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.
On diesel backup generators, Chinese rare earths, and geothermal milestones
Current conditions: A polar vortex is sending Arctic air across the Upper Midwest and Northeast, bringing more than a foot of snow to parts of Michigan • In the Pacific Northwest, an atmospheric river is set to bring rain showers on the coast and snow inland • The death toll from flooding across Southeast Asia has surpassed 1,300.
The Department of Transportation is poised to significantly weaken fuel efficiency requirements for tens of millions of new cars and light trucks, President Donald Trump announced Wednesday. Heatmap's Robinson Meyer explained: “The United States essentially has two ways to regulate pollution from cars and light trucks: It can limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, and it can require the fuel economy from new vehicles to get a little better every year. Trump is pulling screws and wires out of both of these systems.” Flanked by auto executives in the Oval Office, Trump announced that new vehicles in 2031 would only need to average 34.5 miles per gallon, down from the 50 miles per gallon goal the Biden administration set. While carmakers publicly cheered the move, executives “privately fretted” to The New York Times “that they are being buffeted by conflicting federal policies” after spending billions of dollars to prepare to manufacture electric vehicles.
The administration claimed the rollback would save Americans $109 billion over five years and shave $1,000 off the average cost of a new car. But as Rob noted in August, the administration’s fight against tailpipe emissions could actually end up raising the price of gasoline.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright pitched tapping into backup generators at data centers, hospitals, and factories to augment the supply of power on the grid. Speaking at the North American Gas Forum on Tuesday, Wright said the generators — most of which run on diesel, natural gas, or fuels such as propane — could contribute roughly 35 gigawatts of electricity. “We have 35 gigawatts of backup generators that are sitting there today, and you can’t turn them on. That’s just nuts. Emissions rules or whatever … people, come on,” Wright said, according to E&E News. “If we just turn those generators on for a few hours a year, we’ve expanded the capacity of our grid by 35 gigawatts. That’s massive.”
In a post on X, Aaron Bryant, an energy markets analyst at the law firm White & Case, called the proposal “shortsighted at best,” since the generators expose load growth to some measure of commodity risk and “unworkable at worst” because zoning ordinances, air pollution, and noise restrictions may prohibit use of the generators.
The National Petroleum Council, an advisory panel at the Energy Department, submitted its recommendations Wednesday for how to reform federal permitting rules. Among the proposals was an endorsement of an idea to bar federal agencies from yanking already-granted permits. Democrats in Congress put forward the concept to prevent the Trump administration from reversing approvals for offshore turbines and other renewable projects targeted by the White House.
The proposal marks a significant step within the executive branch, given that Trump himself is “the biggest wild card in permitting reform,” as Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote last month. But legislation is moving in Congress. In the House, the SPEED Act overwhelmingly won a committee vote last month. Now Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican, has introduced a new bill in the Senate with its own House version.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Following a summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in October, Beijing agreed to overhaul its licensing regime for approving exports of rare earths to allow for streamlined permits to sell the metals overseas. At least three Chinese manufacturers of rare earth magnets have now secured new licenses to speed up exports to some customers, Reuters reported. It’s a sign of easing tensions between Washington and Beijing, offering some reprieve from the Chinese export restrictions that threatened to choke off the U.S. supply of key metals. But it’s still tenuous. China could ratchet up restrictions again, and the U.S. is still looking to increase domestic production of critical minerals to counter the leverage the People’s Republic wields through its near monopoly on the metals.
If there’s one thing Tim Latimer, the chief executive of the next-generation geothermal company Fervo Energy, wants to see in any permitting reform, it’s measures to making building new transmission lines easier. “The biggest threat to American global competitiveness, and it does not matter if your priorities are climate change, affordability, the AI race, national security or all of the above, is our country’s complete inability to build and upgrade transmission at any meaningful scale,” Latimer wrote in a post on X. Fervo is working on building the nation’s first full-scale next-generation geothermal plant in Utah, and running new transmission lines out to remote parts of the desert where it’s often best to drill for hot rocks is costly.
Fervo isn’t the only geothermal company making news. On Thursday morning, Zanskar, a geothermal startup that uses modern prospecting methods to find new conventional resources, announced that it had made the biggest “blind” discovery in the U.S. in more than 30 years. A “blind” find is a geothermal system that shows no visible signs of what’s below the surface, such as vents or geysers. While companies such as Fervo aim to use fracking technology to create reservoirs in hot rocks located where there aren’t underground aquatic formations to tap into, Zanskar is betting that using artificial intelligence to locate new conventional resources can result in faster, cheaper geothermal plants than next-generation technology can yield.
Here’s a little exclusive for you to end on: I got a copy of a letter signed by dozens of pro-nuclear advocates calling on New York state and local officials to kickstart an effort to rebuild the Indian Point nuclear plant just north of New York City. Describing the “forced premature closure” of the plant as “a major setback for New York,” the letter said the plant could be restored, noting that rising demand for clean, firm electricity has spurred utilities in Michigan, Iowa, and Pennsylvania to embark on historic restarts of decommissioned reactors. “Recommissioning Indian Point would stabilize electricity prices and deliver one of the fastest and largest returns of clean power available anywhere in the country,” the letter reads.
The Trump administration has started to weaken the rules requiring cars and trucks to get more fuel-efficient every year.
In a press event on Wednesday in the Oval Office, flanked by advisors and some of the country’s top auto executives, President Trump declared that the old rules “forced automakers to build cars using expensive technologies that drove up costs, drove up prices, and made the car much worse.”
He said that the rules were part of the “green new scam” and that ditching them would save consumers some $1,000 every year. That framed the rollback as part of the president’s seeming pivot to affordability, which has happened since Democrats trounced Republicans in the November off-cycle elections.
That pivot remains belated and at least a little half-hearted: On Wednesday, Trump made no mention of dropping the auto tariffs that are raising imported car prices by perhaps $5,000 per vehicle, according to Cox Automotive. Ditching the fuel economy rules, too, could increase demand for gasoline and thus raise prices at the pump — although they remain fairly low right now, with the national average below $3 a gallon.
What’s more interesting — and worrying — is that the rules fit into the administration’s broader war on innovation in the American car and light-duty truck sector.
The United States essentially has two ways to regulate pollution from cars and light trucks: It can limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, and it can require the fuel economy from new vehicles to get a little better every year.
Trump is pulling screws and wires out of both of these systems. In the first category, he’s begun to unwind the Environmental Protection Agency’s limits on carbon pollution from cars and light duty trucks, which he termed an “EV mandate.” (The Biden-era rules sought to require about half of new car sales be electric by 2030, although hybrids could help meet that standard.) Trump is also trying to keep the EPA from ever regulating anything to do with carbon pollution again by going after the agency’s “Endangerment Finding” — a scientific assessment that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human wellbeing.
That’s only half of the president’s war on air pollution rules, though. Since the oil crises of the 1970s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has regulated fuel economy for new vehicles under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. When these rules are binding, the agency can require new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. to get a little more fuel-efficient every year. The idea is that these rules help limit the country’s gasoline consumption, thus keeping a lid on oil prices and letting the whole economy run more efficiently.
President Trump’s signature tax law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, already eliminated the fines that automakers have to pay when they fail to meet the standard. That change, pushed by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, effectively rendered the regulation toothless. But now Trump is weakening the rules just for good measure. (At the press conference on Wednesday, Cruz stood behind the president — and next to Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford.)
Under the new Trump proposal, automakers would need to achieve only an average of 34.5 miles per gallon in 2031. Under Biden’s proposal, they needed to hit 50 miles per gallon that year.
Those numbers, I should add, are somewhat deceptive — because of how CAFE standards are calculated, the headline number is 20% to 30% stricter than a real-world fuel economy number. In essence, that means the new Trump era rules will come out to a real-world mile-per-gallon number in the mid-to-high 20s. That will give automakers ample regulatory room to sell more inefficient and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and pickups, which remain more profitable than electric vehicles.
Which is not ideal for air pollution or the energy transition. But the real risk for the American automaking industry is not that Ford might churn out a few extra Escapes over the next several years. It’s that the Trump proposal would eliminate the ability for automakers to trade compliance credits to meet the rules. These credit markets — which allow manufacturers of gas guzzlers to redeem themselves by buying credits generated by cleaner cars — have been a valuable revenue source for new vehicle companies like Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian. The Trump proposal would cut off that revenue — and with it, one of the few remaining ways that automakers are cross-subsidizing EV innovation in the United States.
During his campaign, President Trump said that he wanted the “cleanest air.” That promise is looking as incorrect as his pledge to cut electricity costs in half within a year.
How will America’s largest grid deal with the influx of electricity demand? It has until the end of the year to figure things out.
As America’s largest electricity market was deliberating over how to reform the interconnection of data centers, its independent market monitor threw a regulatory grenade into the mix. Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the monitor filed a complaint with federal regulators saying that PJM Interconnection, which spans from Washington, D.C. to Ohio, should simply stop connecting new large data centers that it doesn’t have the capacity to serve reliably.
The complaint is just the latest development in a months-long debate involving the electricity market, power producers, utilities, elected officials, environmental activists, and consumer advocates over how to connect the deluge data centers in PJM’s 13-state territory without further increasing consumer electricity prices.
The system has been pushed into crisis by skyrocketing capacity auction prices, in which generators get paid to ensure they’re available when demand spikes. Those capacity auction prices have been fueled by high-octane demand projections, with PJM’s summer peak forecasted to jump from 154 gigawatts to 210 gigawatts in a decade. The 2034-35 forecast jumped 17% in just a year.
Over the past two two capacity auctions, actual and forecast data center growth has been responsible for over $16.6 billion in new costs, according to PJM’s independent market monitor; by contrast, the previous year’s auction generated a mere $2.2 billion. This has translated directly to higher retail electricity prices, including 20% increases in some parts of PJM’s territory, like New Jersey. It has also generated concerns about reliability of the whole system.
PJM wants to reform how data centers interconnect before the next capacity auction in June, but its members committee was unable to come to an agreement on a recommendation to PJM’s board during a November meeting. There were a dozen proposals, including one from the monitor; like all the others, it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority vote to be adopted formally.
So the monitor took its ideas straight to the top.
The market monitor’s complaint to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tracks closely with its plan at the November meeting. “PJM is currently proposing to allow the interconnection of large new data center loads that it cannot serve reliably and that will require load curtailments (black outs) of the data centers or of other customers at times. That result is not consistent with the basic responsibility of PJM to maintain a reliable grid and is therefore not just and reasonable,” the filing said. “Interconnecting large new data center loads when adequate capacity is not available is not providing reliable service.”
A PJM spokesperson told me, “We are still reviewing the complaint and will reserve comment at this time.”
But can its board still get a plan to FERC and avoid another blowout capacity auction?
“PJM is going to make a filing in December, no matter what. They have to get these rules in place to get to that next capacity auction in June,” Jon Gordon, policy director at Advanced Energy United, told me. “That’s what this has been about from the get-go. Nothing is going to stop PJM from filling something.”
The PJM spokesperson confirmed to me that “the board intends to act on large load additions to the system and is expected to provide an indication of its next steps over the next few weeks.” But especially after the membership’s failure to make a unified recommendation, what that proposal will be remains unclear. That has been a source of agita for the organizations’ many stakeholders.
“The absence of an affirmative advisory recommendation from the Members Committee creates uncertainty as to what reforms PJM’s Board of Managers may submit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and when stakeholders can expect that submission,” analysts at ClearView Energy Partners wrote in a note to clients. In spite of PJM’s commitments, they warned that the process could “slip into January,” which would give FERC just enough time to process the submission before the next capacity auction.
One idea did attract a majority vote from PJM’s membership: Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative’s, which largely echoed the PJM board’s own plan with some amendments. That suggestion called for a “Price Responsive Demand” system, in which electricity customers would agree to reduce their usage when wholesale prices spike. The system would be voluntary, unlike an earlier PJM proposal, which foresaw forcing large customers to curtail their power. “The load elects to not take on a capacity obligation, therefore does not pay for capacity, and is required to reduce demand during stressed system conditions,” PJM explained in an update. The Southern Maryland plan tweaks the PRD system to adjust its pricing mechanism. but largely aligns with what PJM’s staff put forward.
“There’s almost no real difference between the PJM proposal and that Southern Maryland proposal,” Gordon told me.
That might please restive stakeholders, or at least be something PJM’s board could go forward with knowing that the balance of its voting membership agreed with something similar.
“We maintain our view that a final proposal could resemble the proposed solution package from PJM staff,” the ClearView note said. “We also think the Board could propose reforms to PJM’s PRD program. Indeed, as noted above, SMECO’s revisions to the service gained majority support.”
The PJM plan also included relatively uncontroversial reforms to load forecasting to cut down on duplicated requests and better share information, and an “expedited interconnection track” on which new, large-scale generation could be fast-tracked if it were signed off on by a state government “to expedite consideration of permitting and siting.”
Gordon said that the market monitor’s complaint could be read as the organization “desperately trying to get FERC to weigh in” on its side, even if PJM is more likely to go with something like its own staff-authored submission.
“The key aspect of the market monitor’s proposal was that PJM should not allow a data center to interconnect until there was enough generation to supply them,” Gordon explained. During the meeting preceding the vote, “PJM said they didn’t think they had the authority to deny someone interconnection.”
This dispute over whether the electricity system has an obligation to serve all customers has been the existential question making the debate about how to serve data centers extra angsty.
But PJM looks to be trying to sidestep that big question and nibble around the edges of reform.
“Everybody is really conflicted here,” Gordon told me. “They’re all about protecting consumers. They don’t want to see any more increases, obviously, and they want to keep the lights on. Of course, they also want data center developers in their states. It’s really hard to have all three.”