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 exclusive interview with Senator Martin Heinrich on SunZia, the largest renewables project in U.S. history, which is now — finally — fully operational.

The largest renewable electricity project in American history is open for business.
After almost exactly 20 years of development, permitting, and construction, the SunZia Wind and Transmission Project became officially operational on Thursday afternoon, according to its developer, Pattern Energy.
The project, which built an enormous 3.6-gigawatt wind farm in New Mexico and a 550-mile high-voltage power line that crosses into Arizona, is capable of generating and delivering more electricity than the Hoover Dam. Its lengthy development and approval process made it an emblem of the country’s struggle to build new, large-scale power lines and virtually every other type of zero-carbon energy infrastructure.
“We proved that America can still build big things, and I think that’s really important,” Senator Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, told me on Thursday.
SunZia is now the seventh largest power plant in the United States. At peak capacity, it will power more than a million homes, according to Pattern’s estimates. The facility will fund more than $1.3 billion in direct payments to local governments, schools, and landowners over the next few decades, the developer said in a statement. More than half of the project’s electricity will be delivered to and used by southern California. (Analysts realized SunZia was nearing completion when gigawatts of wind power started appearing in the state’s energy data in May.)
So what took so long to get it done? The closer you look at SunZia, the more it seems to tell you about the promise — and pitfalls — of building more clean energy in America. The project began in 2006, when a group of utilities, developers, and governments across the Southwest realized that Arizona’s booming cities could draw cheap renewable power from New Mexico’s arid plains. The project applied for federal permits in 2008, and planned to start construction in 2013.

Yet due to a lengthy permitting and siting battle, construction did not begin until 2023. Two years ago, I detailed that saga in a feature for Heatmap, where I drove out to the remote Arizona valley where the line proved most contentious. That reporting also revealed how important Heinrich, the Democratic senator, had been to getting the power line built. When local environmentalists feared the transmission line’s towers would hurt sandhill cranes in a rare high-desert habitat in New Mexico, Heinrich intervened and brokered a new route. He also helped negotiate new technological improvements to the line to avoid the birds.
I later wrote up my three takeaways from the SunZia investigation. Among them: A better relationship between conservationists and clean energy developers is possible — but someone has to facilitate it. SunZia only ran through the tape because Heinrich had credibility with environmentalists and clean energy developers.
Heinrich is now important to an even bigger energy endeavor. As the Democratic ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he is conducting negotiations with Republicans over a permitting reform package that could change how the federal government studies and approves new large-scale infrastructure. To commemorate the official opening of SunZia, I caught up with the senator by phone on Thursday to discuss the project’s long history, what he learned, and what it all means for permitting reform.
Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.
SunZia opens today. It’s very exciting. It’s been in the works for a long time. What are you reflecting on at this moment, and what did you feel like you learned from the process?
I think we proved America can still build big things, and I think that’s really important. But we also learned a lot of lessons along the way for how to do that. Those are going to be really important to bake into permitting reform, and they’re going to be important as best practices for other developers who want to take on these big infrastructure projects.
What are some of those lessons?
Well, for one, start by listening and engaging with the community very early in the process. Don’t come with some completely baked idea and expect people to, you know, welcome you with open arms. Go out into the community and listen — there’s just no substitute for it. And if you can do it, the earlier you can do that in the process, the better your prospects for getting to a good outcome.
I do think you need political leadership that’s willing to make hard decisions. You can’t build things without with zero level of conflict, but you can — with leadership — build big things and put them in the right places. There was an unwillingness, when I first started working on this project, for people to expend any amount of political capital to get it done, and I didn’t feel that was acceptable. There was just too much upside to having 3.5 gigawatts of clean generation, and all of the jobs and investment, $20 billion worth, that come with that.
One interesting aspect of this case is what happened with Audubon Southwest and the Pentagon with the river crossing, where the initial plan that [SunZia’s developer] put forward wasn’t acceptable. And ultimately you helped broker a deal. One lesson I took away from that was that, boy, it’s helpful to have someone with credibility in the local community or politics to help put a deal together, but that’s obviously not the case everywhere. There’s not a Martin Heinrich to negotiate every power line. What do you think are the lessons from this experience that scale — because while community leadership is very important, you’re not always going to be able to find a political leader who can broker an agreement everyone will find acceptable?
No, and I take your point very well, but I do think there ought to be a leader in the White House who has a dashboard of big, nationally important infrastructure projects, who understands the issues in those projects, and can make sure that the federal family of agencies are working constructively to get to the right outcome. You can have these situations where literally one staff person in one agency can bring down an entire project. And so to the extent that you can institutionalize clear federal agency leadership, with support from the administration — I mean, I worked this thing through multiple administrations, but towards the end, with folks like [Biden-era national climate adviser] Ali Zaidi in the White House, to just make sure that the federal agencies were not lowering the bar for their standards, but that they were also working constructively.
You’re now negotiating permitting reform on the Energy and Natural Resources committee. Transmission is obviously a huge part of what an ideal package would look like. What do you think SunZia’s lessons are for a broader permitting reform effort?
To the extent that you can make sure that there are benefits across the entirety of linear infrastructure and transmission lines — that those benefits are not relegated to just where the generation is and and where the consumption is — that’s an important lesson. There are a lot of counties along the way, and there are a lot of private landowners who, if it’s in their interest, actually become cheerleaders for the project. Also, going back to early engagement, you don’t want to learn that there’s some fatal flaw in your route five years into a project. You want to figure out where the trip wires are early, and that’s why you have to engage conservation groups and historical preservation officers and those sorts of interests. Because if you’re doing your job right, you’re avoiding the kind of impacts that can stall a project.
What’s your assessment of how likely there is to be a permitting reform deal this year? We’ve heard, I think, mixed signals from Congress, but I also think that there’s some sense that if it were ever to happen, it would need to happen during this term, and probably come together over the next few months and solidify in the lame duck.
We’re still very much at the table, and so I’m not going to say it’s going to be easy, but we’re working hard to try and get to yes.
What is essential to getting a deal done?
The recipe for success in the Senate is to have a balanced bipartisan proposal. There are going to be things that are important to Republicans, in order to get to certainty for projects that are important to them. For me, transmission is an incredibly important piece of these negotiations. We have to make sure that it’s an effectively balanced package — that’s how you get to 65, 70 votes.
With SunZia out of the way, are there any other transmission projects or big projects you’d like to see come online?
We’re constantly engaged in the transmission conversation in New Mexico because there are both smaller regional lines that we’ve worked through and have gotten some things built, and then there are also additional interregional lines that are being explored. If you can get to a place like we did on SunZia — it wasn’t always this way, but today the breadth of community and political support for Sun Zia is very broad.
That’s been striking to me about SunZia. I’m in New York, and we just opened a big new transmission line down the Hudson. It’s great. It’s going to supply New York with 20% hydro power. And it’s funny because SunZia and the Champlain Hudson Power Express were contested projects when they were getting built, but now that they’re open, people are very supportive of them. What do you think is the lesson there for other lines?
It’s part process. When you do a good job on the process, you build more and more support over time, as people start to see the actual economic benefits in particular. So for a landowner in central New Mexico who has two or three turbines on their family ranch, the lease fees can be the difference between profitability and unprofitability. The [union] jobs of actually putting up the towers, and the generation and construction jobs — when those benefits become real, and the scary idea you might have had doesn’t necessarily manifest itself, it changes the equation. And so over time, if you’re doing this well, more and more accrues on the positive side of the ledger and less and less on the negative side.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
OpenAI’s new Ohio data center will rely on the country’s largest fossil-fueled power plant — which will be built on federal land.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
This morning, OpenAI announced that it is leasing an enormous data center facility that will be built in Pike County, Ohio. The facility’s ownership structure will be arcane, to say the least: It will be built on federal land, operated by a subsidiary of the Japanese firm SoftBank, and partially backstopped by the chip designer Nvidia. The project is the most significant example so far of the increasingly creative off-book financing that’s now driving the artificial intelligence boom.
For our purposes, though, what sticks out about the facility is not its financing per se but the scale of its energy demand. The supercomputer will consume 10 gigawatts of electricity, or roughly as much power as New York City demands on a summer day.
To supply this energy, the Energy Department will build and own … a 9.2-gigawatt natural-gas-burning power plant on-site. It will be financed by the Japanese government and operated by SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary. Although this power plant was announced back in March as part of President Donald Trump’s trade deal with Japan, it wasn’t as clear then whether it would actually get built. Nvidia’s involvement raises the odds that it will reach completion. (In any case, it will get built in stages.)
There are several notable things about this extraordinary — and enormous — power plant, assuming that it does get built. Upon completion, it would rank as the largest power plant in the United States, nearly 40% larger than the Grand Coulee Dam. It would also become one of the largest natural gas power plants in the world, rivaling the Jebel Ali Power and Desalination Plant in Dubai. The scale of natural gas throughput required to feed the plant will resemble that required for a large liquified natural gas export facility; simply feeding the plant everyday could eat up a sizable chunk of, say, Ohio’s overall natural gas production.
There’s much we still don’t know about this power plant as well, including what kind of turbine it will use. That question will play a big role in its overall greenhouse emissions and air pollution footprint — although no matter what it will become a major polluter.
It will inaugurate, as well, a new era of national mega-gas plants. We learned earlier this month, for instance, that Amazon is behind a 7.65-gigawatt gas-burning facility being built in Texas dubbed Gigawatt Ranch. That enormous plant, if built, will also outrank the Grand Coulee Dam. (The market research company Cleanview first reported Amazon’s involvement in the facility.) The data center developer Nexus has proposed a 6-gigawatt gas-burning facility near Hubbard, Texas, as well — another enormous power plant. Since the beginning of the fracking boom, natural gas has been distinguished in part by its highly modular nature: For both regulatory and technical reasons, it’s been possible to erect a gas-burning power plant in a variety of sizes in a variety of places on the grid. The rise of these newly behemoth gas-burning facilities suggests that we might be in a new era of truly behemoth gas development.
And what makes the Ohio facility different from the Texas examples, too, is that it's going to be owned by the U.S. government. It's essentially going to be a public natural gas-burning power plant. That has interesting implications for climate and energy policy, because the government’s involvement could bring it under the auspices of future federal regulation — or even executive authority. While its continued operation will likely be protected by two-way federal contracts with Nvidia, SB Energy, and other counterparties, the Trump administration has already stretched the bounds of contract law to allow for, let’s say, entrepreneurial federal policy making on its chosen issues. AI is not exactly popular as is. In a different political moment, with a different mandate, how might a future Democratic president look at this site?
Here’s where things stand after some major recent decisions.
Trump started his second term in office with a sweeping federal funding freeze that invited a spate of lawsuits all raising the same general question: Can the president refuse to spend the money Congress appropriates?
When it came to climate programs, the funds at stake included billions of dollars lawmakers had set aside for clean energy, green banks, scientific research, technological development, conservation, and environmental justice projects in the Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.
The legal landscape has evolved significantly since this all started. Although several courts issued injunctions on the funding freeze almost immediately after it went into effect, the administration quickly moved on to terminating grants instead. Also, a lot of the IRA money that was initially caught up in the freeze is now gone, rescinded by Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025.
Still, a significant chunk — more than $90 billion — was formally awarded before OBBBA took effect and remains in jeopardy. A few recent court decisions, however, suggest that some grantees may be able to see their projects through.
Here’s a guide to the current state of play.
There are generally four categories of lawsuits over the climate grants.
First are the suits challenging the legality of Trump’s freeze on IRA and infrastructure law funding, which he laid out in his Day 1 executive order “Unleashing American Energy.” In Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA, for example, several nonprofits allege that the administration overstepped its statutory authority and acted contrary to the laws that Congress passed when agencies froze funds. In April of last year, a district court judge put a preliminary injunction on the freeze while the case played out, and the plaintiffs started receiving money again.
Second, there are a number of suits fighting the agencies’ elimination of specific programs. In Harris County v. EPA, to name one, the Texas county is suing the Environmental Protection Agency for terminating Solar for All, a $7 billion IRA program designed to fund solar projects in low-income communities. Harris County argues that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedures Act, and that it also violates the constitution’s separation of powers, which gives Congress the power of the purse.
Third, there are a few suits challenging the cancellation of individual grants. In City of Saint Paul, Minnesota v. Wright, for instance, the city and several other groups challenged the Department of Energy’s move to cancel more than 300 grants in blue states on the first day of a government shutdown last October. Each of the grants had an address on file with the government that was in a state that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Saint Paul and the other plaintiffs argued that the cancellations violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
Each of the cases I’ve described so far challenges Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds, and is playing out in district and appeals courts. The last category is notably different.
More recently, a number of grantees whose funding was terminated have filed lawsuits against the government in the Court of Federal Claims. These suits allege violations of the terms of the individual grant contracts, which lay out the specific circumstances under which the government can cancel an award. The key difference in these cases is that they can only result in monetary damages — the Court of Federal Claims cannot compel an agency to reinstate a grant, or weigh in on the president’s right to eliminate congressionally-mandated programs.
In Sublime Systems Inc. v. United States, for example, the clean cement company is claiming “billions of dollars in damages” in lost income, lost funding, and lost company value. The Energy Department canceled Sublime’s $87 million grant to build a first-of-a-kind cement plant last year, notifying the company that it no longer “effectuates the program/agency priorities” with no further explanation as to what had changed and why.
Perhaps the most consequential question in many of the cases is who has jurisdiction. In the district court cases, one of the government’s main arguments is that these suits are, in essence, contract disputes, and therefore belong in the Court of Federal Claims.
To date, a number of courts have weighed in on this question with mixed opinions. Most notably, the Supreme Court issued orders in two cases involving education and health grants saying that the district courts likely lacked jurisdiction to reinstate canceled grants.
These were emergency orders to provide temporary relief — a channel legal scholars refer to as the Court’s “shadow docket” — and do not carry the same legal significance as a decision on the merits of the underlying cases would. Still, some district courts have cited these orders in their judgments, concluding that allegations by grantees are contractual in nature and belong in the Court of Federal Claims. Other district courts have disregarded the Supreme Court orders and approved grantees’ requests for injunctions on the terminations. In some of those cases, however, appeals courts have later disagreed.
An important ruling on this question came in early August in the case of Climate United v. EPA. The suit involves a group of nonprofits fighting to reinstate their grants under the IRA’s $20 billion green bank program. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction on the EPA’s termination of the program, cracking open the door for money to start flowing again. The appeals court’s order was short, but it notably did not raise any issue with the district court hearing the case.
The Trump administration signaled that it planned to appeal the Climate United decision to the Supreme Court. If the high court holds a full merit hearing on the case and decides it’s a contract dispute, that could not only shut down the Climate United case, but also many of the other lawsuits, and send hundreds of grantees running to the Court of Federal Claims.
Many of the cases became more complicated after the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law explicitly rescinded “unobligated funds” from Inflation Reduction Act programs, referring to funds that hadn’t yet been formally awarded.
The plaintiffs in the grant cases argue that because their funds were obligated prior to the OBBBA, the new law shouldn’t change anything. The Trump administration, however, has argued that since it moved to terminate the grants prior to OBBBA, they were no longer technically obligated when that law passed, and therefore the lawsuits challenging the terminations are moot.
In at least one case, The Sustainability Institute v. Trump, the district court judge rejected that argument, deeming it “without merit” in a June 2026 order and ordering the EPA to pay out the funds. The lawsuit concerns the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants, a $2.8 million program supporting air quality monitoring, climate adaptation, and pollution reduction. The government is appealing the decision.
In other lawsuits over grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the situation is even more convoluted. Congress set aside $27 billion in the IRA for grants and loans for projects that reduce emissions, and to establish green banks that would do the same — these are the programs at stake in the Climate United and Harris County cases. OBBBA did not just rescind unobligated funds from this program, it also repealed the underlying statute establishing it.
Romany Webb, the deputy director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told me this complicates the arguments alleging violations of the constitution. “If you’re arguing that EPA dismantled a congressionally-approved program in violation of the separation of powers, and then afterwards Congress moves to dismantle that program, can you still make that same argument?”
In early August’s Climate United ruling, the appeals court split on what it all meant. Four of the 10 judges questioned whether the injunction on the EPA’s terminations was still warranted since, per their understanding, the repeal of the program gave the agency the ability to terminate the grants without violating the IRA. One judge, while disagreeing with that read, questioned whether EPA could be ordered to reinstate the grants, since the agency no longer had any funding to administer the program.
“There’s lots of questions about the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, both in terms of the substance of the arguments, and then if those arguments are accepted, the remedy that the court can provide,” Webb said.
At least 10 cases are currently pending in the Court of Federal Claims that hinge on the question of whether a clause in the grant contracts that allows agencies to terminate an award if it “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities” gives the government cover for canceling awards with no notice or explanation.
There’s actually a separate district court fight going on over this very language on constitutional grounds. A group of 22 states, led by New Jersey, is suing the government, alleging that this language, which is standard in government funding contracts, does not give the administration permission to change its priorities on a whim. They argue that it’s intended to govern situations where the grant can no longer achieve the original program goals and agency priorities, not where the agency priorities change. In early July, the court issued an order agreeing with that interpretation. The government still has time to appeal, so it’s too soon to say how this will affect the Federal Claims court cases.
There is one set of cases where the plaintiffs have been undoubtedly successful. In the Saint Paul case I mentioned earlier, seven plaintiffs had been awarded grants by the Department of Energy for various kinds of projects — EV charging stations, methane mitigation, energy efficiency. The government’s lawyers freely admitted that the agency canceled these grants primarily because they were awarded to entities in blue states. The judge ruled that this did, in fact, violate the Fifth Amendment. She vacated the terminations in January.
After that win, another group of 11 grantees in the same situation — their grants were terminated as part of the same attack on blue states — filed suit in the same court, and the same judge vacated their terminations in June. The government has not appealed either decision. Since hundreds of other grantees could make the same discrimination argument, there may be more of these cases on the way.
Current conditions: Floodwaters swept through eastern Iowa, swelling the White River to its highest level in 113 years • A southwest monsoon, or hagabat, has capped off several weeks of storms in the Philippines that, combined, killed nearly two dozen people • Temperatures in Madrid are lingering near 100 degrees Fahrenheit until midweek, when the Spanish capital will cool off into the high 80s; the Greek capital of Athens, meanwhile, is bracing for the exact reverse.
Tropical storms almost never hit the Hawaiian islands directly. The last time a tropical system struck the archipelago was in 2018, when Tropical Storm Olivia made landfall over Maui. It was, per CTV News, the first time a storm had come ashore like that since records began in the 1950s. The last full-blown hurricane to strike the state was in 1992, when Category 4 Iniki landed on Kauai, the chain’s northernmost island, as the strongest storm on record to hit the state. But the Big Island hadn’t seen a major storm make landfall since 1900. So Tropical Storm Lala, by some measures a Category 1 hurricane, left a mark. Nearly 200,000 homes and businesses — representing roughly 70% of the Big Island — remained without electricity on Sunday night as winds of up to 75 miles per hour and floodwaters hammered the state’s infrastructure. “Customers should prepare for extended outages lasting weeks or even months in the hardest hit rural areas of Hawaii island,” Hawaiian Electric, the utility that serves 95% of the state, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
“It doesn’t matter how many poles we fix in your neighborhood, they’re not going to be getting any power,” Jim Kelly, a spokesman for the utility, told Honolulu Civil Beat. “So we’ve got to focus on restoring those transmission lines first.”
Georgia has over the past decade emerged as a hotbed for cutting-edge industry in the United States. The state welcomed battery factories, solar manufacturers, and the nation’s only wholly new nuclear reactors in decades. But regulators are now cracking down on data centers. Last week, Georgia Power opted to delay the start date for a 25-year service contract to supply the ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s $20 billion data center near the state’s coast with electricity. The voluntary delay, E&E News reported, gives the utility 12 days to revise its proposal before the Public Service Commission, which had signaled its plans to reject the original pitch amid a groundswell of opposition to artificial intelligence infrastructure. The new deadline to review and approve the proposal is August 26.
The postponement comes about a week after West Virginia attempted to “clean slate” with a new set of proposals to regulate data centers aimed at undercutting the movement to block server projects across the country. Governor Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, issued a plan that calls for reducing and possibly eliminating state income taxes on the back of new revenue from AI companies. The move came after Mountain State Spotlight, a venerable investigative outlet based in West Virginia, published a report outlining how a data center developer was using the state’s patchwork of regulations to push a project with limited oversight. It’s no surprise. At least seven in 10 Americans oppose data centers being built near their homes now, according to the latest polling from Heatmap Pro.
Batteries are booming as lithium-ion units grow cheaper and more useful to back up the grid. The industry saw 70% annual growth last year, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote last week. But powering the grid off of batteries requires actually hooking them up to the power system. Across the country, some 750 gigawatts of energy storage projects — roughly equal to more than 700 nuclear reactors — are waiting in the queue for a grid connection, according to data the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shared with Bloomberg. Not all the projects will be built. But the median wait time for a grid connection was five years in 2025, up from a year and a half in 2015.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last I checked, it’s actually illegal to write about the geothermal industry’s looming boom without making a pun about heat. So you’ll have to forgive the headline. But things really are getting steamy between investors and developers. When the Bureau of Land Management held a geothermal lease sale in New Mexico in June, the agency netted more than $16.5 million, making it the second-highest-grossing sale in its history, according to Utility Dive. The record-setting bid was from Rock Canyon Resources, which paid $3.14 million for one 4,479-acre tract. Another auction is set to take place in Utah on Tuesday.

The U.S. used to produce and enrich the uranium that fueled the world’s largest fleet of nuclear power stations. In the 1990s, however, then-President Bill Clinton brokered a deal to establish the famous “megatons to megawatts” with Russia, whereby American power plants promised to buy fuel made from disassembled Soviet warheads. As a nonproliferation exercise, it was a success. But the Russian fuel undercut the domestic market, putting many American miners and enrichers — already facing dimmer prospects as the U.S. stopped building new atomic power stations — out of business. By the time the 2022 invasion of Ukraine plunged Washington’s relations with Russia to their lowest point since the Cold War, the U.S. remained heavily dependent on imports from the Kremlin-owned nuclear company Rosatom. Congress banned Russian uranium imports in 2024, but allowed for waivers until the start of 2028. That cliff is fast approaching, right as one of the other largest suppliers — Kazakhstan — lowered production at its mines.
Luckily for the resurgent U.S. nuclear industry, Canada remains America’s largest supplier of uranium. And a lot of Canadian uranium is coming to the market. On Friday, NexGen Energy broke ground on the first phase of what’s expected to be one of the largest uranium mines on Earth. The project in northern Saskatchewan was first conceived more than a decade ago. The company had started drilling for samples in 2012, but failed after 13 attempts. In winter of 2014, the company tried again. “On the very first home, we hit mineralization,” NextGen CEO Leigh Curyer told CBC News. “We didn’t know it at the time, but we were on top of what has become the world’s most important energy fuel project.” Canada isn’t the only country planning for a nuclear future. Spain, the world’s last major country still pursuing a phaseout policy, seems to be inching toward saving its nuclear plants. Last week, regulators cleared the Almaraz nuclear station to operate through 2030. But NucNet cautioned that left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s government still planned to shut down the reactors by 2035.
Peter Thiel has invested in Facebook, SpaceX, and Palantir, where he serves as chairman of the board and co-founder. Add Argentina’s oil and gas sector to his portfolio. In a Friday filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the billionaire disclosed a 1% stake in Vista, one of Argentina’s largest oil companies operating in the Vaca Muerta shale formation roughly the size of Belgium, where Argentine President Javier Milei wants to ramp up fracking. Reuters reported that Thiel also recently bought a new home in Buenos Aires.