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:
Don’t ignore what the president says he wants to do, no matter how unwise it seems.

On Saturday evening, President Donald Trump signed orders placing 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Canada and Mexico, and a lower, 10% tariff on Canadian oil, natural gas, uranium, and other energy sources.
Trump also imposed a 10% tariff on all goods imported from China.
The tariffs will go into effect on Tuesday, giving Trump — who revels in proposing tariffs but has shown some reluctance to impose them for real — another 48 hours to maneuver. But if the new tariffs do actually bite, then they will affect nearly half of America’s imports and reshape some of the world’s most important energy and trading relationships.
Every day, millions of barrels of oil and cubic feet of natural gas flow across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico borders. The three countries have developed an integrated and harmonized network of pipelines, storage tanks, and refineries that has helped turn the United States into the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas.
The tariffs will almost inevitably disrupt that relationship. They may also upset the millions of dollars’ worth of electricity that shuttles from Canada to the United States every day across their shared power grids.
The tariffs will prove economically painful, although just how damaging is hard to know in advance. They could shrink the United States’ GDP by 0.4%, while increasing taxes by $830 per household, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank. Another estimate from the Budget Lab at Yale says that the tariffs could push up the personal consumption expenditures price index — the Fed’s chosen inflation gauge — by 0.75%, reducing the average household’s purchasing power by $1,200 over the course of a year.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
These costs could worsen as Mexico, Canada, and China raise their own tariffs or trade barriers in retaliation. Late on Saturday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada would impose its own 25% tariffs on CA$155 billion of goods imported from the United States.
The economic hit to the U.S. economy could also be much larger than estimated if some manufacturers respond to higher costs not by hiking prices, but rather by delaying or shutting down production.
We’ve been reporting on the economic impact of these tariffs at Heatmap over the past week, documenting their potential impacts for oil refineries and the electricity grid. But now that the details are here, a few things stand out.
First, the tariffs on China are qualitatively different from the tariffs on our North American neighbors — especially Canada.
Chinese tariffs are not new. Trump engaged China in a trade war during his first term and ultimately reached a handshake agreement, although he has since said that China did not buy enough American agricultural products to keep up its end of the bargain. Some of the tariffs Trump placed on Chinese imports last time — including eye-watering levies on solar panels — remain in effect; the new 10% tariff will be added to those figures.
What did not happen last time was a serious, out-and-out trade war with Canada and Mexico, America’s neighbors and biggest trading partners. Although Trump entertained the possibility of Mexican tariffs during the campaign, he did not propose tariffs on Canadian imports until after his November election.
Second, the tariffs are quantitatively different, too. The president has not yet explained why he has placed higher tariffs on Canada and Mexico, who are our allies, than on China, which is our economic frenemy at best and our geostrategic adversary at worst. During the campaign, Trump sometimes proposed a “universal tariff” of 10% to 20% on all American imported goods, regardless of their country of origin. That proposed universal tariff — which was seen by some analysts as an extreme and unlikely proposal — was at a lower rate than what he is now levying on North American imports.
Third, this trade war has apparently been concocted and planned much more haphazardly than the one during Trump’s first term. Last time, the U.S. was careful to exempt electronics — iPhones, laptops, Xboxes — from its levies, as well as other consumer products. These tariffs do not do so, at least not yet. Nor do they exempt certain minerals that are essential to manufacturing electric vehicle batteries or other high-end electronics. (Bloomberg has reported that as recently as Friday, Tesla was lobbying for an exemption for graphite, a mineral crucial to making EV anodes.)
Finally, what is so striking about these tariffs is how they will be good for almost nobody.
The tariffs will hurt the American oil industry. As I wrote earlier this week, U.S. energy companies have spent tens of billions of dollars on special equipment that can refine the sludgy, sulfurous crude oil extracted in Canada; Canadian companies, in turn, have sold us that crude oil at a discount and built infrastructure so that it can be used by the United States.
The tariffs will hurt oil refineries. The U.S. refines about 18 million barrels of oil a day, but it extracts — even today, around its all-time high — only 13.5 million barrels a day. Most of the difference between what it refines and what it extracts is made up by heavy crude from Canada and Mexico, which blends well with the lighter petroleum produced by U.S. fracking wells. By raising the cost of Canadian and Mexican fuel imports, the cost of all refined products will rise.
The tariffs will hurt anyone who buys gasoline in the Midwest and Mountain West, where Canadian oil plays a much larger role in local markets. They will hurt diesel and jet fuel prices in those regions too.
But the damage will not be limited to the fossil fuel industry.
The tariffs will hurt anyone who uses electricity across the parts of the country, especially the Northeast, that import large amounts of electricity from Canada’s roaring hydroelectric plants.
The tariffs will hurt home builders and construction companies because the United States gets its best building-grade lumber from Canada. That lumber — already made more expensive by a climate change-intensified supply crisis — will now face additional taxes at the border.
The tariffs will hurt anyone who wants to buy or rent a home in the United States because the lack of lumber will worsen the housing shortage and general affordability crisis.
They will hurt automakers, who in the past three decades have constructed sophisticated supply chains spanning North America — a logistical dance that allows a single vehicle’s components and parts to cross the U.S., Canadian, and Mexico borders many times on their way to becoming a final product. They will hurt autoworkers, who depend on that supply chain. They will even hurt car dealerships, who will respond to higher prices by selling less inventory.
If the dollar rises to accommodate the new tariff level, as some White House officials have argued, then the tariffs will hurt all U.S. domestic manufacturers because their products will become more expensive, and therefore less competitive on the global market.
I am not saying, to be clear, that these tariffs are an economic catastrophe. We don’t actually know their economic cost yet — perhaps it will be minimal. But even then, they will still be a stupid waste of money that will help nobody, and which will make the U.S. economy neither more complex nor more secure.
The tariffs are a warning. As recently as last week, Goldman Sachs analysts put the risk of tariffs at only a 20% chance of actually happening. They ignored what Trump had said he would do because it struck them as too implausible, too unwise, too patently harmful. Perhaps in the next two days they will be proven right. But Trump has begun to blather about many unwise and harmful ideas — invading Panama (where Secretary of State Marco Rubio is headed right now), annexing Greenland, making Canada (somehow) the 51st state. Many seem even more implausible than these tariffs, and yet Donald Trump says that he wants to do them, too. How much longer can Republican lawmakers and business leaders pretend that he doesn’t mean what he says? The chance of calamity has only just begun.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
PJM is back open for business, but the new generation applying to interconnect is primarily natural gas.
America’s largest electricity market is looking at hooking up new power generation again, and a lot of it is natural gas.
PJM stopped evaluating new generation in 2022, when the backlog of projects awaiting interconnection studies stood at 2,664, of which 1,972 — representing 107 gigawatts, about two-thirds of the total — were renewables.
“They’ve been spending these past four years working through the backlog, studying everything that’s in there, and that process is up,” Jon Gordon, senior director at Advanced Energy United, told me.
The electricity market announced last August that applications for the first cycle of interconnection studies under a new, reformed process would be due this week. Some 811 projects with a combined capacity of 220 gigawatts made the Monday deadline, PJM said Wednesday. This time around, the mix looks a little different.
While solar, storage, and solar-and-storage projects make up more than half the queue by number (536 in total), by capacity, nearly half is natural gas, with 106 gigawatts out of around 220 gigawatts total.
For years, some of the strongest advocates of interconnection queue reform at PJM have been advocates for renewables. With the wait for interconnection stretching up to eight years, solar and wind projects in particular found themselves in trouble. Even as the cost of solar had been dropping dramatically, higher inflation and higher interest rates following the COVID pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine made developing renewables more expensive — and that was before Donald Trump regained the White House and declared war on clean energy.
Since 2020, PJM said in a March blog post, 103 gigawatts of interconnection agreements resulted in just 23 gigawatts of new generation being added to the grid. Three-quarters of projects that PJM studied withdrew from the process at some point before sending power to the grid.
PJM spent the past four years reviewing old projects and developing a process designed to get interconnection service agreements done in two years at most. The round of projects submitted up through this week will not be evaluated on the “first-come, first-served” model that had bedeviled the previous system. Instead, PJM has adopted a “first-ready, first-served approach,” which the organization says will mean “prioritizing projects that are more advanced and better positioned to move forward.”
The reformed queue couldn’t come soon enough. Over the past four years, PJM has become desperate for more power to serve exploding data center demand and help alleviate high prices.
Since 2020, electricity prices in PJM have risen almost 50%, from 12.6 cents per kilowatt-hour to 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. Typical electricity bills have risen from around $128 a month to about $161.
“Current projections show a potential capacity shortfall of 50 GW to 60 GW in the next decade, primarily driven by large load growth,” PJM said last month. For reference, a gigawatt is enough to power a city of around 800,000 homes. PJM’s existing installed capacity is around 180 gigawatts.
When I asked Gordon about the large presence of natural gas in the new queue, he pointed to data centers, which “have become a massive sea change to the whole landscape of energy.” That goes especially for the scale of planned facilities, such as a planned 1.4-gigawatt data center campus on a 700-acre footprint in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
“Now they're talking gigawatt-size data centers that would require, potentially, an enormous natural gas plant — maybe more than one,” Gordon said. Getting the requisite financing and permitting for renewable and storage resources to power such a large-scale project would be “enormously challenging,” he added. Meanwhile, “natural gas has risen to the fore here, and it’s getting a lot of tailwind from the Trump administration.”
(Something else eagle-eyed readers may have spotted in the numbers on new planned projects: their average size is much bigger than those in the queue as of 2022. The new batch comes in at an average size of nearly 272 megawatts each, compared to around 60 megawatts for the old one. That holds especially for solar, storage, and solar-plus-storage projects, which clock in at nearly 198 megawatts on average, compared to just 54 in 2022.)
Earlier this year, governors of states in the PJM region, led by Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, and the White House agreed on a $15 billion special auction for procuring new generation in PJM. That came after PJM’s most recent capacity auction — in which generators bid to be compensated for their ability to stay on the grid in times of need — failed to meet even PJM’s preferred reliability margin.
Pressure continued to mount on the electricity market following the capacity auction, as federal regulators took it to task for its failure to get more generation online. Two weeks ago, PJM put some meat on the bones of the White House agreement by proposing a two-stage process, whereby power customers would directly contract for new generation with power supplies starting in September and PJM would facilitate an auction for whatever was still necessary to meet its capacity increase goals by March of next year.
The plan met a cool reception in Washington, where Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Laura Swett said she was “a bit perplexed” by the PJM proposal, adding it didn’t meet the timeline set out by the White House and the PJM governors to hold an auction this year
While PJM may be able to reform its own processes or come up with special procurements, there’s still the same old issues that have bedeviled energy buildouts everywhere.
Projects that have already been approved are facing “hurdles such as state permitting and supply chain backlogs,” PJM said Wednesday.
That being said, renewables and storage can still benefit from an improved interconnection process, Gordon told me. “Renewables would have always benefited, and still will benefit from improved interconnection,” Gordon told me. That’s largely because renewable projects tend to be smaller on a per-project basis than gas, let alone nuclear, and are more plentiful in number, and therefore stand to benefit disproportionately from faster reviews.
The real tragedy, Gordon said, is that more renewables couldn’t come online when the political and economic winds were blowing in their favor. Projects that were submitted to the queue before its closure in 2022 were “probably very economic back then,” he told me. “They died on the vine as they waited in the queue.”
Current conditions: The Gulf Coast states are bracing for a series of midweek thunderstorms • Temperatures are rocketing up near 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Lahore, Pakistan • San Juan, Puerto Rico, is facing days of severe thunderstorms.
Compass Datacenters is quitting a yearslong bid to build a key part of a 2,100-acre data center corridor in northern Virginia amid mounting pushback from neighbors, marking one of the highest profile examples yet of political opposition killing off a major server farm. The company, backed by the private equity giant Brookfield Asset Management, has gunned for Prince William County’s approval to turn more than 800 acres into a portion of the data center buildout. But after spending tens of millions of dollars on the effort, the firm decided that political resistance to providing tax breaks had created what Bloomberg described Wednesday as “too many roadblocks,” prompting a withdrawal.
The data center backlash, as Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote in the fall, is “swallowing American politics.” Polling from Heatmap Pro has shown that public resentment toward server farms they perceive as driving up electricity bills, sucking up too much water, or supporting software that threatens human jobs is rapidly growing. Data centers, as Jael wrote last week, are now more controversial than wind farms.
Nuclear startups taking part in the Department of Energy’s reactor pilot program are approaching the agency’s July 4 deadline to split their first atoms, and companies are making deals left and right for new projects. But just four firms have so far secured commercial offtakers, announced project-specific financing, and locked down contracts with suppliers and construction partners. That’s according to new data from a report by the policy advocate Third Way, shared exclusively with me for this newsletter. TerraPower’s nuclear project in Kemmerer, Wyoming, which broke ground this month, is in the lead, with the most advanced application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Amazon-backed X-energy has two projects that have achieved all three preliminary milestones. Holtec International’s small modular reactor project in Michigan and GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s debut unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority — each of which recently received $400 million in federal funding, as I previously reported — are close behind.
Among the report’s other takeaways: Federal policy is “too often rewarding hype instead of commercialization readiness,” and the U.S. needs to winnow down the technologies on offer.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has officially entered what CBS News called “a financial danger zone” that threatens to limit spending to only the most urgent life-saving needs. The status, called Imminent Needs Funding, is triggered when FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund drops below $3 billion. The depletion is a symptom of the partial government shutdown of FEMA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, whose funding has become hotly political over the hardline actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the timing couldn’t be worse: Hurricane season is about a month away. “Disasters are unpredictable. They’re very costly. We don’t know what could happen between now and June 1,” FEMA Associate Administrator Victoria Barton told the network.
This was all predictable. Back in February, Heatmap’s Jeva Lange warned that the DHS shutdown would “starve local disaster response.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The U.S. is racing to get new nuclear projects off the ground. But it’s not yet clear where all the new reactor fuel is going to come from, especially once federal law fully bans all imports of Russian uranium in 2028. A new uranium mining project has started up operations this week in Wyoming’s Shirley Basin. The reactivated mine was previously considered the birthplace of in-situ recovery mining, a more eco-friendly method of extraction that involves injecting a solution into rock that dissolves minerals, then pumping that fluid to the surface for collection. The developer, Ur-Energy, said it’s returning to operations to power at least the next nine years of uranium demand in the U.S.
The milestone at the uranium mine comes as global mining deals reached a new high in the first three months of this year. Global law firm White & Case LLP recorded 121 mergers and acquisitions in the sector in the first quarter, up from 117 a year earlier and 102 in 2024, according to Mining.com. It’s the strongest first quarter since 2023. “The math is unforgiving,” the Breakthrough Institute’s Seaver Wang and Peter Cook wrote in an Ideas essay for Heatmap this week. “We need more minerals, and we need them soon.”

Another week, another new full-scale nuclear reactor has come online in China. On Wednesday, World Nuclear News reported that Unit 1 of the San’ao nuclear station in eastern Zhejiang province has entered commercial operation. The reactor is the first of six Hualong One reactors planned for the site. The Hualong One is China’s leading indigenous reactor design, borrowing heavily from the Chinese version of the Westinghouse AP1000, America’s leading reactor.
South Africa, meanwhile, is making a bid to lure engineers working abroad to come home to help the country build up its own nuclear sector once again. The plan, detailed by Semafor, “aims to attract skilled migrants and South African expatriates, especially those working in the United Arab Emirates,” which hired large numbers of local engineers during the buildout of the Gulf nation’s debut Barakah nuclear plant over the past decade.
Even before China made a big gamble in recent months on green hydrogen to ease the effects of the Iran War’s hydrocarbon shock, the country’s electrolyzer manufacturers were already starting to dominate the industry. Now the first Chinese electrolyzer manufactured in Europe is due to be assembled in the coming weeks. RCT GH Hydrogen, a joint venture between the Jiangsu-based electrolyzer maker Guofu and the German technology company RCT Group, is on track to roll out its first unit in June, Hydrogen Insight reported Wednesday.
Representatives Jared Huffman and Jamie Raskin announced an investigation into the $1 billion offshore wind deal with the Trump administration.
Two House Democrats are going after TotalEnergies after the company ignored an earlier request to defend its $1 billion settlement with the Trump administration to walk away from offshore wind.
Jared Huffman, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee from California, and Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee from Maryland, sent a letter on Wednesday informing Total’s CEO Patrick Pouyanné that they have opened a formal investigation into the company.
“We’re going to get every document, every email, every last receipt on this deal, and every person who had a hand in this is going to answer for it,” Huffman said in a press release. “What I have to say to TotalEnergies is this: Consider yourself on notice, we’re coming for you.”
The move comes just a day after the Trump administration announced two additional identical settlements resulting in the cancellation of two more offshore wind leases.
The letter states that Total’s March 23 settlement with the Interior Department was unlawful in “at least four separate ways.” It demands that Total preserve all records related to the deal and requests that it put the $928 million it was granted by the settlement into escrow until the investigation concludes.
Huffman and Raskin first reached out to the Interior Department and Total on April 6 requesting documents and communications between the two parties related to the deal by April 20. Neither party obliged. Shortly before the deadline, however, the Interior Department published the settlement agreements it signed with Total. The settlements “confirm and surpass our worst fears of what has taken place,” the two representatives wrote on Wednesday.
The settlements state that the agency would have ordered Total to suspend operations on the leases due to national security issues. This “appears to have been a fabricated justification for canceling the leases,” the letter says, citing a discrepancy between when the settlements suggest that the company had reached an agreement with the Trump administration — November 18 — and when the earliest reports of anyone reviewing the national security concerns occurred — November 26.
“That timeline raises the troubling possibility that the national security assessment was not merely pretextual, but also that TotalEnergies may have negotiated the final settlement agreement with full knowledge that the rationale for canceling the leases was false,” Huffman and Raskin write. The fact that Pouyanné has stated publicly multiple times that the company came to the Interior Department with the idea for the settlement supports that conclusion, they add.
Putting the timeline of national security concerns aside, the settlement disregards the law governing offshore wind leases, Huffman and Raskin argue. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act says that when the government cancels a lease that does not yet have an operating project on it, the company is entitled to the “fair value” of the lease at the date of cancellation. The nearly $1 billion figure — which is the amount the company paid for the two leases in 2022 — is “almost certainly a significant overpayment even under the most favorable reading of the statute,” the lawmakers write.
The letter also questions the use of the Department of Justice’s Judgment Fund, a reserve of public money set aside to pay for agency settlements. On one hand, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently characterized the payment as a “refund” in testimony before Congress — a type of payment that the Judgment Fund is not authorized to make. On the other hand, even if it was technically a settlement, it doesn’t meet the Judgement Fund’s standard of “a genuine contested dispute over liability or amount,” Huffman and Raskin write. The Interior Department never issued a stop work order to Total. Neither of the company’s projects had even started construction yet.
If the settlement is allowed to go through, the lawmakers warn, any future U.S. administration could repeat the formula to enact their own agenda. “The only requirements would be a hypothetical threat, a side agreement, and a check drawn from a permanent, uncapped federal account that Congress never authorized for this purpose,” they write.
Lastly, Huffman and Raskin accuse the Trump administration and Total of sticking an unlawful clause in the settlements that declare the agreements “not judicially reviewable.” They assert that only Congress has the power to restrict judicial review. Their letter declares that the provision “accomplishes nothing legally,” and characterizes it as evidence that the parties knew the deal would not survive scrutiny.
In addition to preserving records and putting the funds in escrow, the letter to Total again demands a list of documents related to the deal, providing a new deadline of May 13. We’ll see if the company feels compelled to comply. Huffman and Raskin would need the support of the full House to find Total in contempt of Congress, and it’s not clear they would have the numbers.