Interconnection 101: Clearing the Path for New Power

The United States must rapidly deploy new sources of reliable, affordable, and clean power to meet rising electricity demand from data centers, industrial growth, and the electrification of multiple sectors. Whether the power comes from nuclear, natural gas, geothermal, or other sources, every new project must navigate the grid interconnection process, which is the biggest bottleneck for deploying all types of infrastructure. 

Interconnection is the process of connecting a new energy facility to the electric grid. You can think of the interconnection process in two steps: first, a study, and second, the physical connection for commercial operation.

In the first step, grid operators study how a proposed project will affect electricity flows across the entire grid system, assess reliability impacts, and determine whether grid upgrades are needed and their costs. These can include building new transmission lines, rebuilding transmission lines to be higher voltage, or reconductoring of existing lines, as well as deploying new equipment at substations or onto other parts of the system to ensure reliability. The interconnection study process takes over three years on average, with some parts of the country taking nearly five years on average. Then, step two, the actual physical connection, can take an additional two to four years. This inefficient process results in less than 20% of proposed projects reaching commercial operation.

Interconnection is Slowing Down Energy Addition

Source: LBNL. (2026). Queued Up 2026 Data File.

The main cause of this bottleneck is a disconnect between three critical processes:

  1. Generation interconnection, which brings electricity supply onto the grid.
  2. Demand (Load) interconnection, which connects electricity consumers and increases system demand.
  3. Transmission planning, which evaluates and identifies the grid infrastructure needed to ensure reliability, reduce congestion, and meet future energy needs.

These processes are deeply interdependent, yet they are often planned and executed in isolation. This misalignment leads to delays, higher costs, and missed opportunities to efficiently align supply, demand, and infrastructure.

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-pronged approach that can:

  1. Maximize existing grid capacity;
  2. Integrate transmission planning with generation and load growth; and
  3. Leverage innovation to accelerate studies and grid connection

Together, these reforms can help unlock the full potential of the existing project pipeline, reduce timelines, and ensure the grid can support continued economic growth. Addressing siting, permitting, and supply chain bottlenecks will also be essential to building a grid capable of meeting rising demand.

1. Maximize existing grid capacity

Making better use of the existing grid is one of the fastest, lowest-cost ways to bring new power online. Instead of waiting years for new transmission to be built, there are other ways projects can connect to and use the grid. Three approaches can tap into existing capacity to make their electrons available to the grid faster: energy-only service, surplus interconnection service, and generator replacement.

  1. Energy-only transmission service
    Some energy projects seek full deliverability of their power on the transmission system, meaning they reserve capacity and are willing to pay for the infrastructure to support delivery. Other projects, however, may be willing to accept energy-only transmission service, allowing them to deliver power when transmission capacity is available, without firm capacity rights.

    The benefit of this energy-only service is that these projects can connect to the grid without needing major network upgrades, which lowers costs and speeds up the connection process. However, these projects take on the risk that the system is full or congested, and their energy is therefore curtailed. ERCOT successfully uses this model, enabling faster, higher project completion rates for all types of energy technologies.In other regions, however, grid operators often study these projects as if they seek deliverability, triggering unnecessary upgrades that increase costs and timelines. Aligning studies to project service needs can unlock faster, lower-cost connections. Projects can also transition from energy-only service to having full deliverability over time, allowing them to operate while upgrades are being built.
  2. Surplus interconnection
    Most interconnection points are underutilized because generators don’t run at full capacity all of the time, or even most of the time. For example, over 200 GW of generation on the grid today is designed to serve peak load periods, meaning that for much of the year, these points of interconnection are underutilized. Co-locating new projects, such as natural gas peakers, with existing solar projects can maximize use of this infrastructure, avoiding grid upgrades and saving time and costs. Streamlining these requests and proactively identifying opportunities can further accelerate energy deployment.
  1. Generator replacement
    When an existing energy project retires, the point of interconnection it utilized and any capacity rights should be expeditiously reallocated to a new project or projects. Proactively developing the procedure is the critical first step and should be designed to prioritize projects that fully utilize capacity and can be rapidly built and connected. By minimizing the time this grid capacity remains underutilized, transmission providers can ensure resource adequacy needs are met and that efficient market entry and exit are achieved, thereby promoting affordability.

    Transmission providers can also consider allowing replacement projects to be located somewhere other than the retiring plant, provided the new location offers electrically equivalent grid access and capacity rights. The Midwest Independent System Operator made this change last year.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has laid the groundwork for these interconnection pathways through Order 2023, which updated the interconnection process in 2023 to operate in a first-ready, first-served study process for clusters of projects, and Order 845, which established surplus interconnection service in 2018. However, implementation by utilities and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) can lead to study approaches and processes that inhibit their effective use, leaving prime speed to power opportunities off the table. In response, some RTOs have proactively amended their implementation of surplus interconnection service to remove barriers and accelerate energy additions, and more utilities and RTOs should follow suit to address reliability and affordability.

Additionally, FERC can identify and direct utilities and RTOs to remedy deficiencies that are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential through a Federal Power Act Section 206 proceeding. This approach enables FERC to identify specific deficiencies in a utility’s or RTO’s procedures and require revisions to address them, promoting more just and reasonable rates and regulations. It is faster than rulemaking and can improve these pathways to remove market barriers, helping get more electrons onto the grid faster.

2. Integrate transmission planning with generation and load growth

The siloing of interconnection processes from transmission planning is a core challenge. Today, information about the timing and cost of transmission and other network upgrades comes after a project enters the interconnection process and at the end of the multi-year long study process. This incentivizes developers to submit many projects, knowing that most will be withdrawn when they realize it will take too long or cost too much to interconnect a project. This creates delays and restudies for other projects whose study results are interdependent with other projects in the queue. Integrating information about the cost of connecting into the transmission system and when that capacity will be available at the beginning of the interconnection process can reduce uncertainty and enable more efficient allocation of scarce grid capacity.

Allocating this capacity can take many forms, such as project scoring criteria, entry-fee models, or open seasons. Regardless of the specific method different utilities or grid operators pursue, it’s essential to allocate capacity on a technology-neutral basis to projects that meet strict commercial-readiness requirements and financial commitments to accelerate energy deployment. These can include take-or-pay provisions for transmission capacity to reflect that projects will have greater certainty about timing and cost for interconnection. They could also eliminate grace periods for energy projects to reach commercial operation after the interconnection agreement is reached. This would help ensure that projects that are not commercially ready to build within three years of getting the go-ahead don’t prevent others from using available transmission capacity.

Proactive transmission planning is also essential. As demand grows, new transmission, not just generation, is required to maintain reliability and move power to customers. Equally important is coordinating generation and load interconnection. Today, they are studied separately, missing opportunities for shared infrastructure. In Ohio, for example, a 1.5 GW gas plant withdrew after facing $1.3 billion in grid upgrade costs, even as data center growth drove similar transmission needs in the region. An integrated approach could align investments, lower costs, and improve certainty for both generators and large loads.

Grid Access Impacts Connection Speed

This approach to interconnection is similar to how runners organize themselves for a race. Assuming all projects are prepared for the race with their permits, site control, equipment and workforce contracts, and financial offtake ready to go, the projects that run faster will be those that can more quickly connect to the grid at their desired service level. The fastest projects would be those seeking energy-only service, surplus interconnection service, or generator replacement. Projects that can utilize existing transmission capacity or are planning to build in areas where new transmission capacity is under development may move at a more moderate pace. Meanwhile, projects that want full transmission deliverability but will need new infrastructure to be studied, planned, and built to meet their needs will move more slowly. By sorting projects by how quickly they can obtain their desired grid access and aligning their interconnection process to reflect only the studies and steps necessary to support their desired grid access, more energy can be added to the grid efficiently.

Grid operators can follow in California and SPP’s lead in prioritizing the efficient allocation of existing and forthcoming transmission capacity to provide greater cost and timing certainty to energy projects. FERC could also initiate a rulemaking to streamline interconnection processes for projects seeking full deliverability into areas with existing or forthcoming transmission capacity. This proceeding could also break down silos across large-load and generation interconnections to identify more efficient, cost-effective grid solutions.

3. Leverage innovation to accelerate studies and grid connection

Modernizing interconnection studies through automation and artificial intelligence (AI) is a clear near-term opportunity. Today, engineers spend significant time manually validating and updating data, creating and solving models, identifying grid upgrades to address constraints, and generating reports on the studies. Because these steps are fragmented and completed manually, they introduce more opportunities for human error and make replicating results challenging and time-consuming. Automation can dramatically reduce timelines. For example, the regional transmission operator in the Midwest, MISO, demonstrated how automation reduced its Phase One study from 686 days to 10 days, or from two years to just over one week. These time savings were made while achieving over 99% accuracy and minimal changes in the estimated grid upgrade costs for projects. In addition to the benefits of automation, new software tools leverage more advanced computational processes that can drastically reduce the time it takes to complete computations. All together, these tools allow engineers to spend more time applying their expertise than conducting manual data and model manipulation.

In addition to AI and automation, data-sharing must also improve. Today’s fragmented, email-based exchanges of information create delays due to the lack of timely access to accurate and up-to-date system information, leading to restudies. Notably, MISO’s computer systems completed the analysis in only 0.3 days, indicating a significant opportunity to further reduce study time through improved data-sharing practices. 

Scaling these tools nationwide could transform interconnection timelines. While some operators have begun adopting them, all transmission providers should prioritize deploying software that improves speed, cost, and accuracy. FERC could require all transmission providers to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for software tools that improve the speed, cost, and accuracy of interconnection study processes. Utilities and RTOs will be able to evaluate all innovations on the market and select the tools that best fit their needs, or demonstrate that their current process and toolset are sufficient.

Another opportunity to better leverage innovations is in the deployment of advanced transmission technologies to upgrade the grid for new energy projects. Today, FERC regulations only require transmission providers to evaluate alternative transmission technologies that can enhance the performance of the existing infrastructure or replace existing equipment to increase capacity and efficiency, such as through reconductoring with advanced conductors. Transmission providers have sole discretion over whether to actually implement them. This means lower-cost, faster solutions may be underutilized.

To better support economic growth and lower consumer bills, FERC could update regulations to require providers to use these alternative technologies whenever they offer time or cost savings and meet all reliability standards. Furthermore, interconnection customers, who pay for network upgrades, should have the right to choose a solution so long as it meets all reliability standards.

Conclusion

Energy demand is growing, and the grid is not keeping pace. Growing the grid and addressing inefficient interconnection processes is crucial to economic growth, reliability, and energy affordability. These recommendations will let American energy move.

Unleashing U.S. Energy: Lessons from Japan

Energy security doesn’t just power economies; it defines alliances. Few nations understand this better than Japan. With scarce domestic resources and deep import dependence, the country knows firsthand how vulnerable it is to global supply shocks, making energy security a national imperative. ClearPath’s educational series, the Clean Energy Innovation Academy (CEIA), took nine U.S. Senate Republican staff to Japan to see that commitment firsthand. At every stop, the case for American energy leadership was clear and demonstrated why the United States must innovate fast, build here and sell globally.

U.S. Senate Staff pictured with U.S. Ambassador to Japan George Glass. [L-R]: Micah Chambers, Dan Horning, Lucas Da Pieve, Chris Prandoni, Wendy Baig, Jake McCurdy, Ambassador Glass, Joshua Sizemore, Jeremy Harrell, Duncan Rankin, Alicia Badley

Key takeaways:

American LNG is essential for Japan: American liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a critical piece of Japan’s energy mix, and American technology is woven throughout Japan’s energy systems. Standing inside JERA Futtsu Thermal Power station, one of Japan’s largest natural gas power plants, the scale of U.S. involvement was on full display. GE Vernova turbines manufactured in Greenville, South Carolina, drive the bulk of the more than 5,000 megawatts powering the Tokyo metropolitan area. The fuel feeding those turbines is increasingly American, too. The U.S. currently supplies roughly 10 percent of Japan’s total LNG imports, and with U.S. export capacity projected to nearly double by 2031, the U.S. is well-positioned to expand that share. As Japan continues to prioritize energy security and diversify its supply base, the U.S. is a natural partner, offering LNG that is reliable, affordable and strategically aligned with the interests of both nations.

he ClearPath team and U.S. Senate staff pictured at the JERA Futtsu Thermal Power Station.

Japan is backing American energy: Japan has committed $550 billion in investment into U.S. strategic industries, with roughly $300 billion directed toward energy, including LNG, grid modernization and nuclear development. Conversations with senior officials across the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and Ministry of Environment (MOE) reinforced that this capital flows here because our allies trust American reliability and see the U.S. as their partner of choice on energy. The energy policy decisions in Washington, D.C. carry weight far beyond U.S. borders.

Nuclear fuel independence is a long-term investment: The Rokkasho Nuclear Fuel Complex, operated by Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited, is one of the most significant energy infrastructure projects in the world, bringing together uranium enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing, mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication and low-level waste management in a single facility. It represents Japan’s commitment to a closed nuclear fuel cycle and taking control of its own energy future. Japan has no domestic uranium, yet rather than remain vulnerable to the geopolitical risks of import dependence, the country has spent decades building the industrial capacity to maximize and reuse what it imports. The U.S. has the potential to pursue a similar path, with growing investments in domestic uranium enrichment and used fuel management pointing toward long-term nuclear energy independence. Rokkasho paints a vivid picture of what that long-term commitment looks like in practice.

The ClearPath team and U.S. Senate staff pictured at the Rokkasho Nuclear Fuel Complex.

Nuclear power is making a comeback in Japan: Fukushima Daiichi has defined Japan’s energy story for over a decade. In the aftermath of the 2011 disaster, Japan stepped back from nuclear power, but the economic and energy security costs of that decision proved too significant to sustain. Today, Japan is recommitting to nuclear as an essential part of its energy future, and its partnership with the U.S. is central to that effort. American nuclear technology, expertise and regulatory standards have long set the global benchmark, and the opportunity to deepen that leadership has never been greater.

Strategic export financing drives energy leadership: Japan has modernized its export and investment financing to prioritize strategic sectors, with energy and supply chain resilience at the core of that effort. The Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) plays a central role in financing and facilitating those investments, helping to move strategic projects from ambition to reality. That enhanced capacity makes JBIC the tip of the spear in driving the investment deals that underpin the broader U.S.-Japan Strategic Investment Initiative. The upcoming reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) presents a critical opportunity for the U.S. to take a more strategic approach to its own export financing. Done right, it creates the flexibility American energy projects need to compete and win in global markets.

U.S.-Japan industry partnerships are delivering real results: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) exemplifies what U.S.-Japan private sector collaboration looks like at its best. As AI data centers and industrial expansion drive electricity demand, innovation and industrial competitiveness have become shared priorities for both nations. MHI’s carbon capture technology is deployed globally, including at the Petra Nova project in Texas, and MHI has invested in Fervo Energy, a U.S.-based enhanced geothermal startup, signaling a shared interest in geothermal as a critical baseload resource. These are not one-sided arrangements; they are cutting-edge technologies developed through a partnership that creates value for both countries. With American electricity demand projected to grow 35 to 50 percent by 2040, every reliable and affordable baseload source matters, and U.S.-Japan industry partnerships are well-positioned to deliver at the scale the moment demands.

The opportunity ahead

Japan invested deliberately in technology, alliances and industrial capacity to secure its energy future – a remarkable achievement for a nation with scarce domestic resources. The U.S. has every advantage Japan lacks: abundant natural gas, uranium reserves and geothermal potential, backed by a private sector that consistently leads the world in energy innovation.

What emerged is a partnership built on mutual interest. Japan is investing to scale technologies in both countries while the U.S. is well positioned to be the world’s energy solutions provider; the demand is real, and the opportunity to innovate fast, build here and sell globally has never been greater.

 

 

American Chemical Innovation Can Secure Supply Chain Independence

The Strait of Hormuz is not just a key shipping corridor for oil; it is a critical artery for the transportation of chemicals like fertilizers, sulfuric acid and plastics. The recent disruptions in the Strait show that while supply chain volatility creates economic and strategic risks for the United States, it also presents an opportunity to let America do what it does best: innovate fast. American innovators are creating critical, clean technologies to address the current vulnerabilities in the chemical supply chain, but they need supportive industrial innovation policy to scale these technologies.

History has shown that robust industrial policy has already helped the U.S. innovate around supply chain challenges again and again. Targeted public investments enabled the shale gas revolution, transforming the U.S. into the world’s top natural gas producer and insulating the country from global energy shocks.

On the chemicals front, however, the U.S. is not completely insulated:

The U.S. has a unique opportunity to accelerate chemical manufacturing innovation from the lab to commercialization, which requires industry investment and bipartisan policy support. 

American innovators are already doing their part to develop next-generation production methods that reduce import reliance, reduce emissions and strengthen supply chains. To understand the scale of the opportunity ahead, it helps to examine three essential chemicals now facing mounting supply and production pressures: fertilizers, sulfuric acid and plastics. 

Fertilizers for Agriculture

Disruptions in the Strait have affected one-third of the fertilizers traded by sea, specifically nitrogen-based chemicals such as ammonia and urea. Nitrogen-based fertilizer prices are up over 30% from 2025, a market signal that Strait disruptions are no longer a distant shipping problem, but a cost impacting the agriculture sector. Alternative ports cannot sufficiently offset this supply, especially during the spring planting season when demand spikes.

In Texas, HyCO1 is unlocking new feedstocks to create hydrogen, a key building block for fertilizers. Their drop-in catalyst allows hydrogen producers to use CO2 and methane in existing production systems. This gives producers a lower-emissions, more flexible way to make this critical ingredient for fertilizers. FUEL, the Future Use of Energy in Louisiana program supported by the National Science Foundation, has partnered with HyCO1, exemplifying how federal RD&D programs can help innovators improve their drop-in solutions and quickly reach industrial producers.

Sulfuric Acid for Industry and Technology

Sulfuric acid is the most manufactured chemical in the world, and Gulf countries produce more than 24% of the seaborne traded supply. Manufacturers use it in batteries, petrochemical refining and critical minerals processing for copper and zinc, key inputs for America’s AI infrastructure and energy security. A shortage could ripple across the industrial base, and to prepare for these impacts, China has restricted its sulfuric acid exports, and other countries are moving to secure supply.

In New York, Travertine is creating a domestic, resilient source of sulfuric acid. Its electrolysis and recycling technology effectively turns industrial byproducts into valuable ingredients for manufacturing. At Travertine’s demonstration plant, the company captures CO2 from the air to use as a feedstock, processing the CO2 and local gypsum rock into sulfuric acid. Recognizing the benefits of this innovation, ARPA-E has partnered with Travertine to refine these technologies for critical minerals recovery. 

While China is facing shortages and restricting sulfuric acid exports, the U.S. is creating new pathways to turn its industrial waste into valuable resources, and federal RD&D resources would provide the support needed to scale these technologies.

Plastics for Consumer Goods

Petrochemicals are the building blocks of plastics, and Gulf countries now export both the petrochemicals and plastic polymers used in everyday goods. While the U.S. still leads in clean petrochemical production, today’s supply disruptions, combined with higher crude oil prices, are driving up the price of plastics.

In Tennessee, Trillium Renewable Chemicals is manufacturing homegrown, biobased acrylonitrile, a key petrochemical used in plastics, carbon fiber, and rubber goods. Trillium’s biobased process supports American farmers and avoids the impact of crude oil price swings, helping keep these goods affordable and made in America. The Department of Energy (DOE) was one of the first investors in Trillium’s technology, and now private dollars have followed. Trillium has completed a $13.3 million raise for its first commercial-scale demonstration plant, demonstrating the value of DOE’s tactical investments to accelerate technologies from the lab to demonstration.

Federal Policy Can Unlock Innovative Chemical Manufacturing

While the Energy Act of 2020, signed into law by President Trump, modernized industrial innovation policy for the first time in over a decade, these authorizations will soon expire. Congress has the opportunity to renew Congressional direction authorizing industrial research and development and dedicated resources for chemical innovation. With the help of these policies, America can turn today’s chemical supply shock into tomorrow’s manufacturing advantage, creating lower-emissions products at home and selling them to the world.

 

Where Three Tax Credits Meet: Mapping America’s Best Sites for New Nuclear

This summer, Governors will have a unique opportunity to bolster clean, firm energy deployment in their states through Opportunity Zone designations. Selected strategically, these designations can overlap in areas eligible for additional clean energy tax incentives, improving the economics of advanced nuclear and geothermal projects. The result would be more investment in clean, reliable power that can drive economic growth and grid reliability for decades to come. Multiple federal tax credits can now be utilized in an Opportunity Zone to amplify their impact.

Opportunity Zones are a bipartisan policy first championed by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) that provide tax incentives for investments made in economically distressed census tracts. The 2025 Working Families Tax Cuts built on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by making Opportunity Zones a permanent part of the tax code. Starting in July 2026, Governors have 90 days to determine which of their state’s eligible census tracts will receive this designation. The choices will last a decade and create durable signals for investors.

The Working Families Tax Cuts also preserved and strengthened Section 48E investment and Section 45Y production clean energy tax credits, reflecting a Republican commitment to supporting innovative, dispatchable clean technologies such as advanced nuclear and geothermal. Built into those credits are two place-based bonuses that direct investment toward communities with existing energy infrastructure and workforce capacity. First, the Energy Community bonus adds 10% to the tax credit value for projects located in areas with significant fossil fuel employment and above-average unemployment, near retired coal mines or coal-fired power plants, or on brownfield sites. These are regions where new clean energy development can build on existing grid connections, skilled labor, and industrial land. Second, the new Nuclear Energy Community designation under the 45Y production tax credit adds an additional 10% to advanced nuclear projects in metropolitan areas with established nuclear workforces and supply chains.

Taken together, these three federal incentives, including Opportunity Zones, the Energy Community adder, and the Nuclear Community adder, can now be jointly utilized on a single site. Based on published IRS data and ClearPath’s internal analysis, thousands of census tracts are likely to qualify for all three, but only if Governors take action this summer. These tracts deserve close attention from developers, investors, and state energy offices ahead of the July designation window. Here’s how the three incentives compare:

Why the Combination Matters

Each incentive reduces the cost of a new nuclear project in a different way. Opportunity Zones make it cheaper to attract private investment, as investors who put capital gains into a qualifying project can defer and reduce the taxes they owe on those gains, making the investment more attractive compared to alternatives outside Opportunity Zones. The Energy Community bonus directly increases the tax credit value of each megawatt-hour produced or dollar invested in a new energy project, while the Nuclear Energy Community bonus increases the tax credit value of each megawatt-hour produced by advanced nuclear energy projects. When all three apply to a census tract, they combine to meaningfully reduce the cost of capital for advanced nuclear, one of the most significant barriers to building American nuclear power.

Where do these tax incentives overlap?

Our analysis finds that 3,662 census tracts across 32 states may qualify for all three credits. These locations are found in the Rust Belt, the Tennessee Valley, the Carolinas, the Western Gulf Coast, and pockets of Southern California. These locations have the construction trades, fuel cycle facilities, research and development facilities, and a manufacturing base for advanced nuclear in addition to a broader history and growing presence of energy-centric industries. Opportunity Zone designations this summer create the rare opportunity to utilize three federal tax benefits on the same site.

We also pulled the broader overlays: tracts where Opportunity Zone eligibility intersects with the Energy Community Bonus alone, 8,401 tracts in 46 states relevant to all types of clean energy projects, and with the Nuclear Energy Community designation alone, 10,782 tracts in 40 states with advanced nuclear-ready metros. Together, the layers show Governors where their designations can do double or triple duty, driving private investment in reliable, dispatchable clean energy projects like advanced nuclear and geothermal that strengthen both local economies and grid reliability.


The Bottom Line

Demand growth from emerging industries like AI and the revitalization of manufacturing represents a generational opportunity to bring economic development to communities across the country. Governors have 90 days, starting July 1, to designate Opportunity Zones that spur the development of clean, dispatchable power in their states. The map shows where to start.

Sources

Opportunity Zones
Census tracts eligible for designation as an Opportunity Zone must meet income and poverty-level criteria calculated from the American Community Survey. The most recent data was published in 2026, and the 2026 Opportunity Zone designations are available here.

Energy Communities 
Census tracts that qualify for this bonus due to a coal closure do not change year-to-year, except when new coal plants close. Census tracts that qualify on the basis of employment (whether in the fossil industry or the overall employment level) change yearly, and the Treasury Department publishes new files as data becomes available. Both datasets are available here. Census tracts with brownfield sites would also qualify for this bonus, but we do not include them here because the majority of qualifying brownfields sites are not registered in EPA’s database.

Nuclear Energy Communities
Treasury has not yet released guidance on the Nuclear Energy Communities, so the eligible regions shown above reflect ClearPath’s interpretation and analysis of authorizing language in the 2025 Working Families Tax Cuts Act. We used developer profiles from the Gateway for Advanced Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) and supply chain data from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to identify the universe of companies and facilities that could meet the qualification requirements for a Nuclear Energy Community. Due to poor data, we were unable to estimate employment levels at these companies and facilities as would be required by the authorizing language. The regions shown on the map should be interpreted as MSAs that could potentially qualify for the Nuclear Energy Communities bonus, pending further data collection and Treasury guidance.

 

From Energy Act to IPO: Federal Energy R&D Programs Deliver Results

The next phase of America’s energy future made its Wall Street debut this spring with resounding success. Within just a few weeks, two of the country’s most promising next-generation energy companies made their entrances to the public markets through initial public offerings (IPOs) of their corporate stock. X-energy, a Maryland-based designer of high-temperature gas reactors and fuel, raised over $1 billion in what became the largest advanced nuclear IPO on record. Fervo Energy, the Houston-based pioneer of enhanced geothermal systems, followed with an upsized IPO offering that raised $2.2 billion, making it the largest-ever clean energy IPO. In an industry where billion-dollar IPOs are exceptionally rare, to see two in quick succession is a sign of strong investor demand for firm, dispatchable, carbon-free generation as rising electricity demand reshapes the American power sector.

These financing milestones were both enabled by forward-looking federal research and development (R&D). Both X-energy and Fervo are products of the Energy Act of 2020, a landmark bipartisan federal legislation that reauthorized critical Department of Energy (DOE) innovation programs like:

Early-stage investments from ARPA-E laid the groundwork for X-energy’s TRISO fuel in 2020. When the Department of Energy selected X-energy in 2020 as one of two ARDP awardees, the program provided up to 50% cost-sharing for a commercial-scale project. That federal partnership enabled X-energy to complete the engineering and basic design of its reactor and fuel fabrication facility, navigate licensing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and recently begin construction on its TRISO-X fuel fabrication facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. X-energy and Dow Chemical are awaiting NRC approval of their construction permit application for the four-unit, 320-MWe Xe-100 plant at Dow’s manufacturing facility in Seadrift, Texas.

Fervo Energy’s story is similar. Founded in Houston in 2017, Fervo has transformed the next-generation geothermal industry using tools pioneered by the oil and gas sector during the shale revolution. Fervo’s technique uses applied horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and fiber-optic sensing to unlock resources that were once considered too difficult or too expensive to tap at scale.

Fervo Energy’s Publicly Announced Funding to Date and Most Notable Investors

Source: Rystad Energy

Like X-energy, ARPA-E grants to Fervo Energy as early as 2019 paved the way for the company’s dynamic growth. Fervo’s founders also benefitted from DOE-aligned fellowship programs, including Activate and Cyclotron Road, a DOE lab-embedded entrepreneurship program at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, unlocking critical expertise to validate the company’s technology at its earliest stages.

The results speak for themselves. Between 2022 and 2025, Fervo reduced drilling times by approximately 80%. The Utah FORGE site helped unlock these commercial breakthroughs, allowing the company to develop and test the stimulation and reservoir engineering techniques that now define its approach. As a result, Fervo’s flagship Cape Station project in Utah is on track to begin delivering electricity this year.

Federal R&D and Demo Funding Catalyzes Tech up the S-Curve

Today, most of the Energy Act of 2020 programs that made Fervo and X-energy’s first-of-a-kind projects possible are expiring or have already expired. As energy demand continues to grow, Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize these programs that will help America continue to lead the world in energy innovation, win the AI race and meet rising energy demand. In the six years since the Energy Act of 2020, much has changed in the energy sector and DOE needs the most up-to-date set of tools to support exciting new technologies like quantum computing, enhanced grid technologies and energy storage. These IPOs should be the green light needed to recommit to fully authorizing and funding DOE’s R&D apparatus for the AI era.

The innovation programs authorized under the Energy Act of 2020 are the engine of American energy dominance for the next generation of firm clean power technologies. Capital markets have proven the model works. Now, the conditions are right for a similar bipartisan Congressional effort to unlock the next Fervo, the next X-energy, and ensure the next energy tech unicorn has the same federal R&D foundation to build on.

 

How Trump’s Nuclear Orders Sparked America’s Nuclear Revival (The National Interest)

This op-ed was originally published by The National Interest on May 21, 2026. Click here to read the entire piece.

Public and private investment is accelerating reactor deployment, rebuilding the domestic fuel supply chain, and laying the foundation for a long-awaited American nuclear renaissance.

One year ago, President Donald Trump signed four executive orders (EOs) that charted a new course to rebuild America’s nuclear industry. Together, they represent the most ambitious steps any president has taken to advance nuclear energy in the 21st century, aiming to deliver the long-promised nuclear renaissance. 

Trump’s Nuclear Executive Orders Set Ambitious Goals for US Nuclear Energy 

These executive orders established a framework to accelerate reactor deployment, rebuild the nuclear fuel supply chain, and restore US competitiveness globally through agencies such as the US Export-Import Bank (EXIM) to finance major American projects abroad. They provided specific, measurable targets to rapidly test new reactor designs, begin construction on 10 large reactors by 2030, quadruple US nuclear capacity to 400 gigawatts (GW) by 2050, address fuel shortages and waste disposal, streamline the regulatory environment, and rebuild a globally competitive industry capable of outcompeting China and Russia.

In this era of rising demand, the federal government cannot constrain nuclear development; all levers of government are increasingly working to enable more nuclear development. President Trump’s orders are more than just headlines; they’re part of a cohesive public-private strategy to accelerate the American nuclear industry. 

Big Tech and Industry Are Powering Advanced Nuclear Reactor Deployment 

Many of these projects are private sector-driven. Some of America’s largest companies, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Dow, and others, are turning to both existing and new nuclear energy to meet skyrocketing power needs.

Today, some of these companies are supporting commercial advanced nuclear reactor projects under construction in Wyoming, Texas, and Tennessee. Furthermore, several companies are also now on track to reach first criticality through the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Reactor Pilot Program, and the Department of Defense (DOD) is actively moving to deploy microreactors across military installations through the Janus program and Project Pele. 

These programs provide a critical opportunity to demonstrate and test advanced technologies. Beyond that, roughly 8 GW of new reactors are planned, another 2 GW are coming back online through plant restarts, and up to 5 GW more are being explored through uprates at existing facilities.

Click here to read the full article

How Surface Transportation Reauthorization Can Drive America’s Next Materials Revolution (American Affairs)

This op-ed was originally published by American Affairs on May 20, 2026. Click here to read the entire piece.

The Interstate Highways run through America as asphalt and concrete strands, binding the nation together, facilitating interstate commerce, and enabling a uniquely mobile American culture. They are fundamental to the operating system of American life, yet few appreciate their scale as the largest public works project undertaken in U.S. history and one of the few engineered structures visible from space.

America’s Interstate system emerged in its current physical and administrative form in response to the technological innovation of mass manufactured automobiles, defense needs amid the specter of the Cold War, and political compromises among different interest groups. Development started 110 years ago, with the passage of the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916, marking the first time the federal government provided support for nationwide roadbuilding. The Interstate Highway System as we know it today was subsequently authorized when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law.

Seventy years after the passage of that milestone law, the expiry of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in September 2026 offers an opportunity to bring Eisenhower’s transportation legacy into the twenty-first century. As surface transportation legislation is due for reauthorization at the end of the 2026 fiscal year, Congress has an opportunity to leverage this process in order to advance industrial policy goals across a host of fields; foremost among these is a materials revolution in the raw materials and production processes used to make cement, concrete, and asphalt—the building blocks of American transportation and building infrastructure. This revolution can be accelerated by the scaling up of domestically manufactured, low-carbon variants of these essential materials.

Congress should approach this surface transportation reauthorization by channeling the intent of the 1956 law, which bolstered economic growth and national security. It should be noted, however, that utilizing surface transportation in this broader stimulative way would represent a departure from contemporary approaches to highway legislation.

In recent authorizations, debates centered on issues such as resolving the fiscal solvency of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and expanding federal support for multi-modal transportation (including as light rail and mass bus transit). In other words, authorizations tended to focus on what to build, how fast to build, and how to finance the system. But 2026 will push Congress to confront the question of what we build with; the materials revolution provides an answer and pursuing it will lead to valuable supply chain and emissions reductions benefits.

Click here to read the full article

Energy Financing Power: China’s Strategy and a Path Forward for the United States (American Affairs)

This op-ed was originally published by American Affairs on May 20, 2026. Click here to read the entire piece.

The United States faces a growing strategic challenge: China has emerged as the world’s dominant energy financier, outpacing the United States nearly ten to one in global markets. China’s growing influence not only directly challenges U.S. strategic interests but also excludes American businesses from immense economic opportunities in the world’s largest foreign markets, such as Brazil and India.

The United States should not try to out-subsidize China, but true American energy dominance requires global market leadership. To expand global markets for U.S. businesses and compete strategically with China, the United States needs to sharpen its export and development finance tools and coordinate them more effectively. For instance, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC) should be empowered with greater scale and flexibility to pursue long-term investments that strengthen supply chains and national security. The U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) should have the capacity to back larger American-made energy projects and direct financing toward a wider set of energy technologies. Additionally, the establishment of Energy Security Compacts (ESCs), modeled on the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) existing framework, can leverage these financing tools to align agencies on strategy, support allies, and make energy a pillar of American industrial and economic policy.

China’s Foreign Finance Toolkit

On the morning of July 17, 2022, the floating oil and gas platform Almirante Barroso set sail from the Dalian shipyard in Liaoning province, People’s Republic of China (PRC). After months at sea, it moored above the Búzios oilfield off the coast of Brazil. Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil utility, and two Chinese oil majors, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (cnooc) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), partnered under a joint venture to develop the Búzios field. The China Development Bank (CDB) also provided $1.5 billion in project finance to Petrobras for the Almirante Barroso, the sixth of eleven planned Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading Units (FPSOs) to operate in the Búzios.

Global Chinese investment in Brazil and in global energy markets extends far beyond the Búzios oilfield. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has an array of policy and financial tools that it uses to secure diplomatic influence, strengthen supply chains for domestic Chinese manufacturing, and gain physical control of strategic assets in partner countries. The energy industry is a focus for the PRC because of its importance for the domestic Chinese economy and its national security implications abroad.

Readers of American Affairs will be familiar with the PRC’s negotiated compromise between private “free market” activity and state-directed resource planning. This “state capitalist” system is supported by financial institutions with various degrees of distance from the central CCP command. Closest to the ruling party are the policy banks: the CDB and the Export-Import Bank of China (chexim). Outside their official policy organs, the PRC has stakes in a variety of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), including the four largest Chinese banks and some of the world’s largest energy companies, which receive strategic direction from the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (sasac), the arm of the PRC government that manages its ownership of private businesses. Furthest removed are private PRC-flagged companies that are not state-owned, like BYD and Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL), which have no direct connection to the CCP. After years of decentralization dating back to Deng Xiaoping’s tenure, Xi Jinping has aggressively reasserted control in Chinese capital markets, wielding this diverse toolkit of institutions in support of PRC strategy.

Since the turn of the century, the PRC has taken its state-owned system abroad, using the full range of its institutional toolkit. These efforts include, but are by no means limited to, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the PRC’s state-directed development program focused on the Eurasian continent. The PRC’s policy and state-owned banks also engage in sophisticated lending and energy investing alongside leading Western financial institutions.

Until recently, U.S. policymakers and the American public have been left in the dark about the extent of the PRC’s state-owned foreign investments, in part because of the complicated web of institutions that invest on behalf of the PRC. Existing data publication efforts from the AidData lab at the College of William and Mary, the American Enterprise Institute, and others are robust but limited in scope. It was possible to track individual deals from PRC entities, but no single data source existed for all PRC state-owned finance.

There was also a severe lack of information about U.S. investments in international public energy finance. No single source of public data existed on the activities of EXIM, DFC, and the various agencies offering assistance and foreign aid.

New research from Casey Kelly, Justin Williams, Jacob Kincer, and myself at ClearPath has solved these data gaps, which allows us to present comprehensive totals of U.S. and Chinese international public energy finance. Since 2015, China has outspent the United States $446 billion to $45 billion in foreign public energy finance. Without policy action, the United States stands to lose its competitive edge in foreign energy markets, which will hurt American manufacturers and cede strategic ground to the PRC. Policymakers should sharpen the policy toolkit to strengthen the American industrial base, lead the world in energy innovation, and prevail against the CCP. This article will utilize Brazil and India as case studies to analyze PRC and U.S. strategies and chart a path forward.

Click here to read the full article

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 101

In 2016, the United States exported its first cargo of liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced from the lower 48 states – marking the start of America’s rise as a major global LNG supplier. The U.S. is the world’s largest LNG exporter since 2022, cementing America’s role as a reliable energy supplier to allies and trading partners across the globe. 

The next chapter of U.S. leadership is already underway. Developers plan to more than double U.S. liquefaction capacity, adding an estimated 13.9 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (Bcf/d) between 2025 and 2029, with additional projects planned and under construction. 

America’s LNG leadership strengthens national security, supports high-paying jobs at home and expands markets for abundant U.S. natural gas. LNG can also help lower global emissions in certain markets by providing a reliable alternative to more carbon-intensive fuels, particularly in fast-growing economies where energy demand continues to rise. As global demand for affordable and dependable power increases, LNG offers a practical pathway to advance energy security and support global emission reductions.

North America Liquefied Natural Gas Export Capacity By Projects (2016-2029)

What is LNG?

LNG is natural gas in liquid form. Natural gas is cooled to approximately -260°F and compressed until it becomes a liquid. This process reduces the fuel’s volume by roughly 600 times, making it far more efficient to store and transport over long distances across the ocean. Once delivered to its destination, LNG is warmed back into a gaseous state and used for electricity generation, manufacturing, heating and other industrial purposes.

America’s LNG strength is rooted in an unmatched domestic resource base. Fueled by the shale revolution and advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the U.S. now produces roughly one-quarter of the world’s natural gas – surpassing Russia in 2009. This abundant supply has enabled the U.S. to scale LNG exports while continuing to meet growing domestic demand.

LNG Value Chain

The LNG value chain is a fully integrated system that moves American natural gas from domestic production fields to consumers around the world. It includes natural gas production, pipeline transportation, liquefaction, shipping, regasification and end use, delivering reliable energy for power generation, heating and manufacturing.

LNG Transport Cycle

The Strategic Value of LNG

LNG delivers tangible benefits for the U.S. and its allies – strengthening energy security, driving economic growth, creating jobs, supporting reliable power and helping lower global emissions

1. Global Energy Security and U.S. Energy Leadership – LNG is a cornerstone of American energy security and geopolitical leadership. Global demand for natural gas and LNG is expected to remain strong for decades as countries seek affordable, clean and reliable energy sources. Natural gas demand is projected to increase by 20% through 2035 and continue rising through 2050, and the global LNG market will grow from approximately 560 bcm in 2024 to 880 bcm in 2035 and more than 1,020 bcm by 2050. Much of this growth will be driven by power generation and heavy industry, particularly in emerging markets experiencing rapid industrialization and economic growth.

U.S. LNG exports have already helped Europe reduce dependence on Russian gas supplies following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In Asia, U.S. LNG can strengthen the energy security of key allies such as Japan while offering growing economies an alternative to less reliable suppliers. During periods of geopolitical instability and supply disruption, access to reliable U.S. LNG helps allies maintain affordable energy supplies, economic stability and energy security.

2. Economic Growth and U.S. Jobs – LNG is a major driver of American economic growth and high-quality jobs across the country. Since 2016, the U.S. LNG industry has contributed $400 billion to U.S. GDP and supported hundreds of thousands of high-quality American jobs. U.S. LNG exports are now projected to support an annual average of 495,000 jobs and generate $1.3 trillion in U.S. GDP through 2040. Importantly, 37% of those jobs and 30% of GDP benefits are expected to occur in non-natural gas-producing states, underscoring LNG’s broad economic benefits. From natural gas production and pipeline construction to export terminals, manufacturing, engineering and port activity, LNG strengthens local economies across the U.S.

3. National Security – Energy security is national security. Our adversaries weaponize it and our allies understand their acute vulnerabilities, especially following recent supply disruptions amid wars in Ukraine and Iran. U.S. LNG exports enhance America’s geopolitical leverage by helping allies diversify supply, reducing the influence of hostile countries and creating long-term commercial partnerships that bolster broader diplomatic and security relationships. The Trump Administration has taken steps to bring new LNG capacity online, including through support of large capital projects like the Alaska LNG Pipeline, which DOE Secretary Wright recently noted as his number one infrastructure priority.

How U.S. LNG Can Lower Global Energy Emissions

American LNG Producers Are Some of the Cleanest in the World

U.S. LNG is among the cleanest in the world and can help lower global emissions, especially in fast-growing economies where energy demand is rising rapidly. In many markets, the real-world choice is between LNG and more emissions-intensive foreign fuels. In those cases, American LNG can deliver meaningful emissions benefits while improving energy security.

A growing body of research from organizations such as the International Energy Agency, S&P Global, Wood Mackenzie and National Energy Technology Laboratory shows the emissions benefits of U.S. LNG exports. According to S&P Global, bringing approximately 40 million tons per annum (Mtpa) of additional U.S. LNG projects online could reduce global emissions by roughly 324 million tons of CO2e between 2028 and 2040 compared to likely alternative supply sources. 

Reliable energy access is also essential to building lower-emission power systems. Natural gas provides dispatchable power that can back up intermittent renewables, meet peak demand and support growing grids. In many regions, such as Asia and Africa, LNG can help enable greater deployment of emerging low-carbon technologies.

Global LNG demand is expected to grow for decades. The question is whether that demand is met by the United States or by alternative suppliers with higher emissions, less transparency or fewer strategic benefits for America and its allies.

LNG Regulatory Landscape

Multiple U.S. federal agencies play important and complementary roles in approving LNG projects, ensuring safety, facilitating exports and advancing U.S. energy interests abroad.

Policy Recommendations

1. Permitting Reform for Energy Infrastructure – Timely, transparent, and predictable permitting is essential for U.S. energy security and leadership, and LNG infrastructure plays an important role by ensuring American energy can reach global markets and meet rising demand. Export terminals are large, capital-intensive projects that often take years to permit and construct, meaning there is significant lead time before new American supply can reach global markets. Federal reviews for LNG terminals, export authorizations and interstate natural gas pipelines should be completed efficiently and transparently.

2. Modernize Pipeline Infrastructure – LNG exports depend on a strong domestic pipeline network capable of safely and reliably delivering natural gas to export terminals. Policymakers should support next-generation pipeline materials, advanced monitoring systems and infrastructure upgrades that improve reliability and allow pipelines to keep pace with rising demand. Legislation such as the Next Generation Pipelines Research and Development Act would expand federal RD&D efforts for advanced pipeline technologies, materials and systems that can strengthen U.S. energy infrastructure. 

3. Strengthen Methane Monitoring, Detection, and Measurement – American natural gas is among the lowest emissions in the world, but increasingly, global buyers are requiring verified methane emissions data to access their markets. Nearly 60% of U.S. LNG exports go to countries with methane regulations, and forthcoming requirements in the European Union will require verified emissions data for market access. Without credible measurement tools, U.S. producers risk losing competitiveness in key export markets.

To address this challenge, Congress could use the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reauthorization to direct NASA to develop a science-based national strategy to assess current and emerging methane monitoring capabilities. Leveraging NASA’s world-class satellite expertise, in partnership with private industry, can help close critical data gaps, improve the transparency and reliability of methane measurement and strengthen the credibility of U.S. energy exports. A coordinated strategy would help ensure American LNG remains the global standard while reinforcing U.S. energy security, market access and global competitiveness.

4. Expand U.S. LNG Exports Through Strategic LNG Partnerships – The Trump Administration has made historic bilateral LNG agreements with partners such as the European Union and Japan. Initiatives such as the U.S. Trade and Development Agency–U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Gas Initiative are also helping to expand market access by supporting project development, facilitating partnerships and advancing infrastructure deployment in emerging economies. To build on this momentum, Congress can help translate non-binding commitments into more durable and strategic partnerships. Formal LNG partnerships would create a durable framework to deepen engagement with key regions, involve private-sector buyers and developers, coordinate on emissions data and regulatory standards and leverage tools such as EXIM to support import infrastructure abroad. A more coordinated partnership model, codified by Congress, would strengthen long-term market access for U.S. LNG exporters while advancing our allies’ energy security and American geopolitical leadership.

Energizing the Special Relationship: The U.S.-UK Power Play

Speaking before a joint session of the United States Congress this week, King Charles III delivered a pointed message: “Our alliance cannot rest on past achievements.” Nowhere is that more true than in energy.  The next chapter of the U.S.-UK relationship is being written right now, not in ink, but in megawatts, reactor designs and critical mineral supply chains.

A partnership that is producing results

Last September’s Atlantic Partnership for Advanced Nuclear Energy was a watershed moment. Not just another diplomatic communiqué, but a commitment to American energy dominance and British industrial revival. By targeting a reduction in reactor licensing timelines from four years to two, the U.S. and UK are finally removing the regulatory anchors that have held back private capital from nuclear for decades.

U.S. companies have already responded:

These projects are more than infrastructure; they are early signals of a deeper alignment. They prove that American energy leadership depends on a simple, relentless operating model. Innovate fast, build here and sell into global markets.

The stakes: Competing with state-owned rivals

Innovation is important, and the U.S. and U.K. are some of the best at it. But ultimately, leadership is measured in what gets built. The nuclear race is a zero-sum game. Since 2000, Russia and China have built 64 reactors just in their own countries, with another 31 either built or under construction around the globe. In the same time, U.S. companies have built seven, and the U.K. has built none. Every reactor sale locks in a strategic relationship for up to a century. If the U.S. and UK don’t lead, Beijing and Moscow will.

China and Russia Are Winning the Global Reactor Race

Source: Internal ClearPath Tracking

China’s massive state subsidies and standardized designs have already made it the partner of choice for many developing nations. That does not mean that we need to out-subsidize China; we can out-innovate. The U.S.-UK partnership offers a credible alternative. Better technology, greater transparency and the backing of the world’s two most mature capital markets, dynamic private sectors and trusted nuclear regulators. That’s a compelling case, but only if American firms can compete on financing and speed, not just technology.

From framework to foundation

The Atlantic Partnership and other complementary efforts like the U.S.-UK Critical Minerals Memorandum of Understanding signed in February 2026 are strong starts, but frameworks without permanent legal architecture can be unwound. The next logical step is a formal energy security agreement with the U.S.-UK trade framework solidifying energy at its core.


This means three concrete things:

The messenger and the moment

As King Charles III reminded Congress this week, quoting President Lincoln, “the world may little know what we say but will never forget what we do.” 250 years ago, America declared independence from Britain. Now both nations have the chance to declare something new. Share independence from global energy volatility. That declaration won’t be signed with a quill. It will be built by American companies, in allied markets, locked in by the permanent legal architecture that no future administration can quietly unwind.