ensuring reliable service. Now they wanted the chance to begin testing it out in a community.
“The technical stuff is easy,” Foley of National Grid told the Committee. “When it comes to knocking on a door and saying, Hey, how do we get you to electrify? That’s the challenging part. That’s what we’re going to learn.”
The Committee, the mayor, and city staff welcomed the idea. Even Barrer is optimistic. “I think it is unprecedented,” he told me, “and it could be very, very useful.” But he’s also skeptical. Will the company actually share the information advocates like him are looking for to analyze alternatives? And will it work quickly?
“From my perspective, every year that the plan doesn’t turn into action is another half a billion dollars of ratepayer money the National Grid gets to invest.” But, he added, “I’m hopeful. Let’s see what actually develops.”
On Fervo’s megadeal tease, steel’s coal gamble, and Norway’s CO2 milestone
Current conditions: Manila is facing severe flooding amid days of monsoon rains • Of the seven Marshall Islands that the U.S. Drought Monitor tracks, two are currently suffering extreme drought, and another three are under severe drought conditions • Wildfires are blazing in Oregon, where the Cram Fire has already scorched nearly 100,000 acres just 50 miles south of Portland.
OpenAI CEO Sam AltmanKevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Six months after the top executives of OpenAI and Softbank stood shoulder to shoulder at the White House to announce a $500 billion joint venture to build out the infrastructure for artificial intelligence across the United States, the so-called Stargate project has yet to complete a deal for a single data center. The companies promised in January to “immediately” invest $100 billion. But in a sign of the dialed-back ambitions, the project is now targeting the more modest goal of constructing one small data center by the end of this year, likely in Ohio, The Wall Street Journal reported.
That’s bad news for the power companies that have lavished in the projected demand from data centers. Crusoe Energy, a developer of gas- and renewable-powered data centers, boasted earlier this year that it was “pouring concrete at three in the morning” to build out its portions of the Stargate project at “ludicrous speed,” Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported in March. Over the course of just one month this spring, Morgan Stanley ratcheted up its estimates for capital expenditures in cloud computing this year by a whopping $29 billion, to $392 billion, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported in May. Perhaps that’s another AI hallucination.
Fervo Energy’s breakthrough in harnessing fracking technology to tap into the Earth’s molten heat in far more places than ever before effectively launched the next-generation geothermal industry in the U.S. Now the Houston-headquartered startup is poised to vault “enhanced” geothermal power into a gigawatt-scale electricity source.
In a Monday post on LinkedIn, Fervo CEO Tim Latimer teased a “multi-GW development deal” currently in the works. He promised “more to come on this soon.” He did not respond to my inquiry Monday night. The company already has a deal for a 500-megawatt project called Cape Station in Utah, for which it netted a $206 million investment last month. But a project several times that size would put next-generation geothermal in the big leagues with nuclear power as a potential source of large-scale, baseload power.
Shares of Cleveland-Cliffs soared nearly 13% on Monday afternoon after the steelmaker said President Donald Trump’s tariffs had boosted demand. The company’s second-quarter earnings bested estimates, thanks to cost cutting and record steel shipments. CEO Lourenco Goncalves even suggested the company could sell parts of itself in the wake of Japanese steelmaker Nippon Steel’s megadeal to take over American rival U.S. Steel. He confirmed “active conversations” to sell non-core assets but said “everything else is possible.”
On the call, Goncalves also suggested the administration’s embrace of coal had improved market conditions for the company. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin reported, the chief executive confirmed that Cleveland-Cliffs would abandon its landmark green steel project because the hydrogen it needed was not available widely enough. Instead, Goncalves said, the company would revamp the project “in a way that we preserve and enhance Middletown using beautiful coal, beautiful coke.”
The chief executive of the largest natural gas company in the U.S. is urging Congress to overhaul energy permitting or risk losing the AI race to China. In an interview with the Financial Times, EQT CEO Toby Rice said, “The threat of not getting infrastructure built has only gotten larger — not only from bad actors getting rich by selling energy that could be replaced with American energy — it’s also the threat of China winning the AI race.” Specifically, he called on lawmakers to end what’s called “judicial review,” a period of six years during which opponents of a project can challenge the federal permits in court.
The U.S. has come to the cusp of easing federal permitting for years. After the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats tried to ease permitting rules but faced opposition from progressives and conservationists who deemed any relaxing of regulations that could benefit fossil fuels a nonstarter. Democrats tried to revive the issue last year, but Republicans walked away from the negotiations once the election turned in the GOP’s favor. With the One Big Beautiful Bill revoking many of Democrats’ energy priorities, it’s unclear how much leverage Republicans have to restart talks ahead of next year’s midterm elections.
The world’s first carbon shipping terminal designed to permanently store captured CO2 that would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere just took its first shipment, The Washington Post reported. Located on an island on the edge of the North Sea, Norway’s Northern Lights facility accepted 7,500 metric tons of liquefied CO2 from a Norwegian cement factory. The plant — funded by the government in Oslo and fossil fuel companies — could serve as Europe’s primary carbon dump, and as a model for Asian countries looking to establish their own storage facilities.
China’s exports of clean-energy technologies such as solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles shaved 1% of the global emissions outside China last year, a new Carbon Brief analysis found.
The CEO of Cleveland Cliffs is just the latest U.S. voice to affirm the dirtiest fossil fuel’s unexpectedly bright future.
While the story of coal demand has been largely about rapid industrialization in Asia — especially India and China — the United States under President Trump has been working hard to make itself a main character.
Case in point is in Middletown, Ohio, where a one-time clean steel project may be refashioned as a standard-bearer for an industry-driven U.S. coal revival. The company behind the project, Cleveland-Cliffs, won a Biden-era award of up to $500 million to develop and deploy hydrogen-based technology for iron and steel production. CEO Laurenco Goncalves began casting doubt on that project as long ago as September, when he told Politico that he was struggling to find buyers willing to pay more for low-carbon materials, and that he wasn’t sure the project “even makes sense with the grants.” Earlier this year, he told investors that the company was working with the Department of Energy to “explore changes in scope to better align with the administration’s energy priorities.”
During an earnings call Monday morning, Goncalves said the company had scrapped the project not because of the DOE, but rather because it was unable to get sufficient hydrogen for use as fuel.
“The very first thing: It’s clear by now that we will not have availability of hydrogen. So there is no point in pursuing something that we know for sure that’s not going to happen,” Goncalves said. “We informed the DOE that we would not be pursuing that project.”
Instead, the company has had “a very good conversation” with the DOE “on revamping that project in a way that we preserve and enhance Middletown using beautiful coal, beautiful coke,” Goncalves said. (Where have we heard that kind of language before?) “We are vertically integrated, and we use American iron ore and American coal and American natural gas as feedstock, all produced right here in the United States of America, employing American workers,” he added.
The evidence for coal’s stubborn persistence globally has been mounting for years. In 2021, the International Energy Agency forecast that by 2024, annual coal demand would hit an all-time high of just over 8,000 megatons. In 2024, it reported that coal demand in 2023 was already at 8,690 megatons, a new record; it also pushed out its prediction for a demand plateau to 2027, at which point it predicted annual demand would be 8,870 megatons.
The IEA largely chalked up the results to the world’s energy needs, writing that “the power sector has been the main driver of coal demand growth, with electricity generation from coal set to reach an all-time high of 10 700 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024.”
More recent analyses confirm that power demand, especially in Asia, could prop up global coal demand possibly for decades.
“Coal-fired power could be a bigger part of the energy mix for longer than expected, scuppering efforts to meet climate change goals,” a pair of Wood Mackenzie analysts, David Brown and Anthony Knutson, wrote in a report last week, echoing the IEA’s findings. China alone is responsible for almost three-quarters of global coal consumption, according to Wood Mackenzie. “New realities for energy markets in recent years have become more, not less, supportive of coal-fired power,” Brown and Knutson write.
The analysts put peak global coal demand a year earlier than the IEA, at 2026. But they also noted that “coal demand has consistently proven more resilient than expected.”
It’s possible that these fast-growing Asian nations could, for reasons of energy security or economy, decide to keep younger coal plants active for decades while extending the life of older plants to keep costs down. In this scenario, much of the world largely transitions away from using coal for power generation, but thanks to persistent Asian demand, global coal demand peaks as late as 2030. That could mean an extra 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions compared to a base case scenario.
The U.S. federal government, meanwhile, has taken on a role as both a coal-friendly analyst and an active promoter of every facet of the industry.
A couple of weeks ago, a Department of Energy report declared that “absent intervention, it is impossible” for the U.S. to power the growth of the artificial intelligence industry “while maintaining a reliable power grid and keeping energy costs low for our citizens.” That energy-poor status quo, the DOE argued, was due in part to scheduled retirements of coal-fired generation.
The DOE has been doing its part to keep that generation online, using its emergency authorities to keep some coal plants open. It has joined President Trump in becoming a kind of all-purpose pitch man for the industry. Over the weekend, the Department’s X account posted an image of Secretary of Energy Chris Wright with a shovel, copied and pasted in front of an open-pit mine, with the words “MINE, BABY, MINE.”
On the supply side, congressional Republicans tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act a tax credit specifically for domestic metallurgical coal production, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Some of the largest end users of U.S.-mined metallurgical coal are outside the U.S., including the countries driving worldwide coal demand. India imported over 3 million tons of U.S. metallurgical coal in the first three months of 2025, with China just under a million, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data.
The tie-up between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel authorized in June, meanwhile, grants a “golden share” of the American company to the U.S. government, in part to ensure increased investment and capacity. That deal also explicitly provides for at least $1 billion of investment into U.S. Steel’s existing blast furnace operation, Mon Valley Works, in Western Pennsylvania. The investments “ensure Mon Valley Works operates for decades to come,” the company said in an announcement.
That means more coal: Mon Valley Works is the “largest coke manufacturing facility in the United States,” according to U.S. Steel, producing 4.3 million tons of the coal product both for its own operations and for sale to other steelmakers.
In an interview with Japanese media, Nippon Steel’s chief executive Eiji Hashimoto said that the newly expanded company will likely build a new steel mill in the U.S., as part of its goal to catch up in steel production with its Chinese rival China Baowu Steel Group Corp, while also using more of its existing capacity to increase production, hoping to eventually more than double its output by the middle of next decade.
(For what it’s worth, Japan is also a major importer of metallurgical coal from the United States, taking in just over a million tons in the first three months of 2025.)
While the future of coal will be determined in Asia, the U.S. steel industry is happy to work with the Trump administration and the coal industry to keep things burning.
“They see the value in blast furnaces just as we at Cleveland Cliffs do,” Cleveland-Cliffs’ Goncalves said of the U.S. industry’s new Japanese partners.