You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Plus, consolidation in carbon removal.

On Wednesday, I covered a major raise in the virtual power plant space — a sector that may finally be ready to make a tangible impact on the grid after decades of theorizing. Beyond that, investors continued to place bets on both fusion and fission, as the Trump administration continues pushing for faster deployment of new nuclear reactors. This week also saw fresh capital flowing to fleet electrification and climate-resilience solutions, two areas that have benefited less, shall we say, from the president’s enthusiasm.
The fusion startup Avalanche Energy raised $29 million to develop its tabletop-sized microreactors and scale its fusion test facility, FusionWERX, in Washington State. Led by RA Capital Management and joined by existing climate tech-focused backers such as Congruent Ventures and Lowercarbon Capital, this funding round follows what CEO Robin Langtry described to me as multiple breakthroughs in stabilizing the company’s fusion plasma and ridding it of impurities such as excess oxygen.
“Now we really have a very straight technical path to get to this Q > 1 fusion machine,” Langtry told me, referring to the point at which a fusion reaction produces more energy than was used to initiate it, often called “scientific breakeven.” Now that the pathway to commercial viability is coming into focus, Avalanche is starting to invest in expensive, longer-lead-time equipment such as superconducting magnets and systems to manage the fusion fuel, which it expects to arrive at the FusionWERX facility in early 2027. At that point, the startup will begin running tests that could achieve breakeven.
Avalanche is pursuing a technical approach called magneto-electrostatic fusion, a lesser-known method that uses strong magnetic and electric fields to accelerate ions into fusion-producing collisions while keeping the plasma contained. The startup aims to commercialize its tech, which Langtry says has numerous defense applications, in the early 2030s. In the meantime, much of the latest funding will go toward scaling the FusionWERX facility, where other fusion entrepreneurs and academics can test their own technologies — offering the startup a nearer-term revenue opportunity.
The Paris-based small modular reactor company Newcleo announced an $88 million growth investment, as existing European investors doubled down and new EU-based industrial backers jumped aboard, bringing its total funding to over $760 million. The startup, which is now eyeing expansion into the U.S., differentiates itself by running its reactors on recycled nuclear waste and cooling them with liquid lead, which is intended to be safer and more efficient than conventional standard water- or sodium-cooled reactors.
The startup is already investing $2 billion in a strategic partnership with the Sam Altman-backed SMR company Oklo to develop the infrastructure needed to produce and reprocess advanced nuclear fuel in the U.S. Newcleo’s CEO, Stefano Buono, told The Wall Street Journal that he expects to benefit from the Trump administration’s push to expedite domestic nuclear development, which he hopes will help Newcleo speed up its own commercialization timeline. Currently the company plans to complete its first commercial units sometime after 2030.
The company also has a number of creative collaborations underway with Italian firms. These include partnerships with the shipbuilder Fincantieri, which is exploring the potential of nuclear-powered vessels, engineering giant Saipem which is looking to develop floating nuclear plants, and the metals equipment company Danieli, which aims to use SMRs for green steel production.
Mitra EV, a commercial vehicle fleet electrification platform, just raised $27 million in a funding round that includes an equity investment from Ultra Capital and a credit facility from the climate-focused investment firm S2G Investments.
The startup focuses on small- and medium-sized businesses, which often face capital constraints and lack a dedicated fleet manager. While the financials of fleet electrification often pencil out for these companies, the real barriers frequently lie in the maze of logistics — acquiring electric vehicles, building charging infrastructure, coordinating with utilities, and navigating a web of incentive programs. Mitra EV aims to streamline all these tasks through a single platform, claiming to offer immediate cost reductions of up to 75%.
The new capital will help Mitra to expand its suite of offerings, which includes EV leasing, overnight charging infrastructure, and access to a network of shared fast-charging hubs designed specifically for fleets. For now the company operates exclusively in California, but it plans to deepen its presence across the state before expanding into additional regions. Other states such as Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, and New York have also adopted zero-emissions fleet mandates, creating ready markets for the company if it continues to grow.
The software startup Forerunner raised $39 million to scale its platform for local governments to manage and mitigate environmental risk. The company’s AI-powered tools help to centralize detailed geospatial data such as land parcels, infrastructure, inspection records, permitting information, hazard zones, and more into a single system, allowing communities to run stronger risk assessments, stay compliant with environmental regulations, and coordinate responses when floods, storms, or other emergencies hit. The startup works with over 190 local and state agencies across 26 U.S. states.
The round includes a $26.3 million Series B led by Wellington Management, alongside a previously unannounced $12.7 million Series A led by Union Square Ventures. Forerunner first gained traction by helping governments manage floodplains, and this new capital will help fuel its expansion into new areas such as infrastructure management, wildfire risk, and code enforcement.
All of this is unfolding as the Trump administration slashes staff at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, even as extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. The result is mounting pressure on state and local governments, who often still rely on fragmented, outdated systems to get a comprehensive view of their communities and the environmental hazards they face.
Carbon removal company Terradot has acquired the assets, intellectual property, projects, and removal contracts of one of its former competitors, Eion. Both are pursuing a method of carbon removal known as “enhanced rock weathering,” which accelerates the natural process by which CO2 in rainwater reacts with silicate rocks, forming a stable bicarbonate that can permanently lock away CO2 when it’s washed out to sea.
While typically this process takes thousands of years, spreading crushed minerals like basalt or olivine on agricultural fields can dramatically accelerate the process — though precise measurement and reporting remains a challenge. Terradot’s early projects have focused on basalt rocks in Brazil, whereas Eion operates in the U.S. doing olivine-based weathering. This deal could signal a forthcoming wave of mergers and acquisitions in the sector, where there’s a plethora of startups vying to commercialize novel methods of permanent carbon removal.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The facility will power OpenAI’s 10-gigawatt data center in Pike County, Ohio.
The Trump administration aims to complete its environmental review of what would be the biggest fossil fuel power project in the country in just a few months, Heatmap has learned.
This news follows Monday’s announcement from OpenAI that it intends to lease a new 10-gigawatt data center under development in Pike County, Ohio, financed by a mixture of money from a SoftBank subsidiary and the chip company Nvidia. This AI hyperscale facility — known as the PORTS-Pike project — is expected to draw power from the largest gas power facility ever built in the United States, a 9.2-gigawatt facility sited on federal lands that would be built and owned by the Energy Department.
According to OpenAI, the data center campus will be built and started up in phases, with the first 800 megawatts starting construction this year and operational in 2028. That first phase will rely mostly on existing power infrastructure operated by AEP Ohio. How things progress from there will depend at least in part on the permitting and construction timelines for the new power plant.
Building large infrastructure of any kind on federal land or with significant federal investment typically triggers a review under the National Environmental Policy Act. I’ve been curious to find out what kind of review this particular project was going to get, especially after the administration allowed a NEPA review for a solar project to be repurposed for a data center on federal lands earlier this year.
Turns out some information about the PORTS-Pike permitting process is public. Before OpenAI confirmed its involvement with the site, the Trump administration added the project to the federal FAST-41 permitting dashboard, where it posts regular updates on the timeline for getting federal sign-offs. Per the lone federal notice available about the PORTS-Pike project, it will include “several data center buildings and power plants.” That will require at least two federal greenlights: an Army Corps of Engineers permit and approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is being consulted about potential endangered bats in the project area.
The NEPA permitting work for this historically large data center-plus-fossil fuel power project began on July 10 and will conclude on December 23, the day before Christmas Eve, according to the Trump administration’s estimates. This comes after paperwork to begin the review was submitted to the Army Corps in May, per the federal notice — a total timeline of about seven months.
Those familiar with NEPA and the debate over permitting reform will likely be surprised by the speed of this review. It’s moving fast in part because the project is receiving just an Environmental Assessment, the lesser and smaller type of analysis than the EIS. I do not know why the government decided to take this route because the government’s NEPA review determination is not currently public, but I have asked the Army Corps to explain this move.
I’m not sure exactly how air permitting will fit into this NEPA review, as the Clean Air Act isn’t listed as a review step on the federal dashboard. The Ohio EPA has primary authority over permitting projects like these under the Clean Air Act, and I’ve reached out to them to confirm whether PORTS has submitted a permitting application. The state agency’s permitting database does not have any information on air permitting for the project, though it does include reports from third-party consultants confirming wetlands and protected species warranted reviews from the Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife.
Lastly, these timetables are not sacrosanct. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, agencies are supposed to complete environmental assessments within one year, but nevertheless they regularly fail to meet them. The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality said in a report to Congress last year that from mid-2023 to mid-2025, the Army Corps was the agency that most often missed these statutory NEPA deadlines for environmental assessments.
Still, news of this speedy review for a priority Trump project is sure to excite pro-data center advocates who see expedited construction as an imperative in the global AI arms race. It’s also guaranteed to put a foul taste in the mouths of environmentalists already frustrated by federal revisions to NEPA regulations they say elide analysis of climate impacts.
What’s undebatable in all this is that, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote, the PORTS project could ignite a new era of mega-gas plants. This permitting timeline couldn’t be more important for the future of the data center boom — and the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary behind the data center project, did not provide comment before publication.
A new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.