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:
About 20% of U.S. coal exports flow through the port.

The Port of Baltimore — currently closed to container traffic thanks to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge early Tuesday morning — plays a pivotal role in the energy trade, but not for anything that the Biden administration would like to talk about. It’s not some major nexus for clean energy components (although many cars go in and out of it), or even the liquefied natural gas that the U.S. proudly ships to Europe (that’s about 80 miles south at the Cove Point in Lusby, Maryland).
Instead, what’s flowing through Baltimore is coal.
The Port of Baltimore is the second largest coal export facility in the U.S. About 20% of U.S. the country’s coal exports ran through the port in 2022, according to the Energy Information Administration. In the first nine months of 2023, the most recent period for which data is available, about 20 million short tons of coal traveled through the port, a 20% jump from the same period in 2022. (At the Port of Virginia, about 150 nautical miles to the south, that figure was 26 million short tons, up just 6% from the beginning of 2022.)
U.S. coal largely went to Europe and Asia, with big jumps in exports to Indonesia and Vietnam. The biggest recipients of U.S. coal are India, South Korea, China, and the Netherlands, where coal is shipped for transport across Europe.
The projected block up of coal exports could last more than a month, one coal shipping executive told Bloomberg. While it’s still unknown exactly how long the port will be closed to container traffic, the effect of the collapse is already visible in the stock prices of coal companies that use the port.
Shares of Consol Energy, for instance, which ships more than 10 million tons of coal annually through a terminal at the Port of Baltimore, are down 7% for the day. Consol’s coal comes from mines in southeastern Pennsylvania and southern West Virginia, where it’s then shipped by rail to Baltimore. Shares of one rail company that services the terminal, Norfolk Southern, dipped in early trading Tuesday but were flat Tuesday afternoon, while shares in CSX, the other rail company that serves Consol’s terminal, were down 2%.
“We do not have a definitive timeline of when vessel access or normal operations will resume,” Consol said in a statement Tuesday. “We are looking at all available options to us to minimize or address direct and indirect impacts to the Company and its operations.”
In terms of its effects on the overall energy market, the port’s indefinite closure could be mild and may actually result in lower energy prices in the Northeast, as coal that would have been exported becomes, essentially, stranded stateside, Greg Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told me. But even this effect may be muted, Brew explained, because the weather is warming up with the end of winter, meaning there’s less demand on natural gas for heating.
“That can’t be too affected by more cheap coal sitting around,” Brew said.
The port is also a major throughway for imports and exports of cars, with around 750,000 cars going through it. GM and Ford said that they were diverting shipments around the port.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The state has terminated an agreement to develop substations and other necessary grid infrastructure to serve the now-canceled developments.
Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on Wednesday canceled the agreement it reached with PJM Interconnection in 2021 to develop wires and substations necessary to send electricity generated by offshore wind across the state. The board terminated this agreement because much of New Jersey’s expected offshore wind capacity has either been canceled by developers or indefinitely stalled by President Donald Trump, including the now-scrapped TotalEnergies projects scrubbed in a settlement with his administration.
“New Jersey is now facing a situation in which there will be no identified, large-scale in-state generation projects under active development that can make use of [the agreement] on the timeline the state and PJM initially envisioned,” the board wrote in a letter to PJM requesting termination of the agreement.
Wind energy backers are not taking this lying down. “We cannot fault the Sherrill Administration for making this decision today, but this must only be a temporary setback,” Robert Freudenberg of the New Jersey and New York-focused environmental advocacy group Regional Plan Association, said in a statement released after the agreement was canceled.
I chronicled the fight over this specific transmission infrastructure before Trump 2.0 entered office and the White House went nuclear on offshore wind. Known as the Larrabee Pre-Built Infrastructure, the proposed BPU-backed network of lines and electrical equipment resulted from years of environmental and sociological study. It was intended to connect wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean to key points on the overall grid onshore.
Activists opposed to putting turbines in the ocean saw stopping the wires as a strategy for delaying the overall construction timelines for offshore wind, intensifying both the costs and permitting headaches for all state and development stakeholders involved. Some of those fighting the wires did so based on fears that electromagnetic radiation from the transmission lines would make them sick.
The only question mark remaining is whether this means the state will try to still proceed with building any of the transmission given rising electricity demand and if these plans may be revisited at a later date. The board’s letter to PJM nods to the future, asserting that new “alternative pathways to coordinated transmission” exist because of new guidance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These pathways “may serve” future offshore wind projects should they be pursued, stated the letter.
Of course, anything related to offshore wind will still be conditional on the White House.
The opinion covered a host of actions the administration has taken to slow or halt renewables development.
A federal court seems to have struck down a swath of Trump administration moves to paralyze solar and wind permits.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper on Tuesday enjoined a raft of actions by the Trump administration that delayed federal renewable energy permits, granting a request submitted by regional trade groups. The plaintiffs argued that tactics employed by various executive branch agencies to stall permits violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Casper — an Obama appointee — agreed in a 73-page opinion, asserting that the APA challenge was likely to succeed on the merits.
The ruling is a potentially fatal blow to five key methods the Trump administration has used to stymie federal renewable energy permitting. It appears to strike down the Interior Department memo requiring sign-off from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on all major approvals, as well as instructions that the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers prioritize “energy dense” projects in ways likely to benefit fossil fuels. Also struck down: a ban on access to a Fish and Wildlife Service species database and an Interior legal opinion targeting offshore wind leases.
Casper found a litany of reasons the five actions may have violated the Administrative Procedures Act. For example, the memo mandating political reviews was “a significant departure from [Interior] precedent,” and therefore “required a ‘more detailed justification’ than that needed for merely implementing a new policy.” The “energy density” permitting rubric, meanwhile, “conflicts” with federal laws governing federal energy leases so it likely violated the APA, the judge wrote.
What’s next is anyone’s guess. Some cynical readers may wonder whether the Supreme Court will just lift the preliminary injunction at the administration’s request. It’s worth noting Casper had the High Court’s penchant for neutralizing preliminary injunctions in mind, writing in her opinion, “The Court concludes that the scope of this requested injunctive relief is appropriate and consistent with the Supreme Court’s limitations on nationwide injunctions.”
Fights over AI-related developments outnumber those over wind farms in the Heatmap Pro database.
Local data center conflicts in the U.S. now outnumber clashes over wind farms.
More than 270 data centers have faced opposition across the country compared to 258 onshore and offshore wind projects, according to a review of data collected by Heatmap Pro. Data center battles only recently overtook wind turbines, driven by the sudden spike in backlash to data center development over the past year. It’s indicative of how the intensity of the angst over big tech infrastructure is surging past current and historic malaise against wind.
Battles over solar projects have still occurred far more often than fights over data centers — nearly twice as many times, per the data. But in terms of megawatts, the sheer amount of data center demand that has been opposed nearly equals that of solar: more than 51 gigawatts.
Taken together, these numbers describe the tremendous power involved in the data center wars, which is now comparable to the entire national fight over renewable energy. One side of the brawl is demand, the other supply. If this trend continues at this pace, it’s possible the scale of tension over data centers could one day usurp what we’ve been tracking for both solar and wind combined.