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:
Vermont’s natural gas company is selling heat pumps and rebranding itself a “thermal service provider.”

On a recent Friday morning, I sat down to watch a webinar about a natural gas utility and unexpectedly found myself glued to the screen.
The video featured Morgan Hood, the new product development manager at a small utility once called Vermont Gas Systems, now known simply as VGS, that serves about 55,000 customers in its titular state. For 80 minutes Hood described how the company was working to reinvent itself as a “thermal solutions provider.” As part of that mission, it had recently started selling and leasing electric heat pump water and space heaters to its customers to help them reduce their gas use.
As a reporter who has covered natural gas utilities’ expansion plans and the industry’s all-out war on electrification, I was stunned. The programs alone were unusual, but what surprised me more was the way Hood talked about them.
“If we want to continue to serve our customers, which we do, significant changes are necessary,” she said, describing a “dramatic shift” in public sentiment toward natural gas in Vermont. “We know we're not going to be expanding our customer base with natural gas customers in the future.”
It’s hard to overstate how different Hood’s tone and message were from that of the average gas utility executive, who tends to highlight their product’s popularity and make a case for its role in a low-carbon future. Consider the remarks of Kim Greene, the CEO of the much larger Southern Company Gas, at a conference I attended in November. “Natural gas is foundational to America's clean energy future," she told an audience of state regulators. Without ever once acknowledging that natural gas contributes to climate change, she went on to describe it as a “magical molecule” that was important to the company’s decarbonization strategy.
When I later probed climate advocates in Vermont about VGS, I learned that many dismiss the company’s image change as greenwashing, or are at least skeptical of its plans. They pointed to a highly contested $165 million pipeline the company recently built, and a controversial plan to replace the fuel in its pipelines with biogas and hydrogen.
But my initial impressions also weren’t unfounded. The company does in fact seem to be unique in the way it has actively started leaning into the shift that science, policy, and economics are all driving toward — a transition to all-electric buildings.
“VGS is among the most progressive gas utilities in the country, there's no question about that,” Ben Walsh, the climate and energy program director at the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, and a longtime critic of VGS, told me.
The company still has a lot to figure out. Hood was remarkably transparent in acknowledging that the new products VGS is offering aren’t nearly as profitable as selling natural gas. But its recent past and its uncertain future make it a revealing case study of the challenges gas companies face in trying to stay viable as they try to decarbonize.
The webinar, titled “A Gas Utility Goes Electric,” was organized by a Portland, Oregon-based advocacy group called Electrify Now. Its co-founder Brian Stewart told me he initially had some reservations about featuring a gas utility in their event series, but he and his partners were impressed with the company’s interest in engaging with an electrification group. They hoped the talk might reveal a model that other utilities could follow — particularly Northwest Natural, their local gas utility in Oregon.
“They're doing the exact opposite of what VGS is at least attempting to do,” Stewart said. “Northwest Natural is still denying the idea that electrification is even better from an emissions standpoint.”
In fact, Northwest Natural is not just denying it — it’s reportedly putting millions of dollars into opposing electrification. In February, the Oregon city of Eugene passed an ordinance banning gas hookups in new residential buildings. Northwest Natural responded by spending more than $900,000 to get a measure to overturn the gas ban on the city’s November ballot, according to campaign finance records reviewed by The Washington Post. And it’s just getting started. The Post obtained audio indicating that the gas industry plans to spend $4 million on the Eugene referendum.
The strategy has been widely adopted by the gas industry. Last year, a utility in Southern California, SoCalGas, was fined $10 million for spending ratepayer funds to fight stronger building efficiency standards that would have reduced natural gas demand. New York Focus reported last week that National Fuel, a gas utility in Western New York, is spending hundreds of thousands of ratepayer dollars to lobby against a statewide push to reduce natural gas use.
VGS, on the other hand, first signaled it was reading the writing on the wall for natural gas in 2019, when it announced a new strategy to eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
That was around the time state leaders were contemplating a new climate law called the Global Warming Solutions Act, which passed the following year. VGS hired a new CEO, Neale Lunderville, who reorganized the company, creating new positions focused on decarbonization, including Hood’s role. Richard Donnelly, who spent a decade working for a nonprofit utility dedicated to energy efficiency joined VGS as its Director of Energy Innovation.
“The creation of that job was a clear signal to me that they were investing in the right things,” Donnelly told me.
VGS rolled out its first electrification program in early 2022, offering customers the option to lease or buy heat pump water heaters. The company was in a fairly unique position to do this, as it already had a sales and leasing program for gas equipment and an in-house team trained to install heating equipment.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, VGS launched an electric space heating program, offering central heat pumps that utilize the same ductwork as a homeowner’s existing furnace. For now, the company is installing these as dual fuel systems, meaning recipients keep their gas furnaces as a back-up source of heat. While heat pumps designed for cold climates don’t require this, they do lose efficiency in the coldest temperatures. Customers can decide when they want the system to switch over to gas, and the company developed a calculator that shows them how much carbon they can save, and what the anticipated costs will be, depending on where they set the switchover point.
The space heating systems are only available to a portion of the company’s customers — about 40% — because most have boilers and radiators with no ductwork. Hood said they hope to offer electric options for those homes in the future.
Dylan Giambatista, director of public affairs for VGS, told me the program is already taking off. Two weeks after it launched, they had well over 100 inquiries, he said. The water heaters, on the other hand, have had a pretty slow start. Only about 6% — or 48 total — of the water heaters the company has installed since January 2022 were heat pumps. “I don't think that folks are yet aware of that technology,” he said. “We expect heat pump water heater use will increase over time as incentives and consumer awareness increase,” he added in an email later.
Electrification isn’t the company’s only strategy to meet Vermont’s emissions goals.
It’s trying to reduce customers’ total energy usage through weatherization and other home efficiency improvements.
It’s also investing in alternative fuels, like renewable natural gas and hydrogen, to pump through its pipelines to any remaining gas customers. Nearly two-thirds of the gas that VGS sells is delivered to commercial and industrial customers, not all of whom may be able to fully electrify their operations. But local climate advocates have a lot of concerns about that aspect of the plan. Renewable natural gas, which typically comes from decomposing waste or dairy manure, is a lot more expensive than fossil gas. There’s also research indicating that it doesn’t necessarily have the climate benefits that proponents claim.
While Walsh, of the Public Interest Research Group, acknowledged how unique VGS’ electrification programs were, he said it's way too early to give the company the benefit of the doubt.
“There are some strategies that a gas utility could implement, that on the surface look good, but ultimately don't serve Vermont,” he said. “I think it's incumbent on all of us that are focused on cutting carbon pollution and cutting energy costs for Vermonters to watchdog their efforts very closely as they unfold.”
Others discount VGS’ heat pump programs because the company also continues to market and sell gas equipment and hook up new gas customers. Annette Smith, who runs a group called Vermonters for a Clean Environment sent me a screenshot of a VGS Facebook ad from May 8 offering people $500 to switch to natural gas.
Jim Dumont, a lawyer who has represented opponents of VGS in regulatory cases and lawsuits for years, said the first thing the company has to do to win public trust is come clean. “They have to tell the public that burning gas to heat your homes is helping push us over the climate cliff,” he told me. “They can sell heat pumps, but it's a competing message.”
VGS doesn’t deny that natural gas contributes to climate change. Lunderville, the CEO, told Vermont officials in a 2021 letter that the company recognizes “that its principal product today — fossil gas — has significant climate impacts.”
But the message stings with irony to Dumont, who has spent the last decade fighting a 41-mile gas pipeline the company built prior to its come-to-Jesus moment. Back in 2013, when VGS was first seeking approval for the pipeline from regulators, it argued that the project would cut energy costs and carbon emissions in the state. Most Vermonters did, and still do, heat their homes with fuel oil, propane, or wood — and gas can be a cleaner and often cheaper option. But opponents argued that cold climate heat pumps that were coming on to the market would be more affordable and effective.
Cold climate heat pumps were still pretty new at the time, and certainly weren’t being adopted in Vermont yet. The idea was sidelined, and while the scale of the pipeline was ultimately reduced, its cost ballooned from $86 million to $165 million. And now that it's completed, VGS is marketing heat pumps.
To Dumont, that’s not only ironic, it’s worrisome. The way gas utilities like VGS pay for big pipeline projects is to recover the costs over decades through customer bills. But if VGS helps people go electric, the residual costs of the pipeline are going to fall on fewer and fewer customers. As VGS leans into electrification, it could also be barreling toward a scenario referred to as the utility death spiral: the cost of gas will increase, driving more people to get off it.
“Is the public going to be asked to bail out the company, or will the company be responsible for its own bad judgment and will its sole shareholder have to swallow the loss?” Dumont asked. “If there are no consequences for making a bad investment, then effectively it's not a regulated utility, it's effectively a taxpayer-funded business.”
This is a problem that all gas utilities are facing or will likely face, whether or not they embrace a transition to electric buildings. Mike Henchen, a principle in the carbon-free buildings program at RMI, a national nonprofit, said this was “the elephant in the room” around the country.
“How to deal with all the customers hooked up to this fossil fuel system looms large on the horizon,” he said. “There's not going to be an easy way to tackle that.”
I reached out to Énergir, the Canadian company that owns VGS, to find out whether it had any concerns about VGS’ financial future. “Énergir has always believed in the complementarity of different energy solutions and in accelerating electrification where it makes sense,” Éric Lachance, president and CEO of Énergir said by email, adding that “Énergir strongly supports VGS’s approach.”
Though heat pumps aren’t as profitable as natural gas, the company does see opportunities for growth. It can sell and lease the water heaters to residents outside its existing customer base. It’s also exploring the potential to build and manage geothermal heating networks, where entire neighborhoods could be heated by underground pipes carrying nothing but water.
“The market opportunity is huge,” said Donnelly, the Director of Energy Innovation. For now, the company is primarily limited by staffing, and is being careful not to create more demand than it can fulfill. He estimated VGS was looking at “hundreds of installs over the next couple of years and growing that part of our business quite rapidly, hopefully, within the next five years.”
VGS also sees potential for these programs to become more profitable thanks to a law passed by the state legislature earlier this month called the Affordable Heat Act that directs the state’s utility regulators to design a clean heat standard. The company could eventually earn credits for its electrification programs and sell them to other fuel providers in the state that need to comply with the standard.
As policy and technology continue to evolve, it makes sense that VGS doesn’t know exactly what the future holds. But faced with similar uncertainty, most gas utilities have responded by putting their heads in the sand or fighting tooth and nail against change.
What makes VGS remarkable is that it’s at least trying to find its place in a post-gas world.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article understated the length of a VGS pipeline. It is 41 miles, not 27 miles. The article has been corrected. We regret the error.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A chat with CleanCapital founder Jon Powers.
This week’s conversation is with Jon Powers, founder of the investment firm CleanCapital. I reached out to Powers because I wanted to get a better understanding of how renewable energy investments were shifting one year into the Trump administration. What followed was a candid, detailed look inside the thinking of how the big money in cleantech actually views Trump’s war on renewable energy permitting.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Alright, so let’s start off with a big question: How do investors in clean energy view Trump’s permitting freeze?
So, let’s take a step back. Look at the trend over the last decade. The industry’s boomed, manufacturing jobs are happening, the labor force has grown, investments are coming.
We [Clean Capital] are backed by infrastructure life insurance money. It’s money that wasn’t in this market 10 years ago. It’s there because these are long-term infrastructure assets. They see the opportunity. What are they looking for? Certainty. If somebody takes your life insurance money, and they invest it, they want to know it’s going to be there in 20 years in case they need to pay it out. These are really great assets – they’re paying for electricity, the panels hold up, etcetera.
With investors, the more you can manage that risk, the more capital there is out there and the better cost of capital there is for the project. If I was taking high cost private equity money to fund a project, you have to pay for the equipment and the cost of the financing. The more you can bring down the cost of financing – which has happened over the last decade – the cheaper the power can be on the back-end. You can use cheaper money to build.
Once you get that type of capital, you need certainty. That certainty had developed. The election of President Trump threw that into a little bit of disarray. We’re seeing that being implemented today, and they’re doing everything they can to throw wrenches into the growth of what we’ve been doing. They passed the bill affecting the tax credits, and the work they’re doing on permitting to slow roll projects, all of that uncertainty is damaging the projects and more importantly costs everyone down the road by raising the cost of electricity, in turn making projects more expensive in the first place. It’s not a nice recipe for people buying electricity.
But in September, I went to the RE+ conference in California – I thought that was going to be a funeral march but it wasn’t. People were saying, Now we have to shift and adjust. This is a huge industry. How do we get those adjustments and move forward?
Investors looked at it the same way. Yes, how will things like permitting affect the timeline of getting to build? But the fundamentals of supply and demand haven’t changed and in fact are working more in favor of us than before, so we’re figuring out where to invest on that potential. Also, yes federal is key, but state permitting is crucial. When you’re talking about distributed generation going out of a facility next to a data center, or a Wal-Mart, or an Amazon warehouse, that demand very much still exists and projects are being built in that middle market today.
What you’re seeing is a recalibration of risk among investors to understand where we put our money today. And we’re seeing some international money pulling back, and it all comes back to that concept of certainty.
To what extent does the international money moving out of the U.S. have to do with what Trump has done to offshore wind? Is that trade policy? Help us understand why that is happening.
I think it’s not trade policy, per se. Maybe that’s happening on the technology side. But what I’m talking about is money going into infrastructure and assets – for a couple of years, we were one of the hottest places to invest.
Think about a European pension fund who is taking money from a country in Europe and wanting to invest it somewhere they’ll get their money back. That type of capital has definitely been re-evaluating where they’ll put their money, and parallel, some of the larger utility players are starting to re-evaluate or even back out of projects because they’re concerned about questions around large-scale utility solar development, specifically.
Taking a step back to something else you said about federal permitting not being as crucial as state permitting–
That’s about the size of the project. Huge utility projects may still need federal approvals for transmission.
Okay. But when it comes to the trendline on community relations and social conflict, are we seeing renewable energy permitting risk increase in the U.S.? Decrease? Stay the same?
That has less to do with the administration but more of a well-structured fossil fuel campaign. Anti-climate, very dark money. I am not an expert on where the money comes from, but folks have tried to map that out. Now you’re even seeing local communities pass stuff like no energy storage [ordinances].
What’s interesting is that in those communities, we as an industry are not really present providing facts to counter this. That’s very frustrating for folks. We’re seeing these pass and honestly asking, Who was there?
Is the federal permitting freeze impacting investment too?
Definitely.
It’s not like you put money into a project all at once, right? It happens in these chunks. Let’s say there’s 10 steps for investing in a project. A little bit of money at step one, more money at step two, and it gradually gets more until you build the project. The middle area – permitting, getting approval from utilities – is really critical to the investments. So you’re seeing a little bit of a pause in when and how we make investments, because we sometimes don’t know if we’ll make it to, say, step six.
I actually think we’ll see the most impact from this in data center costs.
Can you explain that a bit more for me?
Look at northern Virginia for a second. There wasn’t a lot of new electricity added to that market but you all of the sudden upped demand for electricity by 20 percent. We’re literally seeing today all these utilities putting in rate hikes for consumers because it is literally a supply-demand question. If you can’t build new supply, it's going to be consumers paying for it, and even if you could build a new natural gas plant – at minimum that will happen four-to-six years from now. So over the next four years, we’ll see costs go up.
We’re building projects today that we invested in two years ago. That policy landscape we invested in two years ago hasn’t changed from what we invested into. But the policy landscape then changed dramatically.
If you wipe out half of what was coming in, there’s nothing backfilling that.
Plus more on the week’s biggest renewables fights.
Shelby County, Indiana – A large data center was rejected late Wednesday southeast of Indianapolis, as the takedown of a major Google campus last year continues to reverberate in the area.
Dane County, Wisconsin – Heading northwest, the QTS data center in DeForest we’ve been tracking is broiling into a major conflict, after activists uncovered controversial emails between the village’s president and the company.
White Pine County, Nevada – The Trump administration is finally moving a little bit of renewable energy infrastructure through the permitting process. Or at least, that’s what it looks like.
Mineral County, Nevada – Meanwhile, the BLM actually did approve a solar project on federal lands while we were gone: the Libra energy facility in southwest Nevada.
Hancock County, Ohio – Ohio’s legal system appears friendly for solar development right now, as another utility-scale project’s permits were upheld by the state Supreme Court.
The offshore wind industry is using the law to fight back against the Trump administration.
It’s time for a big renewable energy legal update because Trump’s war on renewable energy projects will soon be decided in the courts.
A flurry of lawsuits were filed around the holidays after the Interior Department issued stop work orders against every offshore wind project under construction, citing a classified military analysis. By my count, at least three developers filed individual suits against these actions: Dominion Energy over the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, Equinor over Empire Wind in New York, and Orsted over Revolution Wind (for the second time).
Each of these cases are moving on separate tracks before different district courts and the urgency is plain. I expect rulings in a matter of days, as developers have said in legal filings that further delays could jeopardize the completion of these projects due to vessel availability and narrow timelines for meeting power contracts with their respective state customers. In the most dire case, Equinor stated in its initial filing against the government that if the stop work order is implemented as written, it would “likely” result in the project being canceled. Revolution Wind faces similar risks, as I’ve previously detailed for Heatmap.
Meanwhile, around the same time these cases were filed, a separate lawsuit was dropped on the Interior Department from a group of regional renewable energy power associations, including Interwest Energy Alliance, which represents solar developers operating in the American Southwest – ground zero for Trump’s freeze on solar permits.
This lawsuit challenges Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s secretarial orders requiring his approval for renewable energy decisions, the Army Corps of Engineers’ quiet pause on wetlands approvals, and the Fish and Wildlife Services’ ban on permitting eagle takes, as well as its refusal to let developers know if they require species consultations under the Endangered Species Act. The case argues that the administration is implementing federal land law “contrary to Congress’ intent” by “unlawfully picking winners and losers among energy sources,” and that these moves violate the Administrative Procedures Act.
I expect crucial action in this case imminently, too. On Thursday, these associations filed a motion declaring their intent to seek a preliminary injunction against the administration while the case is adjudicated because, as the filing states, the actions against the renewables sector are “currently costing the wind and solar industry billions of dollars.”
Now, a victory here wouldn’t be complete, since a favorable ruling would likely be appealed and the Trump administration has been reluctant to act on rulings they disagree with. Nevertheless, it would still be a big win for renewables companies frozen by federal bureaucracy and ammo in any future legal or regulatory action around permit activity.
So far, Trump’s war on solar and wind has not really been tested by the courts, sans one positive ruling against his anti-wind Day One executive order. It’s easy in a vacuum to see these challenges and think, Wow, the industry is really fighting back! Maybe they can prevail? However I want to remind my readers that simply having the power of the federal government grants one the capacity to delay commercial construction activity under federal purview, no matter the legality. These matters can become whack-a-mole quite quickly.
Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project is one such example. Intrepid readers of The Fight may remember I was first to report the Trump administration might try to mess around with the permits previously issued for construction through litigation brought by anti-renewables activists, arguing the government did not adequately analyse potential impacts to endangered whales. Well, it appears we’re getting closer to an answer: In a Dec. 18 filing submitted in that lawsuit, Justice Department attorneys said they have been “advised” that the Interior Department is now considering whether to revoke permits for the project.
Dominion did not respond to a request for comment about this filing, but it is worth noting that the DOJ’s filing concedes Dominion is aware of this threat and “does not concede the propriety” of any review or revocation of the permits.
I don’t believe this alone would kill Coastal Virginia given the project is so far along in construction. But I expect a death by a thousand cuts strategy from the Trump team against renewable energy projects writ large, regardless of who wins these cases.