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:
Last Energy just raised a $40 million Series B.

Nuclear energy is making a comeback, conceptually at least. While we’re yet to see a whole lot of new steel in the ground, money is flowing into fusion, there’s a push to build more standard fission reactors, and the dream of small modular reactors lives on, even in the wake of the NuScale disappointment.
All this excitement generally revolves around nuclear’s potential to provide clean, baseload power to the grid. But Washington D.C.-based Last Energy is pursuing a different strategy — making miniature, modularized reactors to provide power directly to industries such as data centers, auto manufacturing, and pulp and paper production. Size-wise, think small modular reactors, but, well, even smaller — Last Energy’s units provide a mere 20 megawatts of electricity, whereas a full-size reactor can be over 1,000 megawatts. SMRs sit somewhere in between.
Today the company announced its $40 million series B round, led by the Austin-based venture capital firm Gigafund. Last Energy aims to deploy its first microreactor by 2026, and CEO and founder Bret Kugelmass told me the company has already reached commercial agreements for 80 units, all in Europe. Nearly half of these will be deployed at data centers, the notoriously energy hungry server farms powering the AI boom.
Kugelmass told me the goal is for Last Energy’s reactor to be transportable in the back of a truck. “We decided to focus most of our specific design criteria based on supply chain and logistics constraints,” he said. Every part of the system is “built in a factory, first tested in a factory, mass manufactured in a factory, and then snaps together like a Lego set out in the field.”
There are currently no operational microreactors anywhere in the Western world, though other companies, including Radiant, Westinghouse, and BWX Technologies are also trying to build one. Last Energy’s investors are betting, however, that it could be one of the first to market.
As of now, the company has reached the permitting stage for some of its European projects. Kugelmass told me that Wales, England, Poland, and Romania are the company’s top markets, and that the decision to start in Europe was mainly financial. “Energy is so expensive in Europe compared to the U.S. — I mean, we're talking like two, three times higher for the exact same thing that we're going to deliver. We can make two or three times more money.”
The company estimates that its reactors can be fully manufactured and assembled onsite within two years. And while Kugelmass wouldn’t reveal an exact price, he said Last Energy will be cost-competitive with solar or wind plus storage. Problem is, there’s not really any precedent that would indicate how realistic these targets are, and nuclear doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to arriving on time or on budget.
At the very least, though, Kugelmass told me the reactor’s smaller size makes a meltdown “practically impossible,” meaning securing regulatory approval should be much simpler than it is for full-size plants. And building on the customer’s side of the meter also allows the company to supply power before it’s officially grid-connected, meaning Last Energy can work around the interminably long interconnection queues that plague the European clean energy market just as they do the U.S.
As manufacturing ramps, costs come down, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission streamlines its process for approving new projects, Kugelmass told me he could see Last Energy entering the domestic market in a few years. After all, with American companies driving the boom in AI and cloud computing, the U.S. has far more data centers than anywhere else on earth. Last Energy has aggressive plans to meet that demand, aiming to deploy 10,000 reactors in the next 15 years.
“But it doesn't stop there, because that's still only like 1% of global energy,” Kugelmass told me, saying that Last Energy’s ultimate goal is to “fundamentally transform global energy.” But that’s for tomorrow. For the unglamorous now, some more prototypes and permits are in order.
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 Secretary of the Interior said he “absolutely” planned to appeal a ruling that lifted blocks on wind and solar approvals.
The Trump administration is not backing down from its discriminatory policies for approving wind and solar projects. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum testified to Congress on Wednesday that his agency would appeal a recent district court ruling blocking it from enforcing these policies.
“We reject the whole premise,” Burgum said during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing.
Since Trump took office, the Interior Department has issued a series of memos and secretarial orders that systematically disadvantage wind and solar projects. Last July, it issued a memo requiring that nearly all approvals in the wind and solar permitting process be subject to additional reviews by the secretary’s office. A subsequent order required the agency to prioritize permitting projects with greater energy density, meaning ones that produce more power per acre of land, and deemed wind and solar “highly inefficient” compared with coal, nuclear, and natural gas projects.
The policies amounted to an effective freeze on wind and solar development on public lands, while also stalling projects on private lands that require federal consultations, affecting hundreds of clean energy projects. By the end of last year, Democrats saw no point in negotiating on permitting reform if the executive branch could simply make up its own permitting rules. They insisted on limits to executive power before they’d agree to a deal.
Around the same time, a coalition of clean energy groups, including the Clean Grid Alliance, Alliance for Clean Energy New York, and the Southern Renewable Energy Association, challenged the agency’s actions in the U.S. District court for the District of Massachusetts. The Interior’s permitting policies “place wind and solar technologies into second-class status without providing any rational justification for such disparate treatment or drastic policy shifts — unlawfully picking winners and losers among energy sources, contrary to Congress’ intent,” the lawsuit claimed. The groups argued the policies were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. In April, Judge Denise Casper sided with the plaintiffs, putting a temporary injunction on the agency’s wind and solar-hobbling memos.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Representative Susie Lee of Nevada told Burgum that his policies have “created a total permitting mess” in her sunny home state, and asked him what the immediate impact of the court’s order was within his agency. When Burgum responded by denigrating the judge’s decision, Lee asked if he was planning to appeal the order.
“Yeah, absolutely,” he said, asserting that “the idea that a single judge could decide” how the agency conducts permitting “is absurd.”
At the end of her questioning, Lee reaffirmed that the July 15 memo was the single thing stalling a permitting reform deal in Congress. “If you would just rescind that memo, we could get permitting reform passed this Congress, and we can start to talk about permitting all forms of energy.”
Later in the hearing, Burgum also defended another of the administration’s controversial actions regarding renewables. California Representative Dave Min questioned Burgum on his deal to pay the French energy company Total nearly $1 billion to walk away from its offshore wind leases. Was that an appropriate use of money, Min asked, considering so many Americans were struggling with high energy bills? Burgum rejected the premise, asserting several times that the agency merely “refunded” Total’s money.
The state has terminated an agreement to develop substations and other necessary grid infrastructure to serve the now-canceled developments.
Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on Wednesday canceled the agreement it reached with PJM Interconnection in 2021 to develop wires and substations necessary to send electricity generated by offshore wind across the state. The board terminated this agreement because much of New Jersey’s expected offshore wind capacity has either been canceled by developers or indefinitely stalled by President Donald Trump, including the now-scrapped TotalEnergies projects scrubbed in a settlement with his administration.
“New Jersey is now facing a situation in which there will be no identified, large-scale in-state generation projects under active development that can make use of [the agreement] on the timeline the state and PJM initially envisioned,” the board wrote in a letter to PJM requesting termination of the agreement.
Wind energy backers are not taking this lying down. “We cannot fault the Sherrill Administration for making this decision today, but this must only be a temporary setback,” Robert Freudenberg of the New Jersey and New York-focused environmental advocacy group Regional Plan Association, said in a statement released after the agreement was canceled.
I chronicled the fight over this specific transmission infrastructure before Trump 2.0 entered office and the White House went nuclear on offshore wind. Known as the Larrabee Pre-Built Infrastructure, the proposed BPU-backed network of lines and electrical equipment resulted from years of environmental and sociological study. It was intended to connect wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean to key points on the overall grid onshore.
Activists opposed to putting turbines in the ocean saw stopping the wires as a strategy for delaying the overall construction timelines for offshore wind, intensifying both the costs and permitting headaches for all state and development stakeholders involved. Some of those fighting the wires did so based on fears that electromagnetic radiation from the transmission lines would make them sick.
The only question mark remaining is whether this means the state will try to still proceed with building any of the transmission given rising electricity demand and if these plans may be revisited at a later date. The board’s letter to PJM nods to the future, asserting that new “alternative pathways to coordinated transmission” exist because of new guidance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These pathways “may serve” future offshore wind projects should they be pursued, stated the letter.
Of course, anything related to offshore wind will still be conditional on the White House.
The opinion covered a host of actions the administration has taken to slow or halt renewables development.
A federal court seems to have struck down a swath of Trump administration moves to paralyze solar and wind permits.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper on Tuesday enjoined a raft of actions by the Trump administration that delayed federal renewable energy permits, granting a request submitted by regional trade groups. The plaintiffs argued that tactics employed by various executive branch agencies to stall permits violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Casper — an Obama appointee — agreed in a 73-page opinion, asserting that the APA challenge was likely to succeed on the merits.
The ruling is a potentially fatal blow to five key methods the Trump administration has used to stymie federal renewable energy permitting. It appears to strike down the Interior Department memo requiring sign-off from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on all major approvals, as well as instructions that the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers prioritize “energy dense” projects in ways likely to benefit fossil fuels. Also struck down: a ban on access to a Fish and Wildlife Service species database and an Interior legal opinion targeting offshore wind leases.
Casper found a litany of reasons the five actions may have violated the Administrative Procedures Act. For example, the memo mandating political reviews was “a significant departure from [Interior] precedent,” and therefore “required a ‘more detailed justification’ than that needed for merely implementing a new policy.” The “energy density” permitting rubric, meanwhile, “conflicts” with federal laws governing federal energy leases so it likely violated the APA, the judge wrote.
What’s next is anyone’s guess. Some cynical readers may wonder whether the Supreme Court will just lift the preliminary injunction at the administration’s request. It’s worth noting Casper had the High Court’s penchant for neutralizing preliminary injunctions in mind, writing in her opinion, “The Court concludes that the scope of this requested injunctive relief is appropriate and consistent with the Supreme Court’s limitations on nationwide injunctions.”