You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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 routs begetting routs, Google’s second CCS project, and Poland’s nuclear progress
Current conditions: Late-week downpours and cooler temperatures are sweeping into the American Northeast • Record floods swelled the river in McCaysville, Georgia, near the border with Tennessee, to the point that residents needed aerial rescue • The hottest place on Earth today is Tete, Mozambique, a northwestern city where temperatures are nearing 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
Democrats’ electoral rout of the GOP is giving way to a Wall Street rout on artificial intelligence stocks. The stock market wiped out $2.5 trillion from Asian chipmakers, Texas power producers, New Jersey compute providers, Silicon Valley software giants, and data center developers amid an “AI reality check” that The Wall Street Journal called an “historic rout of tech stocks.” CNBC, meanwhile, called the selloff the great “tech wreck.”
As I wrote yesterday, nearly half of proposed data centers in the country are in states set to be ruled by governors who vowed to crack down on the industry. Texas, where data centers are booming, just elected its first Democratic governor in a generation. Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote yesterday, campaigned on putting a moratorium on new projects until the legislature could pass new restrictions through law.

Exxon Mobil’s offshore oil bet in Guyana is booming, and Chevron’s gamble on Venezuela reopening is paying off. Both American oil giants are eyeing new patches in South America and Africa, as I previously reported. Shell, on the other hand, is looking further north in the Western Hemisphere. The Anglo-Dutch major has bid $150 million for licenses off the coast of Canada’s Newfoundland and Labrador. Upstream described the offer as “big exploration dollars.”
The move comes as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney looks to transform the country into an energy superpower in hopes of gaining leverage over the U.S. following President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to absorb Canada as the 51st state.
Hopes of passing the Senate’s permitting reform deal have dimmed since Democrats pulled off the party’s biggest legislative victory in half a century this week. The win emboldened progressive critics of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act who want to put off voting to hold out for a bill with fewer benefits to fossil fuels. But the legislation’s supporters are still pushing for a vote before the next Congress arrives in January. New polling suggests the bill has purchase among voters. In a nationwide survey of 1,000 registered voters taken in the last week of October, 79% of respondents expressed support for the bill after an initial description. After hearing arguments against the legislation, including that it would “rush environmental reviews” and help “big corporations” to “override local communities,” support dropped to 66%.
The poll, commissioned by the centrist think tank Third Way and shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, shows that “Americans want more affordable, reliable energy, and they see the value in legislation that could help deliver it,” analysts Mary Sagatelova and Ryan Fitzpatrick wrote in a memo. Yet the findings come as opposition to the bill mounts. On Thursday night, a spokesperson for the likely next Speaker of the House, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, told Politico reporter Nico Portuondo that the bill “falls short in several areas,” and that the Democrat would not “rubber stamp” the Senate’s deal.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Google is building its first data center in Wyoming, powered by a 702-megawatt fuel cell and linear generator that uses natural gas fuel paired with carbon capture technology. On Thursday, the Alphabet-owned tech giant confirmed its plans to back the facility as part of a $17 billion investment in the Cowboy State. American Electric Power, the utility it’s partnering with on the project, announced the plans last month. If successful, the project would be Google’s second foray into carbon capture and sequestration technology. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin reported last year, the company got into the CCS game with plans to build a project at a site in Illinois.
Poland’s plan to build its first nuclear power plant with three Westinghouse AP1000s reached a key milestone Thursday as the state-owned developer behind the project inked a deal for the reactor components. Japanese engineering giant IHI Corporation confirmed to World Nuclear News that it had received a long lead-time order from Westinghouse for the first reactor at the plant. The move comes a month after Polskie Elektrownie Jądrowe, the state-backed company building the nuclear station on its Baltic coast, gave Westinghouse the go-ahead to start ordering parts, which I told you about at the time. A week later, PEJ formally started the bidding process for a second nuclear plant.
Poland’s nascent push into geothermal energy largely stalled last year. But Warsaw granted the city of Kutno in central Łódź Voivodeship about $15 million from the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management to support construction of a geothermal heating plant. The facility would have a maximum output of about 6.4 megawatts-thermal. Once complete, the plant would provide nearly half of Kutno’s heat, according to ThinkGeoEnergy. Cash-strapped France, meanwhile, has suspended applications for a government program meant to support clean methods for producing heat.
Cybertruck, we hardly new ye. Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced during the wee hours of Friday morning that the company would wind down production of the controversial electric truck by the middle of next year. Though Musk predicted before its release that sales could reach 250,000 per year or more, customers failed to embrace the hulking, angular vehicles — Electrek estimates that Tesla sold fewer than 8,000 Cybertrucks in the third quarter of 2026. The company plans to refocus production at its Texas Gigafactory on the self-driving Cybercab, which began offering rides in Austin, Texas, at the beginning of September.
Here are four ways they can get it right.
On Tuesday, voters handed Democrats control of both the House and the Senate and flipped control of numerous governorships and state legislatures throughout the country. Its clear affordability was high among their concerns. Gas cost more than on any Election Day on record, and electricity bills keep climbing as demand grows faster than it has in decades.
Democrats now have a mandate to lower energy costs by building more homegrown clean energy, a chance to stop the administration from blocking new projects, and an opportunity to begin building a post-Trump American energy policy. Yet the president still holds veto power and control over federal agencies, diminished though they may be. The next administration will inherit a federal government that has been largely hollowed out, its agencies stripped of much of their staff, expertise, and institutional knowledge.
That puts states at the center of what comes next. A new class of governors and state lawmakers — including six new Democratic trifectas — will take office in 2027 ready to act on energy affordability. Given the limited opportunities in Washington, federal lawmakers will need to rely on state governments to advance an effective national energy agenda, both now and under the next administration. The question before them is how to design policy with that in mind from the start.
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act offers both a model and a warning. The IRA has been transformative, catalyzing hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy investment, supporting good jobs and domestic manufacturing, and driving economic growth nationwide. But with hindsight, one clear shortcoming emerges: Federal decision-makers too often treated states as grant recipients rather than institutional partners capable of deploying capital and shaping energy markets. This attitude hampered the law’s speed, effectiveness, and durability.
For instance, to implement the law’s Home Energy Rebates — an $8.8 billion program designed to operate through state energy offices and deliver energy efficiency and cost savings for consumers — the Department of Energy required states to navigate an unusually complex approval process. Many states had to hire outside consultants just to apply. Nearly five years after the law’s passage, only a handful have gotten their projects off the ground. The ambitions were real; the architecture made them slow.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund offers a similar lesson. The GGRF was inspired by the growth of state and local green banks, and like them was designed to provide low-cost financing to clean energy projects throughout the country. Those same state-level green banks with local market knowledge and lending experience were well-positioned to deploy capital into local projects, yet they did not receive program funding directly. In consequence, only a small number of existing green banks received a small amount of this funding — less than 10% of the total available — before the Trump administration froze the program in its entirety. DOE’s Loan Programs Office, meanwhile, had $40 billion in authority to loan to state energy financing institutions, but it executed zero such loans.
These aren’t isolated examples. They’re symptoms of a systematic failure by the federal government to treat states as partners in the process of designing and implementing policy. In recent years the federal government has generally engaged with governors and state policymakers through intergovernmental affairs offices staffed with political appointees that treat states more like stakeholders to be managed than governing partners.
State governments are the machinery through which energy policy becomes real. They regulate utilities. Their laws govern the siting and permitting of energy infrastructure, including the data centers now reshaping electricity demand. They oversee housing and land use. And they run the economic development and financing agencies that work to expand local economies. Policies built around these state institutions can move faster, deliver greater local benefits, and last longer — especially as federal policy careens in wildly different directions every few years. Had the federal-state partnership been stronger from the start, IRA funding might have been deployed more quickly and delivered impact sooner in both red and blue districts, making it much more difficult for the Trump administration to roll back these policies.
For Democrats looking to advance an agenda that can deliver more affordable, reliable and clean energy, there’s never been a better time for this partnership, given the 30 governorships their party will hold starting in 2027 — the most in over 30 years.
So, looking ahead, what should happen next time?
Invest in state capacity quickly. For all their powerful authorities, state agencies often lack budget and staff capacity. The IRA mostly routed its dollars around them through tax credits, federal loans, and competitive grants. The few programs it did run through states, such as the home energy rebates, came with detailed federal requirements. Those safeguards were well intentioned, meant to protect consumers and guarantee results. But they assumed a capacity states never had the funding to build.
Formula funding, by contrast, is a no-regrets strategy to build that capacity. These are funds designed by federal lawmakers to be dispersed to all states based on a numeric formula (e.g. population or other appropriate quantitative metric), and are generally made to be easy for states to access. For example, DOE’s State Energy Program has delivered formula grants to all state energy offices, helping to fund their operations for over 40 years. According to the National Association of State Energy Officials, each federal dollar distributed through the program has leveraged more than $10 in state and private investment. EPA’s Clean Air Act programs similarly provide flexible grants to state environmental agencies. Future legislation should multiply the amounts of formula funding available in the IRA and streamline access. It should also pair these efforts with competitive funding that rewards cutting-edge state policies and cross-state collaborations that move industries and markets toward cleaner technologies.
Capitalize state financing institutions directly. States have long managed infrastructure finance, from the 1960s birth of housing finance agencies, to clean water state revolving funds, to federal funding for surface transportation infrastructure — all of which is now intrinsic to how infrastructure is built in this country. That model should now also anchor the next generation of clean energy infrastructure finance — for states to drive locally-impactful projects and economic development. DOE’s authority to lend to state institutions also remains intact.
Leverage state authority where it’s strongest. State public utilities commissions have a longstanding role in regulating the nation’s electric utilities. Federal policymakers should use this to their advantage, providing federal grants to expand PUC staff and expert capacity to oversee utility planning and rate cases. The State Energy Oversight Act, for example, would provide formula funding to state public utility commissions for financial and technical assistance. In addition to supporting their day-to-day role in utility regulation, this could also empower commissions to ensure that new federal tax incentives and investments deliver effective ratepayer relief — a true federal-state partnership that delivers on energy affordability.
States are also closest to the siting, permitting, and interconnection barriers now constraining low-cost clean energy expansion. The next generation of federal energy legislation should build upon and help proliferate state policy innovations like Michigan’s Renewable Ready Communities program, which helps local governments buy into locating energy developments in their towns, and Texas’s connect-and-manage interconnection process, which adds new energy faster than any other U.S. grid.
At the same time, federal policymakers shouldn’t ask states to lead delivery of every program. Where incentives can clearly benefit individual consumers and companies and reorient markets toward more affordable clean technologies, direct federal incentives — especially the IRS’s existing tax filing infrastructure — can be more efficient than new state programs built from scratch. The federal government also has a critical role to play in supporting technology innovation and expediting permitting for projects that cross state lines.
Finally, future federal leaders must prioritize clarity, simplicity, and speed. The next energy legislation should streamline requirements and include real deadlines, backed by deep White House engagement with governors of both parties. That should include stronger regional federal staff support — for example the EPA maintains regional offices throughout the country, while DOE does not. This agenda must also be led by senior officials with genuine authority, not those buried in an intergovernmental affairs office.
States haven’t waited. Green banks now operate all across the country. Forty-five states have built climate plans that are ready to be acted upon. Twenty-four states are committed to achieving 100% clean energy. And this week’s elections have delivered new state leaders ready to build a more affordable energy economy. States are already building America’s energy future. Washington’s job, next time, is to trust them — and build alongside them.
The gains set up Democrats to potentially flip the utility commission in 2028.
The blue wave has officially reached the Arizona down ballot. Though two Democratic wins in the Arizona Corporation Commissioner race might not drum up the same national coverage as, say, flipping a Senate seat in South Carolina, the election of Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill to the five-seat commission could have major energy implications in a state that already saw renewables champions take over the state’s largest utility earlier this year. (With close margins in slow-to-count Arizona, the ACC race wasn’t officially called until Thursday evening, when both Republicans conceded.)
Arizona is one of 10 states that elects its utility commissioners, with the ACC regulating private water, gas, and electric companies in the state. That includes overseeing Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power, where bills have increased 52% and 10%, respectively, over the past five years, per Heatmap’s data. (The publicly owned Salt River Project, which serves much of the Phoenix area, operates largely without ACC oversight.)
The ACC has been wholly in Republican hands since 2024; during that time, the body repealed Arizona’s Electric Efficiency Standards, which had incentivized utilities to pursue energy efficiency programs, as well as the state’s Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff, which supported the build-out of solar and wind power. “They were a rubber stamp for all our utilities and refused to even consider anything in support of protecting our climate,” Arizona State Representative Brian Garcia, who was reelected on Tuesday, said during a press call with Lead Locally this week. “At one instant, one of the commissioners told someone who got sick from the heat — who turned off their power and their AC — ‘Well, that’s on them.’ And I think our state and our communities have had enough of that.”
Though the ACC remains under Republican control despite the two Democratic additions, it puts full control within a one-seat striking distance for progressives when the other three seats are up in 2028 — a much easier fight to win, and potentially a huge one, given that the party hasn’t controlled the ACC since 1997.
Of particular concern in 2026, though, was the development of data centers. Ralph Heap, a Republican in the race who made the League of Conservation Voters’ 12-person “worst of the worst” list out of all 6,342 seats up for grabs nationwide on Tuesday, previously told the Arizona Capitol Times he supports the data center build-out in the name of American AI dominance. Incumbent Republican Kevin Thompson, meanwhile, has argued that the commission “has done its job of shielding ratepayers from costs associated with servicing data centers and other large load users.”
Voters evidently disagreed, backing Hill and Pratte, who say they support a data center moratorium. “The Corporation Commission might not be able to implement a pause, but I think they can certainly be a clearinghouse for information,” Hill told Yellow Sheet Report, an Arizona political tipsheet, acknowledging the relatively limited role the ACC actually has in regulating data centers beyond demanding transparency of utilities’ energy service agreements.
There are other concerns, too. Climate organizers zeroed in on the ACC race because of its influence over the solar buildout in the nation’s sunniest state, where nevertheless six of the state’s 15 counties have a restrictive ordinance against the resource, Heatmap Pro data shows. Commissioner-elect Pratte, a member of the Navajo Nation and the first Indigenous person elected to statewide office in Arizona, is also the co-founder of Navajo Power, a clean-energy company that helps tribal nations develop solar energy and storage projects.
Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power also both have pending rate increase requests under review by the ACC; a 14% rate increase for residential customers and a 45% or more increase for data centers in the case of APS, and a 10% increase for residential customers in the case of TEP. (The APS’ rate case will likely be decided in December, before Pratte and Hill take their seats.)
Additionally, State Senator Lauren Kuby has introduced a bill to change the name of the ACC to the Arizona Public Utility Commission, a move intended to highlight to voters “its significance to their daily lives,” as she told the Arizona Capitol Times earlier this year. Sure enough, John Qua, the campaign director at Lead Locally, and Caroline Spears, the executive director of Climate Cabinet, previously told my colleague Matthew Zeitlin that part of the trouble with supporting progressive candidates in the ACC race was communicating to Arizona voters that, like the race for governor, it is a partisan election.
But given how things turned out Tuesday nationwide — a referendum on cost-of-living and, perhaps, data centers — it seems they needn’t have worried. Arizonans worked out exactly who to blame.