You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Heat pumps are cool. Neighborhood geothermal might be cooler.

A landmark project with major implications for how Americans could cleanly heat and cool their homes broke ground in Framingham, Massachusetts, on Monday.
Eversource, the largest gas and electric utility in New England, began construction on its first “networked geothermal” system. The company will connect 32 residential and five commercial buildings in a single neighborhood to underground water pipes, which will draw on the steady temperature of the ground beneath the earth’s surface to air condition and heat the buildings without fossil fuels.
Clean energy advocates across the country are looking to the demonstration as a test of the idea that natural gas utilities can remain in business in a decarbonized world by managing a network of pipes filled with water instead of climate-warming gas.
“I would say it's not just being watched nationally, it's being watched globally,” Zeyneb Magavi, the co-executive director of the Massachusetts-based clean energy nonprofit HEET, told me. Magavi and her partner, Audrey Schulman, dreamed up the idea of transforming gas utilities into geothermal utilities several years ago, and were instrumental in getting Eversource to consider the project.
“If they succeed enough, and I have no doubt they will, they're gonna be the founding install of a new utility that's going to be the foundation of our future energy system,” she said. “It's not that often that you get to give birth to a new utility.”
Geothermal heating systems have been around for nearly a century, and are known for being incredibly efficient. You may have heard of air-source heat pumps, commonly referred to simply as heat pumps, which function like an air conditioner in the summer and a furnace in the winter by transferring heat inside and outside the building. Geothermal heat pumps work similarly, but they use the ground as a source and sink for heat, rather than the ambient air. (They are different, but related to geothermal power plants, which tap into much hotter reservoirs underground to generate electricity.) Since the ground is a more stable temperature than the air, geothermal heat pumps require less energy. Networked geothermal systems have the potential to reduce energy use even more.
Many individual homes and buildings run on geothermal heating systems today, but all the drilling and piping translates into big upfront costs. Magavi told me the spark of HEET’s idea for a neighborhood-wide system dates back to 2008, when she wanted to install geothermal at her own home, but couldn’t afford it. Later, when she joined HEET and began thinking about what a future without gas could look like, she and Schulman discovered geothermal projects elsewhere in the country, such as a small town in Iowa, and a college campus in Colorado, where multiple buildings were linked to the same pipes. The systems didn’t seem all that different from the gas distribution networks they were looking to replace.
The project in Framingham involves building a new set of pipelines alongside the gas system. Each participating building will get a service pipe connecting it to a main horizontal line that runs through the neighborhood, which is in turn connected to a series of vertical lines that go about 500 feet deep. Water runs through the system, bringing heat up from the ground and delivering it to heat pumps inside the buildings in the winter, or absorbing heat from the homes and dumping it back underground in the summer.

The whole system is expected to be up and running by the fall. Eversource estimates the project will cost $14.7 million, and has received approval from regulators to pay for it with ratepayer funds, spread across its entire customer base. Participants will not pay any additional fees on top of the cost to run the heat pump equipment on their electricity bill. They will retain their existing heating and cooling systems, and will have the option to go back to them after the two-year pilot period.
Residents could see a 20% reduction in energy costs, according to Eversource, and around a 60% decrease in carbon emissions, taking into account the current electricity supply. The company will be gathering data throughout the pilot to confirm the actual cost, energy, and carbon savings of the project. “We also want to make a strong business case for why this should be done by the utility and why it makes sense for us to be building out systems like this,” said Eric Bosworth, the senior program manager for clean technologies at Eversource.
Magavi and Schulman see networked geothermal as an elegant solution to one of the biggest challenges of tackling climate change: avoiding what’s known as the utility death-spiral. If people begin swapping out their natural gas heaters for electric heat pumps, they will drive up costs for remaining gas customers, which will motivate more people to go electric, and inflate gas bills even more.
Geothermal presents a path for utilities to retain their customers. They already have the expertise to build and manage underground pipelines and heating equipment. And Magavi argues that if utilities take on the up front costs, it would give people more equitable access to clean energy. “You can just sign up with the utility — you don't have to have upfront capital, knowledge, or time,” she said. “That equity of access is something that is necessary for a just transition.”
If geothermal heating and cooling were to really take off, it could also help with another major climate challenge — the electric grid. The switch to electric vehicles and heat pumps is going to require a massive expansion of clean electricity resources and transmission and distribution wires. Widespread adoption of geothermal heat pumps could minimize that buildout. Boswoth told me that geothermal networks could be strategically deployed in areas that are electrically constrained.
Many climate advocates also like the idea because it presents a clear transition opportunity for natural gas workers, like those in the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union that build and maintain gas pipelines. “Networked geothermal systems could be a promising option for providing high road job opportunities to these workers,” Jenna Tatum of the Building Electrification Institute told me.
But that’s one aspect of the promise of networked geothermal that the Framingham project won’t be demonstrating. Eversource hired a third party construction company and hasn’t entered an agreement with any unions yet, although Bosworth said the company was actively engaged with the Pipefitters Union regarding longer-term geothermal plans.
The pilot in Framingham will be the first networked geothermal system operated by a utility, but it definitely won’t be the last. Massachusetts regulators have approved a handful of additional networked geothermal projects to be owned and operated by Eversource and another gas utility, National Grid. New York State is also moving forward on a number of utility-owned pilots. Several other states, like Minnesota, have also passed laws that encourage gas utilities to pursue geothermal.
“We expect that we're going to see a pretty significant pilot proposal in [utility] plans modeled after the work that's been done out East,” Joe Dammel, managing director of buildings for Fresh Energy, a Minnesota-based clean energy nonprofit, told me.
One challenge that’s come up as the idea has taken off is that no one can seem to agree about what it should be called. While the term is “networked geothermal” in Massachusetts, New York is using “thermal energy network.” Magavi said it’s also been referred to as “community geothermal,” a “thermal highway,” an ATL or “ambient temperature loop,” a “heatnet” and a “5G” network. All of this is further complicated by the fact that the terms “geothermal energy,” “heat pumps,” and “district energy,” can all refer to fundamentally different technologies.
“It’s a nightmare,” she told me. She said she’s initiated a campaign with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Department of Energy to set language standards. “There’s a survey currently going out to everyone to ask them what they think about all the different names.”
The Framingham pilot could be significantly expanded if all goes well. HEET collaborated with Eversource to apply for funding from the Department of Energy for a second networked geothermal system in the city that would be connected to the first one, and was recently awarded a $717,000 grant.
Advocates like Magavi hope these projects will turn into a full-on transition strategy for utilities to move away from a business model based on gas or other fuels. At the groundbreaking on Monday, Eversource chairman, president, and CEO Joe Nolan made a bold statement that seemed to support that notion. “As we transition to a carbon-free future, this is going to be the answer for everybody,” he said. “And it’s all starting right here.”
But when I talked to Bosworth, he qualified that at this point the company sees geothermal as one “tool in the proverbial toolbelt.” Like many utilities, Eversource is also exploring the potential to deliver lower-carbon fuels like biogas and hydrogen through its gas lines.
“We want to take a look at any and all potential pathways and really vet them for what is viable, and what works where,” Bosworth told me. “We will use a combined approach to get to our carbon neutrality goals.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
“Microsoft, you can’t hide, we can see your dirty side!”
Protestors interrupted one of the final sessions of PNW Climate Week — a conference that brings together climate leaders across Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia — objecting to Microsoft’s rising carbon emissions from data centers and partnerships with oil and gas companies. The company’s Chief Sustainability Officer Melanie Nakagawa was having a one on one conversation with GeekWire climate reporter Lisa Stiffler at Seattle’s City Hall when protestors carrying signs reading “Microsoft’s AI pollutes” and other slogans began shouting from the audience.
I was there, having just moderated the prior panel on how to finance Washington’s clean energy ambitions. Early on there were some rumblings in the crowd from up front. “Climate leaders don’t build gas pipelines in Moses Lake,” was the first objection I heard clearly. It came shortly after Nakagawa kicked off the conversation by highlighting Microsoft’s partnership with sustainable aviation fuel startup Twelve, which recently opened its first commercial-scale SAF plant in Moses Lake, Washington. The tech giant has supported the project through a strategic investment from its Climate Innovation Fund, as well as an offtake agreement for the fuel that will help offset its emissions from employee travel.
Whether Microsoft is building a gas pipeline in this particular community I haven’t been able to determine, though it seems irrelevant to Twelve’s SAF facility, which doesn’t rely on natural gas. But it is true that Microsoft is one of the largest power consumers in Grant County, Washington, home to Moses Lake, where a natural gas pipeline operator is looking to expand its network to accommodate data center load growth.
Another audience interruption was more pointed. “How does signing a 20-year deal with Chevron help you reach your clean energy goals?,” one protestor asked, referring to Microsoft's recently announced power purchase agreement with Chevron for nearly 2.7 gigawatts of natural gas-fired power to supply a West Texas data center. The project represents one of the largest gas-powered artificial intelligence developments in the U.S., and Stiffler acknowledged that she had been planning to ask about it, herself.
Nakagawa answered the question. at least in part, saying “that project with Chevron is initially using natural gas and it’s a natural gas contract,” before emphasizing that the company has built “over 4.5 gigawatts of clean energy already today,” and remains committed to balancing speed-to-power with its clean energy goals. She added that, “with this deal in particular, we’re looking at a range of tools in our toolbox to ensure that we can continue to grow our power, but also do so in a way that is responsible and sustainable.” She stopped short, however, of making any commitments to transitioning the project to renewable energy over time.
The session became more chaotic from there. Another protestor stood up, shouting that “Microsoft is enabling genocide in Palestine.” Other activists joined in, while still other audience members shouted back. As Nakagawa recovered and resumed answering a question from Stiffler about Microsoft’s recent decision to pause its carbon removal purchases after years of dominating the nascent industry, protestors throughout the crowd began a chant of “Microsoft, you can’t hide, we can see your dirty side.” Security eventually shepherded many of them out.
Stiffler continued speaking with Nakawaga about the company’s clean energy efforts, touching on many of the protestors’ concerns as she asked about community opposition to data centers, the role of large corporations in the clean energy transition, and whether Microsoft can realistically achieve its goal of becoming carbon negative by 2030.
Nakawaga emphasized that the company must, “first and foremost, listen to where the communities are and what they are calling for.” Regarding the concerns she hears most often, she explained that “first has been transparency. Second has been around resource uses and what are we doing about those resource uses. We’re hearing about jobs and employment and investments in education, investments in housing.”
If this session was any indication, those concerns won’t go away anytime soon.
Heat kills more Americans than any other extreme weather event in the United States. But wildfire smoke — while not strictly “weather” — appears to kill even more. Current excess death estimates put American heat mortality at about 10,000 people per year, or possibly as high as 12,000. Recent studies on wildfire PM 2.5 exposure suggest a mortality of double that: 24,000 all-cause deaths every year.
Needless to say, wildfire smoke is definitely not something you want to inhale if you can avoid it. (And really, you should try to.) But for the 115 million Americans in the Great Lakes and Northeast regions of the country who’ve been exposed to hazardous air from the fires in Ontario and Minnesota this week, there’s a chance that the damage is already done. According to a wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool from Cornell University’s School of Public Health and the Northeast Regional Climate Center, the total mortality for this smoke event could already be as high as 424 people so far, including nearly 100 in Michigan and more than 50 in both New York and Wisconsin.
Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health, stressed to me that the tool is a “first draft,” and that his team is still working on getting it peer-reviewed. “We intend it as a hypothesis that people can test in the coming weeks or months to confirm our numbers,” Hayden told me. “I’m really hoping to be proven wrong.”
But Hayden also emphasized that while the West Coast might historically be where many smoke-related deaths have occurred, “this is the third out of four years [in the Northeast] that we’re having the smoke, so it seems like something we should be planning for,” he said. “It reminds me of that saying: ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’”
Admittedly, the smoke this week is a bit of a freak occurrence. A cooler-than-average sea surface pattern across the North Pacific, known as a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, helped produce weak low-pressure areas in the northwestern part of the United States, which in turn allowed for heat domes to develop across the Southwest and Plains. After one did just that earlier this month, the hot, high-pressure dome then shifted north, where it developed “dryness across Canada, followed by the lightning-producing thunderstorms,” Chad Merrill, a senior meteorologist at AccuWeather, told me. Then, boom: widespread fires.
“It is very unusual to have a combination of an El Niño and a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation,” Merrill went on. “That’s one of the unusual factors this year, which contributed to the heat dome being farther north in that particular position.” The heat dome and jet stream then worked together to direct the thick smoke down into some of the most populous regions of Canada and the U.S.
That’s what makes this particular smoke event so bad. Were the smoke blowing over remote regions of Canada, as it would under more usual conditions, “then the big cities and the Great Lakes wouldn’t experience the smoke; it would have gone north toward the Hudson Bay and then Greenland,” Merrill said. In fact, the Canadian fire season is tracking below average overall; it’s the meteorological conditions that made this week’s smoke events, as one outlet put it, “the perfect storm.”
Wildfire smoke in the region is not historically anomalous, however. A 1903 article in The New York Times describes a “yellow day” similar to smoky events in 1894, 1881, and earlier. But large-scale burns in Canada’s dense, remote boreal, which produce more smoke, are increasing. Though it’s difficult to attribute any one wildfire directly to climate change because of the complex nature of such events, we do know that fire weather is becoming more common with the warming of the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions. As modeled by Zeke Hausfather in the Friday edition of his newsletter The Climate Brink, “hotter, drier seasons burn the most” in Canada — and “recent years cluster there” as the country has outpaced the global average in warming.
But as Hausfather also writes, “While overall area burned is the climate-linked trend, who breathes the smoke on a given week in July is mostly driven by the weather.” This is similar to the way that, though it may be a quiet year in the Atlantic, it only takes one hurricane making landfall in the right (or wrong) spot for the season to be remembered as catastrophic.
On the other hand, as foolish as it might be for the Central Plains and East Coast to still believe smoke is the exclusive domain of Westerners, it is also a mistake to assume smoke only comes from without. As I reported earlier this year, the Eastern half of the country has seen a 10-fold jump in the frequency of large burns over the last 40 years. Nowhere is safe from the smoke.
Planning and preparation, then, should be paramount. But as Grist learned last month, there are no established Air Quality Index numbers that would trigger the postponement, relocation, or cancellation of, say, a FIFA World Cup game, including the final, which is set to be played in New Jersey on Sunday. White House officials are reportedly meeting with FIFA’s president on Friday to discuss contingencies, given the unhealthy air quality in the region.
Which brings us back to Hayden’s modeling. He offered a note of optimism in that research by Stanford’s Sam Heft-Neal and his colleagues indicates that emergency room visits do not rise in tandem with increasing wildfire smoke. “As smoke gets bad, the health impacts get bigger. But then as smoke gets worse and worse, the amount of health impacts actually goes down, measured for emergency room visits,” Hayden said. “The idea is that people modify their behavior in higher smoke” — say, by staying indoors, wearing masks, or canceling outdoor events.
It’s time to treat smoke as an East Coast phenomenon, in other words. Doing so will save lives. “Will [smoke events] become more frequent in the future? Most likely we will see a recurrence,” Merrill, the meteorologist, told me. “How often they happen is yet to be determined.”
Utility watchdog Jamie Van Nostrand argues that National Grid’s recent “rate stabilization proposal” is a way to charge customers more money while bypassing the regulatory process.
When National Grid, the natural gas utility that serves New York City and Long Island, proposed a one-year rate freeze last month, Governor Kathy Hochul celebrated it as a victory for affordability.
“I’m pleased to announce National Grid and the Department of Public Service found a way to hold the line on rate hikes for nearly 2 million gas customers,” she wrote on social media.
“New Yorkers don’t deserve gratuitous rate hikes. We’re fighting at every turn to stop them.”
But if “holding the line” for a year means accepting higher rates the following year, is it really a win for customers?
Jamie Van Nostrand, a former utility lawyer and regulator who served as the chair of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities through last fall, dug into the details of National Grid’s proposal and was alarmed by what he saw. In Van Nostrand’s view, it’s actually a delayed rate hike dressed up as a rate freeze, designed to avoid the scrutiny that comes with an official request.
To be fair, National Grid did not use the words rate freeze in its filing with the Public Service Commission, instead referring to the plan as a “rate stabilization proposal.” The Catch-22 is that during this year of stabilized rates, the company wants to continue — and actually increase — its capital spending, then bill customers for the work the following year with interest and a return on equity.
Infrastructure spending is the only part of the natural gas business that utilities earn a profit on, so they have an incentive to overdo it. Normally, regulators review such capital expenditures in year-long proceedings called rate cases to ensure the added costs to ratepayers is worth it. But here, National Grid is asking regulators for prompt approval “without material modification.”
I reached out to National Grid for comment on Van Nostrand’s critique. In response, a representative referred me back to the company’s press release.
Van Nostrand is now the policy director at the Future of Heat Initiative, a nonprofit working to improve utility regulation on the path to decarbonized heating. The group is concerned about utilities investing billions into natural gas delivery at the same time many states, including New York, are pushing to switch to electric heat pumps, which risks sticking the remaining gas customers with higher bills. Rate cases are essentially the only venue to challenge this spending, hence Van Nostrand’s ire.
I spoke to him about the hidden details in National Grid’s proposal and what a “good” rate freeze might look like. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
When did National Grid last have a rate increase and what’s the context for this rate stabilization proposal?
In 2024, the New York Public Service Commission approved a three-year rate plan which runs through the end of March in 2027. So what National Grid would have done is file a rate case in May of this year in order to have a new rate take effect in April of 2027. Essentially, what they say they’re doing is trying to extend that three-year rate plan for a fourth year. They’re saying, “We want to avoid having to file a full rate case” — which they audaciously and presumptuously say is going to result in rate increases for customers that are greater than the rate of inflation.
And what is in the proposal?
What jumps out at me are two things. One is, when they did this three-year rate plan, 2024 to 2026, they had certain expenses that they said were one-time, non-recurring expenses — a three-year amortization of $250 million. That three-year amortization expires on March 31. That would result in a $250 million rate decrease for customers. But by avoiding the rate filing, the rates are going to continue to reflect the amortization of costs that they are no longer authorized to recover.
They’re basically saying, “Rather than giving it back to customers, we’re going to keep collecting it and find other things to spend the money on.” So by avoiding the rate filing, they’re avoiding having to give the money back to customers and acting like they’re doing us a favor.
But didn’t you just say that the alternative to this rate freeze proposal is a big rate increase?
Yes, but they would have to prove their costs. These are closely scrutinized rate filings. The other piece I was going to mention is there’s $1.7 billion of additional capital spending. They’re saying, “We’re going to keep spending money,” actually spending more money in the next year than they are currently spending. They’re going to increase the level of spending on infrastructure investments without having to go through the process of proving, why are these expenditures necessary? Are you overspending? Is there a cheaper alternative?
Regulators need to closely scrutinize natural gas company infrastructure spending. They want to spend billions of dollars replacing pipes because that’s where they make money. They put it in their rate base and they earn a return on it.
Does the proposal at least allude to what they’re planning to spend the $1.7 billion on?
Oh yeah, it’s more pipe replacement. It’s a continuation of what they’ve been spending, it’s just more. And the point is, when they approved their rate plan, the parties to the rate case got to look at what they were spending in 2024, 2025, 2026, and they signed off on it. And here they’re saying, “Here’s our spending for 2027. It just builds on what we’ve already been spending, it’s just there’s more of it.” But there’s not the same review, other than I guess that there’s going to be a comment proceeding where parties can file comments on this proposal. But they don’t have to put out evidence and sworn testimony and be subjected to cross examination and discovery. It’s like, “Here’s what we’re gonna do. Take it or leave it.”
Is the idea that the $1.7 billion will be recovered through a future rate increase?
They’re just going to defer those costs and have ratepayers pay it beginning April 2028 with interest at 9%. It goes right into their rate base, and they’re going to earn a return on that. That means they’re going to collect $150 million more from customers to cover the return on that $1.7 billion they’re spending.
This is not uncommon when utilities propose rate freezes. Utilities go, “Our costs aren’t actually going down, our costs are continuing to go up, so we’re just going to keep spending money like we otherwise would have. But rather than raise rates contemporaneously, we’re going to put them in this little account and wait until the end of the rate freeze, and then we’re going to raise rates and add on the interest because the customers didn’t pay these costs when we incurred them.” Utilities love the concept of a rate freeze. I’ve never seen anybody quite so audacious as this proposal, where they’re not just doing that, they’re doing a whole bunch of other stuff to make this far sweeter for shareholders.
What else are they doing?
They’re not just extending their rate plan, they’re extending it selectively. For example, there’s a penalty mechanism that if you don’t address a certain number of miles of leak-prone pipe, you’re going to be subject to a penalty. And they are adjusting that target because they’re not meeting it. The same thing with the backlog of leaks. They’re not reducing the backlog of leaks, so they’re raising that target.
That’s a benefit to shareholders because shareholders end up bearing the consequences — you can’t recover the penalty in rates. So you’ve got a couple of mechanisms that are intended to benefit customers by having the system more safe by reducing miles of leak-prone pipe and by reducing a backlog of leaks, and they’re basically walking away from their commitments, making them easier for them to attain and thereby avoiding penalties. It’s resetting the balance between customers and shareholders, and it’s all in the shareholders’ favor. They’re throwing more risk onto the customers.
Do you think that a rate freeze could be structured in a way that is good for ratepayers?
Well, just strictly a rate freeze might not have been that bad a deal. If they really stepped up and said, “We’re going to live by the rates that were set, we’re just going to extend them for another year, and we’re going to suck it up and make it work, and our shareholders are going to bear some of that pain because by God, it’s all about customer affordability.” They’re so far away from doing that.
[At Future of Heat,] we’re all about the infrastructure spending, right? In New York, 75% of your gas bill is the delivery charge, 25% is the commodity. What we’re trying to do is work with the commissions, ask the tough questions. Let’s look at this pipe replacement program. Do you need to replace the pipe? Can you rely on a repair rather than replace it, and really make them prove their case? And they’re saying, “We’re going to spend $1.7 billion, and no, you don’t get a chance to review it because we’re not doing a rate case. We’re just telling you how much we’re going to spend.”