Supporters of the potential of nuclear fusion are pushing California officials to shell out money for the thus-far elusive energy source.

A new study from the San Diego Regional EDC predicts fusion has the potential to support more than 40,000 jobs and inject as much as $125 billion into California’s economy in the next decade.

Critics argue taxpayer money should not be used in the effort, saying private industry should take the risk. There’s a long-running joke in the energy industry that commercial fusion is always 30 years away.

At the same time, there are plenty of local supporters. “Fusion is having its Silicon Valley moment,” Mike Campbell, mechanical and aerospace engineering professor at UC San Diego, said. “What happens in the next three to five years will decide whether California owns the industry or watches it leave.”

Question: Should California financially contribute to the nuclear fusion industry?

Economists

James Hamilton, University of California-San Diego

NO: I agree that fusion could solve many of our problems and that important progress has been made. I disagree that the California state government is the right institution to play a leading role in the effort. When I look at the mismanagement of California’s electric grid, water reservoirs needing repair, and the high-speed rail debacle, I conclude that the state has neither the institutional expertise nor the political discipline to direct needed fusion research.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: We very much need UCSD to keep generating new research and spawning new industries. We also want General Atomics to stay here, but future fusion production isn’t guaranteed anytime soon, and it is unlikely that scaled up production would be based in California. Support should match that and be consistent with state support for any core export industry, creating professional jobs. We shouldn’t pick winners or favor nuclear over other energy sources, even if it’s a strong alternative to fossil fuels, wind and solar.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: California should examine changing the regulatory framework to lower barriers to the development and commercialization of nuclear fusion in the state. Doing so would contribute toward maintaining California’s status as a leader in the fusion industry. However, significant challenges to turning nuclear fusion into a reliable energy source exist and California should be cautious about exposing its resources to this risk. Financial support should be left to the private sector and not taxpayers.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

YES: Nuclear fusion could transform clean energy by providing a safe, abundant and low-cost power source. But private industry underinvests because fusion requires massive upfront costs, uncertain long-term returns and environmental benefits that don’t accrue to the investor — classic market failures. Public investment can help overcome these barriers, crowd in private capital and speed development. Strategic funding in California would ensure we benefit from innovation, while advancing our clean-energy and climate goals.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Government is a poor manager of new technology, made worse by socialist modeling of enterprise. Governing bodies respond to existing interests rather than fresh ideas. Bureaucrats are doomed to fail pioneering efforts requiring singleness of purpose and continuity of effort especially having risky and unforeseen outcomes of competing interests. Government should allow innovation rather than seek to promote chosen industries. The free market is the best forum for debate through competition and capability of making decisions.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: Fusion has the potential to be the ideal energy source. It will be clean, and it will be plentiful. It would help California deal with the energy shortages that the state occasionally has. Those shortages are likely to increase in the future, as power-hungry data centers increase to support AI. Yes, there has been talk about fusion for a long time. But if people are correct about big breakthroughs occurring in the near future, California can’t afford to miss out on the opportunity.

Ray Major, economist

YES: As the demand for electricity continues to increase for the foreseeable future, and considering that California has the highest electric rates in the nation, investment in nuclear fusion is a no-brainer. Solar panels and wind farms will never provide the amount of reliable power the world needs. With investments in nuclear fusion, California could be at the forefront of the next revolution in energy development and production.

Executives

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: I can’t help but juxtapose the 30,000 Amazon workers, the “canary in the coal mine” precursor to the many jobs that are likely to be lost to artificial intelligence, robotics and the like. Jobs generated through fusion technology resonates. The state has always invested in budding technologies, and they should do so for fusion. It may be money well spent, and an investment in our region’s future. After all, it’s just around the corner.

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: Nuclear power is the way of the future. Safe, clean and abundant. The state should encourage both large and small nuclear facilities to power us into the future.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: California regularly faces a budget deficit, including in 2025, with more challenges every year to pay for current obligations. And every year, there is talk about raising taxes to pay for those obligations. Nuclear fusion will require at least 10 to 15 more years of research before sustainably producing energy at scale. Research should continue – but funded by the federal government or private entities – not states, and especially not California in its current financial position.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: California should establish itself early as a global leader in the nuclear fusion industry. To avoid taxpayer dollars, the state could facilitate public-private partnerships, incentivize private investment through tax credits or grants, and encourage venture capital and corporate funding. Leveraging existing research institutions and industry leaders, California could create an ecosystem where private entities help fund innovation while the state provides regulatory support and infrastructure, ensuring growth and economic benefits without direct taxpayer burden.

©2025 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.