WHY THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY NEVER TOOK OFF
COULD THE U.S. PURSUE DEEPSEA MINING DESPITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS?
U.S. Energy Department Cancels
$3.7 Billion in Clean Energy Project Grants
OIL DEMAND: WHY GROWTH MAY BE HITTING THE BRAKES
COULD TRUMP’S TARIFFS HARM THE U.S. BATTERY INDUSTRY?
Texas Making Big Bets on Desalination to Combat Water Shortages
We have moved to a new bigger station in San Antonio!
Sundays 2pm-3pm 930AM San Antonio
THE ONLY OIL AND GAS SYNDICATED NATIONAL RADIO SHOW
MOST listened to show on Sunday nights! Thank you HOUSTON!
Saturdays 7am KEYS 1440AM / 98.7FM Corpus Christi
Sundays 8pm-9pm KFXR 1190AM / simulcast on the iHeartRadio app Dallas / Fort Worth Worldwide
Saturdays 1pm-2pm KWEL 1070AM / 107.1FM Midland Odessa Permian Basin
Sundays 2pm-3pm The Answer 930AM San Antonio / New Braunfels / San Marcos / Austin
Sundays 8pm-9pm KTRH 740AM / Simulcast on the iHeartRadio app Houston / Worldwide
Saturdays 6am-7am, 11am-12 noon
Sundays 6am-7am, 5pm-6pm AM 1440
To listen to the show: Visit shalemag.com or download iHeart mobile app to listen live!
energy for
while
Finding and producing the oil and natural gas the world needs is what we do. And our commitment to our SPIRIT Values—Safety, People, Integrity, Responsibility, Innovation and Teamwork— is how we do it. That includes caring about the environment and the communities where we live and work – now and into the future.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Robert Rapier
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Suzel Diego
PUBLICATION EDITOR Tyler Reed
ASSOCIATE EDITOR David Porter
VIDEO CONTENT EDITOR Barry Basse
STAFF WRITERS Felicity Bradstock, Tyler Reed
DESIGN DIRECTOR Elisa Giordano
VICE PRESIDENT OF SALES & MARKETING James Moreno / james@shalemag.com
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES John Collins, Ashley Grimes, Doug Humphreys, Matt Reed
SOCIAL MEDIA DIRECTOR Courtney Boedeker
SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGER Gargi Bhowal
DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER Amanda Villarreal
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Felicity Bradstock, Jess Henley, Robert Rapier
STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER Malcolm Perez
EDITORIAL INTERN LeAnna Castro
The Port of Corpus Christi’s Foreign Trade Zone 122 program helps increase global competitiveness of U.S.-based companies. Foreign Trade Zone 122 can defer or reduce duty payments, streamline supply chain costs and help companies thrive in competitive domestic and foreign markets.
AS WE MOVE INTO THE SECOND HALF OF 2025, THE ENERGY LANDSCAPE REMAINS AS DYNAMIC AND COMPLEX AS EVER. THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR BROUGHT A MIX OF GEOPOLITICAL TENSION, PRICE VOLATILITY, AND ACCELERATING MOMENTUM BEHIND ENERGY TRANSITION INITIATIVES.
From trade disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz to rising interest in desalination and deep-sea mining, the global energy story continues to unfold in ways that impact markets, policy, and the companies shaping tomorrow’s energy future.
In this issue of Shale Magazine, we spotlight one of the industry’s most respected leaders— Pierce Norton, CEO of ONEOK. Norton has long been a steady hand at the helm of one of North America’s leading natural gas and NGL infrastructure companies. As midstream operators adjust to shifting production patterns, evolving regulatory frameworks, and investor demands for both growth and discipline, Norton’s insights offer a valuable window into what resilience and adaptability look like in today’s oil and gas sector.
On the Industry front, our contributors take readers into the heart of the challenges and opportunities facing producers and operators. We explore Texas’s push into desalination as a solution to water shortages and examine why the hydrogen economy has struggled to take off despite years of optimism. In “The Strait of Hormuz: A Chokepoint Under Pressure,” we take a hard look at how regional tensions could impact global energy flows, reminding readers just how interconnected— and fragile—the world’s supply lines can be.
In the Business section, we analyze clean energy construction trends, which outpaced all other energy segments globally in 2024, and ask whether U.S. oil production could peak earlier than expected. Our piece on U.S. Energy Department clean energy grant cancellations reveals how politics continues to shape investment decisions in the sector,
and we investigate how the battery industry and global supply chains could be disrupted just as electric vehicle adoption accelerates.
And in our Policy coverage, we tackle some of the thorniest questions shaping the future of energy in America and beyond. What would repealing EPA power plant regulations mean for emissions and grid reliability? Could the U.S. pursue deep-sea mining despite environmental concerns? And how would Asia’s potential to overtake the U.S. in the green transition reshape global influence?
Despite the headwinds, 2025 has offered signs of cautious optimism for the energy sector. Oil prices have shown resilience despite geopolitical flare-ups. Natural gas markets have stabilized after a choppy 2023. And while regulatory risks remain, energy companies are increasingly being recognized not just for what they extract, but how they innovate, invest, and lead through transition.
As always, we hope this issue of Shale Magazine offers insight, perspective, and a deeper understanding of the forces reshaping the world of energy. From our feature on Pierce Norton to the latest developments in oil, gas, and clean tech, we remain committed to telling stories that matter to the people powering this industry forward.
Until next time.
ROBERT RAPIER Editor-in-Chief SHALE Magazine
By:
Pierce Norton’s story begins far from the towers of corporate America. Raised in the small northeast Alabama town of Heflin, Norton didn’t grow up with visions of leading a Fortune 500 energy company. But over the decades, through a mix of hard work, humility, and handson experience, he has had the good fortune to end up at the top of ONEOK—one of the nation’s leading midstream energy companies. Norton, a mechanical engineer by education and training, likes to call his discipline “the Swiss Army knife of engineering”—versatile, practical, and built for problem-solving. After graduating from the University of Alabama, he spent the first decade of his career out in the field, working in engineering, construction and operations. That early field experience didn’t just teach him the mechanics of the energy business—it shaped the way he leads. He believes in earning trust, communicating clearly and often, and making sure that during times of big change, employees are informed. That philosophy has guided Pierce and his leadership team, particularly during one of the most ambitious chapters in the company’s history: the $18.8 billion acquisition of Magellan Midstream Partners; the first of many. It was a bold first move that redefined
ONEOK’s footprint in the energy space. Today, the energy world is changing faster than ever. The growing role of artificial intelligence in high-performance computing is driving new energy demand, particularly from data centers relying on power that is both reliable and resilient. Under Norton’s leadership team, ONEOK is not merely reacting—it’s actively shaping the future. The company is expanding its portfolio, extending asset integration across its operations, and positioning itself to meet both current needs and what’s coming next. Before diving into acquisitions and corporate strategy, it’s worth stepping back to understand the mindset driving ONEOK’s transformation. For Norton, leadership isn’t about making flashy moves. It’s about long-term vision, intentionality and discipline—focus areas he developed through years spent in operations, commercial and management. That realworld grounding continues to influence every decision he and the company make. “If you build from a place of purpose, the big moves take care of themselves,” he says. It’s this philosophy that shapes the deals ONEOK pursues—and why every acquisition under Norton’s watch fits into a larger story.
When Pierce Norton talks about acquisitions, it’s clear he doesn’t see them as just deals on a balance sheet. For Norton, the ONEOK Board of Directors, and his leadership team, they’re part of a bigger story—a long-term vision to make ONEOK not only larger but stronger, more connected, geographically diversified and resilient.
Since taking the helm in 2021, Norton has led ONEOK through a series of strategic moves that have expanded its footprint well beyond its historical roots. Each acquisition has been purposeful, designed to complement what ONEOK already does well while positioning the company for a more diversified and a more sustainable future.
“We’re not chasing headlines or trends,” Norton says. “Our deals are grounded in logic. They need to fit. They need to make us better.” That mindset is a big reason why the company’s acquisition pipeline looks less like a scramble and more like a curated shopping list—each addition is deliberate, with a clear purpose.
The first headline-making move, of course, was the $18.8 billion acquisition of Magellan Midstream Partners. The deal was a game-changer. Overnight, ONEOK went from being primarily focused on natural gas liquids to also operating one of the largest refined products systems in the country.
The Magellan acquisition didn’t just significantly increase the company’s size—it shifted the company’s earnings mix to favor predictable cash flow, increasing investor confidence. “Magellan brought us high cash flow and low reinvestment,” Norton explains. “That’s a strong counterbalance to the more capital-heavy parts of our business.”
But the Magellan deal wasn’t a one-off. It was part of a larger, carefully sequenced plan. Deals like the purchase of Gulf Coast NGL pipelines from
Easton Energy, EnLink Midstream, and Medallion Midstream have added critical pieces to the puzzle— each one chosen for how it connects to the rest.
Take the Easton Energy assets acquisition, for instance. It connected key infrastructure between Mont Belvieu and Houston, enabling new blending opportunities and streamlining logistics. EnLink Midstream brought gathering and processing assets that tie directly into the company’s liquids transportation system, creating end-to-end efficiencies. Medallion Midstream, meanwhile, reinforced the company’s presence in the Permian Basin with an expanded crude oil gathering footprint that connected to the crude oil long-haul pipes purchased in the Magellan acquisition.
These deals aren’t just about size—they’re about synergies. Norton puts it simply: “Our business is all about connection—touching as many molecules as possible, as often as possible, for as long as possible to add more value to customers.” That philosophy is more than a catchy line—it’s a blueprint for how ONEOK operates. Integration, not mere expansion, is the name of the game.
With the energy world shifting—driven by demand from AI data centers, rising LNG exports, and evolving infrastructure needs—the company’s broadened capabilities position it to be a critical player for the long haul. Norton isn’t just building a bigger company. He’s building one that’s innovative, interconnected, and built to last.
These transactions are investments in the company’s future—and Norton and his leadership team’s strategic fingerprints are all over them. Yet growth isn’t just about acquisitions—it’s about making a larger company stronger, more connected, and more efficient.
For Pierce Norton, growth at ONEOK isn’t just about adding more pipelines or acquiring new assets—it’s about creating a system that works better together. That was the real goal behind headline-making acquisitions like Magellan, Easton Energy assets, EnLink Midstream, and Medallion Midstream. But while Wall Street often focuses on the financial upside of these deals, Norton knows the real work begins after the ink is dry.
And with decades of experience that began in the field, he doesn’t approach that challenge lightly.
At the center of Norton’s playbook is a simple but powerful three-step approach: stabilize, integrate, and transform. The first priority? Safety, by making sure the basics are solid. “You have to stabilize the operations right out of the gate,” he explains. “If your field teams feel like everything is up in the air, that’s when mistakes happen. That’s when trust erodes.” So, Norton’s team prioritizes calm, clear communication from day one—keeping frontline operations running smoothly and providing stability for the people doing the work.
Once the dust settles, the focus shifts to integration—bringing together physical systems, but also teams, processes, and ways of doing business. With each acquisition, new capabilities were added to the fold. Magellan brought in refined products and crude oil pipelines, while the Easton Energy assets connected critical Gulf Coast assets. The opportunity was ensuring all those pieces worked in harmony, not in isolation.
“Think of it like connecting organs in a body,” Norton says. “You don’t just want them running— you want them working together efficiently.” That meant integrating dispatch systems, aligning engineering standards, and creating seamless handoffs between previously independent teams.
A big advantage was location. Both ONEOK and Magellan had headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma—a fortunate bit of geography that eased one of the most common merger pain points: relocation. But proximity alone doesn’t create culture. That’s where Norton’s people-first mindset came in.
Having worked for eight different companies himself, Norton knows what it feels like to navigate a merger. He also knows that people need to believe in the new direction. “You can’t just tell them to get on board,” he says. “You have to give them a reason to want to be part of what you’re building. Be a part of something bigger than themselves.”
To do that, he encouraged employees from all sides to participate in shaping the new ONEOK. Rather than simply imposing the company’s existing practices, the company took a more collaborative approach. Teams were asked to bring their best ideas to the table—especially when it came to finding efficiencies, optimizing operations, and exploring new technologies.
And that last part—technology—is a key part of Norton’s transformation vision. With rising energy demand driven by AI data centers and electrification, ONEOK is now investing in tools that help forecast and respond to usage spikes. From predictive analytics to real-time monitoring, technology is increasingly central to how the company plans and operates.
“We’re not just integrating assets,” Norton says. “We’re building a smarter, faster, more flexible company.”
By emphasizing stability, collaboration, and innovation, ONEOK has managed to keep its footing even as it’s grown dramatically. For Norton, that’s what true integration looks like— combining pipelines but also aligning people and purpose to move the company forward.
At ONEOK, capital allocation isn’t just a matter of crunching numbers—it’s a strategic balancing act that reflects Norton and his leadership team’s steady approach and forward-looking mindset. Since stepping into the top job, Norton has embraced a philosophy of financial discipline that prioritizes long-term resilience over short-term flash.
“We’re here to build a company that’s strong today—and stronger tomorrow,” Norton says.
That philosophy shows up clearly in the company’s four-part capital strategy: invest in high-return organic projects, protect and grow the dividend, reduce debt, and return capital to shareholders through buybacks when it makes sense. It’s a formula rooted in balance—ensuring that no single priority comes at the expense of financial stability or shareholder value.
One of the most visible areas of investment has been infrastructure, particularly natural gas storage. With LNG exports booming and global energy markets becoming more interconnected, Norton sees storage as the unsung hero of system stability. “When you’re moving as much gas as we are—domestically and abroad—you need to have the right storage in place,” he explains. “It’s not a nice-to-have. It’s essential.”
That view has positioned ONEOK to support growing export volumes while maintaining its ability to respond to seasonal and market-driven supply swings. In a world increasingly shaped by weather volatility and geopolitical disruption, storage serves as a buffer that adds both value and security. Beyond storage, the company’s joint venture with MPLX is another key pillar of its capital deployment strategy. The two companies are developing a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) export terminal in Texas City—a project aimed squarely at tapping
rising global demand from Asia. For Norton, it’s not all about capacity—it’s about connectivity.
“This terminal improves our ability to serve global customers,” Norton says. “It fits with our strategy of building assets that are integrated, efficient, and designed for the long haul.”
That long-haul thinking also applied to the company’s recent acquisitions. The Magellan deal—along with the other strategic acquisitions— wasn’t just about footprint expansion. It was about balance. By adding Magellan’s refined products and crude infrastructure, ONEOK brought more predictability into the mix. Cash flow from those assets is steady, and reinvestment needs are low, giving the company more flexibility to fund growth and return capital to shareholders.
“Magellan added balance to our portfolio,” Norton explains. “When you combine that with our more capital-intensive gathering and processing operations, you get a business that’s stronger across cycles.”
Of course, it all comes back to what’s ahead—and Norton and his leadership team have their eyes firmly on the future. As AI and data center expansion ramp up energy demand, and as U.S. LNG exports continue to rise, ONEOK is positioning itself to serve as both an enabler and a beneficiary of those trends. That means continuing to invest—but doing so wisely.
“Capital allocation is one of the most important levers we have,” Norton says. “It’s how we stay flexible, stay relevant, and keep delivering value— no matter what the market throws our way.”
In other words, for ONEOK, every dollar has a job. And every investment is a step toward building a company that’s not only prepared for the future—but ready to lead it.
The energy industry is in the midst of a fundamental transformation. From the rapid growth of LNG exports to the power demands of artificial intelligence and the evolving expectations around sustainability, the landscape is shifting beneath the feet of every major player.
Under Norton’s leadership, ONEOK is actively shaping the future.
A major driver of this change is the U.S. transition from a natural gas importer to a global LNG powerhouse. With export capacity expected to jump by 10 billion cubic feet per day over the next five years, the Gulf Coast—especially Texas and Louisiana—has become ground zero for infrastructure expansion. ONEOK has responded by strategically investing in storage capacity and midstream assets that support this new flow of energy. “Storage isn’t a luxury—it’s a stabilizer,” Norton explains, pointing to facilities in Louisiana that will serve as key buffers between volatile supply and ever-growing demand.
That demand is coming from new places, too. Artificial intelligence may not be the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about natural gas, but it should be. Data centers powered by AI are energy-hungry, and some analysts forecast an increase in gas consumption of 3 to 8 billion cubic feet per day in the coming years to keep
up. ONEOK’s asset base—spanning gathering, processing, transportation, and storage—positions the company to support this surge in and around their assets. It’s about moving molecules, but also enabling digital infrastructure.
Meanwhile, the EnLink and Medallion acquisitions have expanded and extended the company’s presence in the Permian Basin and beyond, building a highly integrated network that touches multiple points of the energy value chain. From crude and refined products to natural gas liquids, ONEOK is executing what Norton calls the “wellhead-to-water” strategy—involved in every stage of the journey from production to export.
But growth in this industry isn’t just about capital deployment—it’s about execution, stability, and vision. Norton and his executive leadership team have kept ONEOK grounded even as it expands. The company has a philosophy of “choosing issues, not sides” that reflects a broader, pragmatic view: focus on reliability, efficiency, and innovation, regardless of political winds or policy cycles.
That balance—between critical energy reliability and future-facing adaptability—is what positions ONEOK as a steady hand in a cyclical sector. As Norton puts it, “We’re not just reacting to the market. We’re helping define it.”
In an industry where volatility is a given and transformation is constant, ONEOK President and CEO Pierce Norton grounds his leadership approach in something timeless: trust.
It’s not a mere corporate catchphrase for Norton. After more than four decades in the energy industry—including more than a decade in field operations and roles of increasing responsibility across eight different companies—he’s seen firsthand what drives organizations forward and what holds them back. At ONEOK, he aims to build on the company’s strengths by focusing not merely on assets or balance sheets, but on people.
“You can have authority without trust,” Norton says. “But without trust, you can’t have lasting impact.”
That philosophy has shaped how Norton and his team have guided ONEOK through its most transformative period in recent history. As the company completed its series of major acquisitions, the opportunity went beyond integrating pipelines and platforms. It was about uniting teams, cultures, and identities. In Norton’s view, the hardest part of a merger isn’t the financials. It’s giving employees a greater sense of opportunity during a time of change and a reason to believe in the new direction of the combined company.
To guide that process, Norton operates by a clear framework.
First comes stabilization—keeping the day-to-day operations running smoothly, making safety a priority, and communicating constantly. “People need to know the train is still on the tracks,” Norton explains. “That’s what allows them to stay focused, even when everything around them is changing.”
Once that foundation is in place, integration begins. Norton emphasizes connection across teams—whether that’s through shared systems, joint projects, or simply creating more opportunities to collaborate. The goal isn’t just efficiency; it’s building a culture where employees feel they’re part of a larger mission.
Then comes transformation. Norton encourages his team to challenge assumptions, push boundaries, and bring forward new ideas. “We’re not here to do what’s always been done,” he says. “We’re here to lead. And that means creating a space where innovation is part of the everyday conversation.”
One of the most difficult—and often overlooked—elements
of acquisition is the cultural side. Magellan, for example, had a proud and successful legacy, as did Medallion and EnLink. Folding those organizations into ONEOK meant more than just changing letterhead. Norton made it a priority to meet people where they were, hosting town halls, visiting field offices, and keeping an open-door policy that encouraged transparency. He challenged his leaders to do the same. “If people feel heard, they’re far more likely to stay engaged,” he says. “And that’s what drives performance.”
But Norton’s focus on people doesn’t stop with current employees. He’s also committed to building the next generation of the energy workforce. ONEOK invests heavily in workforce development, supporting programs that introduce high school students to real-world opportunities in energy. One such initiative is a training center in Watford City, North Dakota, where students can explore hands-on technical education and envision a path from classroom to career.
“People gravitate toward what they can see,” Norton explains. “We can’t just talk about energy jobs—we have to show them the purpose behind them.”
That word—purpose—comes up often in conversation with Norton. While the energy industry frequently finds itself at the center of political debates, Norton tries to cut through the noise. He doesn’t frame leadership in terms of left or right, fossil or renewable. Instead, he talks about reliability, responsibility, and national security. “At the end of the day,” he says, “this business is about keeping the lights on and the economy moving. That takes reliable energy, and it takes people who believe in the work they’re doing.”
Under Norton’s leadership, ONEOK has embraced this balance—honoring the company’s nearly 120-year legacy while preparing for an energy future that demands innovation, agility, and trust. He is the first to point out it is those who came before him and the decisions they made that have given he and his leadership team the opportunity they have today, and it is their responsibility to make good decisions to give the next generation the same opportunity. He’s not trying to be the loudest voice in the room. He’s trying to be the most thoughtful—and that’s made all the difference.
In a sector defined by volatility, complexity, and constant evolution, Pierce Norton brings a sense of steady purpose to ONEOK. His leadership reflects a rare blend of fieldtested experience, strategic vision, and a deeply human approach to running a company—managing assets, while also guiding people and empowering teams. From his early days working in the field to leading multibillion-dollar acquisitions from the C-suite, Norton’s career has been a study in how operational know-how can translate into boardroom results. Under his watch, ONEOK hasn’t just grown—it’s transformed. The Magellan acquisition was a milestone moment, extending the company’s reach into refined products and crude oil infrastructure. Other deals followed with the purpose of building a more connected, resilient energy network.
But Norton’s legacy at ONEOK will be about more than numbers or expansion maps. It’s about the culture he’s fostered— one built on trust, transparency, and a belief that stability and innovation can go hand in hand. Whether investing in local workforce development programs or meeting face-to-
face with field teams during times of change, Norton leads by showing up and listening. He doesn’t ask people to buy into a vision from a distance—he brings them into the process.
His approach to industry issues reflects that same grounded sensibility. Rather than getting caught in political crossfire or ideological debates, Norton focuses on practical solutions—investing in infrastructure that supports growth, reduces volatility, and keeps energy flowing where it’s needed most. As demand rises from AI, LNG exports, and the expanding global economy, the company’s integrated portfolio is positioned to lead.
Looking ahead, Norton’s playbook remains the same: be intentional, stay disciplined, and never lose sight of the people behind the business. In an industry that often chases the next big thing, his long view is a refreshing reminder that real leadership isn’t reactive— it’s relational, strategic, and built on trust.
As ONEOK charts its course into a new era of opportunity, Pierce Norton isn’t just building an energy company. He’s shaping a future—one that ensures ONEOK remains a vital part of the North American energy story for generations to come.
About the author: Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer in the energy industry and Editor-in-Chief of Shale Magazine. Robert has 25 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, oil production, synthetic fuels, biomass to energy, and alcohol production. He is author of multiple newsletters for Investing Daily and of the book Power Plays. Robert has appeared on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, Business News Network, CBC, and PBS. His energy-themed articles have appeared in numerous media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and The Economist.
By: Felicity Bradstock
The development of clean energy projects dominated power construction in 2024, as renewable energy accounted for record levels of electricity generation. Clean energy has taken over fossil fuels in terms of new annual additions to the grid by far. The variety of new clean energy additions is also expanding, ranging from solar, wind, and hydropower to nuclear power and several emerging energy sources.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), over 90% of the new energy capacity built globally in 2024 was clean and included massive solar, wind, and other renewable energy developments. This development has been supported by the falling costs of renewable energy as well as the rollout of decarbonization policies across several parts of the world.
While some countries are continuing to invest in new oil and gas development, renewable energy has dominated new energy development globally for several years. Renewable energy sources have contributed over half of new energy generation additions to grids worldwide since 2012. However, the speed at which new clean energy capacity is being deployed is now growing at an unprecedented rate.
In 2024, more than 585 gigawatts (GW) of new clean energy was developed, of which over three-quarters was solar power. Conversely, just 47 GW of non-renewable power generation was added worldwide.
The world still depends heavily on fossil fuels for power, heating, and industrial activities. However, the contribution of renewable energy to the power sector is increasing significantly year on year. Renewable resources generated approximately 32% of global electricity last year, a figure that rises to around 40% if nuclear power is included in the clean energy mix, marking a record high.
“The continuous growth of renewables we witness each year is evidence that renewables are economically viable and readily deployable,” said IRENA Director-General Francesco La Camera. “Each year they keep breaking their own expansion records, but we also face the same challenges of great regional disparities and the ticking clock as the 2030 deadline is imminent.”
Solar power has helped drive the green transition, with both solar generation and capacity installations setting new records in 2024. Solar generation has doubled globally over the last three years to reach over 2000 Terawatt hours (TWh). It was the largest source of electricity generation globally for the third consecutive year and the fastest-growing source of electricity for the 20th year in a row, according to Ember Energy data. China contributed over half of
the increase in solar generation, with around 53%.
There are several new demand drivers for solar power, including electric vehicles, heat pumps, and data centers, which are contributing 0.7% to annual demand growth, almost double that of five years ago.
The solar energy market is expected to generate a revenue of $541.84 billion globally by 2031, growing at a compound average growth rate (CAGR) of 19.68%, according to a Verified Market Research forecast.
Last year was a record year for wind energy installations. Around 117 GW of new wind energy capacity was installed across the world, including 109 GW of new onshore wind and 8 GW of offshore wind, according to an April Global Wind Energy Council’s flagship Global Wind Report. A few key markets, such as China and Europe, dominated this growth.
The total global wind energy capacity rose to 1,136 GW, with wind farms across all continents. A total of 55 countries installed wind turbines last year. The top five wind capacity additions in 2024 were in China (79.8 GW), the U.S. (4 GW), Germany (4 GW), India (3.4 GW), and Brazil (3.3 GW). China now has a huge wind energy capacity of 520.6 GW.
The Asia-Pacific region experienced a 7% year-on-year growth rate, while Africa and the Middle East region saw a 107% year-on-year growth rate, largely due to Egypt installing 794 MW and Saudi Arabia adding 390 MW.
The report foresees a CAGR of 8.8% for the wind industry, which would mean a further 981 GW of wind energy capacity added globally by 2030.
Other Clean Energy Additions
The capacity of several other clean energy sources increased last year. There was 1,283 GW of hydropower, 151 GW of bioenergy, 15 GW of geothermal energy and 1 GW of marine (tidal) power added globally in 2024.
Six new nuclear power plants were commissioned globally last year, while four older plants were decommissioned. The new reactors are expected to have a total capacity of 6.8 GW and will be located in the United Arab Emirates (Barakah-4, 1,310 MW), China (Fangchenggang-4, 1 GW and Zhangzhou-1, 1.1 GW), India (Kakrapar-4, 630 MW), France (Flamanville-3, 1.6 GW) and the U.S. (Vogtle-4, 1.1 GW).
As countries worldwide strive to increase their clean energy capacity to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels in pursuit of a green transition, the rapid expansion of the world’s green energy capacity is expected to continue for decades to come. Meanwhile, the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is expected to be much more moderate, eventually falling as more renewable energy becomes available.
While some countries are continuing to invest in new oil and gas development, renewable energy has dominated new energy development globally for several years.
About the author: Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specializing in Energy and Industry.
She
has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK, and is now based in Mexico City.
By: Robert Rapier
In his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush offered a bold vision of a cleaner energy future. Standing before Congress and the nation, he announced a $1.2 billion initiative to develop hydrogen-powered vehicles, proclaiming that “the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen and pollution-free.”
The appeal was clear: a shift away from imported oil and a meaningful reduction in vehicle emissions. After all, the combustion product of hydrogen is just water.
That child would be turning 22 this year. But the hydrogen car that was supposed to carry them into a cleaner future is still not in their driveway. In fact, outside of a few test markets, it’s not in anyone’s driveway.
So, what happened?
The Promise—and the Problem
Bush’s speech wasn’t just political theater. At the time, hydrogen fuel cells were seen as a potential long-term alternative to gasolinepowered internal combustion engines. Automakers like Toyota and Honda were investing heavily in hydrogen vehicle prototypes. And with oil prices rising, the idea of tapping into the universe’s most abundant element for clean energy made good sense—at least on paper.
But two decades later, the hydrogen economy has failed to materialize in any meaningful way for the average consumer. The reasons are complex, but five key factors stand out.
Hydrogen is a gas with low volumetric energy density. It must be compressed to high pressure or liquefied and then transported
from its production facility to its final destination. Those steps are energy intensive. Cars then require an entirely separate refueling infrastructure from gasoline or electric vehicles.
That’s not a small hurdle—it’s a multi-billion-dollar roadblock. Unlike electric vehicles, which can charge at home or increasingly in public parking lots, hydrogen vehicles depend on specialized highpressure refueling stations that are costly to build and maintain.
Today, the U.S. has fewer than 60 public hydrogen stations, and nearly all of them are in California. Without nationwide infrastructure, widespread consumer adoption remains elusive. And without consumers, infrastructure investment remains commercially unjustifiable. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem with no clear resolution in sight.
2. The Cost of Clean Hydrogen
Most of today’s hydrogen—about 95% globally—is produced from natural gas in a process that emits significant carbon dioxide. This has been dubbed “gray hydrogen” and is cheap but dirty when it comes to carbon emissions. “Green hydrogen,” made via electrolysis of water powered by renewable energy, avoids emissions but costs two to three times more to produce.
Government subsidies are available that provide incentives for green hydrogen production, but President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would terminate the 45V tax credit for hydrogen starting in 2026, potentially derailing nascent green hydrogen projects and significantly setting back progress.
Electrolyzer technology is improving, and costs are slowly declining. But green hydrogen still struggles to compete with both gasoline and electricity from the grid. Until production costs drop
substantially—or carbon pricing levels the playing field—hydrogen for transportation will remain economically disadvantaged.
In 2003, hydrogen fuel cells and batteryelectric vehicles (BEVs) were competing for the future of zero-emission transportation. Hydrogen had the early momentum— Toyota’s first fuel-cell vehicle hit U.S. roads in 2002. But then came Tesla, followed by a wide variety of electric vehicle offerings. Over the past 15 years, improvements in lithium-ion battery density, charging infrastructure, and manufacturing scale have made BEVs the dominant clean car technology. The industry bet on batteries, and it paid off. Today, global automakers are planning to invest $1.2 trillion in electric vehicles and batteries through 2030, with virtually no comparable commitment to hydrogen-powered cars.
Inconsistent energy policies across different presidential administrations are a challenge for every energy option. While the Bush administration gave hydrogen an initial boost, policy support fizzled under subsequent
administrations. President Obama emphasized battery-electric vehicles and solar, while President Trump focused on fossil fuels. Only recently—under the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law—has hydrogen regained some federal momentum.
But even now, the lion’s share of support goes toward hydrogen’s industrial applications—steel, ammonia, longhaul trucking—not personal vehicles. Without sustained, targeted subsidies and coordination, hydrogen cars may remain a niche solution in a battery-first market.
One of hydrogen’s biggest drawbacks is its energy inefficiency. To power a hydrogen vehicle, you must first generate electricity, use that electricity to split water into hydrogen, compress and transport the hydrogen, then convert it back into power for the vehicle. Each step incurs energy losses.
In contrast, battery-electric vehicles store electricity directly, with far less waste. The end result? A BEV can use renewable energy three times more efficiently than a hydrogen-powered car. That math doesn’t favor hydrogen—at least not for passenger vehicles.
Despite these challenges, hydrogen is one of the most important industrial chemicals globally. In fact, it’s gaining traction in sectors where batteries struggle—like heavy trucking, shipping, and aviation. Hydrogen is also essential if we are to decarbonize certain industrial processes, such as steelmaking and fertilizer production.
The International Energy Agency projects that clean hydrogen could play a significant role in a net-zero emissions future. But that role is more likely to involve powering cargo ships and industrial furnaces than personal transportation.
To his credit, George W. Bush’s vision for a hydrogen economy was based on a desire to innovate, reduce emissions, and secure America’s energy future. But the execution proved far more difficult than the ambition.
In 2025, hydrogen still holds promise— but it’s not the silver bullet that many once hoped. The path forward will require technological breakthroughs, regulatory clarity, and realistic expectations about where hydrogen truly adds value. Which, honestly, all of which was said in 2003.
Bush was right to dream big. But as the past two decades have shown, turning that dream into reality involved a lot more hurdles than many proponents initially envisioned.
About the author: Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer in the energy industry and Editor-inChief of Shale Magazine. Robert has 25 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, oil production, synthetic fuels, biomass to energy, and alcohol production. He is author of multiple newsletters for Investing Daily and of the book Power Plays. Robert has appeared on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, Business News Network, CBC, and PBS. His energy-themed articles have appeared in numerous media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and The Economist.
By: Felicity Bradstock
After growing to record highs over the last two years, U.S. oil production growth has slowed this year due to uncertainty in the energy sector, fears of a trade war between the U.S. and the rest of the world, and lower oil prices. The already high breakeven price of U.S. crude will make it difficult for oil companies to turn a profit, potentially leading them to cut capital expenditures over the next year, rather than boost production.
Limited Oil Growth in 2025
U.S. oil production is expected to continue increasing this year, but at a slower rate than during the last years of the Biden administration when it rose to record highs, according to energy flows intelligence firm Kpler.
Oil prices have faltered in recent months, falling by over 15% since the beginning of April. This has largely been blamed on fears of a recession owing to the introduction of sweeping U.S. tariffs and an oversupply due to increased output from OPEC+. In early May, the group decided to increase collective production by 411,000 barrels per day (bpd), which is almost triple the previously planned output. The move by OPEC+ is in response to the growing role of the U.S. in the international oil market. The production increase is expected to provide OPEC+ with a larger market share. When the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) Crude benchmark fell to $57 a barrel, it led to fears of falling profits across the U.S. oil and gas industry. This is far below the 2024 average WTI price of $77 a barrel. Falling oil prices have resulted in Kpler reducing its production forecast by 120,000 bpd to 170,000 bpd for the rest of the year and into 2026.
Analysts at Kpler explained, “With WTI, the main US benchmark crude, now near breakeven levels for new wells, producers are likely to cut back drilling.”
The slow growth of crude output was not in the cards when President Donald Trump came into office in January proclaiming oil companies should “drill, baby, drill.” However, rising pressures on the U.S. economy and widespread uncertainty in its energy sector have led several companies to reconsider their spending, as well as seriously question any plans to expand operations.
U.S. oil companies are highly sensitive to price fluctuations and often change their business strategies based on oil price trends. A forecast of lower margins has prompted several oil and gas companies to reconsider their capital expenditures for the coming year.
The looming threat of tariffs, across several countries and industries, is concerning for oil companies operating in the U.S. due to the potential for increased production costs. Meanwhile, economic uncertainty and higher global crude output are driving oil prices
down, which will make it increasingly difficult for companies to make a profit. While many companies have improved efficiency in recent years, higher service costs and energy transition spending have led to tightened budgets. Analysts are now predicting measures including cuts to share buybacks and capital expenditures.
The average breakeven price is $62 a barrel in the Permian Midland Basin and $64 a barrel in the Permian Delaware Basin, the two largest basins in the Permian, according to data from a Dallas Fed Energy survey. RBC Capital Markets estimates Exxon’s breakeven to cover both dividends and buybacks is $88 per barrel for 2025. Chevron’s is even higher, at $95 per barrel.
Matthew Bernstein, Vice President at Rystad, stated, “Some combination of near-term activity levels, investor payouts or inventory preservation will need to be sacrificed in order to defend margins.” Bernstein added, “The corporate reality for public players means that already modest growth could be at risk if prices remain near $60 per barrel.”
Both the Brent and WTI benchmark futures fell to their lowest since February 2021, during the Covid-19 pandemic, following President Trump’s threat of sweeping tariffs. A reduction in capital expenditure by oil companies will largely depend on the depth and duration of the slump.
Some U.S. oil majors reported positive first-quarter earnings, which have led to
a split in how companies are now planning to spend their capital. Investors were waiting to see whether companies would cut share repurchases due to lower crude prices, in a bid to keep cash to fund projects.
ExxonMobil and U.K.-based Shell have maintained the pace of share buybacks, while Chevron and BP have stated plans to reduce buybacks in the second quarter. Exxon’s sharp increase in crude production at its Guyana oilfield has helped boost the company’s non-U.S. business, and its netdebt-to-capital ratio stood at 7%, making it the only integrated oil company not to
increase net debt during the first quarter.
Earlier in the year, Chevron announced plans to lay off up to 20% of its employees in a bid to simplify the business and cut up to $3 billion in costs. It has since said it will reduce buybacks to between $2 billion and $3.5 billion in the current quarter, a decrease from $3.9 billion between January and March. It cited market conditions as the cause.
There is still great uncertainty over the impact of the trade war and other factors on oil prices, however, the economic instability and unclear sectoral outlook in the U.S. will likely make many oil companies rein in their
spending as they wait to see where the oil demand and prices go over the next year.
About the author: Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specializing in Energy and Industry. She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK, and is now based in Mexico City.
By: Robert Rapier
If you’ve been in the oil business long enough, you have witnessed decades of incredible global growth in oil demand. Year after year, consumption climbed steadily—China’s factories humming, emerging economies expanding, and global trade routes buzzing with activity. Sure, there were hiccups at times, but oil demand always bounced back stronger.
Those days might be numbered.
The latest numbers from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) project demand growth of less than one million barrels per day in 2025 and 2026—a far cry from the 1.2 million bpd average we've grown accustomed to over the past six decades.
The Economic Headwinds Are Real
Let's start with the obvious culprit: the global economy isn't firing on all
cylinders. The IMF is calling for 2.8% GDP growth in both 2025 and 2026. That's not catastrophic, but it's a reminder that we're dealing with tighter lending conditions, rising protectionism, and generally slower economic momentum than we've seen in years. The real kicker? Asia—historically our most reliable source of demand growth— is stumbling. Back in January, the EIA was banking on Asia adding 700,000 barrels per day to global consumption
flow generation, debt management, and strategic vision matter more than ever.
in 2025. By May, that forecast had dropped to 500,000 bpd. In a market where every barrel counts, that 200,000 bpd revision matters more than you might think.
China's property sector is still a mess, and that's bad news for oil demand. When construction slows down, so does the appetite for diesel and fuel oil. The debt overhang from years of overbuilding isn't going away anytime soon, which means this headwind could stick around longer than many expect.
Meanwhile, India—once seen as the next China for oil consumption—is pumping the brakes on fossil fuel growth. Government subsidies for renewables are starting to pay off, and while India's oil consumption is still growing, the trajectory isn't as steep as it used to be.
Something else that doesn't get enough attention: global supply chains are still reorganizing after COVID-19. Companies are diversifying their manufacturing footprints and shortening logistics networks. Translation? Fewer container ships crossing the Pacific, which means less bunker fuel consumption. It's one of those second-order effects that's easy to miss but adds up over time. When goods don't travel as far, energy demand takes a hit.
The tariff situation isn't doing us any favors either. The latest round of U.S. tariffs in April triggered predictable retaliation, and early shipping data shows container departures from major Asian ports are already declining. When trade volumes shrink, so does the energy needed to move goods around the world.
It's a stark reminder of how quickly policy decisions can ripple through energy markets— often before the economic data catches up.
For shale operators, this is a familiar puzzle: how do you manage production when demand growth is cooling? If supply keeps climbing while consumption growth flattens, prices are going to feel the pressure. The companies that learned discipline during the 2014-2016 downturn will likely fare better than those still chasing volume at any cost. OPEC+ is in a similar bind. Their whole playbook depends on reading demand correctly and adjusting supply accordingly. With weaker-than-expected consumption growth, don't be surprised if production
cuts come back into the conversation. Refiners with heavy exposure to Asian markets might face the biggest headache. If crude runs stay high but product demand stays flat, margins are going to get squeezed.
This isn't necessarily bad news for energy investors, but it does change the game. Companies that have diversified beyond crude oil—into natural gas, petrochemicals, or even renewables—are probably better positioned for this environment.
It's also a good time to focus on fundamentals. Cash flow generation, debt management, and strategic vision matter more than ever. The companies that acknowledge this shifting landscape and adapt their capital allocation will likely outperform those still betting on the old playbook.
Oil isn't disappearing overnight. Aviation, shipping, and petrochemicals still depend heavily on petroleum products, and that's not changing anytime soon. But the era of taking demand growth for granted might be over. What we're entering is a more complex market—one where efficiency and adaptability trump pure volume growth. For an industry built on the assumption of ever-increasing consumption, that's a significant adjustment. The transition might be uncomfortable, but it could also lead to a more stable, diversified energy landscape. Sometimes slower growth is actually healthier growth— even if it takes some getting used to.
About the author: Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer in the energy industry and Editor-inChief of Shale Magazine. Robert has 25 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, oil production, synthetic fuels, biomass to energy, and alcohol production. He is author of multiple newsletters for Investing Daily and of the book Power Plays. Robert has appeared on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, Business News Network, CBC, and PBS. His energy-themed articles have appeared in numerous media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and The Economist.
By: Robert Rapier
There are several important energy chokepoints around the world, but none is more significant and vulnerable than the Strait of Hormuz. Following the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, the Iranian Parliament reportedly voted to close this important energy transit chokepoint. Such a move could severely disrupt the world’s energy markets.
While the final decision rests with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council--and
Iran has failed to follow through on previous threats to close the Strait--the vote signals intent to weaponize one of the world’s most economically sensitive maritime corridors. If carried out, the consequences would be swift, severe, and global.
Let’s take a closer look at how we got here—and why the stakes are so high.
Background
On June 21, the United States launched coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear
At just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point--and significantly bordered by Iran--the Strait of Hormuz handles the transit of nearly 20% of global oil supply.
facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The strikes marked the most serious U.S.–Iran escalation in over a decade. The campaign featured B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles.
In his remarks following the strike, President Trump struck a conciliatory tone, stating, “Now is the time for peace.” Iran, unsurprisingly, interpreted it differently. Within hours, the Iranian parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz—a move the U.S. would certainly interpret as a major escalation.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News, "If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours."
Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters
At just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point-and significantly bordered by Iran--the Strait of Hormuz handles the transit of nearly 20% of global oil supply. But that’s only part of the story. It is also a critical artery for liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit. Many important energy-producing countries rely on the Strait of Hormuz to get these products to market.
There are three major global LNG producers, each with about 20% of the global market: The U.S., Qatar, and Australia. Qatar ships around 77 million metric tons of LNG annually, most of it passing through the Strait. Its customers include energy-hungry economies such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India, as well as parts of Europe. If Qatar is cut off, those nations lose part of their energy supply almost overnight. And LNG isn’t as fungible as oil. While oil can be rerouted and drawn from strategic reserves, LNG infrastructure is far more rigid. Ships must be able to dock at specially equipped terminals, and production and liquefaction aren’t easily shifted. The LNG market is fragile, and supply shocks can ripple fast and violently.
If Iran follows through with closing the Strait of Hormuz, the impact on global energy markets would be immediate and far-reaching.
Energy prices would spike across the board. Oil could surge past $90 per barrel, and LNG spot prices—particularly in Asia and Europe—could return to levels not seen since 2022. For countries that rely heavily on imported natural gas, the consequences
would be renewed inflation, worsening energy insecurity, and even the possibility of fuel rationing as winter approaches. Shipping and insurance markets would be thrown into disarray. Tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf would grind to a halt. Maritime insurers may suspend coverage for vessels transiting the Strait or demand prohibitively high war-risk premiums. Some shipping companies would avoid the region altogether, forcing longer routes and tighter global shipping capacity—raising costs not just for energy, but for commodities and consumer goods across the board.
Strategic petroleum and gas reserves would likely be tapped as immediate substitutes. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and India—heavily dependent on Persian Gulf energy flows—would be among the first to draw from their stockpiles. But those reserves are limited, and a prolonged closure of the Strait would quickly strain their ability to buffer continued supply disruptions. Broader economic consequences would follow. As energy prices rise, so do input costs for key sectors like transportation, chemicals, and heavy manufacturing. Inflation would reaccelerate globally, putting renewed pressure on central banks and undermining recent progress in stabilizing prices. Some emerging economies, which lack the finances to subsidize rising energy costs, would be hit hardest, but developed economies would feel the squeeze too. Finally, a sustained disruption would accelerate the global energy realignment already underway. Policymakers would move quickly to diversify energy sources— fast-tracking LNG terminals, expanding storage capacity, and increasing imports from more stable suppliers like the U.S. It would also strengthen the case for more long-term investments in nuclear power and renewables, both of which offer insulation from the geopolitical volatility that continues to define fossil fuel markets.
Closing the Strait would also damage Iran’s own economy, which relies heavily on maritime exports. But history shows that governments under pressure don’t always act rationally—especially when nationalism and survival are in play.
Tehran may view the closure as a way to rally domestic support, push back against the West, or extract concessions in future negotiations. But it is a highstakes move with no easy exit.
The U.S. has made clear that such
an act would be seen as hostile—and not just by Washington. Many of the world’s major economies have a vested interest in keeping the Strait open, and a multinational response is more than likely.
The world is watching closely. Energy companies are reviewing contingency plans, and governments are dusting off emergency protocols. Even in the absence of direct military escalation, the growing geopolitical risk is already being priced into oil and LNG futures.
But it’s worth noting that the Strait of Hormuz has never been fully closed in modern history—not even during periods of intense regional conflict. The closest call came during the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, particularly during the “Tanker War,” when both countries targeted commercial shipping and laid mines throughout the Persian Gulf. Despite the violence, the Strait remained open—albeit under heavy military escort and with soaring insurance costs. Iran has issued similar threats before— most notably in 2011–2012 and again in 2019—in response to sanctions and military pressure. In each case, the threat alone was enough to shake global energy markets, even without an actual blockade. This time may be no different. But markets are rightly on edge, because the Strait of Hormuz isn’t just a shipping lane—it’s a pressure point for the entire global economy. And right now, that pressure is high.
About the author: Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer in the energy industry and Editor-inChief of Shale Magazine. Robert has 25 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, oil production, synthetic fuels, biomass to energy, and alcohol production. He is author of multiple newsletters for Investing Daily and of the book Power Plays. Robert has appeared on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, Business News Network, CBC, and PBS. His energy-themed articles have appeared in numerous media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and The Economist.
By: Felicity Bradstock
Four offshore wind projects are currently under development in the U.S., but following Trump’s January executive order for the review of offshore wind permitting and leasing, which effectively halted new project development, energy companies are concerned about the future of the U.S. wind industry.
The U.S. is finally developing its offshore wind industry, after years of delayed and failed projects, helping to further progress the green transition that former President Biden was pursuing. The wind industry has faced a multitude of challenges in getting offshore wind farms up and running in the U.S., including financial constraints and equipment failures.
In 2024, it was predicted that the U.S. would invest around $65 billion in offshore wind by the end of the decade, supporting roughly 56,000 jobs. In August, there was around 56 GW of wind energy under development across 37 leases, capable of powering around 22 million homes. Around 14 GW of this offshore wind capacity was expected to be up and running by 2030, 30 GW by 2033, and 40 GW by 2035.
There are four offshore wind projects currently being developed in the U.S.; Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Ørsted’s Sunrise Wind project off the coast of
New York and the Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island, and Equinor’s Empire Wind 1 in New York.
The U.S. firm Dominion Energy is currently developing a 2.6-gigawatt (GW) project in Virginia that is expected to provide up to 660,000 households with clean electricity once operational in 2026. Its existing two wind turbines were the first to be installed in U.S. federal waters and are expected to cut carbon emissions by up to 25,000 tons annually.
As Dominion Energy continues with project development, there are concerns about the potential rising costs associated with President Trump’s sweeping tariffs. Should these tariffs remain in place at the current level through the end of the next quarter, Dominion could incur additional costs of up to $120 million. If the tariffs continue into 2026, by the end of the project’s development these extra costs could rise to $500 million, according to estimates.
Major Danish wind energy company Ørsted has two offshore wind projects in the works; the 924-megawatt (MW) Sunrise Wind project in New York and the 704-megawatt Revolution Wind in Rhode Island.
Sunrise is expected to power almost 600,000 homes with clean energy and help New York build a carbon-free electric grid by 2040, as well as create over 800 direct jobs and thousands more indirect jobs. Ørsted has invested over $700 million in the project to date.
Revolution is expected to provide 304 MW of clean energy to Connecticut and 400 MW to Rhode Island, supporting the creation of
over 1,200 direct construction jobs. The company has so far invested $100 million in the project.
Norway’s state-owned energy company Equinor is also developing its Empire Wind 1 project off the coast of New York. The $2.5 billion development is expected to provide clean power for around 500,000 homes upon its launch in 2027. The company has already spent $2 billion on the project, which is nearly a third complete, according to reports.
However, in April, the Trump administration ordered an “unprecedented’ halt to the development of Empire Wind 1. The project had been approved under the Biden administration in 2023 as part of plans to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy to decarbonize the U.S. economy.
Construction on Empire commenced last year and around 1,500 workers were employed on the project. The stop-work order surprised many in the industry who thought that projects that had already been approved would not be affected by Trump’s industry review.
On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order restricting the development of new wind energy projects. It directed agencies to stop all permits for wind farms pending federal review. This was not expected to have an impact on projects that had already been approved, although the halting of operations at Empire has concerned developers.
Anders Opedal, the CEO of Equinor, stated, “We have invested in Empire Wind after obtaining all necessary approvals, and the order to halt work now is unprecedented and in our view unlawful. We seek to engage directly with the US administration to clarify the matter and are considering our legal options.” Meanwhile, the New York State Energy Authority said the decision was fuelled by “a shortsighted, political agenda.”
Since the halt, Equinor has said that it is considering its legal options in response to the government decision. It remains uncertain whether Equinor will be permitted to complete its offshore wind project and what impact the delays will have on its scheduled 2027 launch.
In addition to causing widespread delays and uncertainty across the U.S. wind sector, energy companies are now concerned that Trump’s attack on wind may not only affect new developments but could halt already approved operations. This is expected to prompt several energy companies to reassess plans for new operations and expansions, and potentially look to develop operations elsewhere.
About the author: Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specializing in Energy and Industry. She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK, and is now based in Mexico City.
By: Jess Henley
The Trump Administration rapidly took action to roll back a 2024 Biden-era rule that restricted oil and gas development in approximately 13 million acres of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. The 2024 rule established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prioritized environmental protection in areas of the Alaskan wilderness, effectively restricting drilling unless developers could prove minimal environmental impact.
Critics, including Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, viewed the 2024 mandate as an overly restrictive measure, prioritizing environmental obstruction over national energy production. Secretary Burgum and the Department of the Interior now assert that the 2024 rule exceeded BLM’s statutory authority under the 1976 Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act, which mandates an “expeditious program of competitive leasing” without neglecting surface resource protections.
Rescinding the 2024 BLM rule aims to revert regulations to pre-May 2024 procedures that allow for responsible oil and gas development, balanced with environmental protection measures.
The Biden-era rule expanded restrictions and regulations on oil and gas leasing for 13 million acres of the Alaskan wilderness. The targeted “special areas” of the oil reserve were deemed to be highly ecologically sensitive. On paper, the rule did not entirely bar drilling of oil and gas, but it did place heavy restrictions on fossil fuel producers. The 2024 rule affected just over 13 million of the
23 million-acre land mass within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Initially, the BLM rule was fueled by environmental motivations, such as protection of wildlife habitats for grizzly and polar bears, caribou, and migratory bird species. While the rule prioritized ecological protection, it severely hampered oil production companies’ ability to continue operations. According to the 2024 rule, oil producers had to demonstrate and prove minimal impact on the environment before being awarded oil or gas leasing opportunities. Effectively, these additional requirements and restrictions created a detracting value proposition for oil producers in the Alaskan area, particularly ConocoPhillips, which sued the federal government over the limitations.
A Department of the Interior statement, noted that, following a “thorough legal and policy review,” BLM officials concluded the rule “exceeds the agency’s statutory authority under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, conflicts with the Act’s purpose, and imposes unnecessary barriers to responsible energy development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.”
Secretary Burgum also said, “The 2024 rule ignored that mandate, prioritizing obstruction over production and undermining our ability to harness domestic resources at a time when American energy independence has never been more critical. We’re restoring the balance and putting our energy future back on track.”
What Rescinding the 2024 Rule Means Rescinding the 2024 rule would correct the regulatory oversight of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
to the regulatory framework in place prior to May 2024. Under the 2024 system, 13 million acres of the 23 million acres within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska were severely restricted in oil leasing opportunities, which deterred interest from oil producers. Resending this
rule would return procedures to the operating standards of the integrated activity plan, which aimed to streamline oil leasing processes while balancing ecological protection efforts.
Advocates for the rollback suggest it could lead to an increase in domestic oil and
gas production, reinforcing the Trump administration’s efforts to strengthen U.S. energy independence. The move aims to streamline and enable efforts to build infrastructure, explore possible new resource production areas, and broaden interest from both American companies and international companies wanting to expand in the United States. By increasing the potential for expanded activity in the North Slope region, industry stakeholders and Alaskan representatives have communicated optimism that a more streamlined regulatory environment will bolster investor confidence and stimulate renewed exploration interest.
“A Major Victory”
Naturally, the retention has been met with opposing reactions. While critics of the Trump Administration’s energy procedures are quick to cry foul, others praise the act as a victory and an example of lawful upholding.
According to Yahoo News, Senator Lisa Murowski of Alaska said, “This is a victory not only for those who support responsible development, but also those who believe in the rule of law. The 2024 management rule clearly violated the law, establishing restrictions and a presumption against development as part of the last administration’s effort to turn the North Slope into one giant tract of federal wilderness.”
She continued to say, “Repealing the rule will not weaken our world-class environmental standards, but it will enable Alaska to produce more energy as Congress intended. The result will be good jobs for Alaskans, more affordable energy for America, and significant new revenues for the government.”
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News in a recent interview that the Trump Administration plans to continue ramping up the energy agenda, not just for oil but also for liquid natural gas (LNG), nuclear, and coal production. Secretary Wright notes the importance of allowing expansion for both American companies and companies wanting to expand business within the United States. Rescinding the Biden-era limitations gives companies the opportunity to expand, invest, and develop the infrastructure necessary to execute the Trump administration’s vision of “American energy dominance.”
Reverting leasing limitations to the pre-May 2024 standards, the permitting process cuts the red tape that could severely limit oil companies’ interests and abilities to continue operations in the Alaskan reserves.
About the author: Jess Henley began his career in client relations for a large manufacturer in Huntsville, Alabama. With several years of leadership under his belt, Jess made the leap to brand communications with Bizwrite, LLC. As a senior copywriter, Jess crafts compelling marketing and PR content with a particular emphasis on global energy markets and professional services.
By: Felicity Bradstock
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to repeal all “greenhouse gas” emissions standards for the power sector to keep coal plants open and save consumers money. This is part of the agency’s plans to roll back dozens of environmental regulations as announced by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in March.
On June 11, the EPA announced a proposal to repeal the 2015 emissions standards for new fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), issued during the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule for new and existing fossil fuel-fired power plants, issued under the Biden-Harris Administration.
The EPA said that the Biden-era regulations have increased costs at coal-, oil-, and gas-fired power plants, which has resulted in higher energy prices for consumers. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated, “Affordable, reliable electricity is key to the American dream and a natural byproduct of national energy dominance.” Zeldin added, “According to many, the primary purpose of these Biden-Harris administration regulations was to destroy industries that didn’t align with their narrow-minded climate change zealotry. Together, these rules have been criticized as being designed to regulate coal, oil and gas out of existence.”
The Trump administration has voiced its support for driving down consumer energy costs, partly by doubling down on fossil fuel
output and reducing restrictions on coal, oil, and gas production. The proposed repeal of the rules supports President Donald Trump’s pledge to “unleash American energy.”
The EPA said in its proposal that coal and gas plants are essential for domestic manufacturing and establishing the U.S. as a global artificial intelligence hub. It criticizes the Obama and Biden administrations for placing restrictions on fossil fuel power plants and driving up consumer energy costs.
The EPA said that “greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution within the meaning of the statute.”
The agency assured consumers that “Unlike other air pollutants with a regional or local impact, the targeted emissions are global in nature. As a result, any potential public health harms have not been accurately attributed to emissions from the U.S. power sector.”
Repealing the specific regulations could save the power sector $19 billion in regulatory costs over two decades beginning in 2026, or around $1.2 billion a year, according to the EPA.
Former President Joe Biden introduced new regulations to fossil fuel power plants to address climate change and improve conditions in areas with high levels of industrial pollution, which statistically overwhelmingly affect low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the introduction of power plant rules would help decrease pollution and improve public health while supporting a
reliable, long-term supply of electricity.
Despite assurances from the EPA that scrapping the Biden-era regulations would not spur higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, several sectoral experts have responded with concerns about the move.
Dr Lisa Patel, the executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the new EPA proposal “yet another in a series of attacks” by the Trump administration on the nation’s “health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.”
Meanwhile, several climate lawyers have said the proposal is unlawful and will likely prompt climate organizations to take legal action. “If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we’ll see them in court,” said Manish Bapna, the president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Others are
concerned that rolling back the rules on power plants could open the door to weakening regulations in other industrial sectors.
Contrary to the EPA pledge to save consumers money, an assessment by the Associated Press showed that EPAtargeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect. Meanwhile, a study published in January suggested that the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by between 73% and 86% by 2040, compared to 2005 levels, greater than the forecast reduction of between 60% to 83% without the rules. Several assessments suggest that even a partial rollback of the rules could lead to more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead.
While many are concerned by the EPA’s recent announcement, any changes to the existing rules on power plants must go
through a federal rulemaking process, which can take several years and is subject to public comment and scientific justification. Nevertheless, any form of repeal of the EPA power plant regulations could result in higher greenhouse gas emissions, which would have a negative knock-on effect on public health and the environment and would undo Biden-era efforts to combat climate change.
About the author: Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specializing in Energy and Industry. She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK, and is now based in Mexico City.
The Trump administration has voiced its support for driving down consumer energy costs, partly by doubling down on fossil fuel output and reducing restrictions on coal, oil, and gas production.
By: Felicity Bradstock
After months of threatening to decrease green energy and cleantech funding and reverse many of the efforts outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) from the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) announced in May that it would terminate 24 projects and cut billions of dollars.
The Announcement
At the end of May, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced the termination of 24 awards issued by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), which totaled more than $3.7 billion in funding. This decision followed a DoE review of each project, which suggested that the projects were not advancing U.S. energy needs successfully enough, were not economically viable, and were not expected to “generate a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”
Almost 70% of the projects that were cut had been signed between the day of the presidential election, on November 5, and January 20 when President Trump took office. The terminated projects were largely focused on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and decarbonization technologies.
“While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment,” stated Wright. “Today, we are acting in the best interest of the American people by cancelling these 24 awards.”
Earlier in May, the DoE published a
Secretarial Memorandum entitled, “Ensuring Responsibility for Financial Assistance,” outlining the agency’s policy for evaluating financial assistance on a case-by-case basis. This review process was used to assess the 24 projects in question.
Congress under the Biden administration had approved tens of billions of dollars to trial novel technologies aimed at advancing the energy transition. The target was to explore carbon-cutting technologies to reduce emissions and encourage the private sector to invest in them. Most of the funds were awarded during Biden’s time in office, and the awards were legally binding but had various conditions attached to them.
A further 179 awards with a combined value of $15 billion, which cover projects such as upgrading electric grids and domestic battery manufacturing, are expected to be assessed in the coming months.
Two of the terminated awards, with a combined value of $540, were earmarked for Calpine, one of the largest U.S. electricity producers, which aimed to incorporate CCS technology into its natural gas power plants in Yuba City in California and Baytown in Texas. Another company that lost its funding - $331 million in total – was ExxonMobil, which was planning to replace natural gas with lower-emissions hydrogen at its chemical facility in Baytown, Texas.
Other cancelled awards included: $500 million to the cement manufacturer Heidelberg Materials to use CCS tech in its Indiana plant, $189 million to Brimstone to reduce emissions in its cement operations, and $170.9 million to the food manufacturer Kraft Heinz to install electric boilers and heat pumps to help shift away from fossil fuels.
While Wright insists that the termination of the awards is aimed at saving taxpayers’ money, many sectoral experts have criticized the move, suggesting that stopping exploration into novel technologies could lead the U.S. to fall behind its competitors.
“Many of these projects involve new ways to make cement or chemicals, and they’re things that China and other countries are already investing in,” stated the senior director of policy at the nonprofit Clean Tomorrow Evan Chapman. “If we’re not making these investments, we’ll be losing the race to develop and demonstrate and deploy these advanced technologies.” Meanwhile, China has announced over 100 energy demonstration projects, Chapman stressed.
Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force, echoed Chapman’s sentiment. Schneider explained, “Today’s action is bad for U.S. competitiveness in the global market and also directly contradictory to the administration’s stated goals of supporting energy production and environmental innovation.” He added that it “undercuts U.S. competitiveness at a time when there is a growing global market for cleaner industrial products and technologies.”
Meanwhile, the executive director of the nonpartisan Carbon Capture Coalition Jessie Stolark said the news “is a major step backwards” for carbon management technologies, which are “crucial to meeting America’s growing demand for affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy.”
Although the White House has pledged to undo many of Biden’s climate policies, several Republican lawmakers have shown support for investment in green energy and cleantech, particularly CCS technologies, which, if incorporated into oil and gas projects, could help garner support for fossil fuels.
Almost 70% of the projects that were cut had been signed between the day of the presidential election, on November 5, and January 20 when President Trump took office.
Further cuts are likely to follow under the new Ensuring Responsibility for Financial Assistance memorandum and following broader government efforts to cut climate funding. Earlier in the year, the Environmental Protection Agency was tasked with taking back $20 billion in climate funding, a move that has led several grantees to file lawsuits in an attempt to recoup the funds. It remains uncertain just how much climate funding will be cut under President Trump.
About the author: Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specializing in Energy and Industry. She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK, and is now based in Mexico City.
By: Jess Henley
While the European green energy ambition may be sprinting ahead, its aging power grid struggles to keep pace with consumer demands. The consequences of the aging system were plainly displayed during one of the most widespread blackouts in recent history near the end of April. Spain and Portugal were plunged into darkness for multiple days, exposing the inherent vulnerabilities of Europe’s energy grid. Despite rapid growth of wind and solar energy farms, the continent’s energy infrastructure remains outdated and outpaced.
The majority of the European Union’s electricity grid was built in the last century without much modernization. With the weight of today’s energy demands, the aging system buckled profoundly in the recent nationwide blackouts. With most of Europe’s transmission lines over 40 years old, the grid was never intended to accommodate the decentralized, variable output of renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, let alone the skyrocketing load from electric vehicles, AI data centers, and mass consumerism.
As evidenced by the power failures in Spain and Portugal, the European grid demands extensive investment to rapidly update the system. Energy leaders estimate that over $2 trillion by 2050 will be required to provide the necessary improvements to keep the lights on.
Renewable energy resources make up nearly 50% of the EU’s energy mix, up from just 34% in 2019. Spain hit a record 56% renewable generation this year and is pressing towards a phase-out of both nuclear power and coal power over the next decade. However, building solar panels is easier and less costly than revamping transmission lines. The necessary grid updates could take more than a decade to accommodate the influx of energy from renewable resources.
As European policymakers push for a lower carbon emission future, they must pay attention to modernizing and stabilizing the European power grid for reliable baseload power. Without the necessary updates and precautionary measures, the Spain and Portugal blackouts may be just the beginning of Europe’s energy troubles.
With most of Europe’s transmission lines over 40 years old, the grid was never intended to accommodate the decentralized, variable output of renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, let alone the skyrocketing load from electric vehicles, AI data centers, and mass consumerism
About the author: Jess Henley began his career in client relations for a large manufacturer in Huntsville, Alabama. With several years of leadership under his belt, Jess made the leap to brand communications with Bizwrite, LLC. As a senior copywriter, Jess crafts compelling marketing and PR content with a particular emphasis on global energy markets and professional services.
By: Robert Rapier
Multiple people recently sent me a story about a supposed water-powered car and asked for comment. The story varies, but one widely shared version on Facebook claimed:
“In a move that will shake up the global auto industry, Toyota has just unveiled a water-powered engine powered by hydrogen created through electrolysis — emitting only water vapor! No lithium. No charging stations. Just pure disruption.”
This is pure nonsense, but I have been hearing similar stories for decades. I believe the first version I ever heard was that a brilliant inventor had invented a car that runs on water, but the oil companies
bought the patent. Or otherwise made the man disappear.
These claims are revived every few years, so let’s clear this up.
Although water can be an energy source, it is not a fuel. Water is actually the combustion product of hydrogen, which is a fuel. Water is produced when hydrogen is burned. Moving water can function as an energy source in some situations. Falling water can produce electricity via hydropower, and ocean water can produce electricity via tidal or wave power.
But water as the power source for a vehicle is nonsense. Consider
the claim above. A “water-powered engine”, which is immediately contradicted by the phrase “powered by hydrogen created through electrolysis.” Is the latter phrase technically viable? Yes, but it misses two issues.
The Claim Doesn’t Hold Water
First, the power source--the fuel--is actually hydrogen. Energy as electricity is being put into the water to split it apart and create the hydrogen (and oxygen). In other words, hydrogen (via electricity) is the power source, but water is a power sink. More importantly, where is the energy coming from to create the electricity for the electrolysis? In this scenario, that would likely have to come from a battery. But such a scenario would be inefficient, because each energy conversion stage involves efficiency losses. That’s basic thermodynamics. Rather than use a battery
to produce hydrogen via electrolysis, which then has to be converted into energy to power a car, it would be far more efficient (and practical) just to use the initial electricity directly without the conversion steps.
So, What Did Toyota Actually Announce?
There’s no question that Toyota has been very active in developing hydrogen vehicles.
The confusion seems to stem from a real announcement by Toyota last year. The company filed a patent for a water-cooled hydrogen combustion engine. That’s a very different thing than a car that runs on water.
In Toyota’s design, the engine runs on hydrogen, not water. The claimed innovation lies in the cooling system. Instead of relying on traditional radiators or air cooling, Toyota’s system injects water directly into the cylinders. This helps control the high combustion temperatures
associated with hydrogen and allows the use of lighter engine materials—ultimately improving efficiency and reducing weight.
But the vehicle still requires external hydrogen refueling. It doesn’t split water into hydrogen onboard, and it’s not powered by water. The term “water engine” in this case refers to the cooling system, not the fuel source.
The recurring claims of a water-powered car make for great clickbait, but they don’t align with the laws of physics. Water doesn’t “release” energy as a fuel. It requires some other energy source to convert it into a fuel.
That doesn’t mean hydrogen-powered vehicles aren’t technically viable. They are, and Toyota has been a pioneer in that space. But hydrogen needs to be produced, stored, and delivered, and every step in that process consumes energy.
So no, Toyota hasn’t built a car that runs on water. They just patented a potentially better way to cool a hydrogen engine. And while that may be good engineering, it’s not the miracle of free energy people envision when they read and share “waterpowered car” stories. The real story is more nuanced—and far more grounded in science. It’s just not as click worthy.
About the author: Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer in the energy industry and Editor-inChief of Shale Magazine. Robert has 25 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, oil production, synthetic fuels, biomass to energy, and alcohol production. He is author of multiple newsletters for Investing Daily and of the book Power Plays. Robert has appeared on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, Business News Network, CBC, and PBS. His energy-themed articles have appeared in numerous media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and The Economist.
By: Felicity Bradstock
The demand for batteries in the United States is expected to continue growing year on year as more people purchase electric and hybrid vehicles and energy companies invest in utilityscale storage to make for a more stable renewable energy supply. However, the recent introduction of sweeping import tariffs by the Trump administration threatens to dampen the growth in the battery market as prices increase and domestic producers struggle in the face of economic uncertainty.
At present, the U.S. imports most of its lithium-ion batteries, with almost 70% coming from China. The U.S. imported $4 billion worth of lithium-ion batteries from China in the first four months of 2024 alone. This is because China dominates the critical minerals and battery production markets. China makes an estimated three-quarters of lithium-ion cells, 80% of the world’s cathode materials, and over 90% of anode materials.
China has developed a world-leading battery manufacturing industry thanks to years of investment in mining for critical minerals, such as lithium, and significant expertise in manufacturing in general. While China ranks ninth in terms of lithium resources, it controls over 60% of global batterygrade lithium refining.
President Trump has repeatedly stated his intention to decrease the U.S. reliance on China, having launched a trade war and imposed substantial tariffs on Chinese goods during his first term in office.
Since returning to office in January, Trump has threatened
higher tariffs on China, going back and forth on just how high they might be. The growing uncertainty surrounding U.S.Chinese trade relations is having a wide range of economic effects, as companies are fearful of investing in battery imports or materials for manufacturing that may later be hit with tariffs.
Virginia-based company Fluence Energy, which buys, packages, and installs energy storage batteries, has reduced its annual revenue forecast by roughly 20%, citing a pause on U.S. projects under existing contracts and an indefinite hold on all pending contracts until there is more certainty on the tariff environment. John Zahurancik, Fluence’s president of the Americas, explained, “It’s not the absolute price that’s so much the issue as it’s the uncertainty around where the price will be.”
By May, Trump’s tariffs on China sent battery costs for U.S. buyers sky-high, after tariffs on Chinese batteries exceeded 150% in April. Several companies have stopped importing cells from China due to the soaring costs. The Trump administration temporarily lowered tariffs on China in mid-May, to 30%, although batteries face additional levies. Nevertheless, the uncertainty surrounding the future of tariffs has shifted the focus towards domestic battery production.
Between 2022 and 2024, U.S. investments in batteries and critical minerals refining increased by at least threefold, with battery manufacturing financing totaling $40.9 billion from quarter two of 2023 through quarter two of 2024. This was largely owing to government policies and incentives, particularly those introduced under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
Since President Trump retook office, he has doubled down on efforts to boost domestic manufacturing across a range of industries, which was a big part of the reason why he introduced tariffs on imports. However, the introduction
of tariffs not only increases the cost of battery imports but also the materials needed to produce batteries domestically – from cells to critical minerals and general-purpose materials like steel and aluminum. The rising costs associated with manufacturing and the uncertain economic outlook are deterring companies from expanding domestic operations.
In addition, Trump has often suggested that he intends to reduce or cut much of the financing set out in the IRA, which he has referred to as the “Green New Scam. Greatest scam in history, probably.” The Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, which has previously provided funding to several battery manufacturers, has scaled back or cut significant quantities of funding in recent months in line with Trump administration demands.
The American Clean Power Association is tracking 25 major projects to build or expand domestic grid-scale energy storage facilities, with 11 already in operation or under construction. Most of the manufacturing capacity at these factories is for battery modules, suggesting that they continue to depend heavily on China for battery cells and other materials.
Ravi Manghani, the senior director of strategic sourcing at data analytics firm Anza Renewables, stated, “The domestic supply chain is unfortunately going to be at the receiving end of the tariff.” Manghani added “A lot of the raw materials that would go into domestic batteries, as well as the manufacturing equipment you need to build these cell factories, are still slated to come from China. We don’t have a lot of alternatives yet.”
This demonstrates just how vulnerable the nascent U.S. battery industry is in the face of uncertain tariffs on key manufacturing components. The introduction of high tariffs on Chinese imports, as well as goods from other countries around the globe, will likely result in a reduction in battery imports over (at least) the next year, as well as a slowdown in domestic battery production.
By: Jess Henley
As Texas faces a potential water shortage crisis, El Paso plans to combat the looming drought as a national leader in advanced water reuse. With the aid of its upcoming Pure Water Center, the Texas town plans to treat wastewater with a sophisticated system, making it potable with pure drinking standards. This would be the first city in the nation to have a complete “tap-to-tap” system without mixing water sources.
The $295 million project is expected to be fully operational by 2028, but will that be soon enough to stave off the looming disaster? As aquifers dry up and a multi-decade drought rages against the Texas water supply, El Paso leads the charge in a race against the clock.
According to El Paso Water, “EPWater meets the challenge of serving our desert city by conserving water resources and diversifying our water supplies. We balance water from the river and two underground aquifers, as well as recycle treated water from our wastewater plants. However, when river water supplies are low, we need additional water resources to meet our customers’ demands.
Purified water is a sustainable, environmentally conscious resource. By producing high-quality drinking water from a renewable source, we increase our resilience when river supplies are low. As our population increases, there will be more wastewater that is treated to purify. Advanced water purification makes sense for a community like El Paso.”
The Pure Water Center has the potential to commence operations as soon as late
Despite its geographical isolation and dry climate, El Paso Water has developed a comprehensive water portfolio that includes water-saving initiatives, aquifer recharge, desalination, and now direct potable water reuse.
The new system will be the first of its kind to distribute purified water straight to the distribution system. However, it’s not without its concerns in the public eye. The Pure Water Center faces a PR problem of helping citizens overcome the “ick” factor of recycled water. But with the new facilities’ economic and sustainable benefits to the water supply, public perception could be a minor concern if it means a continuous stream of purified water to El Paso and the surrounding areas.
About the author: Jess Henley began his career in client relations for a large manufacturer in Huntsville, Alabama. With several years of leadership under his belt, Jess made the leap to brand communications with Bizwrite, LLC. As a senior copywriter, Jess crafts compelling marketing and PR content with a particular emphasis on global energy markets and professional services.
As aquifers dry up and a multidecade drought rages against the Texas water supply, El Paso leads the charge in a race against the clock.
By: Felicity Bradstock
Following several executive orders by U.S. President Donald Trump, aimed at encouraging greater fossil fuel output and reining in the renewable energy industry, other countries around the world are viewing Trump’s presidency as an opportunity for them to overtake the U.S. in the green transition.
The U.K. recently announced plans to woo green energy investors as they seek alternative places to put their money following the introduction of sweeping tariffs by the U.S., as well as President Donald Trump’s attack on green energy. The government is offering cash and infrastructure improvements to companies looking to invest. It also announced plans to bring forward $399.4 million in funding for offshore wind farms. Similar efforts are being seen across the EU.
Meanwhile, in Asia, several countries are working to decrease their reliance on fossil fuels by rapidly ramping up their renewable energy capacity. The Trump administration’s threat of tariffs has spurred greater action across the region, particularly in China, which is already a renewable energy, clean tech, and critical mineral powerhouse.
Early in the year, Asia established its position in the green transition by overtaking Europe and the U.S. in several sectors. Data from the energy think tank Ember showed that several large Asian countries, such as China, India, South Korea, and Japan all decreased their fossil fuel use and increased their clean power output by more than their international peers in the first three months of the year.
While several Asian countries reduced their fossil fuel consumption for electricity in January, the U.S. and Europe both expanded their fossil fuel power generation. South Korea came out on top, reducing its fossil fuel electricity generation by 15% in January compared to the previous
year, largely thanks to increased nuclear energy output. Meanwhile, India achieved a 25% increase in clean energy output this January over January 2024, with near-record production from solar, nuclear, and bioenergy plants.
During this period, U.S. energy consumption increased. While the country’s clean electricity production rose by 6% in January and February, compared to the same period in 2024, there was also an increase in fossil fuel output, including a 20% rise in coal-fired electricity production compared to the previous year.
In March and April, the Trump administration introduced sweeping tariffs across over 180 countries and a wide range of sectors. Trump has been back and forth on these tariffs, as he has since introduced a 90-day pause on certain tariffs while he discusses potential trade deals with several countries. While this has encouraged some countries to consider importing higher levels of U.S. energy products – to strike a better trade deal – most are looking to boost their energy independence to reduce their reliance on external powers.
The Trump administration has announced plans to introduce tariffs on solar panels produced in Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia. Trump has cited “unfair practices” as the reason for the duties. If approved, the measures could see blanket 10% tariffs on most countries, as well as 145% tariffs on Chinese products. This could hit the U.S. hard, as China currently produces around 80% of solar panels globally, and manages 80% of every stage of the manufacturing process.
While this will also have a severe economic impact on manufacturers in Southeast Asia, it could encourage several countries in the region to accelerate their green transition.
Ben McCarron, the managing director at Asia Research and Engagement, said that the tariffs could encourage China to “supercharge
efforts” in regional markets and push for policy and implementation plans to “enable fast adoption of green energy across the region”, driven by its exporters.
The introduction of U.S. tariffs is spurring several Asian solar companies to develop their domestic and regional markets to avoid the heavy financial implications of exporting to the U.S. and EU.
While the Trump administration could have a significant impact on green transition progress in the mid-term, other countries around the globe are continuing with their momentum to achieve ambitious green energy, clean tech, and decarbonization goals.
Alvin Chew, a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
in Singapore, said, “Trump will be U.S. president at most for another four-year term, but the climate change policies of many countries, especially in the [Asia] region, are long-term and stretch beyond 2030.”
Meanwhile, Ajay Shankar, at the New Delhibased think tank The Energy and Resources Institute, stated, “I do not think the other countries will change course in terms of whatever they were doing or are planning to do in terms of action on climate change.”
While the Trump administration’s trade war and anti-renewable energy sentiment could cause short-term disruptions that affect clean energy markets and supply chains, it is unlikely to change the trajectory of other countries worldwide in their pursuit of a green transition. In fact, the U.S. tariffs could drive many Asian countries to develop their domestic and regional markets, as well as strive to achieve energy
independence more rapidly. In addition, a movement away from climate funding could leave a gap that needs to be filled, allowing countries to step in and attract investors to alternative clean energy markets.
About the author: Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specializing in Energy and Industry. She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK, and is now based in Mexico City.
In March and April, the Trump administration introduced sweeping tariffs across over 180 countries and a wide range of sectors.
By: Felicity Bradstock
China has grown to dominate the world’s critical mineral market in recent decades, having expanded the production of various metals and minerals around the world. Now, under President Donald Trump, the United States wants to decrease its reliance on China by mining its own critical minerals supply. Rather than going after traditional onshore reserves, such as the lithium triangle in South America or cobalt in Canada, Trump is looking elsewhere – under the sea. Deep sea mining has been widely talked about, offering the potential to access largely untapped critical mineral supplies at a time when the global demand for these metals and minerals is rapidly increasing. However, several countries have been wary about conducting deep-sea mining due to the largely unknown environmental risk of such activities.
The Global Deep Sea Mining Landscape
In 1994, the autonomous International Seabed Authority (ISA) was established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to oversee and regulate global offshore mining activities. Its aim is to “ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed-related
activities.” All state parties to UNCLOS are ipso facto members of ISA, allowing it to cover 170 member states, including the European Union and the U.S.
The ISA has long restricted deep-sea mining as it works to understand the potential implications of mining activities on marine life and ecosystems. However, there has been growing pressure in recent years to adopt regulations for the commercial extraction of critical minerals, particularly as several countries try to boost the metal and minerals supply needed to support a green transition. There has been a divide in the ISA and member states between those who support mining and those who are more wary.
In 2024, Norway announced plans to open an area of its seabed for exploiting mineral resources, although it made clear that this would not lead to immediate extraction, rather it would allow for a licensing round to commence
commercial exploration. Norway planned to search for and map mineral deposits for potential extraction. The announcement was met with great resistance. However, in December, Norway paused its plan to open up its seabed for commercial-scale deep-sea mining as the country’s Socialist Left Party refused to support the government’s budget unless it scrapped the first licensing round, set for 2025.
On April 24, President Trump signed an executive order approving deep-sea mining operations, aimed at making the U.S. more self-reliant in critical minerals mining. The administration hopes to fast-track the production of metals and minerals, such as nickel, copper, and rare earth elements, from the seabed in U.S. and international waters.
The order states:
Deep sea mining has been widely talked about, offering the potential to access largely untapped critical mineral supplies at a time when the global demand for these metals and minerals is rapidly increasing.
“The United States has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep-sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources. The United States faces unprecedented economic and national security challenges in securing reliable supplies of critical minerals independent of foreign adversary control. Vast offshore seabed areas hold critical minerals and energy resources. These resources are key to strengthening our economy, securing our energy future, and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers for critical minerals.”
The move aims to “counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources and to ensure United States companies are well-positioned to support allies and partners interested in developing seabed minerals responsibly.”
The order seeks to expedite mining permits under the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Act of 1980 and establish a process for issuing permits along the U.S. outer continental shelf. It also seeks to explore seabed mining “in areas beyond national jurisdiction.”
Trump’s decision to fasttrack deep-sea mining has been met with criticism from environmentalists, scientists, and climate experts around the
globe. The secretary-general of the ISA, Leticia Reis de Carvalho, issued a statement critiquing the move. “No state has the right to unilaterally exploit the mineral resources of the area outside the legal framework established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” said Carvalho in the statement. “It is common understanding that this prohibition is binding on all States, including those that have not ratified UNCLOS.”
This includes the U.S., which did not sign the 1982 convention which states that international waters and its resources are “the common heritage of humankind.” Carvalho says that President Trump’s order was ‘a surprising move’ considering the “more than 30 years the U.S. has been a reliable observer and significant contributor to the negotiations of the International Seabed Authority.”
Despite the global rush to increase the supply of critical minerals, member states of the ISA have continued to adhere to international norms on deep-sea mining to protect the marine environment from irreparable damage. Little is known about the potential repercussions of deep-sea mining and the impact it may have on ecosystems, as well as other secondary effects. Several member states are eagerly awaiting international rules on deep-sea mining from the ISA to plan future projects safely. This has caused ISA member states, environmentalists, and a wide range of other concerned parties to condemn Trump’s decision on deep-sea mining.
About the author: Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specializing in Energy and Industry. She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK, and is now based in Mexico City.
Our expanded Ranch Club complex is the perfect paradise for rest, relaxing and recreation. Just steps from Clubhouse Village, it now offers many additional resort-style amenities including four separate swimming pools, Jacuzzi, Ranch Club Grill featuring a wood burning pizza oven, a luxurious open-air pavilion for lounging and seating for up to 300, lighted hard-surface tennis and sport courts, and much more.
To learn more please contact Sean Gioffre at 830-990-7693 / sgioffre@bootranch.com or Andrew Ball at 830-997-6200 / aball@bootranch.com. bootranch.com
