Power for AI: A Draft Nuclear Review in Texas, and Batteries Versus Gas Peakers

Two pieces of energy news from 8 and 9 October 2026 bear on how the power for big computing campuses might be supplied. US nuclear regulators published a draft environmental review for four proposed reactors in Texas, the next step on a long path rather than an approval. And the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie estimated that big batteries now beat new gas “peaker” plants on cost.

Fermi America: a draft environmental review, not a licence

Confirmed (Federal Register notice); a draft. On 9 October the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a notice asking for public comment on a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for Fermi America’s application to build and run four Westinghouse AP1000 reactors [1]. They would sit at the “Project Matador Advanced Energy and Intelligence Campus” in Carson County, Texas, “adjacent to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pantex Plant” [1].

What the draft says. After weighing the costs and benefits, “the preliminary recommendation is that the NRC issue the requested COL to Fermi America contingent upon successful completion of the safety review and unless safety issues mandate otherwise” [1]. A COL, or combined licence, would allow both construction and operation.

That sentence has three conditions built in. The recommendation is preliminary. It covers only the environmental side. And the separate safety review is not finished. No licence has been issued.

How it got here. Fermi America filed the first part of its application on 17 June 2025 and a second part on 20 August 2025 [1]. It joined an NRC pilot programme in which “the preparation of an applicant-prepared draft EIS” happens “under NRC supervision” [1]. So the company drafted the document and the NRC staff reviewed it. The NRC says its preliminary view rests on its own “independent environmental review” as well as its assessment of the applicant’s draft [1].

What happens next. Comments are due by “November 23, 2026” [1]. The NRC then issues a final EIS, and the safety review must still be completed before any licence decision.

For comparison, Blue Energy’s single-reactor plan at the Port of Victoria, Texas, is at an earlier stage: a partial application, as TSN has explained [3].

Wood Mackenzie: four-hour batteries versus gas peakers

Estimates, reported by Utility Dive. Gas “peakers” are power plants that run only at times of high demand. According to a Wood Mackenzie analysis published on 8 October, the lifetime cost per unit of electricity (levelised cost) for four-hour battery storage “is now cheaper than gas peakers in markets across the globe” [2].

For the United States, a Wood Mackenzie spokesperson told Utility Dive that, for projects starting commercial operation in 2026, four-hour storage is “65% to 75% cheaper than new open-cycle gas turbine peakers, depending on whether state-level carbon pricing applies” [2]. Wood Mackenzie did not publish exact prices [2].

The firm links this to AI demand. It says North American gas investment is entering “a supply deficit cycle through the late 2030s… driven by data centre load growth” [2]. In April it projected gas turbine prices would reach $600/kW by the end of 2027, “a 195% increase since 2019” [2]. “This economic shift is decisive and widening,” said Ahmed Jameel Abdullah, principal analyst at Wood Mackenzie [2].

What this does not prove

• That Fermi America can build its reactors. The draft EIS is not a licence. Its recommendation is preliminary and depends on a safety review that is still pending [1].
• That the environmental findings are final. Public comments are open until 23 November, and a final EIS follows [1].
• That batteries can replace gas peakers everywhere. Four-hour storage covers four hours. The WoodMac comparison is about cost, not about long cold spells or multi-day shortfalls [2].
• The exact numbers behind the estimate. TSN has not read WoodMac’s report; the 65% to 75% figure comes from a spokesperson’s email to Utility Dive [2].

The Bottom Line

Fermi America’s four-reactor Texas plan has a draft environmental review with a preliminary recommendation in its favour, conditional on a safety review that is not done. Comments are open until 23 November. Separately, Wood Mackenzie estimates four-hour batteries in the US are now “65% to 75% cheaper” than new gas peakers, as data-centre demand keeps gas equipment scarce.

Related on TSN: Blue Energy’s Texas Nuclear Plan: An Application, Not an Approval; Who Pays for AI’s Power? Duke’s Data-Centre Deal, Google in Indiana and the Rush to On-Site Gas

Sources

1. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Fermi America LLC (dba Fermi America); Project Matador Advanced Energy and Intelligence Campus AP1000 Units 1-4; Project Matador Nuclear Units 1-4; Draft Environmental Impact Statement”, Federal Register document 2026-20742, notice and request for comment, published 9 October 2026 (dated 5 October 2026; Docket Nos. 05200051–05200054; NRC-2026-0100). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/10/09/2026-20742/fermi-america-llc-dba-fermi-america-project-matador-advanced-energy-and-intelligence-campus-ap1000
2. Robert Walton, “4-hour storage cheaper than gas peakers across global markets: WoodMac”, Utility Dive, 8 October 2026 (trade press; Wood Mackenzie’s estimates). https://www.utilitydive.com/news/4-hour-storage-cheaper-than-gas-peakers-across-global-markets-woodmac/832489/
3. TSN, “Blue Energy’s Texas Nuclear Plan: An Application, Not an Approval” (related TSN post). https://tsnmedia.org/blue-energy-victoria-texas-nuclear-application-nrc/