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:
Here’s what you need to know about the nuclear power comeback — including what’s going on, what’s new this time, and is it safe?
For a while there, nuclear energy looked like it was on its way out. After taking off post-World War II, it lost momentum toward the dawn of the 21st century, when sagging public support and mounting costs led to dozens of cancellations in the U.S. and drove the rate of new proposals off a cliff. Only a few reactors have been built in the U.S. this century; the most recent, Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4, were years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Vogtle-3 came online last summer, with Vogtle-4 — which was delayed even further by an equipment malfunction — expected to follow early this year.
It’s funny how time works, though. With demand for reliable zero-carbon energy rising, a new wave of nuclear developers is trying to recapture some of the industry’s long-lost momentum. They’re entering the race to net-zero with big ambitions — and much smaller reactor designs. Whether you’re wondering about the state of the U.S. nuclear power sector, what’s new about new nuclear, where the nuclear waste is going, and of course, whether it’s safe, read on.
Let’s start with the basics.
Nuclear reactors generate electricity using a process called fission. Inside the reactor’s core, a controlled chain reaction splits unstable uranium-235 into smaller elements; that process releases heat — a lot of heat.
The reactors in today’s U.S. nuclear fleet fall into two categories: boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors. Each circulates water through the reactor core to manage the temperature and prevent meltdowns, and both use the heat produced by fission to create steam that powers turbines and thereby generates electricity. The main difference is in the details: Boiling water reactors use their coolant water to produce electricity directly, by capturing the steam, whereas pressurized water reactors keep their coolant water in a separate system that’s under enough pressure to prevent the water from turning to steam.
Some experimental reactors and newer commercial designs use different cooling systems, but we’ll get into those later. Lastly, while nuclear energy is not considered renewable, in the sense that it relies on a finite resource (enriched uranium) for fuel, it is a zero-emission energy source.
The sector emerged in the late 1950s and expanded rapidly over the next several decades. At its peak, the country’s nuclear fleet included 112 reactors — a number that has declined to about 90 today. Most of the surviving plants were built between 1970 and 1990.
The shrinkage has partly to do with the nuclear disarmament movement, which arose during the Cold War and grew to encompass nuclear power development, as well. (As it happens, much of the present day environmental movement has its roots in anti-nuclear activism.) Then there was the partial nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, which intensified existing public opposition to nuclear energy projects. That growing pushback, combined with reduced growth in electricity demand and the significant up-front investments nuclear plants required, caused some projects to be scrapped and fewer to be proposed. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 seemed to confirm everyone’s worst fears.
Interest began to reemerge in the U.S. in the early 2000s as the budding public awareness of climate change cast doubt on the future viability of fossil fuels, but the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident quashed many of those plans. The last U.S. nuclear plant to start up before Vogtle-3 entered construction in 1973 but was suspended for two decades before its completion in 2016.
As of 2022, 18.2% of U.S. electricity came from the country’s remaining nuclear reactors, according to federal data. That’s less than we’ve seen in decades.
The share of nuclear power on the grid has been slowly dwindling as aging reactors are shut down and other resources — mainly natural gas and renewables — have taken on a greater proportion of the country’s electricity-generating burden. The share of electricity from renewables surpassed energy from nuclear for the first time in 2021; in 2022, renewables contributed 21.3% of U.S. electricity.
Like coal and gas plants (and renewables when paired with sufficient storage), nuclear provides baseload power — meaning it sends electricity onto the grid at a consistent, predictable rate — as opposed to sources like wind and solar on their own, which provide intermittent supply. Electric utilities depend heavily on nuclear plants and other baseload resources to match supply with continuously fluctuating demand, accommodating the variability of wind and solar without sending too much or too little power onto the grid, which would cause power surges or blackouts.
Generating electricity using nuclear fission remains a divisive issue that cuts across partisan lines. In the inaugural Heatmap Climate Poll, nuclear came in a distant last among clean energy sources people feel comfortable having in their communities.
Some major environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace maintain that the risk of serious disasters at nuclear power plants poses an unacceptable risk to communities and ecosystems. Others, including the Nature Conservancy, view it as a reliable low-carbon energy resource that’s — crucially — available to us today, while promising but immature options such as long-duration energy storage are still catching up.
Historically, nuclear has caused far fewer fatalities than fossil fuels, which generate all kinds of toxic, potentially deadly pollution — and that’s without factoring in their contribution to climate change and its associated disasters.
The companies now hoping to pioneer a new generation of nuclear reactors in the U.S. say their designs incorporate the lessons learned from the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima, putting even more safeguards in place than the fleet of reactors operating across the country today. (There’s still a debate over whether the proposed reactors will actually be safer, though.)
Spent uranium fuel is radioactive, and will remain radioactive for a very long time. As a result, there’s still a lot of disagreement about where that waste should go.
The federal government tried in the early 2000s to create a national repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but the project was stopped by intense local and regional opposition. The Western Shoshone, a tribe whose members have long faced exposure to radioactive fallout from nearby nuclear tests, sued the federal government in 2005. Harry Reid, a former U.S. Senator from Nevada who served as Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015, also fought against the repository.
In the absence of a central repository, the waste produced by nuclear plants is usually stored in deep water pools, which keep the spent fuel cool, or in steel casks onsite to keep the radiation from escaping into the surrounding environment.
If a repository eventually opens, some existing waste will likely be moved out of temporary storage and relocated there.
In short, the concrete behemoths that have long been the norm in the U.S. are really, really expensive to build. They also — like the two new Vogtle reactors — have a tendency to go way over their deadlines and budgets. That makes the electricity nuclear plants generate particularly expensive.
The vast majority of U.S. coal plants were built during the same few decades as most of the country’s nuclear reactors. But when utilities started to face more pressure to reduce their carbon emissions, toppling coal’s reign over the power sector, utilities wound up preferring to build cheaper — and, at least at the time, less controversial — natural gas power plants over nuclear power plants.
But public opinion is beginning to shift. About 57% of American adults favor building new nuclear power, a Pew Research Center survey found last year, compared with 43% in 2016. Though support is higher among Republicans than Democrats, it’s on the rise within both parties.
Today’s electric grid is a far cry from the 20th-century grid that traditional nuclear reactors were built for, and the new reactor models that are making the most headway reflect those changes. In general, these designs are smaller, cheaper (at least on paper), and more flexible than those already in operation.
Unlike traditional reactors, which generally require a lot of custom fabrication to be completed at the project site, small modular reactors — such as the ones being developed by NuScale Power — have components that are meant to be made in a factory, assembled quickly wherever they’ll operate, and combined with other modules as needed to increase power output. Fast reactors (so-named for their highly energized neutrons), like Bill-Gates-fronted TerraPower’s Natrium design, circulate coolants other than water through the core. (Natrium uses liquid sodium.)
Advocates of next-generation nuclear power are optimistic that the first such reactors will come online before the end of the decade. Several of the leading proposals have run into financial and logistical troubles over the last couple of years, however. In November, NuScale canceled its flagship project at the Idaho National Laboratory. It had been on track to be the first commercial small modular reactor built in the U.S. but was thwarted by rising costs, which caused too many expected buyers of its electricity to pull their support.
Nuclear’s image is recovering globally, too. Some of the companies working on demonstration reactors in the U.S. have been outspoken about wanting to see their designs supplant fossil fuels and provide abundant energy all over the world. Meanwhile, many countries are devoting plenty of their own resources to nuclear power.
Japan, which shuttered its sizable nuclear fleet in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, is slowly bringing some of its nuclear capacity back online. In December, Japanese regulators lifted an operational ban on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, the largest nuclear plant in the world.
Nuclear power is also enjoying renewed popularity in parts of Europe, including France and the U.K. In France, where the long-dominant technology has faltered in recent years, a half-dozen new nuclear power plants are in the works, and even more small modular reactors could follow. The U.K. is also planning a new wave of nuclear development.
Elsewhere, including in Germany, nuclear hasn’t found the same traction. After delaying the closure of its last three nuclear reactors amid natural gas shortages caused by the war in Ukraine, Germany closed the reactors last spring, eliciting a mixed reaction from environmental groups.
Meanwhile, China has close to 23 gigawatts of nuclear capacity under construction — the “largest nuclear expansion in history,” Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, told CNBC last year.
It’s still early days for most of the world’s next-generation nuclear reactors. With even the most promising designs largely unproven, there’s plenty of uncertainty about where today’s projects will ultimately lead. That makes it tricky to predict what role nuclear power will play in the energy transition over the coming decades.
There’s plenty of interest in building more capacity, however. In December, at COP28, the U.S. and 24 other countries — including Japan, Korea, France and the UK — signed on to a goal of tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050 in order to stay on track to reach net-zero emissions by then. Nuclear plants could also be an important source of carbon-free energy for producing green hydrogen, a nascent industry that got a major boost from tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act.
But the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s most recent capacity forecast projects that the total amount of electricity from the country’s nuclear plants will decline in the coming decades — representing just 13% of net power generation by 2050.
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 assembly line is the company’s signature innovation. Now it’s trying to one-up itself with the Universal EV Production System.
In 2027, Ford says, it will deliver a $30,000 mid-size all-electric truck. That alone would be a breakthrough in a segment where EVs have struggled against high costs and lagging interest from buyers.
But the company’s big announcement on Monday isn’t (just) about the truck. The promised pickup is part of Ford’s big plan that it has pegged as a “Model T moment” for electric vehicles. The Detroit giant says it is about to reimagine the entire way it builds EVs to cut costs, turn around its struggling EV division, and truly compete with the likes of Tesla.
What lies beneath the new affordable truck — which will revive the retro name Ford Ranchero, if rumors are true — is a new setup called the Ford Universal EV Platform. When car companies talk about a platform, they mean the automotive guts that can be shared between various models, a strategy that cuts costs compared to building everything from scratch for each vehicle. Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y ride on the same platform, the latter being essentially a taller version of the former. Ford’s rival, General Motors, created the Ultium platform that has allowed it to build better and more affordable EVs like the Chevy Equinox and the upcoming revival of the Bolt. In Ford’s case, it says a truck, a van, a three-row SUV, and a small crossover can share the modular platform.
At the heart of the company’s plan, however, is a new manufacturing approach. The innovation of the original Model T was about the factory, after all — using the assembly line to cut production costs and lower the price of the car. For this “Model T moment,” the company has proposed a sea change in the way it builds EVs called the Ford Universal EV Production System. It will demonstrate the strategy with a $2 billion upgrade to the Ford factory in Louisville, Kentucky, that will build the new pickup.
In brief, Ford has embraced the more minimalist, software-driven version of car design embraced by EV-only companies like Tesla and Rivian. The vehicles themselves are mechanically simpler, with fewer buttons and parts, and more functions are controlled by software through touchscreen interfaces. Building cars this way cuts costs because you need far fewer bits, bobs, fasteners, and workstations in the factory. It also reduces the amount of wiring in the vehicle — by more than a kilometer of the stuff compared to the Mustang Mach-E, Ford’s current most popular EV, the company said.
Ford is in dire need of an electric turnaround. The company got into the EV race earlier than legacy car companies like Toyota and Subaru, which settled on more of a wait-and-see approach. Its Mustang Mach-E crossover has been one of the more successful non-Tesla EVs of the early 2020s; the F-150 Lightning proved that the full-size pickup truck that dominates American car sales could go electric, too.
But both vehicles were expensive to make, and the Lightning struggled to make a dent in the truck market, in part because the huge battery needed to power such a big vehicle gave it a bloated price. When Tesla started a price war in the EV market a few years ago, Ford began hemorrhaging billions from its electric division, struggling to adapt to the new world even as carmakers like GM and Hyundai/Kia found their footing.
The big Detroit brand has been looking for an answer ever since, and Monday’s announcement is the most promising proposal it has put forward. Part of the production scheme is for Ford to build its own line of next-gen lithium-ion phosphate, or LFP batteries in Michigan, using technology licensed from the Chinese giant CATL. Another step is to employ the “assembly tree,” which splits the traditional assembly line into three parallel operations, which Ford says reduces the number of required workstations and cuts assembly time by 15%.
Affordability has always been a bugaboo for the American EV industry, a worry exacerbated by the upcoming demise of the $7,500 tax credit. And while Ford’s manufacturing overhaul will go a long way toward building a light-duty pickup EV that sells for $30,000, so too will a fundamental change in thinking about batteries, weight, and range. The F-150 Lightning isn’t the only pickup with a big battery and an even bigger price. That truck’s power pack comes in at 98 kilowatt-hours; large EV pickups like the Rivian R1T and Chevy Silverado EV have 150 or even 200 kilowatt-hour batteries, necessary to store enough power to give these heavy beasts a decent driving range.
InsideEVs reports, however, that the affordable Ford truck may have a battery capacity of just over 50 kilowatt-hours, which would dramatically reduce its cost to make. The trade-off, then, is range. The Slate small pickup truck that made waves this year for its promised price in the $20,000s would have just 150 miles of range in its cheapest form. Ford hasn’t released any specs for its small EV truck, but even using state-of-the-art LFP chemistry, such a small battery surely won’t deliver many more miles per charge.
Whatever the final product looks like, the new Ford truck and the infrastructure behind it are another reminder that, no matter the headwinds caused by the Trump administration, EVs are the future. Ford had been humming along through its EV struggles because its gas-burning cars remained so popular in America, and so profitable. But those profits collapsed in the first half of 2025, according to The New York Times. Meanwhile, Ford and every other carmaker are struggling to catch up to the Chinese companies selling a plethora of cheap EVs all over the world. Their very future depends on innovating ways to build EVs for less.
Governors, legislators, and regulators are all mustering to help push clean energy past the starting line in time to meet Republicans’ new deadlines.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act put new expiration dates on clean energy tax credits for business and consumers, raising the cost of climate action. Now some states are rushing to accelerate renewable energy projects and get as many underway as possible before the new deadlines take effect.
The new law requires wind and solar developers to start construction by the end of this year in order to claim the full investment or production tax credits under the rules established by the Inflation Reduction Act. They’ll then have at least four years to get their project online.
Those that miss the end-of-year deadline will have another six months, until July 4, 2026, to start construction, but will have to meet complicated sourcing restrictions on materials from China. Any projects that get off the ground after that date will face a severely abbreviated schedule — they’ll have to be completed by the end of 2027 to qualify, an all-but-impossibly short construction timeline.
Adding even more urgency to the time crunch, President Trump has directed the Treasury Department to revise the rules that define what it means to “start construction.” Historically, a developer could start construction simply by purchasing key pieces of equipment. But Trump’s order called for “preventing the artificial acceleration or manipulation of eligibility and by restricting the use of broad safe harbors unless a substantial portion of a subject facility has been built,” an ominous sign for those racing to meet already accelerated deadlines.
While the changes won’t suppress adoption of these technologies entirely, they will slow deployment and make renewable energy more expensive than it otherwise would have been. Some states that have clean energy goals are trying to lock in as much subsidized generation as they can to lessen the blow.
There are two ways states can meet the moment, Justin Backal Balik, the state program director at the nonprofit Evergreen Action, told me. Right now, many are trying to address the immediate crisis by helping to usher shovel-ready projects through regulatory processes. But states should also be thinking about how to make projects more economical after the tax credits expire, Balik said. “States can play a role in tilting the scale slightly back in the direction of some of the projects being financially viable,” he said, “even understanding that they’re not going to be able to make up all of the lost ground the incentives provided.”
In the first category, Colorado Governor Jared Polis sent a letter last week to utilities and independent power producers in the state committing to use “all of the Colorado State Government to prioritize deployment of clean energy projects.”
“Getting this right is of critical importance to Colorado ratepayers,” Polis wrote. The nonprofit research group Energy Innovation estimates that household energy expenses in Colorado could be $170 higher in 2030 than they would have been because of OBBB, and $310 higher in 2035. “The goal is to integrate maximal clean energy by securing as much cost-effective electric generation under construction or placed in service as soon as possible, along with any necessary electricity balancing resources and supporting infrastructure,” Polis continued.
As for how he plans to do that, he said the state would work to “eliminate administrative barriers and bottlenecks” for renewable energy, promising faster state reviews for permits. It will also “facilitate the pre-purchase of project equipment,” since purchasing equipment is one of the key steps developers can take to meet the tax credit deadlines.
Other states are looking to quickly secure new contracts for renewable energy. In mid-July, two weeks after the reconciliation bill became law, utility regulators in Maine moved to rapidly procure nearly 1,600 gigawatt-hours of wind and solar — for context, that’s about 13% of the total energy the state currently generates. They gave developers just two weeks to submit proposals, and will prioritize projects sited on agricultural land that has been contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the chemicals known as PFAS. (When asked how many applications had been submitted, the Maine Public Utilities Commission said it doesn't share that information prior to project selection.)
Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is eyeing a similar move. During a public webinar in late July, the agency said it was considering an accelerated procurement of zero-carbon resources “before the tax increase takes effect.” The office put out a request for information to renewable energy developers the next day to see if there were any projects ready to go that would qualify for the tax credits. Officials also encouraged developers to contact the agency’s concierge permit assistance services if they are worried about getting their permits on time for tax credit eligibility. Katie Dykes, the agency’s commissioner, said during the presentation that the concierge will engage with permit staff to make sure there aren’t incomplete or missing documents and to “ensure smooth and efficient review of projects.”
New York’s energy office is planning to do another round of procurement in September, the outlet New York Focus has reported, although the solicitation is late — it had originally been scheduled for June. The state has more than two dozen projects in the pipeline that are permitted but haven’t yet started construction, according to Focus, and some of them are waiting to secure contracts with the state.
Others are simply held up by the web of approvals New York requires, but better coordination between New York agencies may be in the works. “I assembled my team immediately and we are trying to do everything we can to expedite those [renewable energy projects] that are already in the pipeline to get those the approvals they need to move ahead,” Governor Kathy Hochul said during a rally at the State University of New York’s Niagara campus last week. The state’s energy research and development agency has formed a team “to help commercial projects quickly troubleshoot and advance towards construction,” according to the nonprofit Evergreen Action. (The agency did not respond to a request for more information about the effort.)
States and local governments are also planning to ramp up marketing of the consumer-based credits that are set to expire. Colorado, for example, launched a new “Energy Savings Navigator” tool to help residents identify all of the rebate, tax credit, and energy bill assistance programs they may be eligible for.
Consumers have even less time to act than wind and solar developers. Discounts for new, used, and leased electric vehicles will end in less than two months, on September 30. Homeowners must install solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, and any other clean energy or efficiency upgrades before the end of this year to qualify for tax credits.
Many states offer additional incentives for these technologies, and some are re-tooling their programs to stretch the funding. Connecticut saw a rush of demand for its electric vehicle rebate program, CHEAPR, after the OBBB passed. Officials decided to slash the subsidy from $1,500 to $500 as of August 1, and will re-assess the program in the fall. “The budget that we have for the CHEAPR program is finite,” Dykes said during the July webinar. “We are trying to be good stewards of those dollars in light of the extraordinary demand for EVs, so that after October 1 we have the best chance to be able to provide an enhanced rebate, to lessen the significant drop in the total level of incentives that are available for electric vehicles.”
As far as trying to address the longer-term challenges for renewables, Balik highlighted Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s proposal to streamline energy siting decisions by passing them through a new state board. “One of the big things states can do is siting reform because local opposition and lawsuits that drag forever are a big drag on costs,” Balik told me.
A bill that would create a Reliable Energy Siting and Electric Transition Board, or RESET Board, is currently in the Pennsylvania legislature. (New York State took similar steps to establish a renewable siting office to speed up deployment in 2020, though so far it’s still taking an average of three years to permit projects, down from four to five years prior to the office’s establishment.) Connecticut officials also discussed looking at ways to reduce the “soft costs” of permitting and environmental reviews during the July webinar.
Balik added that state green banks can also play a role in helping projects secure more favorable financing. Their capacity to do so will be significantly higher if the courts force the federal government to administer the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
When it comes to speeding up renewable energy deployment, there’s at least one big obstacle that governors have little control over. Wind and solar projects need approval from regional transmission operators, the independent bodies that oversee the transmission and distribution of power, to connect to the grid — a notoriously slow process. The lag is especially long in the PJM Interconnection, which governs the grid for 13 mid-Atlantic States, and has generally favored natural gas over renewables. But governors are starting to turn up the pressure on PJM to do better. In mid July, Shapiro and nine other governors demanded PJM give states more of a say in the process by allowing them to propose candidates for two of PJM’s board seats.
“Can we use this moment of crisis to really impress the urgency of getting some of these other things done — like siting reforms, like interconnection queue fixes, that are all part of the economics of projects,” Balik asked. These steps may help, but lengthy federal permitting processes remain a hurdle. While permitting reform is a major bipartisan priority in Congress, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote recently, a deal that’s good for renewables might require an about-face from the president on wind and solar.
The Danish government is stepping in after U.S. policy shifts left the company’s New York offshore wind project in need of fresh funds.
Orsted is going to investors — including the Danish government — for money it can’t get for its wind projects, especially in the troubled U.S. offshore wind market.
The Danish developer, which is majority owned by the Danish government, told investors on Monday that it would seek to raise over $9 billion, about half its valuation before the announcement, by selling shares in the company.
Publicly traded companies do not typically raise money by selling stock, which is more expensive for the company, tending instead to finance specific projects or borrow money.
But the offshore wind business is not any industry.
In normal times, Orsted and other wind developers will conduct “farm-downs,” selling stakes in projects in order to help finance the next ones. Due to “recent material adverse development in the U.S. offshore wind market,” however, the early-morning announcement said, “it is not possible for the company to complete the planned partial divestment and associated non-recourse project financing of its Sunrise Wind offshore wind project on the terms which would provide the required strengthening of Orsted’s capital structure” — a long way of explaining that it can’t find a buyer at an acceptable price. Hence the new equity.
While the market had been expecting Orsted to raise capital in some form, the scale of the raise is about twice what was anticipated, according to Bloomberg’s Javier Blas.
About two-thirds of the stock sale will be used to continue financing Sunrise Wind, a 924-megawatt planned offshore wind project off the coast of Long Island, according to Morgan Stanley analysts. Construction began last summer, just days after Orsted took full ownership of the project by buying out a stake held by the utility Eversource.
Despite all the sound and fury around offshore wind in the United States, the company said in its earnings report, also released Monday, that “we successfully installed the first foundations at Sunrise Wind, following completion of the wind turbine foundation installation at Revolution Wind,” a 704-megawatt project off the coasts of Rhode Island and Connecticut. “Construction of our offshore U.S. assets is progressing as expected and according to plan,” the company said.
But the report also said Orsted took a hit of over a billion Danish kroner in the first half of this year due to tariffs and what it gingerly refers to as “other regulatory changes, particularly affecting the U.S.,” a.k.a. President Donald Trump.
The president and his appointees have been on a regulatory and financial campaign against the wind sector, especially offshore wind, attempting to halt work on another in-construction New York project, Empire Wind, before Governor Kathy Hochul was able to reach a deal to continue. All future lease sales for new offshore wind areas have been canceled.
Even before Trump came back into office, the offshore wind industry in the U.S. had been hammered by high interest rates, which raised the cost of borrowed money necessary to fund projects, and spiraling supply chain costs and project delays, which also increased the need for the more expensive financing.
“Because of the sharp rise in construction costs and interest rates since 2021, all the projects turned out to be value-destructive,” Morningstar analyst Tancrede Fulop wrote in a note about the Orsted share issue. The company took large losses on scuttled projects in the U.S. and already cancelled its dividend and announced a plan to partially divest many other projects in order to shore up its balance sheet and fund future projects.
While the start-and-stop Empire Wind project belongs to Equinor, Orsted’s Scandinavian neighbor (majority-owned by the Norwegian government), Orsted management told analysts on its conference call that “the issues surrounding Empire Wind's stop-work order from April 2025 had negatively impacted financing conditions for Sunrise,” according to Jefferies analyst Ahmed Furman.
Equinor, too, has had to take a bigger share of Empire Wind, buying out the stake held by BP in January of this year. BP had bought 50% stakes in three Equinor wind projects in 2020, but last year wrote down its investment in the offshore wind sector in the U.S. by over $1 billion.
Why could Orsted not simply pull out of Sunrise Wind? “Orsted and our industry are in an extraordinary situation with the adverse market development in the U.S. on top of the past years’ macroeconomic and supply chain challenges,” Rasmus Errboe, who took over as the company’s chief executive earlier this year, said in a statement. “To deliver on our business plan and commitments in this environment, we’ve concluded that a rights issue is the best solution for Orsted and our shareholders.”
The Danish government will maintain its 50.1% stake in the company, putting the small Scandinavian country with its low-boiling trade and territorial conflicts against the Trump administration in direct capitalist conflict with the American president and his least favorite form of electricity generation.
In the immediate wake of the announcement, Jefferies analyst Ahmed Farman wrote to clients that the deal would “obviously de-risk the [balance sheet], but near-term dilution risk seems substantial,” citing the unexpected magnitude of the raise and no sign pointing to new growth. “As a result, we expect the initial stock reaction to be quite negative.”
And so it has been: The stock closed down almost 30%, its biggest-ever single-day drop and below the price at which it went public in 2016, according to Bloomberg data.