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:

Donald Trump looked to further unleash American energy production as one of the first actions of his new term, signing an executive order declaring a “national energy emergency” among the litany of other actions and declarations he made on Monday.
Earlier, in his inaugural address, he boasted that the United States has “the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it.”
“We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again, right to the top, and export American energy all over the world,” Trump said.
The order describes an “active threat to the American people from high energy prices,” as “hostile state and non-state foreign actors have targeted our domestic energy infrastructure, weaponized our reliance on foreign energy, and abused their ability to cause dramatic swings within international commodity markets.” The order directs agency leaders to “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available to them, as well as all other lawful authorities they may possess” to facilitate U.S. energy production, including — but not limited to — activities on federal lands.
The Trump administration had earlier outlined its plans in a document posted to the White House website Monday morning, which promised regulatory reform not only for “energy production and use,” but also for “mining and processing of non-fuel minerals.”
The document said the purpose of the national energy emergency would be to “use all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure.” In remarks in the days before the inauguration, Trump described the goal of declaring an energy emergency as enabling investors to more easily “build big plants, AI plants,” and that the U.S. needs to “double the energy that we already have — and it’s going to end up being more than that.”
That could mean waiving environmental rules — including undoing the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plant emissions rules — in order to speed the building of power plants in order to power new data centers.
While the exact parameters of these plans are still being drawn and will probably require either months-long rulemaking processes or legislation or both, by Monday morning, clean energy and environmental groups have already started to weigh in.
“On his first day back in the White House, President Trump is trying to turn back the clock on America’s clean energy leadership at the expense of American people and their health,” Debbie Weyl, the acting United States director of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement following the president's address to the nation. “If realized, President Trump’s actions would sacrifice the United States’ competitiveness globally, raise energy prices for American families, and pollute our air. Pledging to roll back climate policies that have created more than 400,000 good-paying American jobs will only hurt workers and our economy.”
On the other hand, at least portions of the clean energy industry are seeing the bright side of Trump’s emphasis on energy maximalism.
“A promise to achieve greater energy abundance in America must include leveraging the incredible, proven power of advanced energy technologies. 96% of all the new electricity added to America’s power grid in 2024 was provided by advanced energy, the lowest-cost way to reliability meet growing electricity demand,” Heather O’Neill, the president and chief executive of the trade group Advanced Energy United, said in a similarly timed statement.
“Our power grid faces real challenges, and at a moment when wildfires and extreme temperatures threaten lives across the country, it’s clearer than ever that we need to deepen our investments in advanced energy solutions that increase resilience and lower costs. We urge the Administration to embrace the market forces and tax cuts that are empowering states to meet their energy needs and goals.”
When the White House published the text of the emergency declaration, however, it became clear that Trump took a narrow view of what kinds of energy might serve to mitigate the situation: “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.” No hydrogen, no solar, and no wind.
While the newly inaugurated Trump administration has already taken a dramatic rhetorical turn in how it treats the oil and gas industry compared to Biden’s, it’s less clear that production can actually be meaningfully increased. While the Biden administration was stingy in opening up public lands for fossil fuel exploration — often doing so only under political or legal pressure — oil and gas production hit record levels while Biden was in office.
Any Biden administration efforts to curtail fossil fuel production faced legal and political pushback. In the first week of his presidency, Biden issued a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on public lands, which was quickly halted by a federal judge. During the drafting of the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate law, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin insisted on oil and gas lease sales as a condition of his support, and then on opening up Willow, the oil project on Alaska’s North Slope, for drilling by ConocoPhillips. At the same time, gas prices soared to over $5 a gallon following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, leading the Biden administration to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a tool to bring down oil prices, selling almost 200 million barrels.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve now has just under 400 million barrels, well short of its legal limit of 714 million. Trump has promised to refill it, which would be a boon to American domestic oil producers, although this would likely require a Congressional appropriation.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the signing of the executive order declaring a national energy emergency.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Even the hardiest are shivering at the price of heating oil.
As leaves begin to turn from green to autumn hues of amber, gold, and brown, New England is preparing for an expensive winter.
While most of the country heats their homes with natural gas or electricity, about 5 million households — overwhelmingly located in the Northeast — use oil. Like diesel and gasoline (both of which have set price records recently) home heating oil is distilled from crude oil, which is currently trading at prices not seen since the early months of the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Benchmark oil prices are over $100 for the first time since the spring as the Iran War grinds forward with no end in sight. Houthi attacks on Saudi oil tankers and infrastructure in and around the Red Sea and continued Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries have put added pressure on U.S. facilities to supply the world with gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel, raising prices domestically. Russia’s own fuel imports reached a record 172,000 metric tons in August, according to an analysis from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, mostly from South Korea and India, putting further strain on the global market (the country was once the largest exporter of refined products).
The effects have trickled downstream to the distillate market, as well. Diesel prices surged past $6 per gallon on Friday, while retail home heating oil prices in Maine, one of the Northeastern states most dependent on oil to heat homes, are around $5.39, their highest since April. Making matters worse, stocks of distillate fuel oil, which includes heating oil, are at their lowest level for this time of year since the Energy Information Administration started keeping records. The EIA released a new forecast this week projecting that “global production of distillate fuel will remain below last year’s levels in the coming months, contributing to low U.S. diesel inventories and high diesel prices.”
For Mainers and others across New England, that adds up to a hard winter to come.
“As the most heating oil reliant state in the country, Mainers are uniquely impacted by rising and volatile oil prices,” Acting Commissioner of the Maine Department of Energy Resources Celina Cunningham told me in an emailed statement. About half of the state’s residents “still rely on oil as their primary heating fuel,” she told me, even as outgoing Governor Janet Mills has encouraged heat pump adoption. “The cost of heating oil is already more than 60% higher than it was at this time last year,” Cunningham added, “putting added pressure on Maine households as we head into the winter heating season.”
Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, told me that the total cost of heating a home exclusively on oil will jump from $1,740 to $2,297 this winter. “Families using heating oil will get hit twice — first from gasoline, and then heating oil,” he said.
The price of home heating oil has long been a hot button issue in New England politics, and this year’s slate of Congressional races is no exception. Matt Dunlap, the state auditor and Democratic nominee in Maine’s Trump-voting 2nd Congressional District, told reporters earlier this week while standing in front of a heating oil delivery truck that “right now, families across this district are sitting at their kitchen tables signing their heating oil contracts for the winter and staring at numbers they simply cannot afford.” In keeping with Trump’s recent admonition to pretend he’s on the ballot, Dunlap used the occasion to criticize the president’s foreign policy. The Iran War, Dunlap said, “is not an abstract foreign policy debate. That’s the reason your heating bill this winter could be hundreds of dollars higher than it was last year.”
Susan Collins, the Republican senator running for re-election in Maine, regularly highlights her role in bringing in funding from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for Mainers, even as staff in charge of administering the program were laid off early in the Trump administration.
To the extent New Englanders can expect any relief, it likely won’t come from the supply dynamics of heating oil — the EIA has upped its price forecast for both this year and 2027. They may, however, simply need less. Thanks to what could be an historically strong El Niño, New England may be in for a warmer (albeit wetter) winter than usual.
Talking about the data center backlash, the midterm elections, and the future of renewables with Columbia Law School’s Romany Webb.
This week’s conversation is a quick catch-up with our friends at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. I hopped on the phone with the center’s deputy director Romany Webb to chat about recent updates they published to anti-renewables opposition analysis. I wanted to dig into their research beyond the toplines — what should people care about in the coming election? How have data centers come up in their research? Or the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the updates. Walk me through what’s new in your research.
So, we published two-year reports that detail renewable energy opposition across the United States; one is our report we’ve published since 2021 and it’s a new edition, and the other is an update of a report we published a few years ago on false claims about renewable energy where we highlight the misinformed used against projects.
This year’s local opposition report found local opposition continues to be widespread and really endemic. There’s been opposition to renewable energy development in every state across the country and we’re seeing it still have a real impact on whether projects get built. But there are small glimmers of hope. We identified 70 new state and local restrictions, which was a decline from previous years — that’s notable.
In select states where there have been a lot of these local restrictions, we’ve seen a drop off, like in Michigan after they enacted their state siting law. These are encouraging signs, and obviously it’s still early days, but it shows some of these state reforms are having a positive impact.
How is data center opposition coming up in your research?
Our reports do not track opposition to data center development. But we do certainly hear anecdotally that debates over data center development are spilling over into debates over renewable energy and battery storage. Often, local communities express concern that these new projects are just being built to power data centers — in some cases when there’s no connection at all, really. But I don’t have data on that link.
You said the law Michigan enacted might be working. Do you know if these laws limiting local opposition actually help with fighting renewable energy opponents, or are they engendering their own backlashes that undermine their effectiveness?
I think it’s too early to say the impacts they’ll have over the medium to long term. In the near term, many of the laws have been successful in accelerating the permitting of renewable energy projects or making it easier for them to be approved. Recent data out of New York shows that many of the projects that have gone through the new siting process are being approved — they’re still fairly long but they’re consistent which is good for development. In other places we’ve seen efforts to limit local government’s ability to adopt restrictions on renewable energy development, like Illinois and Michigan.
Those laws are relatively new, but the data we have shows that drop-off. It suggests the intended effect. But we need more time to know how effective they are and some of those laws have been getting quite a bit of pushback. There’s been a myriad of bills enacted in state legislatures across the country that would roll back those recent reforms or impose new restrictions on renewable development.
How much does the coming midterm election matter for the future of opposition to renewable energy?
I do think the next election will have important implications on whether we continue to see the ever-growing number of state level restrictions adopted or if we see a shift there.
Even if we see a shift in the composition of legislatures, I do think we’ll continue to see community opposition in many places to these projects. We shouldn’t ignore that developing a solar or wind project does have impacts on the local community and so developers really need to take steps to mitigate and manage those impacts.
If they don’t they’ll face the opposition, and even if they are they may face it because of misinformation around these projects.
My last question is, to what extent did the repeal of the IRA impact the ability for local opposition to kill projects in the crib?
I can’t say that definitively. I certainly don’t have the data that would support that sort of claim. And we don’t track that, specifically.
But often, groups that are opposed to renewable energy development will express concerns about the costs of projects or emphasize projects may not be viable without government subsidies. So the rollback of tax credits under the IRA plays into that argument. Of course when you look at the data, renewable energy projects are cheaper and the argument doesn’t hold muster.
But it’s an argument we regularly see pushed by opposition groups. That is how we have seen the IRA repeal affect this.
A developer sues an Arkansas paper, plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – A major utility sued the biggest newspaper in Arkansas over reporting on a data center energy deal. It’s a crucial case to follow.
2. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania – Speaking of hardcore legal strategies, have you ever heard of a data center developer asking every local official to recuse themselves?
3. Loudon County, Virginia – Data Center Alley is giving us our first real glimpse of what data center legislating could look like if Democrats control at least one chamber of Congress.
4. Lane County, Oregon – The second largest city in Oregon is now turning down data centers, just as the governor starts saying no to anything on state land.