In a major leap toward commercial fusion energy, Washington-based Helion has begun site work on its first fusion power plant, Orion. The move marks a defining moment for both Helion and its key partner, Microsoft.
In 2023, Helion signed the world’s first power purchase agreement (PPA) for fusion energy, committing to supply electricity to Microsoft once the plant is operational. Located in Chelan County, Washington, the site was selected for its easy access to power transmission and its legacy of energy innovation.
This project represents a significant step in Helion’s mission to bring fusion electricity to the grid by 2028. Constellation Energy will serve as the power marketer. Now, with construction efforts underway, Helion is staying on track to meet the 2028 target.
Helion’s Fusion Breakthrough: A Clean Energy Milestone
Fusion energy—the process that powers the sun—has long been viewed as the ultimate solution to the world’s energy needs. It offers virtually unlimited, clean energy without carbon emissions or long-lived radioactive waste. If Helion succeeds in delivering fusion electricity to the grid, it could mark a paradigm shift in how the world powers itself.
Over the past decade, Helion has built six fusion prototypes and made steady technical progress through rapid iteration and testing. Its sixth machine, Trenta, made history by achieving a fuel temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius—considered the minimum threshold for fusion to become commercially viable.
Now, Helion is constructing its seventh and most advanced prototype, Polaris. This machine is expected to go further than any before it: demonstrating not just fusion reactions, but also the first electricity produced directly from fusion.
Polaris: A Critical Step Toward Commercial Fusion
Polaris represents a major step in Helion’s roadmap to build a zero-carbon fusion generator. It will improve upon previous machines in several key ways:
- Higher Frequency Pulses: Polaris is designed to pulse faster than Trenta, allowing more frequent fusion reactions.
- Stronger Magnetic Fields: Enhanced magnets will provide improved plasma confinement, essential for sustaining the extreme conditions needed for fusion.
- Direct Electricity Generation: Unlike traditional fusion designs that rely on steam turbines, Polaris is built to demonstrate direct electricity generation from fusion reactions, a critical innovation for scalable deployment.
If successful, Polaris will become the first fusion machine—public or private—to show that fusion can generate electricity in a compact system. Its success will provide the foundation for Orion, the first commercial-scale plant aiming to deliver fusion electricity to Microsoft and the wider grid.
From Permits to Power: Orion Prepares to Energize the Grid
Helion began building the Orion facility on leased land from the Chelan County Public Utility District. The project cleared Washington’s rigorous environmental review process, receiving a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) under SEPA guidelines.
Since 2023, Helion has actively collaborated with government agencies, Tribal Nations, and local stakeholders to prepare for the construction and operation phases. The company’s transparent approach to permitting and community engagement has helped smooth the path for the project.
After a one-year ramp-up period, the fusion power plant is expected to generate at least 50 megawatts (MW) of electricity. If successful, the Orion project could fast-track fusion’s role in global clean energy supply—years ahead of other industry projections.
- READ MORE: Google Backs Fusion Energy: Signs 200MW Offtake Agreement with Commonwealth Fusion Systems
Microsoft’s Energy Shift: From Solar to Fusion and Fission
Helion’s fusion energy isn’t the only clean power solution Microsoft is betting on. As the tech giant races to meet its ambitious climate goals to become carbon negative by 2030, it has also turned to traditional nuclear energy. The growing power demands of artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing have made constant, reliable energy a top priority.
While wind and solar remain crucial parts of Microsoft’s strategy but their intermittency creates challenges for powering massive data centers around the clock.
That’s where nuclear energy enters the equation. Microsoft has invested in multiple nuclear projects, including a 20-year PPA to purchase power from the restarted Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania. This deal alone will supply over 800MW of carbon-free electricity to Microsoft’s operations starting in 2028.
AI and the Rising Demand for Energy
Microsoft’s clean energy push is largely driven by surging electricity needs tied to AI development and cloud infrastructure. Industry analysts expect data center energy use to double by 2028, fueled by generative AI technologies and hyperscale computing. Between 2020 and now, Microsoft’s total energy use rose by 168%, driven by a 71% increase in revenue and significant expansion in its cloud operations.
At the same time, Microsoft’s emissions have gone up by 23.4% compared to its 2020 baseline. While this rise is modest relative to the company’s operational growth, it underscores the difficulty of decarbonizing at scale. Fusion and nuclear energy offer Microsoft a path forward—delivering stable, 24/7 clean electricity that wind and solar alone can’t guarantee.
Supporting Innovation and Clean Energy Leadership
The tech giant is becoming a leader in reshaping the nuclear and fusion energy industry. The company signed its first large-scale nuclear PPA with the Crane Clean Energy Center in 2024. That agreement will enable the restart of an 835MW nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, retired in 2019. The plant’s return will inject new clean energy into the PJM power grid, one of the largest in the U.S. and critical to Microsoft’s East Coast data centers.
By partnering with emerging fusion firms like Helion and supporting small modular reactor (SMR) projects, Microsoft is also fueling innovation in next-generation nuclear technologies. These efforts don’t just benefit Microsoft—they send a strong signal to markets, encouraging other corporations to invest in scalable, zero-carbon power solutions.
In fact, Microsoft’s influence is already visible across the energy sector. Its clean energy strategy is helping revive shuttered nuclear facilities, create local jobs, and guide public policy toward advanced carbon-free solutions.
Economic and Community Benefits
The economic ripple effects of Microsoft’s nuclear partnerships are expected to be substantial. Reviving plants like Three Mile Island will bring billions of dollars in investment and long-term job creation to surrounding communities. These projects also help maintain grid stability as power demand continues to grow.
Moreover, Helion’s Orion project could turn Chelan County into a global showcase for fusion innovation. If Polaris succeeds in producing electricity, Helion would not only lead the private fusion race but also bring global attention to the Pacific Northwest as a clean tech hub.
How Big Tech Is Reshaping the Clean Energy Landscape
Alongside Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta are the hyperscalers driving renewable and nuclear energy adoption. As projected by S&P Global Insights, collectively, these tech giants have amassed more than 84 gigawatts of clean energy capacity across 29 countries. This scale is transforming global corporate energy markets, shifting clean energy from a sustainability perk to a business necessity.
Additionally, Microsoft has also joined influential advocacy groups like the Fusion Industry Association and the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC), strengthening its voice in policy and industry discussions around the future of energy.
The partnership between Helion and Microsoft is more than a fusion pilot—it’s a turning point for nuclear energy innovation. As the Orion plant moves forward, it could accelerate the arrival of commercial fusion while giving Microsoft a reliable, zero-carbon energy source to support its rapidly growing AI infrastructure.
The post Microsoft (MSFT) to Get Fusion Power as Helion Energy Kicks Off Orion Plant Construction appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits