The history of energy transitions is typically told through stories about the production of new energy sources. Tales of wildcatting oilmen striking gushers, prospectors unearthing new fossil fuel deposits, and eccentric inventors pioneering the electrical industry pervade the literature. The transport of energy, by contrast, has received far less attention. It has generally been assumed that if abundant supplies can be located, it is a relatively straightforward matter to build the systems necessary to ship this energy to consumers. Transport systems, implicitly, have often been treated as passive conduits between producers and consumers. 1 This view is too narrow. Transport infrastructure systems have been far more important drivers of energy transitions than has generally been appreciated. My research into the rising using of coal, oil and electricity in the American mid-Atlantic region (Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey) between 1820 and 1930 demonstrates that canals, pipelines and wires both stimulated and sustained new energy practices. 2 These infrastructure networks created what I call landscapes of intensification: material transformations of the natural environment that unlocked a world of ever-increasing energy flows delivered at ever-decreasing prices. If we want to understand the causes and consequences of energy transitions, we have to pay greater attention to transport.

The importance of transport networks to America's first energy transitions begins with geography. As has been the case in many parts of the world, most of the region's energy sources were found in rural and remote regions far removed from centers of population and capital (Figure 1). This presented the mid-Atlantic's energy boosters with a choice. One option involved moving people and enterprises to these rural sites of energy abundance. This approach had long precedent: Americans had already established numerous iron plantations in rural regions and created mill towns such as Lowell at promising water power sites. The other option entailed moving the energetic abundance of remote areas to urban centers. This approach held great appeal because cities offered advantageous concentrations of workers, capital and consumers. But the materiality of energy sources impaired these dreams. Moving bulky and heavy substances such as coal and oil or non-storable products like electricity long distances was in many ways as challenging as mining coal, drilling oil and generating electricity. It