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:
Reading between the lines of Governor Kathy Hochul’s big nuclear announcement.

With New York City temperatures reaching well into the 90s, the state grid running on almost two-thirds fossil fuels, and the man who was instrumental in shutting down one of the state’s largest sources of carbon-free power vying for a political comeback on Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced on Monday that she wants to bring new, public nuclear power back to the state.
Specifically, Hochul directed the New York Power Authority, the state power agency, to develop at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear capacity upstate. While the New York City region hasn’t had a nuclear power plant since then-Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down Indian Point in 2021, there are three nuclear power plants currently operating closer to the 49th Parallel: Ginna, FitzPatrick, and Nine Mile Point, which together have almost 3.5 gigawatts of capacity and provide about a fifth of the state’s electric power, according to the nuclear advocacy group Nuclear New York. All three are now owned and operated by Constellation Energy, though FitzPatrick was previously owned by NYPA.
Hochul’s announcement did not specify a design or even a location for the new plant, but there were some hints. The press release describes “at least one new nuclear energy facility with no less than one gigawatt of electricity.” While 1 gigawatt is the capacity of a Westinghouse AP1000, the large, light-water reactor built at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, the explanation seems to leave room for the possibility of multiple, smaller plants.
Then there was where Hochul chose to make the announcement, in front of the monumental Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant, which, when it was built in 1961, was the largest hydropower plant in the western hemisphere. The release includes an intriguing reference to the country just on the other side of the river, saying that the plan “will allow for future collaboration with other states and Ontario, building on regional momentum to strengthen nuclear supply chains, share best practices, and support the responsible deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.”
To me at least, all this points to the possibility that we could actually be talking about a small modular reactor, specifically GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, one of a handful of SMR designs vying for both regulatory approval and commercial viability in the U.S. Canada’s Ontario Power Generation recently approved a plan to build one, with the idea to eventually build three more for a total 1.2 gigawatts of generating capacity, i.e. roughly the amount Hochul’s targeting. The Tennessee Valley Authority, America’s largest public power provider, is also looking at building a BWRX-300. Whichever is completed first will become the first operating SMR in North America. (A NYPA spokesperson told me there has been “no determination on technology yet,” nor on location.)
There are a few policy conclusions we can draw from the announcement, as well, one being that Hochul has determined New York’s energy needs do not match up with its current, renewables-heavy energy roadmap set out more than five years ago. The 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (signed by Cuomo) set out a goal for New York to supply 70% of its electricity with renewables by 2030; about a year ago, the Hochul administration said that it would likely not meet that target, which has only slipped farther from view under the Trump administration’s assault on the offshore wind industry, which was supposed to anchor the state’s renewables supply — especially near New York City, where land is scarce but shoreline is plentiful.
The new nuclear plan also has a distinctively upstate appeal, which is not surprising considering Hochul’s Buffalo roots. (She said during the announcement that she had visited the Niagara plant, which is just outside Buffalo, “so many times.”) The upstate power grid is less carbon intensive than the downstate grid and is due to receive much of the wind and solar development necessary to meet New York’s climate goals. But the northern reaches of the state are also more politically conservative and more rural, making it both an inviting target for renewables development and a potential wellspring of opposition.
“The fundamental challenge of wind, solar, and storage across upstate is that it’s subject to a lot of local opposition,” Ben Furnas, who served as director of the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Sustainability in New York City, told me. “Something that’s remarkable about nuclear power is that the land footprint is more modest.” (The NYPA spokesperson said that NYPA’s own plans for renewable development were not being altered.)
Nuclear power plants can also be economic lifelines — especially in rural areas — due to the permanent, high-paying jobs they support and direct economic benefits to the surrounding communities.
“There’s a lot of real win-win deals to be struck,” Furnas said. “It’s not an unknown, radical, alien notion. Plenty of people work in those plants and live near them. It’s a very different politics than what was happening in Hudson Valley around Indian Point,” where environmental groups like Riverkeeper (long associated with former Cuomo associate and current Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), had worked for years to shut down the plant.
Monday’s nuclear announcement included supportive quotes not just from the usual suspects of state energy and environmental officials and union leaders, but also from the chief executive of Micron, which is set to start working on a semiconductor fabrication facility in the central part of the state. “A critical factor in the success of the semiconductor ecosystem is access to affordable, reliable energy. We commend New York State for advancing an all-of-the-above energy strategy — including nuclear power,” Micron CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said in a statement.
“To power this one facility, Micron is going to need so much power — so much incredible power — and there’s only one commercially viable option that can deliver that much clean, renewable, reliable power, and that’s what’s been operating in New York for decades: nuclear energy,” Hochul said Monday. “Harnessing the power of the atom is the best way to generate steady zero-emission electricity, and to help this transition.”
The mainstream environmental groups that supported the renewables-focused 2019 law (many of which either oppose nuclear power or are at best neutral towards it) were nowhere to be found during today’s announcement, however, and the plan has already drawn skepticism from some progressives.
Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who chairs the New York state senate’s finance committee, said in a statement that she had “significant concerns” about the nuclear plan, including its cost effectiveness, how to dispose of nuclear waste, the time required to site and build the project, whether other renewable options could fill the gap instead, and whether it has the “full informed consent from impacted communities.”
“I have yet to see any real-world examples of new nuclear development” that have met all these concerns, Krueger said. New York has a checkered history of nuclear development: Long Island ratepayers spent decades paying for the completed but never operational Shoreham nuclear plant, whose costs ballooned by billions of dollars as construction dragged on from 1973 to 1984.
But the announcement comes at a time when the federal regulatory and tax balance is tipping toward nuclear regardless. The Trump administration issued a fleet of executive orders looking to speed up nuclear construction and regulatory approvals, and Senate Republicans’ version of the mega budget reconciliation bill includes far more generous treatment of nuclear development compared to wind and solar.
Public Power NY, an advocacy group that supports renewables development by NYPA, expressed skepticism about the nuclear plan in spite of these supportive signs.
“Hochul’s decision to step in based on promises from Donald Trump shows just how unserious she is about New Yorker’s energy bills and climate future. NYPA should be laser focused on rapidly scaling up their buildout of affordable solar and wind which is the only way to meet the state’s science-based climate goals and lower energy bills,” the group said in a statement.
For his part, Furnas was more pragmatic. “It’s really good that Governor Hochul is putting everything on the table when it comes to ensuring reliable generation for New York State and to meet clean air and carbon emission goals,” he said. “It would be foolish and unfortunate to not look at everything she can.”
Hochul herself appears determined to push through.
During the announcement, referring to the buzzing power plant behind her, Hochul said that “belief in sometimes impossible ideas” can bring people together. The power plant currently standing on that site was built in less than three years after an earlier plant on the Niagara collapsed. New nuclear power in New York may have seemed impossible, but it might still happen.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with a long-time watcher of the PJM on its new proposals
America’s largest electricity market, the 13-state PJM Interconnection, is being forced to rapidly redesign how it works in order to meet its own reliability goals while trying to meet new demand from data centers and electrification.
The market has been in a multiyear rolling crisis as its auctions for capacity — the commitment generators can make to being available in times of high demand — hit a legal cap, resulting in billions of dollars of payouts from customers, leading to higher electricity prices in states like New Jersey.
Much of these payments are due to current and future demand from data centers, some $29.4 billion in the last four capacity auctions, according to the market’s independent monitor.
At the same time, the system isn’t able to procure enough capacity to meet its reliability goals, leading to tongue lashings and even threats of intervention from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose chair, Laura Swett, now regularly criticizes PJM in her public appearances.
On Monday, the market released a series of proposed reforms and initiatives to bring on new generation and attempt to make up for its reliability gap. This includes a supposedly one-off procurement of new capacity later this year that had been requested by the region’s governors and the White House, a new registry of large loads, and a kind of connect-and-manage system whereby new large loads that don’t have their own capacity will face curtailment during times of high demand.
In a letter to stakeholders, the PJM board said that new large energy users could be increasing demand by up to 70 gigawatts by 2038 (its all time record demand is around 170 gigawatts) while some 15 gigawatts of generation have been retired in the last few years. This combination has “placed increasing pressure on the region’s resource adequacy position” and “requires decisive action,” the board said.
I spoke to Jon Gordon, senior director at the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United and a longtime PJM watcher about the proposals.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Let’s start from the beginning: what was announced on Monday evening?
Just backing up a little bit, PJM has had two critical issue fast-path processes to try to determine how to protect ratepayers from data center related costs. The first one began in the fall and ended in December inconclusively. Then they started another one, which also ended somewhat inclusively. So that put the ball in the PJM board’s hands to review all the data, all the information that had been proposed, provided, and discussed, and come up with a plan of their own. And so they have officially done so. What we saw announced yesterday was PJM’s plan that they need to file at FERC very shortly in order to allow that September procurement.
And this is the backstop procurement that they agreed to with the White House and the governors?
Yes, in concept. The details needed to be ironed out. This is the board’s official proposal and it’s not going to happen until FERC approves it all, and FERC is under a lot of pressure to approve this.
In the letter to stakeholders, they presented three things: the registry, the procurement, and their version of connect and manage. How do these three ideas interact with each other? Why are they all proposed together?
The backstop procurement is the process whereby data centers can enter into contracts for their own power generation, and once they can demonstrate that they have a contract for power, they can then connect to the grid under this new proposal, connect and manage. And the registry is the tool by which to keep track of all this stuff: who are the data centers contracted that are eligible for this process?
Because you need all this detail to know how to curtail them. They’re going to be subject to involuntary curtailment up until the time that they are able to meet all their own needs with their own power generation. Meanwhile, they’re going to be curtailed by the local distribution companies — but the local distribution companies don’t have all the data they need to know which customers can be curtailed. So that’s where the registry comes in. They’re all part of the same overall package.
Let’s talk through the process here. Say, you’re building a new large load, maybe a 150-megawatt or 200-megawatt data center trying to get started in PJM. Under this process, what are the kinds of the things you have to check through to interconnect, and how will it be different than a few years ago?
Let’s talk about what’s going to happen now under these new rules. They’re going to have to enter into a bilateral contract with a supplier to demonstrate they’re making a good faith effort to secure the generation they need to meet all of their needs at some date in the future. Once they demonstrate that to PJM, they will then go to the registry for the connect-and-manage process. Which means that until their generation is 100% up and running, they will be subject to involuntary curtailment.
Before all this, a data center would connect like any other customer to the grid and start drawing power and any costs PJM would incur to connect them to the grid would be socialized across all PJM customers. That’s what’s been happening for many years. Ratepayers are paying for data centers that have come online previously.
How does this interact with PJM’s interconnection reforms? Would this allow data centers to interact more quickly while protecting customers from price increases? This is the dual goal of the White House and FERC.
Where the interconnection process comes into play is for the generator that wants to enter into a bilateral contract with the data center. They’re the ones that have to interconnect their generation.
So that generator hopefully is already in the queue. If not, it’s going to be a long while before they’re actually serving power to anyone. The queue is still super important here in terms of how long that data center is going to be subject to voluntary curtailment. The slower the interconnection queue is, and the slower that overall process of building this new generation is, the longer those data centers are going to be subject to involuntary curtailment. My understanding is that a lot of data centers are not very happy about that.
Is this set of proposals biased in any way towards a particular type of generation?
On its face, it really isn’t. The data centers are free to contract with whatever generation source they like.
We know that many of the hyperscalers committed to meeting their data center needs with carbon-free energy. I’m hopeful they’re going to make an effort to contract to the extent possible with solar and battery resources.
But I am concerned that just the sheer magnitude of the need means we can’t avoid building a lot of new natural gas to meet all that load. We really had to bring all of that wind and solar online.
Even though those sources are going to be faster and lower cost than gas, their intermittent nature and the sheer size of what’s required is going to make that challenging.
What are the next steps here?
Everything we’ve been discussing is completely unprecedented and is happening in a timeframe that’s unimaginable. Three years ago if PJM tried to take on what they’re taking on, it would be a three or four year stakeholder process and it’s taking months.
With all of that said, everything we’ve just discussed, according to PJM, is temporary. It’s meant to be a stopgap to get this market rolling with data centers that are anxious to connect and move forward.
PJM is calling this reliability backstop a one-time procurement.
A lot of folks have said — and I agree with them — there will probably be more than one of these.
The other thing that’s going on is that PJM has begun a process to redesign their entire market structure, what they’re calling a holistic market review. That’s in acknowledgment that the capacity market is broken and is not functioning as intended.
That’s another stakeholder process underway. That’s another heavy lift, which they hope to have in place in 2027. By the time this whole backup procurement process is over, they hope to have a new market in place. That’s an incredibly heavy lift.
Strip away the restaurant and the hype, and Tesla Diner is an 80-plug fast-charging station plunked right in the middle of a former charging desert.
They were projecting Spaceballs onto the wall the first time I pulled into the Tesla Diner. To kill time while my car charged outside, I stepped into the retrofuturist Los Angeles luncheonette and spent six dollars on an oversized chocolate chip cookie. It came in a “Cyberbox,” a cardboard container meant to mimic the shape of the Cybertruck. My wife got a good laugh out of this burger box of Elon’s dreams. Now the carton sits on the kitchen counter, concealing toddler ephemera.
One taste of the Tesla Diner was plenty. But I have returned there, and it wasn’t for the wagyu beef. It’s because a strategically located mega-station is exactly what the world needs more of.
It’d be easy to argue the diner, like the Cybertruck, has been a flop. Musk’s direct involvement with the Trump administration — and the diner’s aesthetic mirroring of his particular id, right down to the movie selections and the Optimus robots handing out popcorn — made the place a target for derision and ongoing protest since its debut a year ago. The restaurant has been a bit of a disaster, too.
Yet Tesla Diner was the most successful Supercharging station in the world in the past year, delivering nearly 1,600 charging sessions per day. And though plenty of people stopped by just to post the notorious joint on social media, its achievement may have less to do with food, Instagram, or politics, and more to do with putting a bunch of plugs where the people are. The times I’ve stopped by, after all, I didn’t need an overpriced carton of fried pickles. I just needed electricity, immediately.
Strip away the restaurant and the hype, and Tesla Diner is an 80-plug fast-charging station plunked right in the middle of Hollywood. This had been a charging desert, a giant hole in the map of red dots around Greater L.A. Besides creating a bizarre new tourist attraction on Santa Monica Boulevard, the diner gave an enormous population of drivers a place to charge a Tesla — or just about any other new EV, now that most brands have moved to the NACS charging standard.
It’s an interesting case study in where, and what, charging stations should be as the nation continues to build out its various networks. Fast-charging stations tend to be built in particular kinds of places. Large outdoor malls and garages are overrepresented on charging maps because they offer plenty of parking spaces to lease and plenty of room to put in electrical infrastructure. Urban areas that don’t have those places, and instead have smaller strip malls and reasonably sized parking lots, are comparatively harder to wire up. That helps to explain the L.A. situation. This is perhaps America’s biggest electric car market, with a plethora of fast-charging stations on the affluent West side and outlying communities. Yet a huge swath of the city (all the way from the 405 to the 5) had practically nothing from Tesla for years, up until Musk decided to buy a parcel of land to build an edgelord’s drive-in.
Now that lots of charging stations exist along major highways to allow for long-distance travel, the next frontier of charging depots is the heart of the city, a place that’s been easy to overlook so far. Most of the drivers who’ve been affluent enough to become EV early adopters could charge at home and didn’t need urban fast-chargers to get around the city. But such charging depots could unlock new segments of American drivers, especially as EV prices begin to come down.
Consider, for example, that a few of the bluest counties in the country accounted for a disproportionate share of EV sales during the early part of the EV era, an unsurprising finding given the charged politics around electric cars. But those areas are not yet saturated. Many more residents would likely be interested in electrifying if they could afford the up-front cost of an EV and felt confident they could charge it — but may not have the option or the budget to install home charging infrastructure. That group needs lots of plugs close to where they live. If there’s a dearth of existing locations in which to install those chargers, then the solution may be to mimic what Musk has done with the diner: build a giant charging depot from scratch and give the people… something to do.
These issues are especially salient as stations scale up. Most urban and suburban depots to date have reached a maximum of around 20 plugs. Colossal depots with dozens of plugs had been limited to those on busy highway routes like L.A. to Las Vegas or San Francisco — at least until the diner popped up.
No, charging stations aren’t gas stations. We’re not headed toward a future with fast-charging plugs on every corner, in part because the ability to charge at home and at work negates the need for everyone to rely on public refueling. But until every house and apartment building has available plugs, we need a few more silly diners to remind people there’s plenty of juice out there.
On Yucca Mountain, Europe’s inverter boom, and Romanian offshore wind
Current conditions: The wildfires in Spain and France are burning so hot they’re creating rare pyrocumulonimbus clouds • Hurricane Genevieve has strengthened into the first Category 5 storm of 2026 as the monster cyclone rampages across the open Pacific with no immediate destination to make landfall • A tornado in Wisconsin toppled power lines, cutting off electricity to nearly 350,000 people.

The back-to-back record heat waves that roasted Western Europe last month killed thousands in France and Germany. The heat also dried out forests, turning woodlands on opposite sides of the Pyrenees into tinderboxes that are now ablaze in some of the worst wildfires the European Union has faced in modern history. With another heat wave now looming, firefighters are racing to contain the flames as hundreds of thousands evacuate in France and Spain. “We need to realize that we’re facing a totally unprecedented fire,” President Emmanuel Macron of France told reporters Monday during a visit to the fire department of Bordeaux. “The situation we’re facing today is the hardest we’ve ever recorded, the hardest since World War II.” In Spain’s Valencia region, the flames are detonating buried ordinances leftover from the Spanish Civil War in the early 1930s, Reuters reported.
The other week, I told you when PJM Interconnection once again hit its price cap at its latest capacity auction — and still came up short of the generation needed to meet demand in 2028. On Monday, the board of the nation’s largest grid operator said in a public letter it would hold another emergency auction to find nearly 7 gigawatts of power generation to make up for the shortfall. “The board believes this reliability threat requires decisive action,” the letter stated. The move comes just weeks after PJM shattered its peak demand record after underestimating just how much electricity the grid could need during a recent heat wave in the American Northeast. It’s yet another sign of the mounting stress on the system covering 13 states as everyone from governors to the grid operator itself strive for reforms, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has written.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Nuclear waste is a political paradox. Critics of atomic energy say that the radioactive waste produced during fission cancel out the benefits of using the most efficient source of carbon-free power humanity has yet harnessed. In the 1980s, the federal government took control of nuclear waste and set about building the world’s first permanent repository to store spent fuel underground for centuries. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was designated as the debut location for such a facility. Opponents in the Silver State fought back, imagining that Washington was subjecting Nevada to dangers akin to the atomic bomb tests that once took place in its deserts. In 2010 — in a move that nonpartisan Government Accountability Office later pegged as an entirely political, rather than technical, motive — President Barack Obama halted work on a project the then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wanted kiboshed. The problem is that federal law dictates Yucca Mountain be completed as the first nuclear waste repository before other sites can be considered. No one in Congress has stepped up to make the change. As a result, the U.S. — operator of the world’s largest nuclear fleet and wannabe exporter to countries who want to get into the atomic energy game — has had no clear long-term plan for dealing with nuclear waste in 16 years.
The Trump administration is trying to change that. The Department of Energy has floated plans for nuclear innovation campuses where cutting-edge recycling companies could test out new technologies to reprocess waste into medical isotopes and fresh fuel. But E&E News reported Monday that the administration is poised to press Congress to update federal law to allow the U.S. to finally move on from Yucca Mountain. A leaked document the newswire obtained outlines the administration’s plans to instead press states to take on waste repositories and recycling facilities, in line with the Energy Department’s campus idea. That may not be easy. Even Texas, whose government has sought to roll out the red carpet for nuclear developers recently unsuccessfully sued federal regulators to the Supreme Court to block construction of a waste storage facility.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of President Donald Trump’s right to fire commissioners from previously independent agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees pipelines and the grid. On Monday, E&E News published a feature examining the implications for FERC at a particularly sensitive time in its history, when a once-sleepy agency is increasingly facing scrutiny over the health of the U.S. grid. Experts were mixed on the effects. Ari Peskoe, the director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University, called Trump “a loose cannon” with “no justification for firing any FERC Commissioner.” Commissioner David LaCerte, a Republican, cheered the Supreme Court for overturning what he said was an unlawful restriction put in place a century ago that limited the White House’s ability to fire any commissioners for anything beyond poor performance. “If a commissioner is going to buckle under that pressure and compromise their integrity because they are afraid of being fired, well, they probably didn’t deserve to be in this job in the first place,” he said during the FERC meeting. But fellow Republican Mark Christie, who previously served as FERC chair and whom Matthew dubbed “the most interesting man” on the commission, said that while he agrees with the court’s decision, open requisitions remain as to what it would mean in practice. “If FERC is now completely under the supervision of the president, is the executive branch going to say how to decide a rate case?” said Christie. “That to me is the single biggest question.”
The Department of Transportation, meanwhile, is gutting funding for public transit, walkways, and bike lanes. In a letter outlining the agency’s spending priorities to the Senate, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy proposed eliminating the Highway Trust Fund’s mass transit account and slashing funding for infrastructure that provides for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, bike lanes, and grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. That’s not all: Smart Cities Dive reported that a competitive grant program to fund solutions to traffic safety would scrap options that include public transit improvements and tolling from even being considered.
China produces most of the world’s inverters for solar panels. It’s increasingly a problem. Last year, Reuters reported that the U.S. had found “killswitch” devices in some inverters, suggesting that Beijing could — in theory — remotely disable solar panels when demand is high on the grid, or try to cause frequency problems like those that triggered the great Iberian blackout of 2025. At the start of this month, I told you the Federal Communications Commission was weighing a ban on Chinese inverters. If you share the Trump administration’s concerns, there’s good news: China’s command over the global inverter market peaked in 2024, according to new data from the research division at PV Tech. Europe, meanwhile, has emerged as a major manufacturer, hitting over 100 gigawatts of factory capacity this year. The U.S. is now at 40 gigawatts, while India is at 20 gigawatts. You’d be reasonable to wonder if these are just Chinese companies setting up shop in Europe. But you’d be wrong. “What distinguishes Europe’s inverter manufacturing expansion from other sectors, particularly solar modules, is the composition of its manufacturing base,” analyst Mollie McCorkindale wrote in the magazine. “As of 2026, over 90% of Europe’s 100-gigawatt manufacturing capacity comes from European-headquartered companies.”
Everyone knows the U.S. is veering away from offshore wind, and diligent readers of this newsletter (for whom I feel such affection) may recall that Japan is on a parallel trajectory. Elsewhere, however, offshore wind is booming. Romania, whose coastline makes up a single-digit percentage of its mostly landlocked borders, is the latest country to make big plans for seaward turbines. Bucharest is now targeting nearly 12 gigawatts of offshore wind, Renewables Now reported.