Biochar 101: Technology, Markets and Applications

Put American Jobs First and Take U.S. Energy Global (The National Interest)

This op-ed was originally published by The National Interest on January 30, 2026. Click here to read the entire piece.

To outcompete China in global energy markets, the United States must modernize export finance to back American workers, innovation, and energy leadership abroad.

If America does not lead the future of energy technologies, China will. Think about financing major energy and infrastructure projects in emerging markets. This is an enormous challenge for American firms, and today, China fills that gap. Recent ClearPath analysis finds that since 2015, China has financed at least $446 billion in global energy infrastructure and exports, nearly 10 times what the United States has invested. How do they do it? They cheat. China offers massive subsidies, and its banks often rely on predatory lending practices that discourage market competition and disadvantage American firms.

Thankfully, the Trump administration has put energy security firmly at the center of US foreign policy, ranging from efforts to promote American nuclear technologies abroad to strengthening partnerships to secure our critical mineral supply chains. The key to energy dominance is simple: innovate here, build here, and sell everywhere. To deliver, Washington must unleash private sector innovation and sharpen America’s competitive edge. Not by trying to match subsidies from the likes of China, but by using targeted financing tools to de-risk projects, attract private capital, and create favorable market conditions. The United States can empower its innovators and manufacturers to lead in global markets and support American jobs.

This was clearly articulated by the leadership of the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) as its new Chairman, John Jovanovic, is organizing the Bank around four strategic priorities: 1) putting American jobs first, 2) advancing US energy dominance, 3) ensuring supply chain security, and 4) clearing a path for industries of the future. These are pragmatic and yet inspiring goals that the American public can rally behind to win the global energy markets race. As Chairman Jovanovic put it, “Time is our biggest enemy and every day we come to work with a sense of urgency to support American workers, manufacturers and our nation’s economic security.”

Click here to read the full article

2026: A Clear Path for American Energy Dominance

Let America Innovate, Build, and Sell

America’s energy landscape is being reshaped at an unprecedented pace. A new wave of energy demand from data centers, advanced manufacturing, LNG exports, electrification and the reality of aging energy infrastructure are driving an intense need for more power. At the same time, global competition is intensifying. To keep energy costs down, reshore American manufacturing and lead the world in an AI-driven future, we must build more and strengthen the energy system to deliver reliable, affordable, secure power. This is essential to our national, economic and energy security.

To win in the new era of energy demand and global competitiveness, ClearPath’s 2026 priorities follow a simple playbook: let America innovate, build and sell.

Scale Innovation and Technology

America’s success is driven by the ability to accelerate innovative technologies from the lab to the market, strengthening energy security at home and around the world. The key ingredients to this success are a robust research and development (R&D) framework across technologies, targeted investments in clean, firm technologies like advanced nuclear, fusion, enhanced geothermal and support for innovation in industrial materials needed for infrastructure. Congress has an opportunity to advance these policies by:

Enacting comprehensive geothermal legislation that modernizes leasing and permitting frameworks as described in our December 2025 Geothermal Report.
Reauthorizing DOE’s expiring programs for industrial manufacturing that President Trump signed into law as part of the Energy Act of 2020.
Providing dedicated DOE RD&D programs to support concrete and asphalt as well as chemicals and refining innovation.
Enacting next-generation pipeline legislation to support innovations that modernize pipeline infrastructure integrity, efficiency and development.
Expanding the 45X tax credit to include manufacturing for other clean energy supply chain components, like advanced nuclear fission, fusion, advanced conductoring and geothermal components.

Modernize Permitting and the Grid

To let America build, we need a permitting process that is predictable, efficient and fair, combined with a strong grid that can meet rising demand with affordable, reliable and secure power.

Comprehensive permitting reform that delivers certainty and speed while preserving environmental safeguards begins with:

Modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
Reforming NEPA judicial review and litigation practices;
Increasing transparency through digital tools; and
Providing permit certainty once permits have been issued.

The House’s December 2025 bipartisan passage of the SPEED Act and ePermit Act addressing NEPA and transparency issues respectively is a good first step. Permitting reform goes beyond updating NEPA. Statutes like the Clean Water Act (CWA) should be reviewed to eliminate unnecessary delays, which the House addressed by passing the Permit Act in December 2025. The Senate has the opportunity to build on this progress and deliver a bipartisan deal that clarifies the scope of NEPA, updates the CWA, reduces frivolous project litigation risk and ensures legal certainty to lawfully granted permits.

A reliable, affordable and resilient grid is the foundation of our economy, national security and way of life. Investments in the grid are not just energy policy, they are economic and national security imperatives that will drive American growth for decades. Modernizing America’s grid starts by:

Leveraging Innovation: Deploy new technologies to optimize the existing grid, like advanced conductors, dynamic line ratings and updated software and hardware for grid control. Strategic incentives and more robust information sharing can also help more quickly derisk technology.
Speeding Up Interconnection: Maximize the use of existing interconnection capacity. Prioritize cost-effective upgrades. Streamline the interconnection queue process by focusing first on areas with reliability needs or existing transmission capacity to enhance efficiency and bring more projects online faster.
Building More Transmission: Every energy source relies on transmission. Meeting growing energy demand requires improved federal permitting processes, reduced litigation risks and stronger coordination among states on new transmission lines and regional grid planning. A modernized federal backstop authority, used only as a last resort, can help ensure critical transmission projects are completed.
Ensuring Fair Cost Allocation: Consumers must be protected by ensuring that project costs are paid by those who receive reliability and economic benefits, not by customers who receive little or no benefit.

In addition to ensuring a strong grid, modernized and reliable pipeline infrastructure for U.S. LNG and carbon dioxide transportation is critical to letting American energy move.

Lead in the Global Market

American energy dominance is built on a foundation where U.S. technologies, materials and standards lead in global markets. Congress’ reauthorization of the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC) in the December 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will help unlock private capital for strategic energy and industrial projects abroad. In 2026, Congress can further enhance America’s global market leadership by:

Reauthorizing and enhancing the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) to strengthen its ability to pursue large-scale, American-made energy infrastructure projects, including advanced nuclear. EXIM’s charter is set to expire at the end of 2026. Three ways to strengthen EXIM include: establishing a National Interest Account that modernizes EXIM’s risk assessment framework, raising the Bank’s default rate cap and expanding the list of eligible energy technologies under its China and Transformational Exports Program (CTEP) to better focus EXIM’s investments on national strategic objectives.
Establishing a framework for Energy Security Compacts (ESCs), as proposed by the DOMINANCE Act, to create the coordinated, whole-of-government approach needed to bolster U.S. energy exports, enhance national security and provide alternatives to Chinese and Russian energy investments in strategic partner nations. ESCs would create long-term agreements with clear, measurable outcomes targeting energy security and infrastructure. They would also enhance coordination across federal authorities and multiply capabilities at EXIM, DFC, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the Department of Energy (DOE). ESCs could also help foster bilateral partnerships that focus on joint energy and critical minerals security priorities centered on American foreign policy goals.

In order for America to lead the world and strengthen its economy and national security, we need policies designed for speed, certainty and scale. We look forward to working to secure effective, durable solutions to let America innovate here, build here and sell everywhere.

Accelerating Nuclear Energy Through Interstate Collaboration

The United States is entering an era of rapidly growing power demand, driven by a manufacturing boom and the adoption of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence. To keep up with this heightened demand, companies are seeking to deploy more generation to ensure electricity availability, reliability and affordability. In response, power utilities and state governments are beginning to treat nuclear power as essential infrastructure.

While some state governments enacted bans or limitations on nuclear power in recent decades, many have already begun to reverse course in order to compete in the energy race. Increasingly, state governments are exploring how to work together to create the conditions for successful and timely deployment of new nuclear reactors.

Deploying a fleet of new nuclear power plants is a tall order, which makes coordinating the resources of multiple states an attractive option. However, doing so requires navigating a highly complex legal and regulatory landscape as well as the physical infrastructure of the U.S. power grid. The concept of an “interstate compact” itself opens legal questions related to the Compact Clause. In practical terms, any collaboration will need to account for market and regulatory differences, or even the lack of appropriate physical infrastructure. Overcoming these challenges will require careful negotiation to find a model capable of pushing nuclear deployment forward. This piece reviews U.S. power system management and offers suggestions on how to construct interstate agreements effectively to accelerate these deployments.

The U.S. Power System

The Advantage of State Compacts for Nuclear Deployment

Collaborative efforts between states to deploy new nuclear, through interstate agreements called compacts, are not a new concept. Hundreds of compacts are used to address various policy issues. These agreements allow states to utilize resources efficiently by sharing expertise, financial resources, supply chains or other means, depending on the policy issue.

Utah, Idaho and Wyoming signed a tri-state agreement to support nuclear energy deployment last year. Collaboration on nuclear energy is particularly fitting for these states because they share energy infrastructure, have similar energy profiles and face comparable geographic constraints:

Idaho is home to Idaho National Laboratory (INL), bringing a wealth of nuclear knowledge and expertise to the table.
Wyoming has the largest uranium ore reserves in the U.S. and is the site of TerraPower’s Natrium reactor demonstration project.
Utah solidified its commitment through strategic cooperation agreements with private companies like Holtec International, a nuclear equipment supplier and reactor designer, and Hi Tech Solutions, a nuclear services provider, to create a “Nuclear Energy Ecosystem.”

With utilities across the West joining different markets, including in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, there is potential to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of joint nuclear energy development. Shared challenges and individual strengths create a robust foundation for collaboration. States can bridge gaps in infrastructure and expertise by leveraging National Lab resources and existing nuclear expertise in one state, while co-developing regional manufacturing and workforce pipelines that can support new nuclear across several states.

Many states are beginning to address shared opportunities through state-supported feasibility studies or by considering programs to either repurpose their existing workforce, by creating, improving or expanding specialized education systems, or supporting an influx of workers with existing, necessary experience. Aggressive and intentional state-level policy to support early deployment of nuclear energy sends a strong signal to developers, but may not be enough to overcome challenges with early project deployments. Regional agreements could allow states to share and expand these resources collaboratively and more efficiently, or form a “buyers club” across similar markets to help spread the risk of early deployments.

Policy and Market Considerations

State energy market structures impact the commercialization path of nuclear projects. In a state with vertically integrated utilities, states can enact advanced rate recovery mechanisms to recover costs in real time rather than waiting until a plant is operational. The upfront revenue reduces the amount that needs to be borrowed and the total interest cost during construction.

Conversely, generation, transmission and distribution are separated in a state with restructured utilities, and generators earn revenue by selling their electricity into the competitive market. With most utilities procuring their electricity from the market and other entities that own the generation, advanced rate recovery isn’t an option. To make early nuclear reactor deployments financially viable in a deregulated market, multiple policy levers and financial contracts will likely need to be stacked to supplement the wholesale market revenue once the nuclear reactor is sold into the marketplace.

A collaborative effort between, for example, deregulated states with existing nuclear energy (e.g., OH, PA, MD, CT and NY) could pull multiple levers in tandem to see new nuclear development in their state.

These include:

Example Policy Levers

Strategic Planning and State-Level Support

Regardless of market structure, it is common for utilities to own generation assets in one state serving customers in another. Decisions on where to locate generation assets are built on factors including power needs, resource availability, environmental considerations, regulatory requirements, cost and policy incentives. Utility Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) will have to consider all of these aspects when planning to build out new nuclear.

State-level recognition of nuclear energy as a clean energy source also significantly impacts project viability and access to funding. Some states, such as Virginia and Maryland, have Renewable Portfolio Standards, and later clarified that nuclear energy would count toward those goals. Other states have adopted technology-agnostic Clean Energy Standards that focus solely on zero- or low-carbon goals. By ensuring that existing state statutes consider nuclear technology on a level playing field with other technologies, states can enable nuclear projects to qualify for certain loans, grants and other funding opportunities that might otherwise be unavailable.

Federal Oversight

Effective nuclear deployment also hinges on robust, efficient and predictable federal oversight. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the independent federal agency responsible for overseeing and regulating civilian nuclear energy and nuclear materials. Before operation, nuclear power plants must undergo NRC safety, financial and environmental reviews for their construction and operating licenses.

Beyond direct NRC licensing, the Interstate Compact Clause is an important federal dynamic to consider. Stemming from the landmark case Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), this clause draws a line requiring Congressional approval for a certain level of collaboration between states. This will not categorically prevent states from working together, but it complicates the types of collaboration possible and may require states to seek congressional approval.

Geographic and Transmission Infrastructure Considerations

Even with effective policies and regulatory frameworks, a significant barrier to certain regional agreements and broader nuclear deployment can be physical: moving electrons requires significant transmission capacity and transfer capability, a major constraint for all kinds of energy development in the U.S. Though projects to improve connections both inter- and intra-regionally are underway, these infrastructure limitations will remain a primary consideration for nuclear deployments; it may not be physically possible to move sufficient power from one area of a state to another, especially if significant distance or geographic barriers are present. These limitations could become the subject of state-to-state collaborations.

Framework for Evaluating State Collaborative Efforts for Nuclear Deployment

Several factors can affect states’ success as they seek collaborative agreements. Below is a table with examples of how these factors may impact certain regions. States should consider the weighting of each category, as individual factors will significantly matter.

Examples of Alignment for State Collaboration

Nuclear energy has a long-standing history with interstate compacts around low-level radioactive waste across the nation and the Western Interstate Nuclear Compact. As identified previously, these compacts require congressional approval, so less formal agreements may be preferred.

Memoranda of Understanding or other Regional Energy Initiatives, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Northeast States Collaborative on Interregional Transmission and the Western Governors’ Association, serve as forums for states to support each other in regional energy policy. Over the past few years, various states have worked to push projects and legislation with varying degrees of success with interstate partners.

Examples of Supportive State Legislation Proposed or Passed in 2025

Conclusion

Achieving widespread nuclear energy deployment will hinge on initial order books of five to 10 units of the same design being committed to and financed as soon as possible. States, working together, can lead by sharing the risk of a first-of-a-kind reactor through strategic partnerships. This initial step will pave the way for the commercialization of new nuclear reactors driven by economies of scale.

State collaboration offers a strategic lever to catalyze momentum. By joining forces across multiple regions, states can sync project timelines to support workforce and supply chain needs in the construction phase. Pooled demand will amplify the market signal to developers and supply chain industries, especially if states enter formal agreements. Participating states can collaborate on workforce training and retraining, standing up qualified supply chains, aligning regulatory requirements and siting and approval challenges. Regional collaboration can create a unified voice to advocate for federal support.

However, the challenges of achieving an interstate compact, especially one that can accomplish the goal of creating an orderbook of new nuclear, should not be understated. States will need to carefully consider the type of collaboration they want to pursue and identify the partners best suited. If successful, regional collaboration could be a powerful lever to usher in the next wave of nuclear projects and drive a national strategy to dramatically increase American nuclear capacity.

Appendix

Key Concepts in the Governance of the U.S. Power System

Bryson Roberson is a former ClearPath Conservative Leadership Program Fellow. He is now a Legislative Correspondent for Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA).

Cason Carroll is a Program Manager at Envoy Public Labs.

Austin Blanch is a Senior Analyst at Envoy Public Labs.

Let American Energy Move: Modernizing America’s Grid for Growing Demand

I wanted to talk with you about one of my favorite topics – The GRID! We use it every day without having to give a lot of thought. We use it when we light our homes, charge our phones, and store food in the fridge. Many of us rely on it at work to run computers, machines, and various devices. The grid makes our modern life possible. Our grid is an engineering marvel.

You can think of it like a big, interconnected machine with three main parts:

generation – where electricity is produced;
transmission – the high voltage highways that move electricity; and
distribution – the delivery system to reach consumers and businesses.

Today, let’s focus on the transmission part of our grid.

Those large steel towers that hold up power lines — That’s Transmission. We have over half a million miles of transmission lines in the U.S. today, servingas the backbone of our grid. And, we’re going to need a lot more. A strong transmission system is crucial for America’s energy future, especially as we face unprecedented demand for power.

Here are some reasons why transmission is so important:

Transmission supports economic growth: If we want to build more manufacturing sites and power AI data centers to support more jobs, we need to be able to move the power to meet the demand. Transmission is needed to support all types of economic growth, whether you live in a rural community or a big city.

Transmission improves affordability: Better use of existing lines and building new transmission lets American energy move between regions, and that can help keep energy bills lower.

Transmission enhances reliability: By connecting many power plants over a wide region, transmission helps cover demand spikes and provides backup when a plant or line goes offline. More transmission means more ability to transmit energy where it is needed.

Transmission helps unlock innovation: Taking advantage of advanced geothermal in Utah, new nuclear plants in Texas or other next generation projects can’t happen without transmission.

At ClearPath, we believe that the U.S. needs to build more transmission to:

win the AI race,
revitalize our manufacturing base, and
keep energy bills affordable in the long term.

Right now, it can take 10+ years to build new transmission because of:

slow planning processes,
complex permitting,
disputes about who pays for the lines, and
litigation challenges.

So here are three policy solutions to fix it:

One — Leverage Innovation: This means deploying new technologies to get the most out of the existing grid, like advanced conductors, dynamic line ratings, and updated software and hardware for grid control. We should also support technology derisking with strategic incentives and more efficient information sharing.

Two — Speed Up Interconnection: We can optimize the use of existing interconnection capacity; prioritize cost-effective upgrades; and streamline the interconnection queue process by focusing first on areas with reliability needs or existing transmission capacity.

And Three — Build More Transmission: Every energy source relies on transmission. We need to improve federal permitting processes, reduce litigation risks, make it easier for States to collaborate on transmission development and for regions to coordinate grid plans, and we need to modernize federal backstop authority for transmission siting to be a more targeted tool used when absolutely needed.

If we want America to lead, then we need to let American energy move.

Made in America, with Carbon

Carbon dioxide (CO₂), once seen as an industrial by-product, is becoming a valuable American commodity. It was first used in the 1970s for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), injected underground to extract additional crude oil from oil reservoirs. While EOR remains an effective tool, the range of use today for captured CO₂ has expanded – strengthening the economy and supporting sectors at the heart of U.S. growth, including fuels, construction and agriculture.

The market for products utilizing CO₂ is rapidly emerging as a key part of America’s industrial and energy economy, with global revenue projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2040. Many companies are now turning innovation into a competitive advantage, transforming by-products into feedstock for carbon-based materials, fuels, chemicals and even consumer goods like On Cloud shoes, Lululemon clothing and diamonds. This development positions the U.S. as a leader in decarbonizing different sectors, and shows that economic growth and reducing emissions go hand-in-hand. However, realizing the full scale of this $1 trillion opportunity requires a policy framework that unleashes the private sector to innovate and helps solidify the U.S. as a global leader in emerging, carbon-based markets.

Carbon utilization is a space that has also garnered a lot of bipartisan support over the years. The foundation for this success was laid in the Energy Act of 2020 and signed into law during President Trump’s first administration, supporting the research and development of carbon management technologies. Building on that momentum, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 provided parity in the Section 45Q carbon capture tax credit, ensuring that American innovators utilizing CO₂ for EOR and other commercial products are finally on a level playing field. With this commonsense policy in place, American entrepreneurs finally have the long-term certainty needed to deploy capital and build the next generation of industrial energy leaders right here on American soil.

The best part is that American ingenuity is starting to deliver results. Companies across the country are already utilizing these technologies to turn carbon into a competitive advantage. Here are a few examples of American-led innovation in action:

Fortera: CO₂in Industrial Materials

One of the most transformative areas of carbon utilization is in industrial materials. Captured CO₂ is increasingly used as a feedstock to create building materials, polymers, textiles and advanced carbon products, supporting our infrastructure and economy while reducing industrial emissions. California-based Fortera has created a cement process that captures CO₂ emissions directly from the cement plant kiln and mineralizes it into a stand-alone cement. Fortera’s process can be added onto existing cement production facilities, enabling a retrofit approach that minimizes disruption while dramatically reducing emissions. The resulting products either enhance or replace traditional cement, offering cost and performance competitiveness that makes low-carbon building materials a scalable reality.

Fortera’s new plant in California, co-located with CalPortland’s cement plant, demonstrates this in action, capturing industrial CO₂ and transforming it into cement with up to 70% lower CO₂ emissions. With recent investment from Microsoft, the plant plans to scale production from 15,000 tons to 400,000 tons of cement per year, which is enough to support the construction of over 20,000 homes. They recently completed their first major pour, supplying low-carbon cement to Simpson University, located near the plant. Using carbon in industrial materials enables America to continue to build while lowering emissions.

Fortera – Low-Carbon Cement

Source: Fortera

AIRCO: CO₂ in Aviation Fuel

Another exciting area of application for captured carbon is the production of synthetic aviation fuel directly from captured CO₂. AIRCO, formerly Air Company, is leading the charge with its technology – an advanced carbon conversion platform that transforms captured carbon dioxide and hydrogen into high-performance synthetic fuels. These fuels are not only viable for commercial aviation but also tailored for defense applications, given their on-demand production in remote areas, supporting vehicles across air, land, and sea through a strategic partnership with the U.S. Department of War. They have also partnered with major airlines, including Virgin Atlantic and JetBlue, and recently unveiled a fuel plant in New York City. AIRCO’s fuel is able to seamlessly drop-in as a solution and meets all jet fuel requirements. By using CO₂ as a primary feedstock for a valuable asset like jet fuel, America can diversify the supply chain, supporting energy security and national defense and reducing emissions simultaneously.

Twelve: Everyday CO₂ Products

The “Made in China” tag on everyday items has become all too familiar, but utilizing CO₂ in the manufacturing process could bring back the supply chain for more products to be “Made in USA.” Twelve’s CO2Made products are made using chemicals and materials from captured CO₂. These products are functionally identical to their traditional counterparts, making them easy drop-in replacements. Using locally captured CO₂ in the manufacturing process also promotes domestic production of many products that are usually manufactured overseas.

Twelve has already partnered with household name brands, including Procter & Gamble, Mercedes, and Shopify, to develop CO2Made versions of existing products, as well as NASA and the U.S. Air Force to deploy its synthetic fuel. Twelve has raised over $900 million in funding to commercialize its technology and build its first plant in Washington. They have recognized the growing demand for low-emissions products and are capitalizing early on the increasing value of CO₂ as a commodity.

What’s Next for Carbon Utilization

As the U.S. competes with China and others for energy dominance and a competitive advantage in products, utilizing CO₂ to expand domestic supply chains and create resources for energy production is essential to getting ahead. Countries and companies that leverage advanced energy solutions to create energy abundance and product reliability in a time where demand for infrastructure and power is on the rise will be set apart in the global tech race. Innovations that integrate CO₂ utilization seamlessly into existing industries will simultaneously strengthen and decarbonize the economy.

While 45Q parity has leveled the playing field, further research and development, and public-private partnerships are needed to connect American industry to these emerging markets. To fully capitalize on captured CO₂ and turn it into an economic advantage, bipartisan solutions like legislation introduced by Senator Collins (R-ME) in the 118th Congress are needed to guide innovation, build infrastructure and bring competitive technologies to market. The 119th Congress has the opportunity to advance these bipartisan blueprints to power the next generation of American carbon commodities and reduce global emissions.

A Clear Path for Geothermal Permitting: Cutting Delays, Driving Deployment

Energy Dominance Financing 101: Accelerating American Innovation

From Vision to Reality: The U.S. Fusion Imperative

Fusion energy, generated by combining atoms like hydrogen, has the potential to supply enormous amounts of clean energy. Decades of research have brought this technology to the precipice of first-of-a-kind commercial deployment. Today, there are 45 fusion energy companies in the United States, and several of them are aiming to build a commercially viable fusion power plant between 2030 and 2035. If America leads the way in deploying this technology, we could establish a new manufacturing industry, new long-term energy partnerships and trade agreements, and a foundation for global energy dominance.

Without investments in public-private partnerships and a resilient domestic supply chain, America risks ceding leadership to its foreign adversaries. China is investing at least $1.5 billion annually in fusion, although some reports suggest significantly more, and already possesses robust supply chains for power electronics, forged parts and the advanced materials necessary to commercialize this technology. Similarly, allied nations like Germany and the UK are also investing huge sums, with Germany investing over $2 billion by 2029 and the UK investing around $3 billion over the next five years.

The Commission on the Scaling of Fusion Energy (CSFE), led by Senators Jim Risch (R-ID) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Ylli Bajraktari, the President of the Special Competitive Studies Project, published a report that lays out a plan to ensure the United States acts with purpose to capitalize on this technology. The CSFE report outlines a list of three strategic actions the U.S needs to win the fusion race:

Issue an Executive Order recognizing fusion as a national security priority;
Provide $10 billion to drive commercialization and expand research and development;
Expand interagency and private sector collaboration and take strategic action, such as expanding infrastructure and funding existing programs like the Department of Defense (DoD) Milestone-Based Fusion Program.

The DOE Office of Science released its Fusion Science & Technology Roadmap, which sets a national strategy to accelerate the deployment of commercial fusion power by the mid-2030s. The roadmap outlines three core pillars that are essential to American fusion success:

Build: Develop critical infrastructure, materials testing and fusion-relevant facilities.
Innovate: Apply AI, advanced modeling and new confinement approaches to close key scientific gaps.
Grow: Expand regional fusion hubs, strengthen public-private partnerships and train a specialized workforce.

In November 2025, the DOE released its new organizational structure, which includes a standalone Office of Fusion Energy, reporting to the Under Secretary for Science. Together, these announcements reflect a growing sense of urgency amongst both Congress and the Trump Administration to deliver fusion power to the grid within the next decade and secure enduring U.S. leadership in this emerging industry.

The U.S. is Moving Fast…

Today, companies are already proving that commercialization is no longer speculative. Among the many industry accomplishments, Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) is building its SPARC (by 2027) and ARC (by the early 2030s) power plants using advanced superconducting magnets. Helion Energy raised $425 million in 2025 and, in partnership with Microsoft, is constructing a commercial fusion plant in Washington state, which aims to enter operation by 2028. In February, Type One Energy signed a cooperative agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority to initiate fusion deployment. Serious investors and tech companies are placing very real bets on this technology.

Recent Notable Investments into the Fusion Sector

Source: Fusion Industry Association, “The global fusion industry in 2025“

…But China is Catching Up

China invested $1.5 billion in fusion last year, nearly double U.S. funding of $800 million. Additionally, state-owned enterprises have been investing heavily in fusion supply chains to ensure a swift path to commercialization. As part of this initiative, in July 2025, China established a new state-owned fusion company known as the China Fusion Energy Co. (CFEC) to accelerate commercialization. Since its genesis, CFEC has registered $2.1 billion in raised capital. This new company is just one example of China’s commercialization efforts to complement its scientific advances at its two main fusion enterprises, the Institute of Plasma Physics and the Hefei Institute of Physical Science. In contrast, despite private industry momentum, the U.S. fusion industry currently lacks the supply chains and infrastructure required to sustain a full commercial buildout.

America’s Moment to Lead

Energy drives all human prosperity, which is why the Trump Administration has made American energy dominance a core policy priority. America now faces an opportunity to commercialize an entirely new source of energy. This moment is a rare opportunity for America to dominate an entirely new energy technology, building energy security and supporting reindustrialization. The private sector is ready, but it cannot outcompete state-backed corporations alone. The Trump Administration laid out a roadmap for U.S. leadership in fusion; now it’s time to capitalize and win.

Time to Fix America’s Permitting Problems and Let America Build

America’s permitting system is not just slow and costly; it is a threat to our economic and energy security. Long delays, unpredictable reviews and escalating costs create investment uncertainty and lost opportunities. Projects across sectors take an average of four to five years to move through the permitting system, and delays cost $100-140 billion a year in the form of jobs, revenue and capital returns. We cannot meet rising energy demand and compete globally with a system that stands in the way of progress.

If the U.S. is to lead in the AI-driven future, catalyze American manufacturing and keep energy costs low, we need to build more of everything and strengthen the energy system to deliver affordable, reliable and secure power.

Weighted Average Permitting Time for Projects Varies by Sector

Source: BLM NEPA National Register; Breakthrough Institute; Columbia University; USFS NEPA Database; Council on Environmental Quality; EIS Length Database; Federal Permitting Dashboard; Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council: Baseline Performance Schedules; Federal Register: Section 404 Permits; Government Accountability Office; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; NOAA: EFH Consultation; PNAS; Stanford University; University of Utah; McKinsey & Company

The 119th Congress has an opportunity to deliver bipartisan permitting reform that will let America build. Here are four solutions:

1. Modernize NEPA

Building in America should always require careful consideration of a project’s impacts on the environment. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law in 1970 to ensure this is done and needs to be updated to meet today’s energy realities. NEPA is a procedural statute to inform decision-making, not dictate outcomes. The May 2025 Seven County Supreme Court case reaffirmed this and importantly clarified both the scope and limits of agency discretion in the NEPA process. In the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act, Congress made a down payment to refocus NEPA reviews. It is time to build on those bipartisan NEPA reforms.

Modernizing NEPA should:

Streamline the review process without weakening environmental standards.
Clarify the scope of reviews to focus on significant impacts.
Eliminate duplicative analyses across agencies.

2. Address NEPA Litigation

NEPA litigation rarely changes outcomes, but it does often delay or kill projects. A July 2025 Breakthrough Institute study found federal agencies win 74% of NEPA cases. By repeatedly filing lawsuits, project opponents aim to delay the process until developers run out of funding and abandon their projects. This chills investor confidence and can be a hurdle to building new energy assets like geothermal, hydropower, transmission lines and critical mineral enterprises. These lawsuits also drain federal agency resources, as agencies try to preempt lawsuits by making their documentation “litigation proof.” To increase predictability and halt harmful delay tactics, we need to reform NEPA judicial review and litigation practices.

Reforming NEPA judicial review and litigation practices will:

Limit legal challenges to clear and material violations of environmental or natural resources laws.
Shorten the statute of limitations for NEPA lawsuits from six years to a more reasonable period.
Establish strict tests and firm timelines for courts to resolve NEPA-related disputes.
Require litigants to have participated in the public comment process before filing suit.

In addition to addressing NEPA, Congress could further improve the permitting process by updating environmental regulations, like the Clean Water Act, and expanding categorical exclusions where appropriate.

3. Increase Transparency

A modern permitting system should have public, real-time data on the status of environmental reviews and permits to increase certainty and transparency for all stakeholders. Today, missing, fragmented and outdated data makes navigating the permitting process harder for developers, agencies and the public. By increasing transparency, all stakeholders have better visibility into the process and drive efficiency.

Increasing transparency includes:

Requiring federal agencies to use digital tools for the process.
Developing standardized data for all federal permits.
Creating a centralized portal that serves as a one-stop-shop for information on reviews and authorizations.
Leveraging innovative technologies to allow for more automation and interoperability.

4. Fix the Grid

Fixing permitting alone is not enough. We must let American energy move. With demand for power increasing, we need to strengthen our grid and do it fast. To fix the grid, America should:

Leverage Innovation: Deploy new technologies, including advanced conductors, dynamic line ratings, topology optimization and advanced power flow controllers, to get the most out of the existing grid. Support technology derisking with strategic incentives and shared information resources.
Speed Up Interconnection: Optimize the use of existing interconnection capacity; leverage cost-effective upgrades; and modernize interconnection queues.
Build More Transmission: Every energy source relies on transmission. Streamline the federal permitting processes, reduce litigation risks, make it easier for States to collaborate on transmission development, modernize federal authority to provide backstop siting authority, provide optional pathways for federal siting and establish interregional planning requirements.

There are bills in Congress that capture many of the ideas described above and that can help us meet the challenges we face. These bills include:

The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development or SPEED Act (H.R. 4776), championed by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) addresses the scope of NEPA and litigation risk.
The ePERMIT Act (H.R. 4503), introduced by Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Scott Peters (D-CA), establishes a framework for federal agencies to implement a digital permitting system, leverage technology and launch a centralized online portal.
The Guaranteeing Reliability through the Interconnection of Dispatchable Power Act or GRID Power Act (H.R. 1047), introduced by Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), requires FERC to authorize transmission providers to prioritize dispatchable power projects in the interconnection queue that can address grid reliability. H.R.1047 passed the House in September 2025 on a bipartisan basis. The Senate version of the bill is S. 465, which was introduced by Sens. John Hoeven (R-ND) and Todd Young (R-IN).
The Streamlining Powerlines Essential to Electric Demand and Reliability Act of 2025 or SPEED and Reliability Act (H.R. 5600), championed by Reps. Andy Barr (R-KY) and Scott Peters (D-CA), addresses the backstop siting of transmission lines in the national interest and create certainty for cost-allocation.

It’s time to let America build and let American energy move. With bipartisan reforms, Congress can design a permitting system that meets the scale of the challenge, and advances U.S. leadership in energy, manufacturing and innovation.