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.
Roads bring people, and people start fires.
The United States has more roads than you could possibly imagine. Eighty-three percent of the land in the Lower 48 lies within one kilometer of a road; if you’re seeking isolation, the furthest you can get away from one is likely only about 25 miles, in a far-flung corner of Yellowstone National Park.
The Trump administration wants to build even more. Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture filed to rescind the nearly quarter-century-old Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which protects about 45 million acres of pristine national forest lands from the construction of — and dissection by — new permanent roads. The USDA’s given reason? That new roads will provide the access forest managers and fire practitioners need to better prevent wildfires in the nation’s most remote locations.
Fire ecologists immediately cried foul. Researchers have long understood that roads enable wildfire ignitions by bringing people — who are responsible for starting nearly 85% of fires — into the landscapes. Just this past January, new research found that wildfires ignited four times more often within 50 meters of a road than in an untracked, intact forest. “The notion that you can prevent fires by building roads seems to me precisely backwards when you look at what the science says,” Ben Goldfarb, the author of the road ecology book Crossings, told me.
But this past spring, Americans got a good idea of what wildfires look like when there aren’t roads around. Lightning storms in Northern Ontario ignited fires in an area so remote that officials found it “impossible to get firefighters on the ground” to fight them, per The New York Times, or even to react early with airplane water tankers. The result? More than 1.8 million acres burned in the province so far this year, with the resulting smoke causing the Midwestern U.S. and New England to experience some of its worst air pollution in decades.
“There’s a duality — roads are neither necessarily good nor bad from a fire perspective,” Eric Kennedy, an associate professor of disaster and emergency management at York University, told me. “They bring opportunities for ignition and they bring opportunities for firefighting.” Those opportunities include the aforementioned access for fire personnel, as well as serving as a fuel break so crews can gain a foothold against an approaching conflagration. In a populated area, more roads can also mean more evacuation routes when there is a disaster, preventing potentially deadly traffic jams.
Forest defenders were already suspicious of the administration’s motivations when it comes to wildfire policy. “There’s all of the Trump administration directives to increase logging on public lands, which rescinding the Roadless Rule helps to facilitate,” Goldfarb noted. Environmental groups have pointed to attempted legislation such as the Fix Our Forests Act, which removes obstacles for forest management methods, including timber harvest, as another example of how the administration is allegedly using wildfire as a cover to cut down and sell more trees.
Viewed in the context of recent changes by the administration to weaken the Endangered Species Act — namely, narrowing the definition of “harm” to a species to exclude disturbances to its habitat — rescinding the Roadless Rule can appear to follow a kind of rapacious internal logic that “wildlife doesn’t need habitat, and we can build roads wherever we want to disrupt” the forest, Goldfarb went on.
Fires igniting in remote areas is also not a new problem. Agencies adapt to the fire conditions in their areas, such as Quebec, which has an entire apparatus for fighting fires in tractless wilderness, including shuttling in fire crews via float plane. “You can fight fires via helicopter. You can also build temporary roads under the Roadless Rule,” Goldfarb said. As one Montana-based National Forest manager of 25 years recently wrote for a local newspaper, in his experience, “the Roadless Rule doesn’t pose an insurmountable barrier to good land management; it simply requires baseline analysis and thought before impacting the landscape.”
Those who are cynical about the Trump administration’s motivations also pointed me toward the grandiose scale of the Roadless Rule rescission. Fire managers frequently talk about the need for tailored, local, and precise responses to America’s wildfires, which run the gamut from grass fires to chaparral fires to forest fires in regions that both do and do not have histories of regular burning. Policymakers would more appropriately approach wildfire management fireshed by fireshed, they say, and through proposed management plans. Perhaps most notably, the Roadless Rule protects about half of the nearly 17 million acres of the Tongass National Forest, a temperate rainforest and one of the wettest locations in North America, which “does not experience wildfires like those in other places,” the Alaskan environmental conservation group SalmonState wrote in a statement with other advocates and business groups.
Most cynical, though, is the argument that the Trump administration is proposing rescinding the Roadless Rule at the same time that it has gutted the Forest Service that is supposed to maintain all those roads. The agency already struggles with an overwhelming backlog of maintenance projects, from washed-out bridges to erosion problems that impact the water quality in drought-stressed areas. If the USDA were really interested in using roads to combat wildfires, the line of thinking goes, then it would be investing more in the Forest Service, people told me, not less.
“The wildfire challenge really calls upon us to be able to hold different dimensions and different layers and seemingly contradictory ideas at the same time,” Kennedy said, again emphasizing that one can make the case that roads have benefits in certain contexts and scenarios. But while there may be a valid line of debate about when, where, and how roads can help with wildfire management, using the cudgel of a rescission, it doesn’t appear to be one the administration is interested in having.
The facility will power OpenAI’s 10-gigawatt data center in Pike County, Ohio.
The Trump administration aims to complete its environmental review of what would be the biggest fossil fuel power project in the country in just a few months, Heatmap has learned.
This news follows Monday’s announcement from OpenAI that it intends to lease a new 10-gigawatt data center under development in Pike County, Ohio, financed by a mixture of money from a SoftBank subsidiary and the chip company Nvidia. This AI hyperscale facility — known as the PORTS-Pike project — is expected to draw power from the largest gas power facility ever built in the United States, a 9.2-gigawatt facility sited on federal lands that would be built and owned by the Energy Department.
According to OpenAI, the data center campus will be built and started up in phases, with the first 800 megawatts starting construction this year and operational in 2028. That first phase will rely mostly on existing power infrastructure operated by AEP Ohio. How things progress from there will depend at least in part on the permitting and construction timelines for the new power plant.
Building large infrastructure of any kind on federal land or with significant federal investment typically triggers a review under the National Environmental Policy Act. I’ve been curious to find out what kind of review this particular project was going to get, especially after the administration allowed a NEPA review for a solar project to be repurposed for a data center on federal lands earlier this year.
Turns out some information about the PORTS-Pike permitting process is public. Before OpenAI confirmed its involvement with the site, the Trump administration added the project to the federal FAST-41 permitting dashboard, where it posts regular updates on the timeline for getting federal sign-offs. Per the lone federal notice available about the PORTS-Pike project, it will include “several data center buildings and power plants.” That will require at least two federal greenlights: an Army Corps of Engineers permit and approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is being consulted about potential endangered bats in the project area.
The NEPA permitting work for this historically large data center-plus-fossil fuel power project began on July 10 and will conclude on December 23, the day before Christmas Eve, according to the Trump administration’s estimates. This comes after paperwork to begin the review was submitted to the Army Corps in May, per the federal notice — a total timeline of about seven months.
Those familiar with NEPA and the debate over permitting reform will likely be surprised by the speed of this review. It’s moving fast in part because the project is receiving just an Environmental Assessment, the lesser and smaller type of analysis than the EIS. I do not know why the government decided to take this route because the government’s NEPA review determination is not currently public, but I have asked the Army Corps to explain this move.
I’m not sure exactly how air permitting will fit into this NEPA review, as the Clean Air Act isn’t listed as a review step on the federal dashboard. The Ohio EPA has primary authority over permitting projects like these under the Clean Air Act, and I’ve reached out to them to confirm whether PORTS has submitted a permitting application. The state agency’s permitting database does not have any information on air permitting for the project, though it does include reports from third-party consultants confirming wetlands and protected species warranted reviews from the Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife.
Lastly, these timetables are not sacrosanct. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, agencies are supposed to complete environmental assessments within one year, but nevertheless they regularly fail to meet them. The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality said in a report to Congress last year that from mid-2023 to mid-2025, the Army Corps was the agency that most often missed these statutory NEPA deadlines for environmental assessments.
Still, news of this speedy review for a priority Trump project is sure to excite pro-data center advocates who see expedited construction as an imperative in the global AI arms race. It’s also guaranteed to put a foul taste in the mouths of environmentalists already frustrated by federal revisions to NEPA regulations they say elide analysis of climate impacts.
What’s undebatable in all this is that, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote, the PORTS project could ignite a new era of mega-gas plants. This permitting timeline couldn’t be more important for the future of the data center boom — and the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary behind the data center project, did not provide comment before publication.
A new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”