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:
Emails between the Pennsylvania governor’s office and Amazon illustrate the difficulty of courting big business as anti-AI fervor explodes.

On March 6, Pennsylvania real estate mogul Brian O’Neill shot a panicked email to Benjamin Kirshner, a top state official, with a plea to the governor.
Amazon, wrote the property developer, had just told him “in writing, and I have sent you the e-mail, that they will not be doing any projects in Pennsylvania until they get certainty that the projects they have invested in can move forward. In conversations, they have pointed out to us that they have been appealed in EVERY project at EVERY turn,” O’Neill told Kirshner, Governor Josh Shapiro’s chief transformation and opportunity officer, referring to local governments rejecting the company’s permit applications. His own project in the Philadelphia suburb of Conshohocken had been blocked in November.
O’Neill then pleaded for the governor to “make sure we are not going to get appealed frivolously by people who just want to slow us down for sport like Amazon,” asking the governor to force those who challenge zoning decisions to post a bond double the value of the project. “If a $2 billion development is postponed due to an appeal, they should have to post a bond for $4 billion,” he wrote.
Kirshner forwarded the request to top officials in the Shapiro administration with a “FYI.”
What if anything came out of this correspondence we don’t know. The Shapiro administration told me it did not respond to O’Neill’s email. When asked if it supported his idea, the governor’s office declined to say, simply stating that the idea would require legislation, which has not been introduced. A representative for O’Neill told me they would supply a response but did not follow up. When asked about the email, Amazon gave me a statement from an unnamed spokesperson stating the company “has a deep and ongoing commitment to Pennsylvania.”
The whole exchange exemplifies the mess Shapiro — or any governor and future presidential hopeful — finds themselves in as an AI data center boom they welcomed runs headlong into a bitter backlash.
Shapiro is not the only state executive being forced to respond to the loud and opposing interests of real estate developers and voters concerned about the rapid pace and lack of transparency of the AI buildout. In Maine, Governor Janet Mills last week vetoed a statewide data center ban, much to the chagrin of the Democratic voter base she’ll need to win a U.S. Senate primary against insurgent progressive upstart Graham Platner.
On the one hand, there’s a lot for a governor to love in the explosion of data center development. The AI revolution has helped Pennsylvania’s economy grow during an overall difficult moment for the U.S. economy. Having announced last June that he was going “all in on AI,” Shapiro has coaxed billions of dollars in Big Tech investment to his state. Reports pin the planned data center investment in Pennsylvania at $100 billion total. Roughly a fifth of that total is from Amazon, which in 2025 announced that it would build more than $20 billion in AI infrastructure in the Commonwealth.
On the other hand, Pennsylvania — a key battleground for anyone seeking the White House — has become a bellwether for the country’s fears about data centers. Many in the state are worried the developments could disrupt the energy grid and raise electricity bills. Depending on how they’re designed, these projects can either be boring box-shaped structures running computers and generating tax revenue or noisy polluters draining local aquifers.
Since late 2024, 26 data center projects have attracted at least some degree of public opposition in Pennsylvania, according to the Heatmap Pro database, which shows the frustrations are widespread across regions, political affiliations, and socioeconomic classes. Most local complaints have focused water consumption, noise, energy consumption, and pollution. My own reporting has also found secrecy to be a major complaint; real estate developers are in many cases getting approval to build data center campuses without telling the public who may inherit these facilities after they’re completed.
Emails obtained by Heatmap News from a grassroots organizer in rural Pennsylvania provide a glimpse into how Shapiro has navigated the intensifying drumbeat against data centers. These records — more than 150 pages of correspondence between Shapiro’s office, Amazon, and others in the tech and real estate industries — paint a vivid picture of how the rumored 2028 Democratic presidential contender initially sought to woo Amazon, then sought to balance that pro-business approach with rising angst against AI and data centers.
For example, in April 2025, months before Amazon announced its $20 billion investment, Shapiro’s office offered the tech giant “exclusive early access” to a permitting fast track program not yet available to the public. Kirshner described the provision to Amazon as an “enhanced permit coordination framework established specifically for Amazon Web Services (AWS) development projects within Pennsylvania.” According to a memo included in the emails bearing the governor’s insignia, the state would help AWS “be among the first companies” to utilize a new program that lets third-party contractors complete parts of the permit application review process.
This program — known as SPEED, or Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development — was created through state law in July 2024. Under the program, companies seeking specific environmental permits are granted permission to use approved outside hires to review applications and then give those recommendations to the state for use in decisions on permits. The goal of this is to expedite permit reviews overall.
Even though the program was created in 2024, it takes time to stand up a new government program like this. Members of the public were given formal access to apply for the SPEED program at the end of June 2025. This was months after the “exclusive” offer was sent to Amazon.
Notably, the memo is labeled “subject to a non-disclosure agreement dated effective as of Feb. 15, 2024.” The use of NDAs between governments and data center developers is controversial because the agreements swear public officials to secrecy, making them answerable not to the public but rather to private entities within the scope of the contract. In Minnesota, lawmakers have explicitly tried to shed light on data center development by banning local political leaders from entering into NDAs. So controversial is this practice that Microsoft issued a public pledge to stop using NDAs with local governments.
Rosie Lapowsky, Shapiro’s press secretary, confirmed in a statement to me that the administration had given Amazon advance notice of the SPEED program and offered to help it navigate the permitting process, but said that AWS has not so far used the program for any projects.
As for the NDA, it’s not clear what the terms of the agreement referenced in the offer were, who in the office signed it, and whether Shapiro himself was bound by it. This is not the first time NDAs have come up within the Shapiro administration, however. Spotlight PA, an investigative news outlet, reported in 2023 that members of his transition team signed NDAs.
Amazon declined to say whether it had asked anyone in the Shapiro administration to sign a NDA. Shapiro’s office would not provide additional information on whether the governor, any top state officials — including Kirshner, the main signatory of the memo — or any of the governor’s staff are under a NDA with Amazon.
I obtained this window into the Shapiro administration from Colby Wesner, vice president of the grassroots organization Concerned Citizens of Montour County in Pennsylvania. By day, Wesner works in pediatric medicine, but he’s become a well-known figure in tech-anxious corners of Facebook for posting simple videos in which he details the findings of public records requests he submits to attempt to understand Amazon’s data center development practices in the Keystone State.
He first became involved in the fight against data centers, he told me, when developer Talen Energy asked Montour County to rezone hundreds of acres for industrial use. As I chronicled in February, Wesner and others suspected it was for an Amazon data center, but local officials wouldn’t say. Activists grew especially frustrated with this silence after discovering that county staff and at least one county commissioner had signed NDAs against discussing data center development. Wesner wound up discovering that one project was indeed for Amazon, and his video unveiling his findings sparked a local outcry.
“The more you learn, the more you crave to get more information to figure out how secretive these projects generally are, and how non-transparent the state government is,” Wesner told me. “Me personally, I feel obligated to keep doing this because it started from our small county, but Pennsylvania counties across the state are reeling from this.”
To be clear, there are some data center projects in Pennsylvania that Amazon has gotten behind publicly as it sought to develop them, such as this one in Salem Township and this one in Falls Township. Shapiro mentioned both projects in his June 2025 speech announcing Amazon’s $20 billion data center investment in the state, which he said was the single largest capital investment in the Commonwealth’s history.
“Our administration is actively engaged with Amazon on additional sites in our Commonwealth, helping them to secure local support, developing the infrastructure needed to support more data centers and ensure our permitting process works quickly,” Shapiro said at the time, crediting these investments to faster permits that “give confidence to companies like Amazon that their projects will get built on time.”
The emails from Wesner show that Amazon was involved in another project in the state it has not yet confirmed to date: Project Hazelnut in Hazle Township, which is currently under development by real estate firm NorthPoint.
According to tech trade publication Data Center Dynamics, the first public reference to Project Hazelnut was actually from Shapiro, who embraced the project site as a preferred location for tech development and faster permitting. In November 2024, he hosted an event there to publicize a new executive order establishing a statewide “permit fast track” program and identified Project Hazelnut as one of the first to benefit. In a press release, his office said the project was a “transformative technology campus” that “exemplifies Governor Shapiro’s commitment to growing Pennsylvania’s economy all across the Commonwealth by improving permitting processes, reducing delays, and increasing our competitiveness by ensuring government operates at the speed of business.”
It was apparently only afterward, in January 2025, that residents in the surrounding Hazle township learned what Project Hazelnut was: a roughly 1,300-acre campus that would purportedly include 15 data center buildings.
Over the months that followed, getting Hazelnut built was clearly on the Shapiro administration’s minds, as its permitting status was listed alongside the Salem and Falls township projects in the “exclusive” permitting benefit the governor’s office offered the tech giant in April 2025. The memo states that NorthPoint, not Amazon, is “the developer,” but also says Amazon would work on submitting air and storage tank permitting information. Elsewhere in the memo it states that Amazon’s public association as developer of the Salem project led to “multiple challenges” in the permitting process.
Over the summer, Ethan Dodd, a reporter for RealClearPennsylvania, reached out to Amazon asking questions about Project Hazelnut and other data centers in Pennsylvania. “Governor Shapiro’s office thought you would be best to answer these.”
This email immediately led to worries at Amazon. “It appears from the inquiry and the fact that the Gov’s office has directed the reporter to Amazon for more details they may have outed us on a project,” wrote Preston Grisham, who was then a D.C.-based policy lead at Amazon, to Becky Ford, an executive on Amazon’s economic development team.
Ford then forwarded these concerns to Shapiro’s office. “Please see the inquiry below,” Ford wrote to Kirshner and Rick Siger, head of Pennsylvania’s Department of Community and Economic Development. She asked to know who told the reporter to contact Amazon and said Hazelnut was not a site they had “disclosed.”
“In talking to the team we absolutely did not confirm or discuss anything about AWS and Hazelnut,” Siger replied, accusing local residents of “speculating about AWS at Hazelnut — though we did not comment/confirm.”
Kirshner followed up, accusing the reporter of “attempting to create a narrative” and adding: “We did absolutely not tell this reporter that Northpoint was AWS.”
Months later, locals succeeded in pressuring Hazle to reject Project Hazelnut. NorthPoint has appealed the denial in court, as state environmental regulators under Shapiro have continued to advance the project’s environmental permit applications. NorthPoint did not respond to requests for comment. Amazon did not comment on whether it is involved with Project Hazelnut.
Hazelnut’s continued progress is happening as at least one data center project benefiting from the state’s fast-track permitting programs has stalled out. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that the permitting application for Project Gravity, another large would-be tech hub, had been put on hold pending additional information from the developer. As in the case of Hazelnut, locals in the tiny township of Archbald learned that Gravity would be a sprawling data center campus, one of a multitude of data center proposals in the area causing chaos between residents and local leadership.
Lapowsky stressed in the statement to me that state agencies in charge of permitting handle applications based on existing law, which includes opportunities for public input and appeal.
Amidst this anger, Shapiro has started to work rhetoric into his public comments saying he feels the pain of places like Hazle. In his February State of the State address, he laid out what he called “the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development” principles, or GRID. He said that these standards, developed by his administration “in consultation with the community,” would “hold data centers accountable to strict standards if they want our full support.”
Three of the four standards struck me as standard fare. Developers would need to bring their own power or pay for new generation; companies would need to hire and train local workers; and they would need to commit to high environmental protection standards. One, though, stood out to me: Shapiro would make developers “commit to strict transparency standards.”
“Too many of these projects have been shrouded in secrecy, with local communities left in the dark about who is coming in and what they’re building,” he said. “That needs to change.”
The same day Shapiro gave that speech, Siger wrote Amazon to assure them the principles “are intended to be voluntary and Shapiro is “not proposing to ban or even discourage data centers or other large loads that don’t agree to implement them from siting here.”
Shapiro’s team also wanted to make sure Amazon got an advance look at the official “principles” before they were made formal and effective. On March 18, Shapiro’s deputy chief of staff Samuel Robinson wrote Ford and Merle Madrid, an Amazon lobbyist, with a “feedback draft of the principles” ahead of plans to “finalize and make the Principles public shortly.”
Amazon may have seen these principles, but I haven’t, and neither have most Pennsylvanians. More than two months since the State of the State address, Shapiro’s office has yet to release a formal outline of the governor’s data center development principles. The “feedback draft” itself wasn’t included in the cache of emails, nor was Amazon’s response, nor is it clear whether any other large tech companies may have received an advance consultation copy.
In the statement provided by the governor’s office, Lapowsky told me that the Shapiro administration is working to finalize and implement these standards and will release more details in the coming weeks, pointing to the GRID principles as outlined in the governor’s speech.
“These standards make clear that if companies want the Commonwealth’s full support — including access to tax credits and faster permitting — they must meet strict expectations around transparency, environmental protection, and community impact,” Lapowsky said. “This is about setting a higher bar for projects, not lowering it, and ensuring development happens responsibly and in a way that benefits Pennsylvanians.”
What we do know is that Shapiro last year was generally sympathetic to hearing Amazon’s needs, too. In the only message from the governor himself that appears in the emails — an August 2025 note sent to Matt Garman, CEO of Amazon Web Services, after the two saw each other in Pittsburgh — Shapiro writes, “We are thankful and excited about AWS’ historic investment and I agree that our teams continue to work very well together and we continue to be committed to your success in PA. We also look forward to the Fall announcement of the additional sites in PA, and would love to collaborate and maximize the impact of those announcements and share the story of positive economic and community outcomes together.”
He concluded the email: “My door is always open should you have issues or ideas you wish to discuss. Please keep in touch.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.
The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”
If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.
Two of the busier House members on this issue are Scott Peters, a Democratic former environmental lawyer from San Diego, and Gabe Evans, a first term Colorado Republican representing a suburban and rural district north of Denver that includes wind farms and crude oil production. “The district that I represent truly is an all of the above energy district,” Evans told me.
Their latest effort is a bill aimed at smoothing out permitting for transmission development, especially interregional transmission. Last week, the two congressmen unveiled the CLEAR Act, seeking to apply a stricter set of standards for lawsuits against transmission projects that aligned with how natural gas and hydropower projects are treated under the Federal Power Act (it’s much harder to sue to stop these projects). Earlier this year, the two also sponsored the CERTAIN Act, a more comprehensive streamlining of federal permitting for energy infrastructure projects.
“We’re proud to have a lot of our work as the foundation for this, and I think if they send us over something that includes this, it’s got a really good chance of passing in the House,” Peters told me. Evans added that bringing forward bipartisan bills “gives a little bit more impetus to the Senate to know that the House is looking for these things.”
While the Senate’s deal will be up to the senators, Peters told me he envisions a broad permitting package that could include reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act to shorten permitting timelines, preventing the president from nixing individual projects, and reform Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which effectively devolves power to tribes and states to block a variety of interstate projects. “I think it’s coming together pretty well,” Peters said. “Obviously, we’re waiting for white smoke from the Senate.”
A permitting reform package may be one of the last major bills several bipartisan-minded House members get to vote on.
Election day is about six weeks off, and while Peters will likely have an easy time getting reelected for this eighth term, Evans is in a tough race. His purple-hued district is a target for the House Democratic campaign arm, which is hoping to flip it to former Colorado House of Representatives member Manny Rutinel, who worked as a lawyer at the environmental group Earthjustice. The Cook Political Report rates the race as toss-up, and Nate Silver gives Rutinel a roughly 75% to win.
But Rutinel won’t be getting any campaign help from Peters.
When I asked Peters about the timing of releasing a bill that could boost an endangered Republican’s bipartisan bona fides less than two months before an election, Peters told me that he and Evans had been working on it “for a while,” and that “my colleagues know that I’ve worked with Republicans to get problems solved.”
He said he wasn’t “participating in Gabe’s election” and wasn’t giving any money to his campaign, but also that he wouldn’t campaign Evans’ challenger, despite the opportunity to bolster his own caucus.
Peters is not shy about praising Evans. “What I appreciate about Gabe is that it takes a little bit of initiative to separate yourself from the majority — particularly when you’re in the trifecta — and do your own thing. He’s been a good partner in helping find ways to reduce process and make things go faster,” he told me.
Evans told me that he and Peters met early in this Congress, as Evans was getting settled into his new office in the Longworth building. “We’ve built the relationship over the last two years with a lot of the different areas that we’ve collaborated on.”
“I always try to meet the members of my committee and find out who will work with me. And I was fortunate to find Gabe,” Peters said.
“I do want to win the majority in the next Congress,” Peters went on, but “the norm should be that we figure out ways to work together to solve problems, and, you know, we’ll let the voters of Colorado 8 decide who to send me.”
Evans, for his part, told me that he had to work with Democrats to get anything passed as a member of a minuscule Republican minority in the Colorado statehouse, and that the 40-plus members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have agreed not to campaign against each other. “There’s 385 other members that you can go pick fights with,” he said.
A new analysis by a one-time atomic energy opponent makes a bull case for big reactors.
If you know anything about the cost of nuclear energy in America, you probably are aware that the most recent reactors built — the only two new ones designed, planned, and constructed since the 1990s — were budget busters. Units 3 and 4 of Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Generating Station in eastern Georgia were the first of a new generation of reactor technology ever to be deployed in the U.S. Construction delays, changes to the design, and corporate bankruptcies ultimately sent the price of the pair of Westinghouse AP1000s — the Ford Mustang of American nuclear technology, with safety features that essentially make them not just powerful but also meltdown-proof — to nearly $40 billion, or about $16,350 per kilowatt.
But the U.S. once built reactors for half that — and it did so in the chaotic aftermath of the nation’s worst civilian nuclear accident, when mounting regulations made atomic power construction more onerous than ever before.
That’s the landmark finding of a new report by a veteran nuclear researcher, who quantified and broke down the cost of constructing nearly every civilian atomic power station the U.S. built in the 20th century. Adjusting the dollar figures using the Handy-Whitman Index, a specialized formula for calculating inflation in the utility sector’s construction costs, the analysis — shared exclusively with Heatmap — concluded that 47 reactors built in the U.S. between the 1979 partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant and the turn of the millennium came in at an average of $8,200 per kilowatt.
“Costs are only going to come down from that,” Charles Komanoff, the economist and energy policy analyst whose consultancy conducted the study on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force, told me.
The paper carves out a pathway down the cost curve that runs counter to the industry’s broader consensus at the moment on the best way to make nuclear less of a luxury choice compared to other generating sources. Billions of dollars have flooded into companies promising to commercialize small modular reactors that generate 300 megawatts or less. The concept is a bet on what Komanoff calls the economies of duplication, meaning that if customers need more individual reactors, developers can ride that repetition to lower prices. But the paper suggests that the way developers have historically reduced nuclear costs — through economies of scale — achieves the same per-kilowatt savings with one gigawatt-sized, water-cooled reactor as 20 smaller reactors would net.
Some small and microreactor developers say that using alternative coolants — molten salt, liquid sodium, high-temperature gases such as helium — could further raise the efficiency of their technologies, allowing them to make up for whatever they lose on economies of scale. But large, traditional reactors such as the AP1000 are “a proven technology” that, unlike next-generation reactors with far less operating experience, won’t have to overcome “teething problems” to reach maximum efficiency levels, Komanoff told me.
There are other options to the AP1000, such as the ABWR that the parent companies of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy built in Japan and Taiwan in the 1990s. One was planned for Texas, but abandoned a decade ago amid declining interest in nuclear power post-Fukushima. The technology is approved by the NRC, but GE-Hitachi has since turned its attention to its 300-megawatt BWRX-300. Given that no ABWR was built in the U.S., James Boucher, the former Deloitte nuclear consultant who co-authored the paper, said the AP1000 is the reactor best positioned to replicate the country’s successful buildout of the 1980s.
“We have two AP1000s. They're fully built. They’re operating. They’re doing, as far as I can tell, quite well. And they are like these reactors in our sample,” Boucher told me. “If we wanted to build 20, 30, 50 more AP1000s, I think we’d have a good shot.”
The Nuclear Company, a startup developer that hired much of the team behind the Vogtle buildout in a bid to become the go-to project manager for future AP1000s, called Komanoff’s report “promising because it demonstrates how cost can come down when we don’t focus on building first-of-a-kind projects.”
“There was a 30% overnight capital cost reduction just moving from Unit 3 to Unit 4 on the Vogtle project — there is no reason we can’t continue down the learning curve on the next AP1000s built in this country,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer and president, told me after reviewing the report I sent him. “Especially with our mix of experience building these reactors and advancements in technology we’re leveraging to scale, achieving below $10,000 per kilowatt is just the beginning for us. We believe we can execute safer, faster, and at lower cost than we’ve achieved in the past.”
Back in the 1980s, the military-like regimentation common at nuclear plants and construction sites wasn’t yet as ingrained in the industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had replaced the Atomic Energy Commission, which was seen as too deferential to the companies it oversaw, and spent the decade tightening rules on constructing and operating nuclear plants. New accident scenarios were being discovered, requiring new plants and existing ones up for relicensing to change operating protocols, upgrade equipment, and conduct additional research.
Komanoff was among those pushing for the changes. In reports he authored on behalf of Greenpeace, an arch opponent of nuclear power, he dissected the fiscal woes atomic energy developers faced, making the economic case for shutting down electrical stations that his fellow activists battled on ecological or moral grounds. Eventually, Komanoff moved on to advocating for a carbon tax as the fairest and clearest way to guide the economy away from fossil fuels and toward decarbonization. While serving as director of the Carbon Tax Center, which he co-founded, he noticed a trend among nuclear plants: They were getting better at operating.
The regulatory changes that followed Three Mile Island succeeded in raising the operating efficiencies of nuclear plants. In the 1970s, reactors had a capacity factor — a measure of how frequently a generating source actually produces electricity — of about 50%. Yet by 1991, that number had risen to 70%, putting atomic energy on par with the most efficient fossil fuel and hydroelectric plants. In 2002, that national average hit 90%. In 2019, it rose to 94%. When the final reactor at Indian Point, the nuclear station that served Komanoff’s native New York City, closed in 2021 due to political opposition to its relicensing, it had just set a world record for an uninterrupted 753-day run of electricity production.
Gradually, Komanoff came to see nuclear power as a vital tool for decarbonization. But, ensconced in the climate movement through his carbon tax advocacy, he found it easier to stay mum on his conversion, lest he ruffle the feathers of fellow activists who remained stalwart anti-nuclearists. After all, he thought, if a carbon tax passes, nuclear plants will benefit, so why bother speaking up specifically for atomic energy? Indian Point’s early shutdown, however, caused Komanoff pangs of regret.
“It just forced me to confront the consequences of not advocating for nuclear power,” he said. “I felt the way I imagined I would feel if a climbing partner — I used to be a sort of mountaineer — had died because of some negligence on my part. I really took personal responsibility because I imagined that — and maybe I’m just in a complete fantasy about my shamanistic power — as someone who had argued 40 years ago for shutting Indian Point, that if I had gone public say ‘Don’t do it,’ that I might have been able to begin turning the tide.”
While $8,200 per kilowatt is half of what Vogtle cost, it’s still nearly four times the cost of building a new natural gas-burning power plant with combined-cycle turbines, which itself rose to $2,157 per kilowatt last year from less than $1,500 in 2023. But the “regulatory churn” that kept the price of nuclear high, Komanoff said, is unlikely to return for new nuclear plants using proven designs such as the AP1000.
“Part of my optimism about nuclear being less subject to regulatory churn going forward is because it’s not a whipping boy,” he said. “It’s really hard to overstate the aura of incompetence that surrounded the nuclear power sector in the United States in the ‘70s into the ‘80s. But when you’ve got plants that are averaging 90% or higher capacity factors, things change.”
Current conditions: Oman’s Ayn Athum Waterfalls burst to life this week as rain battered the Gulf nation’s southwestern Dhofar governorate • Severe monsoon flooding has deluged parts of the American Southwest, including Navajo Nation, where at least three people have died • Tropical Storm Dujuan is barreling toward Japan, where it threatens flooding and landslides in Tokyo and Chiba.
When the Houthis stormed Yemen’s Red Sea coast last week, the Iran-backed rebels gained new ground from which to attack boats passing through the vital shipping lane, extending Tehran’s reach from the Persian Gulf’s hotly contested Strait of Hormuz to the waterway on the opposite side of the Arabian peninsula. In response, oil prices surged. But the price per barrel of crude is slipping again as the United States has rebuked Saudi Arabia’s requests for help routing the militants, instead seeking a deal that keeps the Bab al-Mandab Strait open to American and Israeli ships. Over the weekend, U.S. diplomats met with Houthi officials in neutral Oman, Reuters reported. Following the talks, the Times of Israel reported that Houthis promised not to attack any Israeli or commercial ships of any kind, only those linked to Saudi Arabia, which has funded the Yemeni government’s campaign against the rebels.
Satellite images published by the investigative site Hunterbrook showed workers building a bypass on Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, its main conduit for circumventing oil exports around the Strait of Hormuz, to get around the pumping station damaged by a Houthi attack. But the promise of free movement through the Red Sea sent the price of oil down by between 1% and 4% on Thursday.
Just yesterday, I told you that the Trump administration had moved to drastically change how the government interprets the Endangered Species Act to only consider deaths of protected animals illegal if the creatures were intentionally targeted. Such a shift would exclude the vast majority of deaths linked to energy companies, such as when birds land in toxic oil ponds or collide with wind turbines. Whether federal enforcement ultimately reflects that interpretation depends on the outcome of a forthcoming lawsuit. Already, Earthjustice has vowed to file litigation challenging the Trump administration’s legal memo directing federal agencies on its new view of the nation’s bedrock conservation law. “The government’s new legal position is a prescription for extinction. It says that as long as you claim you didn’t mean to kill an endangered species, the law can’t and won’t stop you,” Earthjustice attorney Ben Levitan said in a press release. “That’s ridiculous — and a totally illegal, active misreading of the Endangered Species Act. We’ll see the Trump administration in court about this.”
The toll wind turbines take on migratory birds is a favorite talking point of the energy source’s opponents. But relief from the responsibility to avoid killing birds would be cold comfort to the wind industry as developers wait for the Trump administration to follow a court ruling requiring it to continue processing applications for turbines. As my colleague Jael Holzman wrote yesterday, the administration has continued delaying. At least one other legal fight within the offshore wind industry has, meanwhile, come to a conclusion. Vineyard Wind and its turbine supplier GE Vernova, announced an “amicable settlement” this week that resolves “all outstanding litigation,” the New Bedford Light reported. The developer sued the supplier in April, accusing GE Vernova of an $800 million breach of contract following a blade failure in 2024.

The U.S. needs more long-term energy storage, and few technologies are better tested by time than using excess electricity to pump water into a reservoir, where it can be released downhill and run through turbines to generate huge bursts of power when it’s needed. Back when the U.S. had lots of nuclear power, pumped hydro plants harvested the unused electrons during the night. With solar now producing more electricity during the day in some parts of the country than the grid demands, pumped hydro is seeing a potential renewal. But the U.S. hasn’t built any pumped hydro facilities since the 1990s. A project that looked likely to break that dry spell is now on pause as the Trump administration heeds opponents’ concerns and orders a new study on its environmental impact.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has delayed its decision on whether to license the $3 billion project to add a pumped hydro facility to the Seminoe Reservoir, a lightning bolt-shaped waterway in southern Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management said it will conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement and open the door to more public comments and input from local officials. “This feels like a small victory,” CiCi Oliver, a fly-fishing shop owner who opposed the project over its potential disruptions to the ecology of the reservoir, told WyoFile this week.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
At the start of the Iran War, some interpreters of President Donald Trump’s supposed four-dimensional geopolitical chess moves suggested that shutting down the Strait of Hormuz was an intentional move to show China’s vulnerable underbelly: Beijing’s dependence on oil imports. And yet, China’s vast oil stockpiles and refining capacity, plus its array of alternative energy sources, allowed the country to slash oil purchases by 23% in the first six months of the war compared to the same period last year, according to a New York Times analysis of customs data. “This is a power that nobody thought China had,” said Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “Going forward, it’s going to be really interesting to see: What does China do with this newfound power?” The heaviest answer to that question now weighing on Western officials involves China considering the ramifications of a potential invasion of Taiwan to be less worrying than before.
That’s especially true because Taiwan, by contrast, is more vulnerable to losing access to oil and gas imports than ever before. After completing its decades-long mission last year to shut down the nuclear fleet that powered the island’s 20th century transformation into the world’s premiere chipmaker, Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party — which advocates for the republic’s continued de facto independence — left the nation dependent on imported liquified natural gas and crude for the vast majority of its energy. Now, according to Nikkei, the government is hastening its efforts to potentially bring at least one nuclear station back online.
Yet another state is considering a moratorium on data centers — one close to the epicenter of the artificial intelligence boom. Maryland, which shares a grid and a border with northern Virginia’s data center megacluster, could see a ban come into effect as early as next year if state legislators pass a bill in the next session. Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, said he “will absolutely sign” a statewide ban “if it’s coming from local legislators.” Speaking to Punchbowl News, he suggested that any moratorium would come with loopholes for projects that meet high standards. “I believe local jurisdictions should have a say. There are certain local jurisdictions who want it,” he said. “I just need them to understand I have very strict guidelines for what is actually going to get state approval.”
A startup founded by members of the team of U.S. government scientists that first achieved net-energy gain from a fusion reaction has hit a new milestone that should raise the eyebrows of even skeptics of the so-called holy grail of clean power. Less than two months after publicizing its roadmap to commercial fusion, Inertia Enterprises ran a simulation demonstrating that its first commercial plant will be capable of producing 25 times more energy than the laser needed to trigger the reaction, the company told my colleague Katie Brigham in an exclusive.