You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
There’s a lot more big talk than reactor-building going on.

America’s technology companies need power, and lots of it.
Artificial intelligence combined with still-growing internet and smartphone use will likely require a game-changing investment in data centers — one that its already showing up in huge projected increases for electricity demand across the country. At the same time, many technology companies want to procure and invest in clean power, while many states have clean energy goals that may make it difficult to add new load to the grid without a corresponding investment in clean generation. All told, the Department of Energy estimates that some 700 to 900 gigawatts of new clean firm capacity — energy generation that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases and can run 24 hours a day — will be necessary to build a fully decarbonized grid. Even in the real world, technology companies are interested in acquiring whatever clean power they can.
This is where the nuclear industry would love to step in, specifically the segment of the industry making small modular reactors, otherwise known as SMRs. These reactors, which promise to be cheaper, smaller, and faster to build than the existing nuclear fleet, seem like an ideal match for what technology companies need. What could be better for data centers than on-site power (meaning no transmission costs) that runs all day (meaning no intermittency issues) with no carbon emissions (meaning no climate worries)? And if those nuclear power plants could be built quickly and cheaply out of pre-fabricated parts, all the better, right?
Whether SMRs actually can step in, well ... “If I had every agreement in principle SMRs have signed, I could walk from here to Europe without getting my feet wet,” Dan Yurman, the publisher of Neutron Bytes and a former project manager at the Idaho National Laboratory, told me.
The issue is that the most optimistic timeline for commercial deployment of SMRs starts in the late 2020s, with most observers putting actual deployment into sometimes in the 2030s. All the while, demand for data centers is growing now and is projected to accelerate sharply in the next few years.
As of today only a handful of small modular reactors are currently operational anywhere in the world, and none in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which governs all civilian nuclear construction in the country, has so far approved just one SMR design; NuScale, the company behind said design, recently laid off almost a third of its employees after its deal to build a power plant in Utah for a collection of local utilities fell through due to rising costs.
That approval process cost $500 million and took around five years, according to the Wall Street Journal — and, of course, NuScale has yet to get a functioning reactor out of it. The company is currently in the process of getting the go-ahead on a more powerful version of its existing design, which the company’s chief executive said could be approved “within 24 months.”
On paper, however, enthusiasm for co-locating SMRs with data centers and industrial sites abounds. Despite the collapse of the Utah project, during an earnings call this month, NuScale eagerly talked up a partnership with Standard Power to provide 2 gigawatts of electricity to data centers in Ohio and Pennsylvania. While its shares are down around 50% for the past 12 months, they are up about 35% (albeit to around $4.20) since the end of last year. In its presentation to investors, NuScale cited estimates that data center electricity consumption would triple by the beginning of the next decade.
“Management is quite enthusiastic around its opportunity with data center operators, noting that it's in discussions with large players as electricity demand accelerates via the AI buildout,” Ryan Pfingst and Chris Souther, two analysts for B. Riley Securities, wrote in a note to clients following the release of NuScale’s earnings report.
That enthusiasm notwithstanding, it’s not clear how far along the Standard Power project is. “A project of this size has a significant amount of detail that’s confirmed and structured before a project begins construction and those discussions are ongoing,” NuScale CEO John Hopkins told analysts on the company’s most recent earnings call. Standard Power did not return a request for comment asking for more details on the financing or construction timeline for its project. When asked for an update from NuScale, a spokesperson referred me to the earnings call.
Meanwhile, in Surry County, Virginia, work is advancing on a project adjacent to the existing Surry nuclear plant. The project would combine data centers, small modular reactors, and hydrogen fuel production; the data centers would come first, with SMRs following once costs come down, according to Michael Hewitt, the co-founder and chief executive officer of IP3, the project’s developer.
For Hewitt, the model for SMR deployment is to build them in factories and scale them directly for end users. “That’s the future of energy: If I want a gigawatt of data center, I build SMRs for the data center on day one,” he told me.
Which company will get there first? “If I had to guess right now, in terms of what will be factory-built first and available to consumers like us, it will more than likely be a light water reactor design — GE, NuScale, or perhaps Rolls-Royce,” Hewitt said. GE’s SMR design, the BWRX-300, is in the pre-application process with the NRC, and was picked by Ontario Power Generation for a nuclear development on its existing Darlington site. The Rolls-Royce SMR has been advancing through the British regulatory and procurement process, while the company currently designs light-water reactors for the Royal Navy.
“The first guy to get the factory built is the winner,” Hewitt said. But none will likely be ready for the Virginia project, at least not within the next eight to 10 years, though, he added. Nevertheless, urgent interest persists.
On Tuesday, Google, Microsoft, and the steel company Nucor announced that they were forming a group that would commit to purchasing clean firm technologies and included in its laundry list of potential power sources advanced nuclear. Another advanced nuclear developer, TerraPower, which is backed by Microsoft’s founder Bill Gates, announced Tuesday that it was applying for a construction permit for a plant in Wyoming and plans to start building non-nuclear portions of it in June. The company expects the full plant to come online in 2030.
There are dozens of other SMR designs at various stage of realization, but the absolute fastest a new design could get online, according to Adam Stein of the Breakthrough Institute, is around four years. “If a developer has not already submitted an application to the NRC to build a power plant — which none of them have for a specific site — then they mostly likely would not be able to operate a power plant before 2028,” Stein told me. “That is the soonest it could happen.”
That said, “If there’s more urgency from the market, a clearer and larger demand signal, then developers will move faster than they are right now,” Stein added.
What’s far more likely, according to Yurman, is that tech companies will sign power purchase agreements for existing nuclear power plants, as Amazon has with Talen Energy. “That’s immediate access to reliable power,” Yurman said.
And even if SMRs are actually built, they may not end up adjacent to data centers, but instead on the sites of existing nuclear and even coal plants (this is the plan for the TerraPower site) which have preexisting grid connections. “If I’m putting together this kind of deal,” Yurman told me, “I’m looking at an old coal power plant I can demolish and keep the grid connection.”
While American tech companies are eager to buy up new power, the real opportunity, should it ever come, may be overseas, where smaller countries without indigenous energy supplies could be especially interested in nuclear power.
“What we need to do is get to full rate production and start stamping out SMRs with low risk,” Hewitt said. “If we do that, we can take these things everywhere.”
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 proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.