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:
“Energy dominance” has to start with energy reliability.

As we sat down to write this essay in mid-March, hundreds of thousands of people in Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas were without electricity for days after heavy late-season snows and high winds took down power lines. Then just days ago, more powerful storms swept through the Midwest, leaving thousands more in the dark. Both events were stark reminders that America's grid is careening toward its breaking point.
“Energy dominance” is the Trump Administration's energy motto, which we interpret as producing enough reliable and affordable domestic energy to meet our increasing needs. We’re missing a piece of the puzzle. While domestic oil and natural gas production continues to rise, the U.S. electricity system is in decline.
After two decades of relatively level electricity consumption, demand is growing again. By 2050, our electricity needs are projected to nearly double, according to the Department of Energy. Advanced manufacturing plants, electric vehicles, and data centers processing artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency mining are among the major drivers of this growth.
A modern grid can restore power in minutes, meet growing manufacturing and AI electricity needs, and protect against cyberattacks. Our grid isn't prepared for this challenge. We lack sufficient high-voltage transmission lines to safely carry additional electricity to large-load consumers. Much of our existing infrastructure is outdated. Most of our grid was built in the 1960s and 1970s, approaching the end of its useful life. We continue to rely on lines across communities on wooden poles vulnerable to increasingly severe weather. While we've automated energy distribution systems for efficiency, this has made them more susceptible to cyberattacks.
Soon, activating a new data center might feel like a dangerous gamble. That area's grid could remain functional — or not.
America needs a national plan to rescue our grid. In February, we got together with more than 80 top energy experts, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, for a meeting at Stanford University to explore how to meet critical U.S. electricity challenges. That meant coming up with ideas that were both technically feasible and politically palatable.
The resulting report outlines six big ideas for achieving an affordable, reliable, and secure grid:
1. Ensure American security remains at the heart of the nation’s energy strategy.
2. Advance a true all-of-the-above energy strategy.
3. Create a new federal and state grid investment trust fund.
4. Reform permitting processes to expedite grid infrastructure projects.
5. Promote and scale innovative, flexible grid policies.
6. Prioritize affordability through modernized utility operations and business models.
One place we drew inspiration is from the Highway Trust Fund, which has financed much highway construction and maintenance since 1956. A similar endowment dedicated to strengthening the grid could cover the costs of building additional transmission lines and renovating aging ones. Congress might consider financing this grid infrastructure trust fund with proportional contributions from the largest electricity users.
Such financing can succeed only alongside meaningful national permitting reform. New transmission lines are frequently delayed for a decade or more because states hesitate to issue permits. When developers seek to build transmission lines on federal lands, they face cumbersome environmental reviews that can halt projects entirely. Major permitting reform failed to pass Congress as recently as last year, but bipartisan negotiators can bring a successful bill to the floor in the current session.
Transmission lines are agnostic about the source of the energy flowing across them, and our energy policy should be the same. The keyword should be, as it has long been in many political circles, “all of the above.” We shouldn't undermine any energy source ready to deploy today. Few new natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants can be constructed by 2030. In the near term, renewables and energy storage are more ready to deploy, and regardless of what is best, these are what utilities are relying on for the next few years.
We want technology companies developing the world's most sophisticated AI models in America. We want manufacturing plants building cutting-edge products in our communities. Producing enough energy to power these industries is fundamental to our national and economic security. If AI systems can enable new weapons development, support offensive cyber operations, or facilitate mass surveillance, we should oversee and regulate those systems within our borders.
New manufacturing plants are already creating good-paying American jobs while bringing supply chains for semiconductors and other critical technologies back home. Turning away these businesses because we can't meet their energy needs would mean surrendering our technological and economic advantage to overseas competitors.
Alongside drinkable water, clean air, and paved roads, Americans expect reliable electricity. We can build and repair our transmission systems while producing more energy. We can permit new high-voltage lines while supporting data centers and manufacturing plants. We can incentivize power production, simplify bureaucracy, and strengthen national security.
Our hope is that these six ideas spark a conversation about how we can rescue our grid and, as a result, our economic growth, technological leadership, and national security. Advancing them will require working across the aisle, across sectors, and in partnership across federal, state, and local levels.
Done right, America can fortify its transmission infrastructure against grid overload, natural disasters, and cyberattacks. Large corporate consumers would access the electricity they need, while homeowners and small businesses would enjoy reliable power from a modernized grid.
Congress can make our energy economy the envy of the world. The work starts by rescuing our grid.
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 spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”