Back
The region is finalizing its first-in-the-nation rule to limit the sale of polluting gas water heaters, which will take effect next year.
In 2023, the San Francisco Bay Area’s air district passed first-in-the-nation rules setting zero-emissions limits on home heating systems and water heaters. Now, the agency is working to address affordability concerns ahead of the water-heater rule’s finalization this year — and defuse calls from some regulators to scrap the policy altogether.
In their current form, the regulations would effectively prohibit the sale of gas appliances, beginning with water heaters in 2027 and then furnaces in 2029. Gas appliances spew noxious compounds, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) that contribute to the region’s smog. Pollution from furnaces and water heaters leads to as many as 85 early deaths in the community each year, the air district estimates. Those deaths, combined with illnesses and hospital visits, take a financial toll of up to $890 million annually.
But clean alternatives — zero-emissions heat pumps and heat-pump water heaters — are typically more expensive up front, even if they can save thousands of dollars on energy bills over time. From the beginning, Bay Area regulators, the majority of whom are elected city and county officials, vowed to institute the groundbreaking requirements with care.
The air district is now hammering out the details for implementing the water-heater rule, including a plan to offer one-time exemptions to low-income households and those with space and electrical constraints. Staff members, who are separate from the voting board and developed the proposal, estimate that the exemptions could apply to 38% of water-heater installations. They’ve also proposed delaying implementation by nine months, from January 2027 to October 2027, to set up the exemption system.
Several members of the agency’s board are seeking more drastic changes.
Eight of the 18 board directors in attendance at the body’s May 13 meeting expressed a desire to further delay the policy’s implementation date — or roll it back and make adoption of electric equipment voluntary instead. The board has a total of 24 directors.
“I just think it’s the wrong time to do this. … What’s the top-of-mind issue right now? It’s affordability,” said Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert, a board member in favor of loosening the rules. “It’s affordability of food, it’s affordability of electricity, it’s affordability of gas.”
Bay Area regulators have tightened NOx-emissions standards for water and space heaters for over 30 years. The municipalities of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Altos Hills, Oakland, and San Francisco have passed local resolutions in favor of the latest appliance rules.
A majority of the board voiced their continued support for the water-heater standard, given gas-fired equipment’s insidious threats to public health.
“When we talk about affordability, let’s talk about the affordability of asthma,” said chair Lynda Hopkins, supervisor of Sonoma County, who supports the standards with the exemptions.
“Let’s talk about the affordability of premature death and heart disease, missed work, missed sports practices, missed school … [which also has] social and emotional costs,” she noted. “We have communities who are essentially living with generational trauma because they experience disproportionate health impacts.”
The board is expected to vote on the finalized rule language this October.
Its decision could inform state-level regulations taking shape in California and Maryland. Both are actively considering clean-heater rules, while eight other states have committed to exploring zero-emissions standards in the future: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington. Last year, after a flood of opposition speculated to be fake, Southern California’s air district decided to hold off on adopting similar zero-emissions appliance rules of its own.
“The Bay Area will set an example for other air districts,” said Joseph Wachunas, senior project manager at decarbonization nonprofit New Buildings Institute.
According to the district’s analysis, heat-pump water heater installation costs $7,000 on average, or twice as much as putting in gas equipment. Local and state incentives are available to help close the $3,500 gap — or, in some cases, install zero-emissions water heaters for free.
For a substantial minority of households, switching to a heat-pump water heater could still be cost-prohibitive for myriad reasons. These appliances are typically larger than gas options and may not fit in tight spaces. Because heat-pump devices harvest thermal energy from the air, they typically need at least 700 cubic feet, which not all properties are ready to accommodate. And while evidence suggests that most households can electrify on 100 amps, a fraction might need an electrical service upgrade that could add $2,000 to $30,000 to the installation cost.
When these circumstances make heat-pump water heaters unaffordable, the air district’s staff members have proposed making exceptions.
“If you have to move a wall, you’re going to be able to get that exemption. If you have to upgrade your panel, you’re going to get that exemption,” said Greg Nudd, deputy executive officer of policy at the district. After installing a gas water heater, “you would have the lifetime of that piece of equipment to address those problems.”
The tech is also becoming more accessible. “When we started this process several years ago, there were no 120-volt heat-pump water heaters,” said board director John Gioia, supervisor of Contra Costa County. “There are now two on the market” that plug into standard outlets.
Clean air advocates called the exemption approach reasonable.
“The Bay Area Air District has done a good job at addressing the real-world concerns that people have brought up,” said Tony Sirna, deputy policy director for buildings at climate advocacy group Evergreen Action. “We want to reduce pollution, but we know that that’s not going to be successful if the rule doesn’t work for the people of the Bay Area.”
More than 60% of homes in the region will still be required to adhere to the standard, “which will drastically reduce pollution and put us on track to transitioning to clean air and clean energy,” Sirna said.
Even though some regulators would suspend the appliance rules outright, Sirna said he’s confident that the majority will carry the water-heater standard across the finish line this fall. “The flexibility exemptions that are being proposed,” he noted, “really address all the concerns that were being raised.”
Changes suggested by state regulators could put 2030 emissions goals out of reach and shift billions of dollars from state programs to polluters, critics say.
California’s top air regulator wants to overhaul the state’s two-decade-old carbon market. But key lawmakers and environmental groups say the effort will undermine the program — and the state’s decarbonization goals.
Last month, the California Air Resources Board proposed major changes to the state’s cap-and-invest program. The system was put in place in 2006, becoming the country’s first economy-wide emissions-trading mechanism for refineries, factories, power plants, and other major industrial sites. Together, these sources account for about 80% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The program effectively taxes major emitters and uses the proceeds to fund climate and decarbonization solutions throughout the state. CARB is in charge of managing the program, and ensuring it supports the state’s legal mandate to reduce its carbon emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030.
But critics say the agency’s latest proposal would instead put those targets out of reach.
Topping their list of concerns is CARB’s novel plan to grant a total of 118 million metric tons of extra emissions allowances to oil refineries and other industries, in exchange for a promise to invest in decarbonization projects in the future. That could allow polluting industries to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at volumes that will blow past the state’s 2030 targets.
What’s more, giving away that many allowances could dramatically reduce cap-and-invest revenues, potentially by as much as $4 billion over the next four years. That could eliminate billions of dollars meant to fund state programs to defray the impact of rising utility rates and protect disadvantaged communities suffering the greatest harms of climate change.
CARB, for its part, has argued that its proposed changes will not have such dire effects. The agency is set to vote on its new plan on May 28.
Environmental advocates and a group of 28 state lawmakers who helped reauthorize the cap-and-invest program last year are now pushing CARB to revise its plan and offer an alternative that can be implemented in the next few months.
“That’s what we need, because this proposal undermines the integrity of the program so substantially,” said Chloe Ames, a policy adviser at NextGen California, one of 45 environmental groups that signed a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, and CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez calling for the agency to abandon its plan.
In a separate letter to Newsom and Sanchez, the lawmakers wrote that the proposed changes “depart from the spirit of our landmark agreement” to reauthorize the program last year, and demanded that CARB “amend their Cap-and-Invest proposal to push back on pressure from an oil industry that is making hundreds of billions in wartime profits.”
CARB’s April proposal is dramatically more lenient on polluters than the initial plan it put forth in January.
Following that original proposal, major oil and gas companies, including Chevron, pushed hard for CARB to take a more lenient approach. Republican and moderate Democratic lawmakers in the state amplified those pleas.
That’s why environmental groups have blamed the new proposal on “massive lobbying efforts by fossil fuel interests — some of the most profitable companies in the world.”
Some lawmakers criticized the proposal along similar lines in a May 6 Senate hearing with Sanchez. In the hearing, Sen. Caroline Menjivar, chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus, put a fine point on it, referring to the program as a “slush fund” for polluters.
California’s cap-and-invest program works like this: Companies covered by the program must either reduce their carbon emissions below a certain state-mandated limit or buy allowances from the market to offset emissions in excess of that limit. The number of allowances available for purchase declines over time — it’s “capped,” hence the name. As the supply of available allowances falls, the price of each allowance, and so the cost of compliance, tends to rise.
In CARB’s January proposal, the agency determined that the state’s previous carbon accounting had undercounted how many million tons of emissions it needed to eliminate between 2027 and 2030 to hit California’s decarbonization targets. That discrepancy added up to roughly 118 million metric tons.
CARB’s January plan proposed to remove the equivalent amount of allowances from the program entirely. But that spurred an outcry from polluting industries, which warned that such a move would drive up consumer costs and push jobs and investment out of the state.
The Western States Petroleum Association, a trade group, and Chevron, the state’s largest oil refiner, warned that failing to loosen the program’s emissions limits may force companies to close refineries and further increase the state’s highest-in-the-nation fuel prices.
That message has been echoed by California Republicans and some moderate Democrats. Rajinder Sahota, CARB’s deputy executive officer for climate change and research, cited similar concerns during a press briefing after the April proposal was unveiled.
As Sanchez told senators at the May 6 hearing, “We heard a clear message — we must support the ability for California businesses to stay in state while delivering on our statutory climate goals.”
CARB presented its new proposal — known as the manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI) — as the solution to those problems.
Its primer on the plan described it as a “first of its kind feature for a carbon market,” one that “would provide $4 billion to support investment and doing business in California,” as well as “make up for the loss of federal incentives” for industrial decarbonization that have been cut by the Trump administration.
The new plan would not only keep the 118 million metric tons’ worth of allowances in circulation; it would also allow companies to claim them for free, rather than force them to purchase the allowances.
Granting some free allowances is a standard practice in carbon markets and has been part of California’s approach from the start. The idea is to give carbon-intensive industries some buffer against the increasingly high costs of complying with emissions limits and to avoid driving these polluting but economically important industries to other states.
But critics say CARB’s math doesn’t add up.
The agency has not “provided evidence to justify the rather large increase in production subsidies” that the MDI program would provide, Meredith Fowlie, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and faculty director at its Haas School of Business’ Energy Institute, wrote in an April blog post. “Increasing these output subsidies may further reduce leakage — or it may just transfer more value to incumbent producers without materially changing production decisions.”
And regardless of its efficacy in preventing leakage, environmental advocates say that CARB’s own prior analysis shows that the MDI program would undermine climate goals.
“Creating 118 million additional allowances effectively cancels out the 118 million they’re supposed to be reducing by 2030,” said Caroline Jones, manager of energy transition and carbon markets at the Environmental Defense Fund, which opposes CARB’s plan. “Removing these allowances was initially proposed by CARB as the lowest threshold of change required to meet 40% reductions by 2030.”
CARB’s counter is that these free allowances will flow only to participating companies that pledge to invest in future emissions reductions. But it’s unclear whether CARB will have the ability or the desire to force companies to make good on those promises.
At the May 6 Senate hearing, Sanchez said that CARB would “monitor, evaluate, and propose adjustments to this program to ensure that it is working as intended and delivering on those emissions reductions.”
So far, CARB has provided very little in the way of clear rules for how the MDI would accomplish this, Jones said. “There are no guardrails on how they need to account for the emissions reductions they’re achieving — or even if they are achieving them,” she said.
Concerns loom over the “invest” side of the program as well.
California uses the revenue raised by selling cap-and-invest allowances to fund statewide climate and decarbonization efforts. But that funding mechanism is only as effective as the underlying market for the emissions allowances being traded — and environmental groups and lawmakers fear CARB’s plan will seriously undermine those dynamics.
Over the past two years, prices in the program’s quarterly allowances auctions have fallen from what Jones described as a relatively healthy range in the mid-$30s to low $40s per ton to the mid-$20s range. In fact, recent auction prices have been within a dollar or two of the minimum price set through a complex regulatory formula, she said.
“Prices in this program are already at a floor,” she said. CARB’s new proposal would “effectively flood the market with additional allowances, dragging down the market even further.”
The MDI program could have a particularly pernicious effect because it would open the door for companies to secure allowances on top of those they’ve already been allocated. In some cases, that could allow individual companies to “receive free allowances well in excess of their emissions,” wrote Fowlie, who is chair of the state’s Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee.
According to Fowlie’s math, refineries tapping into the MDI program could rack up 6.1 allowances per barrel of oil, compared with the benchmark GHG emissions rate for refineries of about 3.89 tons per barrel. That windfall supply of allowances could be sold to other emitters, including other oil companies, depressing program revenues and industry compliance costs while turning a profit for polluters.
If those market dynamics play out, it would put a dent in funding for key climate and energy initiatives in California.
The cap-and-invest program helps fund a Climate Credit program that utilities use to reduce customer bills, as well as the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), which has been a go-to source for programs that have faced funding cuts over the past several years of tight state budgets.
As part of last year’s negotiations over reauthorizing the state’s cap-and-invest program, lawmakers and Newsom’s office agreed to prioritize GGRF funds for a variety of purposes. The governor’s proposed 2026–2027 budget calls for $1 billion for the state’s high-speed rail project and $1.6 billion to backfill state forestry and fire protection, among other higher-tier funding priorities.
Money left after those priorities would flow to “Tier 3” allocations, including hundreds of millions of dollars over the next four years for the state’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program, the Community Air Protection Program, the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, and the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.
CARB, for its part, has argued that the doomsday scenario painted by critics is unlikely. After all, it’s hard to predict how an untested program like the MDI might impact a market that relies on buyers and sellers making their own decisions about what allowances are worth.
The agency “cannot predict auction revenues or results,” Sanchez emphasized in the May 6 Senate hearing.
But analyses from independent experts and from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office estimate that MDI would add up to billions of dollars in lost auction revenue.
The proposal could lead to a $4 billion loss in auction revenue, equating to $2.3 billion less for the GGRF and $1.7 billion less for the Climate Credit from 2027 to 2030, according to an analysis by data scientists Kyle Meng and Jordan Wingenroth of UC Santa Barbara’s Environmental Markets Lab. In a report to lawmakers, the Legislative Analyst’s Office also found it “could somewhat reduce the overall amount of Climate Credit” funding, and would cut annual GGRF revenues to about $2 billion per year — roughly half what they’ve been in recent years.
That “would be inadequate to fully support Tier 2 programs” the report found, “and leave no funding for Tier 3 programs.”
During the May 6 hearing, Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, a Democrat and chair of the Budget Subcommittee on Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy, grilled Sanchez on the risk of losing this funding. “Do you believe the legislature intended to eliminate funding for affordable housing, transit, drinking water, wildfire prevention and clean air programs with the reauthorization?” she asked.
When Sanchez responded that CARB hasn’t proposed to “defund any of those specific programs,” Gómez Reyes interrupted her. “Let me stop you for a moment,” Gómez Reyes said. “That will be the effect. … There’s nothing left to fund Tier 3, and those are the most important programs that have served the community.”
Sen. John Laird, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, noted that such a drastic reduction in funding would force lawmakers to “put everything back on the table” for upcoming negotiations over the governor’s revised budget plan.
“It really affects what we do, to what level we do it, how the different pieces fit together,” he said. “So I want to call out the budget side of the equation, because this is a big deal.”
A handful of sensationally large developments are underway around the world, testing just how big solar can get.
Until recently, pacesetting solar projects were measured in the hundreds of megawatts. But panels keep getting cheaper, and developers keep getting better at installing them. As a result, power companies are undertaking projects that are bigger than anyone could have conceived five years ago.
China has led the way on this with a series of installations that push past the gigawatt scale. Other countries aren’t far behind, including the U.S., though it hasn’t reached the gigawatt threshold yet.
Giga-scale construction requires a whole new level of land access, workforce mobilization, and transmission planning. Collectively, these projects presage a future when the sunniest, most remote places in the world serve as electrical breadbaskets, supplying energy to population hubs far away.
Here are three of the most prominent giga-projects currently underway, to give you a sense of just how big solar power plants are becoming and what it takes to make them happen.
The scale of this project is vertigo-inducing. Adani, the corporate empire of self-made billionaire Gautam Adani, has branched out from building ports, airports, and coal plants to manufacturing solar cells and panels, installing them, building transmission lines, and retailing the electricity. This vertically integrated strategy reaches its apotheosis in Khavda, which will have 30 gigawatts of combined solar and wind capacity, and already features one of the world’s largest operating grid batteries.
Adani Green Energy picked a 200-plus-square-mile expanse in the Rann of Kutch, a seasonally flooded salt flat in Gujarat, to turn into this clean energy colossus. The region combines strong winds and blasting sunshine, but makes for a challenging work environment. The company had to run its own fiber-optic cable and build a desalination plant to furnish water for the isolated work camp it assembled for 15,000 laborers. Solar panels extend as far as the eye can see, with 5.2-megawatt Adani-made wind turbines interspersed every half mile, so they don’t block each other’s access to strong winds.
Construction began in 2023, and in February 2024, the first 551 megawatts came online, sent via an Adani-owned transmission corridor to customers in Mumbai and elsewhere. Since then, the generation capacity has risen to 13 gigawatts, assisted by robots waterlessly cleaning dust off the panels twice a day.
When Adani realized that some of the power was going to waste during the sunny hours, the company added a battery to the plan. In nine months, workers installed a 1.1-gigawatt/3.5 gigawatt-hour storage facility, which was officially commissioned earlier this month. That impressive scale puts it in contention for largest single-site grid battery in the world, outstripping even the Edwards & Sanborn battery in California’s Mojave Desert.
This hulking battery lets the company sell power after sunset at merchant rates that are much higher than the daytime rates. Adani plans to add another 10 gigawatt-hours of storage there by next April.
“Mr. Adani just bit the bullet and went for it,” Arun Sharma, chief sustainability officer for the Adani Group, told Canary Media on the sidelines of Boston Climate Week. “We don’t do anything on the megawatt level — or even hundreds-of-megawatt level. If it is not gigawatt, then our CEOs don’t have the attention span.”
Like Adani, Chinese solar developers are looking for the widest open spaces with the best possible sunshine, and that has led them to the Tibetan Plateau. At a 10,000-foot elevation, the sun shines more brightly than at sea level, and the chilly air helps the panels convert those rays more efficiently.
The country’s largest cluster of solar farms has accumulated at Talatan Solar Park, in Qinghai Province. As of last fall, it could produce nearly 17 gigawatts, and it was still growing, per a rare foreign-media dispatch from the remote region by The New York Times. The solar cluster covers an area equivalent to seven Manhattans.
Indeed, multi-gigawatt solar projects have become commonplace in China. A few more soak up the high-elevation sunshine elsewhere in Qinghai; others catch the light in Xinjiang province and Inner Mongolia. But Talatan towers above them all, in stature and elevation. It helps that few people live on that part of the alpine plateau, and the plant accommodates those who do by installing the panels high enough for sheep to graze beneath them. Starting in the 1990s, China displaced a million people to create an enormous power plant with the Three Gorges Dam, the Times noted, but now it installs solar capacity equivalent to that project every three weeks.
The Central Valley of California churns out one-quarter of the agricultural crop in the U.S., but its water is disappearing. The Westlands Water District has tackled this head-on with a coordinated strategy that, if implemented, would allocate fallow lands for a sprawling 21-gigawatt solar complex, served by a privately developed transmission corridor.
The scale of this would be staggering. If fully built, the Westlands effort would add as much utility-scale solar as the whole state of California has built thus far, as Canary Media’s Jeff St. John recently reported. It could give California one of the largest solar plants in the world, especially impressive given the state’s famously high cost of doing business, and the elevated solar-panel prices from U.S. trade protectionism.
What makes this project special is how it seeks to overcome the collective action problems stymieing renewables development across much of the U.S. While Gautam Adani can direct his empire with sheer force of will, and the Chinese government can clear the way for its long-range energy plans, the U.S. doesn’t typically have a centralized entity planning energy, transmission lines, permitting, water supplies, and optimal land use. But the Westlands district has taken on that role as an evolution of its historical duties coordinating water infrastructure on behalf of its members.
The project could inject much-needed clean energy for California’s quest to phase out fossil fuels by 2045. Plus, with its incentives for farmers and requirement of a community benefits plan, it could also model how clean energy can help communities adapt to a changing environment without leaving people behind.
It’s a milestone for the Amazon-backed firm, which still needs safety approvals from the NRC before it can begin building its 80-MW gas-cooled reactors.
X-energy, the Amazon-backed nuclear startup looking to revive the United States’ high-temperature gas-cooled reactor efforts, just took a major step toward securing federal permits to start construction on its debut plant.
On Monday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the key environmental review for X-energy’s first project, which would see it build four of its 80-megawatt Xe-100 reactors at chemical giant Dow’s UCC Seadrift Operations, the 4,700-acre manufacturing complex on Texas’ Gulf Coast just north of Corpus Christi.
For months, the NRC conducted an environmental assessment of the proposed project — a step required by the National Environmental Protection Act for any large-scale energy project seeking federal permits. The results of that study determined whether a more rigorous, potentially yearslong environmental impact statement is needed. The agency, Canary Media has learned, has concluded the process with a “finding of no significant impact,” meaning that the project can forgo the impact statement.
This marks the first time in the NRC’s 52-year history that the agency has greenlit a commercial nuclear project’s environmental review through an assessment rather than an impact statement.
The environmental approval is the first of the two biggest steps in the construction permitting process, and is a requirement to complete the second stage: the safety review. X-energy expects the NRC’s staff to issue recommendations on the safety review in November, after which the five-member commission can render its final verdict at any time.
“We did the same studies you would for any reactor. We didn’t take any shortcuts. We didn’t try to game the system. And what we came out with was an assessment that told us that we had very minimal impacts,” said Robert Taylor, X-energy’s vice president of regulatory affairs and licensing.
“The ability within NEPA to do an environmental assessment and to reach a finding of no significant impacts has always existed,” he added. “But the conservative approach has always been to just start with an environmental impact statement, because the perception was the impacts will be big. That’s probably true for large light-water reactors, but it’s not necessarily true for small modular reactors like us.”
If approved, X-energy’s Xe-100 would signal a U.S. return to a commercial technology that effectively died out in 1989, near the end of America’s atomic heyday.
General Atomics built a 40-megawatt high-temperature gas-cooled reactor at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station along Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River in 1966, but shut down the demonstration unit in 1974. The same developer started a larger, 330-megawatt project around the same time at Colorado’s Fort St. Vrain nuclear plant. That single high-temperature gas-cooled unit came online in 1979, but lasted only 10 years because of repeated technical malfunctions and steep repair costs.
X-energy’s permitting milestone comes amid a broader wave of activity in the long-stagnant U.S. nuclear sector. Two new commercial nuclear reactors broke ground last month, as many as three more decommissioned reactors are set to be restarted in the coming months and years, and several states that had banned nuclear construction in the mid-20th century are now lifting those moratoria.
It also comes nearly a year after the NRC agreed to speed up the permitting process for the firm’s first plant by setting an 18-month review schedule for the company. That’s roughly half the time the agency has historically taken to issue a construction permit.
The faster timeline reflects the NRC’s efforts to streamline reactor approval following orders by both the Biden and Trump administrations. Much of the regulatory overhaul currently underway at the NRC stems from the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2024, which former President Joe Biden signed after nearly unanimous approval in the U.S. Senate. The statute gave the NRC a clearer mandate to protect the public against not only the threat of nuclear accidents but also the risk that reactors don’t get built.
Then, in May 2025, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders designed to deepen the regulatory changes and spur new reactor construction — including the controversial move to replace the bedrock model for measuring the health risk of radiation exposure.
X-energy’s expedited pathway also highlights the benefits of the company’s early engagement with government programs and its efforts to court deep-pocketed corporate backers.
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy included X-energy in its Advanced Reactor Concepts program. When the DOE established the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program in 2020, in which the federal government took on half the cost of building a participating company’s first reactor, X-energy was one of the first participants. While X-energy said it hasn’t released price projections for each project, the company disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the 50/50 cost-share agreement with the DOE covered a total estimated cost of up to $2.4 billion.
In 2022, X-energy announced Dow as its first commercial offtaker for the Texas project. Two years later, when the artificial intelligence boom spurred tech giants to sign a series of deals with nuclear startups, Amazon placed its bet on X-energy, vowing to help finance construction of 5 gigawatts of reactors through deals to buy power for its data centers. The company took an equity stake in X-energy, which went public on April 24 on the Nasdaq composite.
Amazon is now providing financing for the construction of X-energy’s second project, a multiphase expansion of an existing nuclear-energy complex in Washington state operated by the public utility Energy Northwest. Depending on the utility’s willingness to buy the units, the startup aims to eventually build up to a dozen of its Xe-100 reactors at the site.
On both projects, “a real differentiator for us is truly how we used our pre-application process with the NRC,” Taylor said. The company provided more than two dozen reports to the NRC ahead of submitting its application. “We submitted a vast number of topical reports and white papers that we got feedback on that informed the design and formed the regulatory submittals,” he said. “We substantially de-risked the project with the NRC through all of that engagement. Almost all the methodologies we use in designing the reactor and the support systems have been approved by the NRC.”
While rival developers of next-generation small modular reactors and microreactors have pushed for regulatory changes or new licensing pathways that are designed to benefit new technologies, X-energy chose the time-honored pathway for permitting its first two projects.
“Part 50 is a great process for new designs because it allows changes to the design as you construct,” Taylor said. “Once we get the first approvals of our design under Part 50, and we get through that first operating license, we’ll be in a position to take a standardized design back to the NRC.”
Among the design elements that Taylor said bolster X-energy’s safety qualities is the fact that the company is using tri-structural isotropic fuel, or TRISO for short. The fuel encases tiny bits of enriched uranium inside poppy seed–sized balls coated in ceramic materials that effectively make a meltdown impossible.
TRISO, however, is far more expensive than the traditional low-enriched uranium fuel used in light-water reactors, which has held back its adoption to date. Only one commercial reactor uses TRISO worldwide today: the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor that China hooked up to its grid in December 2022. Another experimental reactor operated by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency at a facility north of Tokyo, whose design a Japanese American startup is now looking to commercialize in the U.S., also uses TRISO, as do nearly half a dozen proposed designs now competing with X-energy.
Unlike many other next-generation reactor designs that are using coolants such as molten salt, liquid sodium, or lead, X-energy’s Xe-100 uses helium. This approach has decades of data to back it up, thanks to the earlier U.S. experiments with similar technology.
“Look, Peach Bottom and Fort St. Vrain were great opportunities to demonstrate the technology nearly 50-plus years ago. But in the ensuing 50 years, [high-temperature gas-cooled reactors] have been run in multiple countries throughout the world, and TRISO fuel has gone through extensive testing,” Taylor said. “HTGRs back in the ’70s were a technology ahead of their time. We have the opportunity to seize on all that advancement and turn it into a truly perfect commercial product that is safely operated throughout the world.”
X-energy still faces the challenge of proving that it can avoid the hiccups previous high-temperature gas-cooled units faced in operation. Water-cooled reactors run at an unrivaled 95% of their lifespans in part because operators have the most experience perfecting the art of piloting such plants.
But Taylor compared earlier versions of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors to one of the American automotive industry’s biggest flops of the mid-20th century.
“The technologies between 50 years ago and today are both nuclear reactors, but it’s an Edsel-to-a-Ferrari comparison,” he said. “In this Ferrari, we know what we need to design for to get maximum performance out of it, we know what the challenging pieces are, what the hard issues are. Will we learn things? Sure, but we have so much more knowledge than those first ones did that we’re designing out so many of the challenges they faced.”
The Trump administration likes to cast renewables as a socialist scam, but solar has soared in the competitive markets of the Lone Star State.
The Texas sun keeps rising, as Texas coal wanes.
For the first time ever, solar is set to generate more electricity than coal in the power market managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Nobody is building new coal power plants in the state, but developers are adding more solar there than anywhere else in the country. As a result of those diverging trajectories, the federal government expects ERCOT will receive 78 billion kilowatt-hours from solar in 2026, and just 60 from coal.
This trend does have seasonal variations. Last year, solar output beat coal on a monthly basis from March through August, and this year it is expected to do so from March through December, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy.
Nationally, the combination of wind and solar surpassed coal generation in 2024, as noted in an analysis by Ember, a think tank that conducts research on clean energy. In other words, the solar industry is further along in Texas than it is nationwide.
The Texas solar surge undercuts the prevailing energy narratives coming out of the Trump administration, which has attempted to boost coal and gas as tools of “energy dominance,” while blocking or canceling American energy that comes from renewables. The Department of Energy, for instance, is keeping struggling coal plants on life support at great expense to taxpayers. Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior is blocking wind and solar developments that intersect with public lands.
Trump officials have argued that coal is more reliable than solar because it can generate power around the clock. But even with that advantage, coal plants in Texas can’t keep up with the total annual and monthly production from the rapidly growing solar fleet. This has not damaged grid reliability, because ERCOT meets evening demand with a diverse portfolio, including gas plants, nuclear, wind, and, increasingly, batteries, which store all that excess solar power for use when the sun stops shining.
Of course, Texas leaders did not set out to disprove the Trump administration’s energy claims. The maverick Lone Star State kept its electricity system out of the hands of federal regulators, and in the 1990s and early 2000s reformed it to promote free market competition instead of centralized planning by monopoly utilities. That market, coupled with lots of space and lax building regulations, has made an ideal environment for wind, solar, and batteries to flourish. Now, Texas is fortified with tens of gigawatts of new capacity with which to tackle heat waves and temper price spikes.
Deep-red Texas offers lessons for the liberal states that have committed to lofty climate goals yet failed to build much solar or batteries so far. They can’t immediately switch over to an ERCOT-style market, but they can take steps to speed up the time it takes to get permits and grid connection, dial back the level of deference to habitually conservative legacy utilities, and make sure that clean energy gets a fair shot in the race to serve surging energy needs. And it’s always a good time to reexamine old market rules that subtly privilege entrenched players at the expense of new entrants that would make cheaper and cleaner power.
After more of the rapid-fire solar buildout, EIA expects ERCOT will produce 99 billion kilowatt-hours of solar power in 2027, up 27% from 2026. At that point, the upstart industry will have left its well-established coal competition in the dust.
We’ll often see headlines quoting how many gigawatts of new solar farms or coal plants China is building. But it’s hard to get a meaningful sense of scale for how electricity generation in China is changing.
The chart puts it in perspective.
In 2025 alone, China’s electricity generation increased by almost 500 terawatt-hours (TWh). This is compared here to the total amount of electricity that whole countries generate each year.
Germany generates almost exactly that amount. That means China effectively added a Germany-sized grid to its electricity system in just one year.
What’s also quite staggering is that almost all of this new generation came from solar and wind. China generated 340 TWh more electricity from solar than the year before.
That’s more than our two home countries, the UK and Spain, generate from all sources each year.
Low-carbon sources grew so much that coal power in China actually fell slightly.
European drivers are escaping high gas prices and buying more cheap Chinese EVs. In the U.S., that’s impossible.
This analysis and news roundup come from the Canary Media Weekly newsletter. Sign up to get it every Friday.
As the war in Iran spikes gasoline prices around the globe, drivers in many countries have headed for an obvious emergency exit: EVs. But buyers in the U.S. aren’t following suit, and a lack of affordable EV options is a big reason why.
While global EV sales plunged in January and February from 2025’s record heights, they rebounded in March and April, according to data out this week from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. That’s largely thanks to a surge in Europe, where EV sales were 27% higher this April than the same month last year. Rising gasoline prices fueled the region’s market, BMI says, as did the increasing availability of cheap Chinese EV imports.
The latter is exactly what the U.S. lacks. While used EVs are now cost-competitive with used gas cars, that’s not the case for new models. The cheapest new EV sold in the U.S., the Nissan Leaf, starts at just under $30,000. But in China, dozens of EVs retail for around $25,000 or less, including several models from BYD, which surpassed Tesla as the world’s top EV seller earlier this year. And while the Asian superpower has ramped up exports to Europe, Latin America, and, more recently, Canada, its cars face a 100% tariff and national security rules in the U.S. that make them impossible to sell.
It’s not that U.S. drivers aren’t interested in electrifying their ride. Shopping sites Cars.com and CarGurus both say searches for EVs have jumped since the Iran war began. And a February survey from Cox Automotive found nearly half of Americans considering an EV would pick the Chinese-made Geely Xingyuan over a Tesla Model Y, while 38% would select BYD’s Seagull over the Tesla.
But letting Chinese EVs into the U.S. is a scary prospect for domestic automakers. The American EV sector is only just finding its sea legs, having been knocked back time and time again by tariffs, politics, and the federal tax credit rollback. It’s probably not reassuring that President Donald Trump has said he’s open to Chinese investment in the U.S., provided companies use American labor — and that Trump’s meetings this week with Chinese President Xi Jinping similarly indicated a softening in relations.
“[U.S. automakers are] absolutely more than worried — they’re scared stiff,” Michael Dunne, chief executive officer of automotive consultancy Dunne Insights, told Politico. “Imagine if the Chinese come in with a $25,000 EV. That could catch like wildfire.”
For now, though, BYD in the USA remains miles down the road — if it’s a destination we ever reach at all.
On wind and solar, Interior won’t go down without a fight
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday affirmed that the Trump administration will appeal a ruling that struck down Interior Department policies stymieing wind and solar permitting.
Last month, a federal judge ordered the administration to stop enforcing five actions that effectively blocked all wind and solar energy permitting on public land, including a policy that required Burgum to personally sign off on projects that need federal permissions. The blockade was “arbitrary and capricious,” the judge said, especially considering permitting for fossil fuel companies marched on as usual.
Congress has been trying for years to enact bipartisan legislation to reform energy permitting, but Trump’s anti-renewables crusade has led Democrats to repeatedly back out. This appeal is likely to derail reform attempts once again, as two senators said last month they’d cooperate only if the Interior Department lets solar and wind projects keep rolling.
Geothermal innovation keeps heating up
This week marked a milestone for the geothermal industry — a potentially key piece of the push to secure clean, 24/7 power.
On Wednesday, Fervo Energy became the first next-generation geothermal company to go public, bringing in $1.9 billion from its IPO and securing a valuation of about $7.7 billion, Canary Media’s Dan McCarthy reports. While traditional geothermal energy production has been limited to certain geologic areas, like volcanic regions, Fervo is borrowing drilling techniques from the fossil fuel industry to access deep-down heat in more locations.
Another thing geothermal may be able to borrow from oil and gas drillers? Their abandoned wells. The U.S. is littered with these sites, many of which have no clear owner and are polluting the air and groundwater, Canary’s Maria Gallucci reports. A growing number of both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these wells could be repurposed for geothermal energy production — a complicated task with huge potential upside.
Fossil fuels all the way down: In rural Jasper County, Indiana, residents are fighting to shut down a 50-year-old coal plant running past its prime, while also staring down another polluting prospect: a new gas plant to power a data center. (Canary Media)
Tapping the brakes: President Donald Trump says he supports suspending the federal gas tax, though even Republicans in Congress are reluctant to move on his call to action. (Politico)
Clean power climbs: A new dashboard that tracks national and state-level progress on deploying clean energy finds that the U.S. produced nearly three times as much solar, wind, and geothermal power in 2025 as it did in 2016. (Environment America, news release)
Generating controversy: Elon Musk–led company xAI has installed dozens of “temporary-mobile” gas turbines in Mississippi to power its data centers, which remain exempt from state oversight even as neighboring residents push back over pollution and noise concerns. (Mississippi Today)
Inside offshore wind communities: After months spent interviewing residents in three offshore wind hubs in Connecticut, Maryland, and Massachusetts, researchers find that communities are excited by the projects’ economic promise but are unsure it’ll last once construction is finished. (NBC Connecticut)
Georgia’s nuclear warning: Utility customers are still paying the cost of Georgia Power’s addition of nuclear reactors to Plant Vogtle, which ran seven years behind schedule and more than two and a half times over budget, providing a cautionary tale for advocates of the energy source. (Inside Climate News)
Mercury rising: Coal power plants released 9% more mercury in 2025 than they did a year earlier — a number that will likely grow as the Trump administration looks to expand coal power generation and loosen regulations that could curb the toxic pollutant. (New York Times)
A total of 112 gigawatts of batteries were deployed around the world in 2025 — 10 times the amount added just four years prior.
See more from Canary Media’s “Chart of the Week” column.
First came the solar. Now, the batteries have arrived.
Installations of grid batteries, which can store solar and other energy for later use, surged by 48% in 2025 from the year prior, per new data from BloombergNEF. A total of 112 gigawatts of battery storage capacity was installed worldwide in 2025 — a record high that represents a tenfold increase over the amount constructed in 2021.
So, where are all of these batteries sprouting up? The short answer: mostly in China and the United States.
China alone installed more than half of the world’s grid battery capacity last year. The U.S., meanwhile, accounted for 16%.
Other places are seeing rapid uptake, too. Sun-soaked Australia grew its battery installations by a factor of nearly six last year, albeit from a pretty small base of just 827 megawatts in 2024. The U.K., which shuttered its last coal plant in 2024, saw installations nearly double between 2024 and 2025, to 2.6 GW. Meanwhile, across the broader sub-Saharan Africa region, installations roughly quintupled to 4.3 GW.
Battery installations are now starting to catch up to solar installations, BNEF says. A decade ago, the world was installing 56 MW of solar for every 1 MW of storage. Last year, that ratio was 6-to-1. This year, BNEF expects it to drop to 4-to-1.
The key driver of this growth is the ever-decreasing cost of energy storage, with lithium-ion battery prices dropping by more than 90% over the last 15 years.
The case for batteries is also strengthening as the world builds an incredible amount of wind and solar, since the technology can stockpile wind and solar power when it’s abundant to dispatch later when the grid needs it.
BNEF expects the storage boom to continue as data centers surge onto the grid — especially in the U.S. — and as power demand rises because of the electrification of vehicles and buildings.
The firm forecasts that the world will install a total of 158 GW of batteries in 2026, resulting in 41% year-over-year growth. Although the pace tapers off a bit from there through 2030, BNEF projects that by the end of the decade, annual additions will top 200 GW — more than double the record-setting amount seen last year.
Distributed solar developers say they could build gigawatts of projects to help ease the state’s power crunch — if lawmakers and regulators set clear rules.
Pennsylvania needs more energy. Data centers are pushing demand skyward, utilities can’t build new capacity fast enough, and electric bills are on the rise. Medium-sized solar installations — smaller than utility-scale farms but larger than home rooftop arrays — could help ease the pressure.
But state lawmakers, utilities, regulators, and solar developers are tussling over the rules that govern such installations, and it’s unclear whether new legislation to resolve their disputes will be passed this year. That worries Victoria Stulgis, president of Black Bear Energy.
Last month, her company and its partners celebrated the energization of 4.9 megawatts of solar on the roofs of two warehouses owned by EQT Real Estate in Mountain Top, Pennsylvania. The two projects, developed by Sigma Renewables and Scale Microgrids and managed by Black Bear Energy, are among roughly 2,100 mid-sized generation projects being planned in the state, most of them distributed solar.
What makes these projects possible is Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act, a 2004 law allowing medium-sized projects that generate power with a range of technologies, from solar and wind to waste biomass and coal-bed methane, to earn a relatively high rate for the energy they feed to the grid.
After years of battling with utilities, solar developers won a 2021 decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that laid the groundwork for a rapid expansion of mid-sized projects throughout the state.
But in the past few years, Pennsylvania utilities have cast a pall over that growth with a series of actions that could curtail the revenues these projects can earn, Stulgis said.
“Developers and institutional property owners have invested significant time and capital to develop these solar projects,” she said. Black Bear Energy has completed 15 megawatts of projects, has 22 more megawatts under construction, and has secured interconnection rights for another 106 megawatts across 34 projects, she said.
“Changing those rules midstream would undermine confidence and create real risk for projects already in development,” she said. “Some developers are still leaning in, believing there may be a viable path forward, while others are walking away from shovel-ready projects because of the uncertainty.”
Unlike neighboring states such as Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, Pennsylvania hasn’t adopted a program to enable community solar. Such projects are designed to provide enough revenue to spur third-party developers to build mid-sized solar arrays, to which utility customers can subscribe to lower their bills.
Instead, solar projects of up to 3 megawatts in Pennsylvania are compensated through net metering, a system that’s more commonly used with residential rooftop solar and other small-scale installations. The projects earn a close-to-retail rate for power they send to the grid, notably more than the wholesale rate that larger projects earn.
Solar developers argue that the existing rules allow businesses, school districts, public agencies, and farms to offset rapidly rising electricity costs by hosting solar projects. But utilities argue that paying close to retail rates for electricity from these arrays forces them to raise rates on the rest of their customer base — a version of the cost-shift argument that has dogged battles over rooftop solar net-metering programs over the past two decades.
The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission supports the utilities’ cost-shift argument. In March testimony before the state’s House Energy Committee, PUC Chair Stephen DeFrank said that costs from distributed generation projects moving through the interconnection process are projected to exceed $90 million per year by 2027, and could reach $700 million per year if the more than 2,100 projects seeking to be built “proceed under existing rules.”
If utilities aren’t able to recover those costs, they’ll have to increase other rates, he said. Those increases will be “first borne by commercial and industrial customers, including small businesses operating on narrow margins,” he said.
Advocates of distributed solar are pushing back against this cost-shift argument. Rather than increasing everyone’s utility bills, distributed solar will lower utility costs at large, they say, by bringing much-needed new clean generation to a state facing increasing electricity costs driven by the data center boom.
Those are the findings of an April report by Aurora Energy Research commissioned by community-solar developer Dimension Energy. The report analyzed whether building 2 gigawatts of distributed solar by 2030, a number that’s in line with current market growth, would reduce demand for power across the low-voltage distribution grids they’re connected to.
Aurora found that additional solar power could generate a total savings of $1.7 billion over the next 20 years, compared with a scenario under which it wasn’t built. Utilities would still need to pay those projects about $780 million over that time. But that would leave just under $1 billion in net savings that could be applied toward lowering utility customers’ energy bills.
“There are multiple mechanisms by which distributed solar can reduce costs,” said Zachary Edelen, a senior associate at Aurora.
For example, there is the roughly $1.2 billion over 20 years that Pennsylvania utilities could save in decreasing “capacity procurement obligations,” the costs they pay for resources to keep the grid running when demand for electricity peaks, he said. That change could make a substantial difference in Pennsylvania, which is part of PJM Interconnection, the grid operator serving 13 states and Washington, D.C.
PJM’s skyrocketing capacity costs have been a major factor in pushing up utility rates between 12% and 26% for customers of the state’s major utilities from December 2024 to December 2025. That has driven politicians including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) to demand reforms from both PJM and the state’s utilities.
Unlike California, Texas, and other states that are awash in solar and need more batteries to store it to lower summertime peak loads as the sun sets, Pennsylvania gets only about 1% of its electricity from solar, Edelen noted. Adding 2 gigawatts would bring that total to about 4% of the state’s total generation capacity.
That means there’s plenty of room for new solar to flow onto utility grids and reduce overall peak loads — especially during the late afternoon summer hours when PJM measures how much peak demand utilities have, and thus how much capacity they’ll need to procure.
These capacity cost reductions are the biggest source of savings from distributed solar, but not the only one, Edelen said. Aurora’s analysis found that 2 gigawatts of distributed solar could cut the cost of purchasing energy from other resources by about $250 million. And because that solar would provide power to nearby customers, it could cut roughly $200 million from future transmission grid expansions that would be needed to deliver power from large power plants farther away. Aurora also estimated that Pennsylvania could earn about $140 million in renewable energy credits from 2 gigawatts of solar.
And that’s not counting the environmental benefits. The state could reduce carbon emissions by more than 11.3 million metric tons and abate harmful air pollution by supplanting fossil-fueled generation with 2 gigawatts of distributed solar.
To be clear, utility-scale solar can deliver electricity at prices well below those being paid to mid-sized projects under the current Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act regime. Some energy experts agree with the utilities that policymakers should cut the rates paid to distributed solar systems and instead compensate them at the lower wholesale electricity prices earned by power plants and other competitive generators.
The problem with relying on utility-scale projects is that PJM’s notoriously backlogged interconnection process has made it difficult to add new generation capacity to its grid over the past half decade. PJM recently reopened its interconnection queue after a multiyear pause. But new projects are still expected to take several years to move through that process, and years more to win permits and secure financing to get online.
Distributed solar, by contrast, can be permitted, built, and interconnected to lower-voltage utility grids within a year or two, according to developers working in the region. That could make it one of the few options to prevent what PJM forecasts could be a regional shortfall in energy supplies as early as next summer.
“The reliability of our energy system is increasingly uncertain,” Elowyn Corby, Mid-Atlantic regional director with the nonprofit Vote Solar Action Fund, said in March testimony to the state House Energy Committee. Distributed solar is “one of the fastest, most cost-effective tools available to bring new supply online where it’s needed most, and ease pressure on an overstretched, under-supplied grid.”
Corby also noted that Pennsylvania’s unusual regulatory structure, unlike almost all other net-metering programs in the country, allows distributed solar systems to have little or no “on-site load” — meaning a solar array on a building or one constructed on open land could send all its power to grid instead of using the bulk of it to meet the host’s needs. This makes many of the projects being developed in the state more akin to “merchant” generators that compete with other power producers, lending weight to arguments that they should receive lower compensation.
“Thoughtful reform that addresses how excess generation is treated, and that draws a clear line between distributed generation intended primarily to meet on-site load and merchant generation where the aim is primarily to sell excess generation to the grid, is not an attack on solar — it is responsible stewardship of a valuable policy,” she said.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have proposed similar bills to draw that clear line — one in the Democratic-controlled House and one in the Republican-controlled Senate. Both bills would allow projects that have already been built or that had utility interconnection agreements before mid-2025 to retain existing payment structures, although they would give the Public Utilities Commission the option to cap the total number of projects that qualify.
For projects that don’t meet that cutoff, the bills would significantly cut the rates earned for power sent to the grid. But the bills would offer higher compensation for projects built on “preferred sites,” such as on warehouse rooftops and parking lot canopies, on abandoned mines and capped landfills, and adjacent to closed coal plants, as well as for systems that serve school facilities.
Brandon Smithwood, vice president of policy at community solar developer Dimension Energy, would like to see these kinds of reforms, but he’s not confident that lawmakers will pass a bill. If they don’t, the state will end up with a patchwork of rules. Different utilities around the state have been making changes to how they classify mid-sized projects and lowering the compensation they earn, and developers have been challenging those changes.
Smithwood thinks that solar advocates can reach compromises with individual utilities to preserve some room for the market to grow. He pointed to a settlement agreement reached in March — between utility PPL Electric Utilities, solar trade groups Coalition for Community Solar Access and Solar Energy Industries Association, and the Pennsylvania Office of Small Business Advocate — as a “workable outcome” for solar developers in the absence of legislative action. The settlement would allow up to 140 megawatts of projects to retain retail net-metering compensation for up to 10 years, and then impose a complex and likely lower compensation structure for projects beyond that cap.
But other distributed solar developers are pushing for the legislature’s bills to be passed into law to avoid rules that differ from utility to utility.
“We are asking for regulatory clarity through a legislative foundation with clear and protected rules and rates,” said David Riester, managing partner at Segue Sustainable Infrastructure, a solar and battery project investor. Segue has invested in a portfolio of roughly 250 megawatts of distributed solar projects in development across Pennsylvania, which, if completed, could represent roughly $500 million in infrastructure investment, he said.
That’s just a portion of the total capacity being targeted by developers in the state. “If the light went green tomorrow, I would put the over-under on 700 megawatts getting placed in service within a year, and up to 2 gigawatts by the end of next year,” he said. “There’s this huge supply of power that’s ready to build.”
Segue is considering putting more money into more projects in Pennsylvania, Riester said. But without some clarity from utility regulators or lawmakers on how much these distributed solar projects will be able to earn, “those investments are on hold,” he said.
The much-anticipated stock market debut netted $1.9B for Fervo, indicating strong investor interest in the around-the-clock, carbon-free promise of geothermal.
Fervo Energy, a startup that has pioneered new ways to produce electricity from the earth’s heat, is officially a publicly traded company. It’s the first next-generation geothermal firm to go public.
Today’s initial public offering netted the Houston-based Fervo about $1.9 billion and valued it at roughly $7.7 billion. The company had reportedly sought a much lower valuation of between $2 billion and $3 billion in January but eventually raised its target amid strong investor interest. Fervo secured nearly $2 billion in financing over the course of its nine years as a private firm.
“We are seeing demand grow in a way that we have not seen in the electricity sector in quite a long time,” said Sarah Jewett, Fervo’s senior vice president of strategy. “To come onto the scene at a time when we’re seeing that inflection point of demand, with proven technology… it’s a really welcome time for a story like ours.”
The debut is a major moment for geothermal energy, which can deliver carbon-free power around the clock but has remained a marginal source of electricity worldwide given its serious geological limitations. Fervo makes geothermal energy viable in far more places by harnessing horizontal drilling techniques borrowed from the oil-and-gas industry, for which its CEO and co-founder, Tim Latimer, previously worked.
Fervo’s upsized IPO reflects investor exuberance for any company promising to help meet gargantuan power demand from AI data centers. Fervo has particularly tight ties with Google, which is both an investor in and a customer of the firm. Meta has signed deals with two other advanced geothermal startups in recent years.
“Fervo going public reflects growing confidence in the ability of new geothermal technology to serve soaring electricity demand across the country,” John Coequyt, director of U.S. government affairs at clean energy think tank RMI, said in an email.
Fervo joins longtime geothermal leader Ormat on the public market. Ormat, which completed its IPO in 2004, has been building traditional geothermal power plants in the U.S. and beyond for decades, and it recently began expanding its focus to include “enhanced geothermal systems” like Fervo’s. Ormat saw its stock price climb steadily for years and then nearly double over the last year and change.
Fervo’s IPO comes months ahead of another expected milestone for the startup: the commissioning of its first-of-a-kind power plant in Utah. The development, dubbed Cape Station, broke ground in 2023 and is on track to start sending electricity to the grid in late 2026. A total of 500 megawatts are under construction at the site, but Fervo has the permits in place to quadruple that amount.
Fervo also plans to bring a 115-MW development in Nevada online by 2030, as part of its power purchase agreement with Google and utility NV Energy.
The $1.9 billion Fervo has raised with its IPO will help the company acquire new land and fund general operations — but, Jewett said, “in reality the majority of that money is going to go to project development.”
“We are very, very focused on deploying megawatts — and of course now we say gigawatts,” she said. “The majority of our equity raised today will go to that.”
In its IPO filing, Fervo identified a total of 3.65 gigawatts of power plant capacity that is under construction, ready to be built, or in advanced stages of development. The U.S. currently has roughly 4 GW of installed geothermal capacity.
Fervo’s success will depend on its ability to drive down the cost of the power it produces.
Phase 1 of the Cape Station project is set to deliver power at $7,000 per kilowatt, a price that is competitive with traditional and next-generation nuclear power but far higher than that of natural gas or renewables. Phase 2 of Cape Station, which is also now underway, will deliver power at $5,500 per kW, Jewett said. The company aims to slash that rate to $3,000 per kW.
Fervo has shown some ability to cut costs to date. Between 2022 and 2025, Fervo says it has reduced drilling times by about 75% and slashed per-foot drilling costs by about 70%, marking a significant achievement for the nascent industry. Those trends will need to hold up as the company completes larger-scale installations in the years to come.
Fervo expects to run a loss for “several years,” per its IPO document, as it spends more aggressively to build out its power plants. Its net loss was roughly $57.8 million last year, up from $41.1 million the year prior.
Revenue was a scant $138,000 last year — but Fervo’s IPO document says there is a lot more waiting in the wings. To date, it has signed 658 megawatts’ worth of binding power purchase agreements with major utility Southern California Edison, community choice aggregators, and firms like Google and Shell. That adds up to “approximately $7.2 billion in potential revenue backlog,” per the filing.
It also has an agreement in place with Google, whereby Fervo will give the tech giant the right of first refusal to purchase 3 GW of electricity from certain new projects, though Google itself is under no obligation to say yes. Either party can terminate the deal if no binding commitments have been made by March 2028.
Geothermal energy enjoys more bipartisan support in the U.S. than any other renewable energy source.
While President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act sunset federal tax credits for solar and wind this July, those for geothermal were left intact. The fracking firm founded and formerly led by Energy Secretary Chris Wright invested in Fervo in 2022. Not one but two bipartisan pro-geothermal bills are under consideration in Congress right now.
And although the Trump administration continues to obstruct wind and solar projects on federal lands, next month the Interior Department is slated to auction off an additional 197,000 acres of land in New Mexico for geothermal energy development.
Maria Gallucci contributed reporting to this piece.
An update was made on May 13, 2026, to include comments from Sarah Jewett, Fervo’s senior vice president of strategy.
.svg)
