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:

An investment boom is exploding in outer space. Investors have thrown their backing behind space-based solar power, orbital data centers, and even extraterrestrial power grids. SpaceX is pursuing an IPO — potentially the largest the world has ever seen — in part to fund its own off-Earth data center ambitions. The Space Foundation reported that the global space economy reached $613 billion in 2024, combining commercial revenue and government funding, while PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the sector could grow to reach $2 trillion by 2040, largely driven by private sector innovation and support.
Different though they may be, these technologies all leverage the vast unknown outside our atmosphere to monitor, manage, and optimize terrestrial energy and climate systems.
This boom comes after roughly a decade of sharply falling launch costs, which has fueled a surge in satellite deployments for telecommunications and remote sensing applications. Together, these shifts have expanded the scope of what’s technically and economically possible in space — and in turn, broadened the range of systems and services needed to make this off-Earth infrastructure work.
“We’ve got over 14,000 satellites in space already, and that’s growing every day. It’s going to triple over the next five, six years,” Jeff Johnson, a general partner at the venture firm B Capital, told me. “And if you look at the other trend that’s happening, the power requirements for what’s going up in space have been growing dramatically and will continue to do so.” As Johnson explained, that’s because we’re asking satellites to do more — and to do it faster — than ever before: deliver high-speed internet globally, extend cell coverage in remote areas, and perform onboard data processing before transmitting imagery and other information down to Earth.
SpaceX, of course, has been the dominant force driving down launch costs while dramatically increasing the scale of satellite deployments with its partially reusable Falcon 9 rockets. More recently, it’s laid out an ambitious plan to put 100 gigawatts of “AI compute satellites” into orbit each year, with launches beginning as soon as 2028. As the company wrote in its S-1 filing ahead of its pending IPO, “we believe orbital AI compute is an incredibly difficult technical challenge that only we can solve at scale in the near term.” It also acknowledged, however, that the effort involves “significant technical complexity, unproven technologies, or technologies that do not exist,” and that ultimately, “such initiatives may not achieve commercial viability.”
It’s a startlingly frank assessment of an industry that holds both great potential and significant uncertainty. Much of SpaceX’s growth strategy — and likely the prospects of numerous other companies looking to launch large infrastructure into space — hinges on the success of its next-generation rocket called Starship. Designed to be fully reusable and much larger than any rocket built before, Starship will be capable of carrying roughly five to six times the volume and over eight times the massas Falcon 9. Throughout its 12 test launches so far, the rocket has seen both success and failures, accumulating mounting delays along the way.
The uncertainty around Starship’s future is one reason Johnson’s firm invested in Star Catcher, a startup that bills itself as “the first power grid in space.” He doesn’t view the startup’s value proposition as dependent on Starship’s success, betting that it can serve as critical infrastructure for satellites already in orbit today — not just for the bigger and better systems that future launch vehicles could enable.
Founded less than two years ago, Star Catcher is developing a laser-based system to beam solar energy to satellites in low Earth orbit, supplying additional power directly to their solar arrays even when they’re in Earth’s shadow. This enables satellites to perform ever more power-intensive operations. It also addresses a fundamental constraint of satellite design: A satellite is only as powerful as the size of its solar array, which must be small enough to fit inside a rocket and also degrades over time.
“The average satellite in the Earth’s orbit has like 1,500 watts of power generation, which is as much as my kids’ gaming computer uses,” Andrew Rush, Star Catcher’s CEO, told me. “But we’re saying that satellite is going to be a cell tower, it’s going to be a data center, and those are multi-kilowatt, tens of kilowatts, hundreds of kilowatts applications. There’s a big disconnect there.”
B Capital led Star Catcher’s oversubscribed $65 million Series A round, which closed earlier this month. The fresh capital will help the company demonstrate its system in orbit and move towards commercialization. Star Catcher plans to launch its own constellation of power node satellites with the sole purpose of harnessing energy from the sun — or, as Rush quipped, “the greatest fusion reactor known to humankind.” Each node will then beam that energy to other power-hungry satellites by directing concentrated, near-infrared laser light at their solar panels. This type of light can deliver far greater power density than diffuse sunlight, providing satellites with a roughly 10-fold increase in power capacity compared to what they would generate alone.
As Rush explained, this then enables both satellite and rocket companies to “shrink the size of the solar arrays, and therefore, shrink the size of the spacecraft — actually make it less complex, less massive, and therefore less costly to field.” Already, he said the startup has signed seven power purchase agreements with satellite companies such as Loft Orbital and Astro Digital, as well as agreements or letters of intent with “almost every orbital data center startup” including Starcloud, which wants to begin offering cloud computing in space by early 2027.
For its part, Star Catcher aims to scale commercially by the end of the decade. Rush argues that just as bringing data processing closer to mobile users on the ground speeds up browsing and streaming, the growth of satellite broadband will create demand for the same infrastructure in space. That means everything from caching streaming content to running AI inference and processing satellite data in orbit, thus reducing the latency involved with routing everything to space and back.
While Star Catcher is focused on providing grid infrastructure for conventional satellites and orbital data centers, another recently funded startup, Cowboy Space, wants to build those data centers itself — and the rockets that will bring them to space. The company was founded in 2024 under the name Aetherflux, with the goal of beaming solar energy from space down to Earth. But with its latest $275 million Series B fundraise earlier this month, the company unveiled both a new name and a new mission.
Modern rocket designs from SpaceX — Cowboy Space’s most formidable competitor — pair a reusable lower section with a disposable upper section that carries satellites into orbit mounted at the rocket’s tip. After that upper section releases the satellite into orbit, the now purposeless component drifts through space, eventually burning up as it reenters Earth’s atmosphere. But Cowboy Space aims to transform what would otherwise be discarded debris into an orbital, 1-megawatt data center, integrating hundreds of Nvidia chips into the rocket’s upper section.
“We started with a blank sheet of paper with a goal of packing as many GPUs as tightly and densely as possible, and getting them to space,” Joseph Yaffe, the startup’s COO, told me over email. “We believe that this is a first-of-its-kind approach — the launch vehicle and the orbital data center designed as a single integrated system from day one.”
He told me that existing launch providers couldn’t offer the launch capacity or flexibility that Cowboy Space needs, and that the economics just wouldn’t pencil unless they did it themselves. Of course that’s an extremely tall order. SpaceX currently dominates the market for private rocket launches, a sector notoriously littered with failures. Only a few other private companies have even managed to make a dent in the space, and they’re still far behind Elon Musk’s industry giant.
Yaffe naturally thinks his company is well-positioned to become the exception, and prominent backers such as Index Ventures, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, and Andreessen Horowitz seem to agree. The startup is targeting the end of 2028 for its first proprietary rocket launch. Eventually, Cowboy Space plans to deliver processing power on par with conventional data centers, with Yaffe explaining that “abundant solar power and radiative cooling in orbit are what make that cost structure achievable.”
It’s true that space-based data centers would not require the same energy- and water-intensive fans, chillers, or cooling towers used on Earth, instead dissipating heat into space via infrared radiation — essentially emitting thermal energy as invisible light. But using today’s technology, power dense satellites can’t radiate heat quickly enough to sustain AI workloads, and how Cowboy Space plans to overcome this remains an open question. Even Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang acknowledged the difficulty, remarking in a recent keynote address at the GPU Technology Conference in San Jose that “we have to figure out how to cool these systems out in space.”
But if Cowboy Space and others can overcome these technical hurdles, there are some clear advantages to putting data centers into orbit. For one, building these energy-hungry behemoths has become a fraught political issue on both sides of the aisle, with local opposition exploding this year. Then there are the familiar constraints of limited power availability and interminably long grid interconnection queues, which are preventing hyperscalers from ramping up their AI efforts as quickly — and cleanly — as they’d like.
“AI demand is growing faster than terrestrial infrastructure can scale,” Yaffe argues. He’s betting that this dynamic will hold even if policy fixes such as permitting reform eventually materialize. “Orbital data centers aren’t a replacement for terrestrial infrastructure. The long-term opportunity is about expanding total compute capacity.”
Likewise, Johnson of B Capital doesn’t see the primary value proposition of orbital data centers as alleviating power or permitting constraints. “The reason why things are moving to space isn’t because we don’t have telecommunications that work right on Earth, it’s because new use cases are getting unlocked that are better,” he told me. “The first time you’re on a plane and use Startlink, you see that. The first time you need to be somewhere that isn’t really served well by Wi-Fi, and you use it, you see that. So there’s use cases that are transformational that can get unlocked by the space economy”
Not everyone is as bullish, however. Luigi Scatteia, the lead of PwC’s global space practice, told me he expects there to be “some form of data relay in orbit.” That might look more like space-based computing networks processing data from Earth observation satellites, as we’re already seeing the beginnings of today. But full-on data centers with the capabilities of terrestrial server farms? Launched from rockets? “I’m just going to say what my professor in university always used to tell us: Anything you do on Earth is always going to be more difficult in space.”
He, too, thinks the real unlock for orbital data centers and beyond would be “if Starship really works as intended,” he told me. “If you really want to do massive things in space — if you want to have a paradigm shift, a Copernican change — you need to drastically raise the capacity and lower the cost to orbit.”
No question these are two incredibly difficult tasks, not just for SpaceX but for the broader ecosystem of emerging space startups betting that private industry can fundamentally reshape the space economy. But according to Rush of Star Catcher, investors are now increasingly willing to take that bet too, in a way they weren’t when he first entered the industry a decade ago.
“Now, there’s the full spectrum of capital available, from seed all the way through IPO and beyond,” Rush told me. And that money is flowing to “really every flavor of space company. And so just by that metric alone, this is the golden age to build in space.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.
The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”
If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.
Two of the busier House members on this issue are Scott Peters, a Democratic former environmental lawyer from San Diego, and Gabe Evans, a first term Colorado Republican representing a suburban and rural district north of Denver that includes wind farms and crude oil production. “The district that I represent truly is an all of the above energy district,” Evans told me.
Their latest effort is a bill aimed at smoothing out permitting for transmission development, especially interregional transmission. Last week, the two congressmen unveiled the CLEAR Act, seeking to apply a stricter set of standards for lawsuits against transmission projects that aligned with how natural gas and hydropower projects are treated under the Federal Power Act (it’s much harder to sue to stop these projects). Earlier this year, the two also sponsored the CERTAIN Act, a more comprehensive streamlining of federal permitting for energy infrastructure projects.
“We’re proud to have a lot of our work as the foundation for this, and I think if they send us over something that includes this, it’s got a really good chance of passing in the House,” Peters told me. Evans added that bringing forward bipartisan bills “gives a little bit more impetus to the Senate to know that the House is looking for these things.”
While the Senate’s deal will be up to the senators, Peters told me he envisions a broad permitting package that could include reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act to shorten permitting timelines, preventing the president from nixing individual projects, and reform Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which effectively devolves power to tribes and states to block a variety of interstate projects. “I think it’s coming together pretty well,” Peters said. “Obviously, we’re waiting for white smoke from the Senate.”
A permitting reform package may be one of the last major bills several bipartisan-minded House members get to vote on.
Election day is about six weeks off, and while Peters will likely have an easy time getting reelected for this eighth term, Evans is in a tough race. His purple-hued district is a target for the House Democratic campaign arm, which is hoping to flip it to former Colorado House of Representatives member Manny Rutinel, who worked as a lawyer at the environmental group Earthjustice. The Cook Political Report rates the race as toss-up, and Nate Silver gives Rutinel a roughly 75% to win.
But Rutinel won’t be getting any campaign help from Peters.
When I asked Peters about the timing of releasing a bill that could boost an endangered Republican’s bipartisan bona fides less than two months before an election, Peters told me that he and Evans had been working on it “for a while,” and that “my colleagues know that I’ve worked with Republicans to get problems solved.”
He said he wasn’t “participating in Gabe’s election” and wasn’t giving any money to his campaign, but also that he wouldn’t campaign Evans’ challenger, despite the opportunity to bolster his own caucus.
Peters is not shy about praising Evans. “What I appreciate about Gabe is that it takes a little bit of initiative to separate yourself from the majority — particularly when you’re in the trifecta — and do your own thing. He’s been a good partner in helping find ways to reduce process and make things go faster,” he told me.
Evans told me that he and Peters met early in this Congress, as Evans was getting settled into his new office in the Longworth building. “We’ve built the relationship over the last two years with a lot of the different areas that we’ve collaborated on.”
“I always try to meet the members of my committee and find out who will work with me. And I was fortunate to find Gabe,” Peters said.
“I do want to win the majority in the next Congress,” Peters went on, but “the norm should be that we figure out ways to work together to solve problems, and, you know, we’ll let the voters of Colorado 8 decide who to send me.”
Evans, for his part, told me that he had to work with Democrats to get anything passed as a member of a minuscule Republican minority in the Colorado statehouse, and that the 40-plus members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have agreed not to campaign against each other. “There’s 385 other members that you can go pick fights with,” he said.
A new analysis by a one-time atomic energy opponent makes a bull case for big reactors.
If you know anything about the cost of nuclear energy in America, you probably are aware that the most recent reactors built — the only two new ones designed, planned, and constructed since the 1990s — were budget busters. Units 3 and 4 of Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Generating Station in eastern Georgia were the first of a new generation of reactor technology ever to be deployed in the U.S. Construction delays, changes to the design, and corporate bankruptcies ultimately sent the price of the pair of Westinghouse AP1000s — the Ford Mustang of American nuclear technology, with safety features that essentially make them not just powerful but also meltdown-proof — to nearly $40 billion, or about $16,350 per kilowatt.
But the U.S. once built reactors for half that — and it did so in the chaotic aftermath of the nation’s worst civilian nuclear accident, when mounting regulations made atomic power construction more onerous than ever before.
That’s the landmark finding of a new report by a veteran nuclear researcher, who quantified and broke down the cost of constructing nearly every civilian atomic power station the U.S. built in the 20th century. Adjusting the dollar figures using the Handy-Whitman Index, a specialized formula for calculating inflation in the utility sector’s construction costs, the analysis — shared exclusively with Heatmap — concluded that 47 reactors built in the U.S. between the 1979 partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant and the turn of the millennium came in at an average of $8,200 per kilowatt.
“Costs are only going to come down from that,” Charles Komanoff, the economist and energy policy analyst whose consultancy conducted the study on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force, told me.
The paper carves out a pathway down the cost curve that runs counter to the industry’s broader consensus at the moment on the best way to make nuclear less of a luxury choice compared to other generating sources. Billions of dollars have flooded into companies promising to commercialize small modular reactors that generate 300 megawatts or less. The concept is a bet on what Komanoff calls the economies of duplication, meaning that if customers need more individual reactors, developers can ride that repetition to lower prices. But the paper suggests that the way developers have historically reduced nuclear costs — through economies of scale — achieves the same per-kilowatt savings with one gigawatt-sized, water-cooled reactor as 20 smaller reactors would net.
Some small and microreactor developers say that using alternative coolants — molten salt, liquid sodium, high-temperature gases such as helium — could further raise the efficiency of their technologies, allowing them to make up for whatever they lose on economies of scale. But large, traditional reactors such as the AP1000 are “a proven technology” that, unlike next-generation reactors with far less operating experience, won’t have to overcome “teething problems” to reach maximum efficiency levels, Komanoff told me.
There are other options to the AP1000, such as the ABWR that the parent companies of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy built in Japan and Taiwan in the 1990s. One was planned for Texas, but abandoned a decade ago amid declining interest in nuclear power post-Fukushima. The technology is approved by the NRC, but GE-Hitachi has since turned its attention to its 300-megawatt BWRX-300. Given that no ABWR was built in the U.S., James Boucher, the former Deloitte nuclear consultant who co-authored the paper, said the AP1000 is the reactor best positioned to replicate the country’s successful buildout of the 1980s.
“We have two AP1000s. They're fully built. They’re operating. They’re doing, as far as I can tell, quite well. And they are like these reactors in our sample,” Boucher told me. “If we wanted to build 20, 30, 50 more AP1000s, I think we’d have a good shot.”
The Nuclear Company, a startup developer that hired much of the team behind the Vogtle buildout in a bid to become the go-to project manager for future AP1000s, called Komanoff’s report “promising because it demonstrates how cost can come down when we don’t focus on building first-of-a-kind projects.”
“There was a 30% overnight capital cost reduction just moving from Unit 3 to Unit 4 on the Vogtle project — there is no reason we can’t continue down the learning curve on the next AP1000s built in this country,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer and president, told me after reviewing the report I sent him. “Especially with our mix of experience building these reactors and advancements in technology we’re leveraging to scale, achieving below $10,000 per kilowatt is just the beginning for us. We believe we can execute safer, faster, and at lower cost than we’ve achieved in the past.”
Back in the 1980s, the military-like regimentation common at nuclear plants and construction sites wasn’t yet as ingrained in the industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had replaced the Atomic Energy Commission, which was seen as too deferential to the companies it oversaw, and spent the decade tightening rules on constructing and operating nuclear plants. New accident scenarios were being discovered, requiring new plants and existing ones up for relicensing to change operating protocols, upgrade equipment, and conduct additional research.
Komanoff was among those pushing for the changes. In reports he authored on behalf of Greenpeace, an arch opponent of nuclear power, he dissected the fiscal woes atomic energy developers faced, making the economic case for shutting down electrical stations that his fellow activists battled on ecological or moral grounds. Eventually, Komanoff moved on to advocating for a carbon tax as the fairest and clearest way to guide the economy away from fossil fuels and toward decarbonization. While serving as director of the Carbon Tax Center, which he co-founded, he noticed a trend among nuclear plants: They were getting better at operating.
The regulatory changes that followed Three Mile Island succeeded in raising the operating efficiencies of nuclear plants. In the 1970s, reactors had a capacity factor — a measure of how frequently a generating source actually produces electricity — of about 50%. Yet by 1991, that number had risen to 70%, putting atomic energy on par with the most efficient fossil fuel and hydroelectric plants. In 2002, that national average hit 90%. In 2019, it rose to 94%. When the final reactor at Indian Point, the nuclear station that served Komanoff’s native New York City, closed in 2021 due to political opposition to its relicensing, it had just set a world record for an uninterrupted 753-day run of electricity production.
Gradually, Komanoff came to see nuclear power as a vital tool for decarbonization. But, ensconced in the climate movement through his carbon tax advocacy, he found it easier to stay mum on his conversion, lest he ruffle the feathers of fellow activists who remained stalwart anti-nuclearists. After all, he thought, if a carbon tax passes, nuclear plants will benefit, so why bother speaking up specifically for atomic energy? Indian Point’s early shutdown, however, caused Komanoff pangs of regret.
“It just forced me to confront the consequences of not advocating for nuclear power,” he said. “I felt the way I imagined I would feel if a climbing partner — I used to be a sort of mountaineer — had died because of some negligence on my part. I really took personal responsibility because I imagined that — and maybe I’m just in a complete fantasy about my shamanistic power — as someone who had argued 40 years ago for shutting Indian Point, that if I had gone public say ‘Don’t do it,’ that I might have been able to begin turning the tide.”
While $8,200 per kilowatt is half of what Vogtle cost, it’s still nearly four times the cost of building a new natural gas-burning power plant with combined-cycle turbines, which itself rose to $2,157 per kilowatt last year from less than $1,500 in 2023. But the “regulatory churn” that kept the price of nuclear high, Komanoff said, is unlikely to return for new nuclear plants using proven designs such as the AP1000.
“Part of my optimism about nuclear being less subject to regulatory churn going forward is because it’s not a whipping boy,” he said. “It’s really hard to overstate the aura of incompetence that surrounded the nuclear power sector in the United States in the ‘70s into the ‘80s. But when you’ve got plants that are averaging 90% or higher capacity factors, things change.”
Current conditions: Oman’s Ayn Athum Waterfalls burst to life this week as rain battered the Gulf nation’s southwestern Dhofar governorate • Severe monsoon flooding has deluged parts of the American Southwest, including Navajo Nation, where at least three people have died • Tropical Storm Dujuan is barreling toward Japan, where it threatens flooding and landslides in Tokyo and Chiba.
When the Houthis stormed Yemen’s Red Sea coast last week, the Iran-backed rebels gained new ground from which to attack boats passing through the vital shipping lane, extending Tehran’s reach from the Persian Gulf’s hotly contested Strait of Hormuz to the waterway on the opposite side of the Arabian peninsula. In response, oil prices surged. But the price per barrel of crude is slipping again as the United States has rebuked Saudi Arabia’s requests for help routing the militants, instead seeking a deal that keeps the Bab al-Mandab Strait open to American and Israeli ships. Over the weekend, U.S. diplomats met with Houthi officials in neutral Oman, Reuters reported. Following the talks, the Times of Israel reported that Houthis promised not to attack any Israeli or commercial ships of any kind, only those linked to Saudi Arabia, which has funded the Yemeni government’s campaign against the rebels.
Satellite images published by the investigative site Hunterbrook showed workers building a bypass on Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, its main conduit for circumventing oil exports around the Strait of Hormuz, to get around the pumping station damaged by a Houthi attack. But the promise of free movement through the Red Sea sent the price of oil down by between 1% and 4% on Thursday.
Just yesterday, I told you that the Trump administration had moved to drastically change how the government interprets the Endangered Species Act to only consider deaths of protected animals illegal if the creatures were intentionally targeted. Such a shift would exclude the vast majority of deaths linked to energy companies, such as when birds land in toxic oil ponds or collide with wind turbines. Whether federal enforcement ultimately reflects that interpretation depends on the outcome of a forthcoming lawsuit. Already, Earthjustice has vowed to file litigation challenging the Trump administration’s legal memo directing federal agencies on its new view of the nation’s bedrock conservation law. “The government’s new legal position is a prescription for extinction. It says that as long as you claim you didn’t mean to kill an endangered species, the law can’t and won’t stop you,” Earthjustice attorney Ben Levitan said in a press release. “That’s ridiculous — and a totally illegal, active misreading of the Endangered Species Act. We’ll see the Trump administration in court about this.”
The toll wind turbines take on migratory birds is a favorite talking point of the energy source’s opponents. But relief from the responsibility to avoid killing birds would be cold comfort to the wind industry as developers wait for the Trump administration to follow a court ruling requiring it to continue processing applications for turbines. As my colleague Jael Holzman wrote yesterday, the administration has continued delaying. At least one other legal fight within the offshore wind industry has, meanwhile, come to a conclusion. Vineyard Wind and its turbine supplier GE Vernova, announced an “amicable settlement” this week that resolves “all outstanding litigation,” the New Bedford Light reported. The developer sued the supplier in April, accusing GE Vernova of an $800 million breach of contract following a blade failure in 2024.

The U.S. needs more long-term energy storage, and few technologies are better tested by time than using excess electricity to pump water into a reservoir, where it can be released downhill and run through turbines to generate huge bursts of power when it’s needed. Back when the U.S. had lots of nuclear power, pumped hydro plants harvested the unused electrons during the night. With solar now producing more electricity during the day in some parts of the country than the grid demands, pumped hydro is seeing a potential renewal. But the U.S. hasn’t built any pumped hydro facilities since the 1990s. A project that looked likely to break that dry spell is now on pause as the Trump administration heeds opponents’ concerns and orders a new study on its environmental impact.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has delayed its decision on whether to license the $3 billion project to add a pumped hydro facility to the Seminoe Reservoir, a lightning bolt-shaped waterway in southern Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management said it will conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement and open the door to more public comments and input from local officials. “This feels like a small victory,” CiCi Oliver, a fly-fishing shop owner who opposed the project over its potential disruptions to the ecology of the reservoir, told WyoFile this week.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
At the start of the Iran War, some interpreters of President Donald Trump’s supposed four-dimensional geopolitical chess moves suggested that shutting down the Strait of Hormuz was an intentional move to show China’s vulnerable underbelly: Beijing’s dependence on oil imports. And yet, China’s vast oil stockpiles and refining capacity, plus its array of alternative energy sources, allowed the country to slash oil purchases by 23% in the first six months of the war compared to the same period last year, according to a New York Times analysis of customs data. “This is a power that nobody thought China had,” said Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “Going forward, it’s going to be really interesting to see: What does China do with this newfound power?” The heaviest answer to that question now weighing on Western officials involves China considering the ramifications of a potential invasion of Taiwan to be less worrying than before.
That’s especially true because Taiwan, by contrast, is more vulnerable to losing access to oil and gas imports than ever before. After completing its decades-long mission last year to shut down the nuclear fleet that powered the island’s 20th century transformation into the world’s premiere chipmaker, Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party — which advocates for the republic’s continued de facto independence — left the nation dependent on imported liquified natural gas and crude for the vast majority of its energy. Now, according to Nikkei, the government is hastening its efforts to potentially bring at least one nuclear station back online.
Yet another state is considering a moratorium on data centers — one close to the epicenter of the artificial intelligence boom. Maryland, which shares a grid and a border with northern Virginia’s data center megacluster, could see a ban come into effect as early as next year if state legislators pass a bill in the next session. Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, said he “will absolutely sign” a statewide ban “if it’s coming from local legislators.” Speaking to Punchbowl News, he suggested that any moratorium would come with loopholes for projects that meet high standards. “I believe local jurisdictions should have a say. There are certain local jurisdictions who want it,” he said. “I just need them to understand I have very strict guidelines for what is actually going to get state approval.”
A startup founded by members of the team of U.S. government scientists that first achieved net-energy gain from a fusion reaction has hit a new milestone that should raise the eyebrows of even skeptics of the so-called holy grail of clean power. Less than two months after publicizing its roadmap to commercial fusion, Inertia Enterprises ran a simulation demonstrating that its first commercial plant will be capable of producing 25 times more energy than the laser needed to trigger the reaction, the company told my colleague Katie Brigham in an exclusive.