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:
Talking with SVP of strategy Sarah Jewett about the competition, expansion plans, and how to get more Americans informed and onboard.

Just three years ago, enthusiasm for geothermal energy was lukewarm at best. In a sign of just how marginal it seemed, the firehose of federal money directed at clean energy investments under the Biden administration contained just $84 million for geothermal, specifically for next-generation technologies. By contrast, the next-generation nuclear industry received roughly 40 times more.
Geothermal electricity generation uses heat from the Earth’s molten core to spin turbines that generate carbon-free, 24/7, renewable energy — a pretty attractive offer in today’s age of rampant climate change and soaring demand. Though the technology has been in use since 1913, it’s been stymied since then by the industry’s dependence on finding rare and unique underground reservoirs of hot water.
Then in 2023, a little-known startup backed by Bill Gates, among others, achieved a breakthrough at a pilot project in Nevada, showing that fracking technology could be used to harvest energy from hot, dry rocks, which can be found virtually anywhere in the world.
Fervo Energy’s announcement hit the geothermal industry’s smoldering embers like a splash of gasoline. Investors saw a reliable new source of carbon-free electricity that could tap into existing oil and gas supply chains and workforces and clamored to put their money into the startup, which had raised roughly $1.5 billion from private investors prior to the IPO. As the need for more energy to power data centers for artificial intelligence has grown, that interest has only intensified. Case in point: The company actually upsized its initial public offering on the Nasdaq stock exchange this week.
The money from the IPO, the company said in its initial filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, would go to Fervo’s flagship installation at its debut 500-megawatt Cape Station plant in Utah. When all was said and done after the company’s Tuesday debut, it had netted nearly $1.9 billion — about 50% more than the initially planned $1.3 billion. When trading picked up again on Wednesday, the price soared more than 30%, to over $36 per share.
Late Wednesday afternoon, I spoke to Sarah Jewett, Fervo’s senior vice president of strategy, to discuss the IPO and what’s next for the company. The transcript of our conversation, conducted over Zoom, has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Congratulations, Fervo has just made quite the stock market debut. Just a few days ago, the company upsized its initial public offering. Then yesterday, when the FRVO ticker officially launched at the Nasdaq, you ended up raising nearly $1.9 billion, beyond the $1.3 billion you initially anticipated. You must be feeling pretty good today.
I’m teeing you up for the pun here, Alexander: Geothermal is so hot right now. The IPO is not a finish line for Fervo. It is a financing milestone that facilitates the build out of more clean, firm, reliable, affordable energy. That is what we are most excited about as we ring the bell in Nasdaq. As we celebrate, we are more excited than anything to get back to work, to put clean megawatts in the grid.
Well then, let’s drill down on that. What were you seeing from investors before the IPO?
Investors, when we went around to sell, sell, sell , they were familiar with the need for energy. They were familiar with what’s happening in tech and AI. They were familiar with the existing solutions for power. They saw us as a new entrant into the scene that is highly capable of bearing the weight of resolving this intense energy crunch. Because of that, as we sold our story over the IPO roadshow, we just saw insane demand and decided it was the right idea to upsize the round.
Beyond the big player in conventional geothermal, Ormat Technologies, there haven’t really been many pure-play options in the retail market for people who want a piece of the action more broadly within geothermal. Where do you draw the line between where investors are buying into Fervo, specifically, and where they are buying into geothermal, generally?
These are really sophisticated investors. It’s overly reductive to say they’re just investing in us because we are a leading contender in an interesting industry to them. These are sophisticated investors who have vetted our technology, our performance, our execution to date, how we think about growth. They really bought into that story, specifically, as being a story that they believe to have real sustainability.
Where do you see the biggest potential competition? Do you think it will come from an incumbent player who makes a pivot into the next-generation market? Or do you think one of these other startups in the mix such as Sage Geosystems or XGS Energy or Quaise Energy could find similar success to Fervo?
We’re driving a rising tide that should lift all boats. I’m not going to publicly place bets on who I think will be the closest follower. But I’m hopeful that we will start to see more successful competitors in the years to come. The market that we’re addressing is massive right now. Because of that, we should see enhanced competition going forward. In some ways, we would be disappointed if that weren’t the case. We have developed a technological solution that is really meaningful. It should encourage others to come try to do the same.
Fervo is really differentiated in the years of execution that we have under our belt. At this point in time, we’ve drilled 40 horizontal geothermal wells. That is a huge differentiating factor at this point in time. The demand is here now. We are well positioned to meet that demand in a way that is rapidly scalable. We are in the right place at the right time.
We like to say internally that, coming to this point, we didn’t have to contend with Fervo. Now competitors will have to contend with Fervo. We obviously believe in the geothermal energy industry, which is why we’ve been so public with publishing our data and talking about what we’re trying to do. But we do really think that we have a substantial lead on the market, just in execution. And then, of course, we have immense amounts of IP and data and learnings to go with it.
Do you plan for the primary business to remain electricity production? Do you foresee going into industrial heat, or district heating in Europe?
We will pursue all of those as business lines in the future. Right now, we are proving ourselves to be uniquely good at delivering power projects. That will be our focus for the near term.
I know you have been focused on the U.S. Where are you looking internationally?
The U.S. is a substantial market at this point in time, so while we do plenty of business development outside of the United States, right now we’re focused on developing at home.
How long will it take for the company and for the industry more broadly to start developing overseas projects in a big way?
We’re close to that already. It’s just a question of what is smart from a business model perspective, and when the timing is right. I’m probably not at liberty to say right now when the timing will be right to really lean into a thriving export side of the business.
If you had to estimate, what would you say is the share of your investors now who are classic energy investors — the types of people who would have been buying into or did buy into shale — versus the share you think are motivated by climate concerns and the clean energy potential of what geothermal is doing? Obviously I realize there’s plenty of overlap. But if you had to discern between those camps, where would you say you’re more indexed?
I would say the majority of energy sector specialists who are investing in this deal are either technology agnostic or are focused on the clean energy side of the business. We do have some marquee shale investors that we will be bringing on as part of the public offering that we’re really, really excited about. So, it’s probably a healthy mix.
Is the shale industry the best analog for how you expect geothermal to scale?
Certainly on the subsurface side it is the closest analog to what we’re doing. We are taking technology that was developed for the shale industry in the subsurface, then we’re deploying it in a similar fashion, which is just over and over and over repeated wells to ensure that we are learning at a really rapid rate and then achieving cost reduction on a learning curve in a single basin. That is a big part of our cost reduction story.
The other thing that we talk a lot about internally is bringing a manufacturing mindset to geothermal energy. It is an industry that has historically been much more akin to a construction industry, building bespoke projects that are tailored for a bespoke commercial need. That is not what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to build a much more scalable business. In order to build a scalable business, you have to establish what is the unit that you are standardizing around and iterating upon. We intend to standardize our design, and iterate and optimize off of a standardized design to allow us to move really fast and to get a lot better, to pull costs out of the business and to be able to scale.
Given how much faster you guys are coming to market, obviously, you have an advantage here over some of the new nuclear technologies being promoted right now. Do you think geothermal is mostly going to eat into the potential market that those could serve? Or do you see nuclear as having different use cases than what geothermal can do?
It’s an overlapping use case, for sure. We don’t talk a lot about eating market share, because the pie is really, really large right now.
How soon before we can anticipate building enhanced geothermal systems on the East Coast and in the Northeast, places where the subsurface heat is not as easily accessible as in the Southwest?
We like to remind people that the demand in the West is massive right now. Probably 18 months ago, we weren’t having as productive conversations with hyperscalers about siting the West as we are today. Today we are having tons and tons of conversations about siting and co-locating alongside geothermal projects in the Western U.S. So the market is really big. We like to mention that just to remind people that expansion is not the only marker of success here.
That said, there is hot rock everywhere, it’s just a question of how deep that hot rock is. We, through our standardized and iterative and repetitive approach in the subsurface, are meaningfully driving cost out of the subsurface, making depth much more of an economic question. If it is more expensive to drill to a certain depth but you already pulled an immense amount of cost per foot out of your drilling, then temperature at depth becomes more accessible even when it’s deeper.
Because drilling is just a portion of the capex of these projects, and a power plant doesn’t care whether it’s located in the West or the East, we basically think that we can move into the Eastern U.S. sooner than we probably had originally thought. It is our goal to do that sometime in the next decade.
In the scant polling I have seen on partisan attitudes on geothermal, most American voters are unaware of it, but among those who are, there seems to be a pretty close match to nuclear in terms of emerging as a rare purple form of energy with closely aligned support between Democrats and Republicans. As you grow, how are you thinking about maintaining that broad appeal and reaching more of those Americans still in the dark?
We benefit from being in an incredibly bipartisan seat right now, and that has been so helpful for our growth and development and is very important to us to maintain going forward. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be bipartisan. It is a story that is relatable to all. We are highly adjacent to the oil and gas supply chain and oil and gas workforce. We are reliable energy. We are driving towards affordability. We are a clean energy industry with no operating emissions. And really, more than anything, we’re trying to build in a sustainable fashion. We’re trying to deliver projects the right way. It’s something that we have really been able to gain support on both sides of the aisle.
Obviously, that’s been hugely beneficial as we think about extending tax credits. Geothermal energy benefited from increasing tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, under President Biden. Then President Trump preserved geothermal energies tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That was hugely helpful to Fervo’s early development.
As we look to bring the cost of the technology down, we hope to continue educating a large group of stakeholders about this technology going forward, and continuing to bring people along with the story, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Even though he is partially responsible for them.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Welcome to August — which, as the political commentator Josh Barro once observed, is the year’s “stupidest news month.” Because Congress goes on recess around this time of year, and so many other Americans go on vacation, “the quantity of serious news structurally declines,” and we journalists have to turn to sillier stories in order to fill the space.
I couldn’t help but think of that post today. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin covered last week, oil companies recently had a blowout quarter. Last week, Chevron reported its best quarterly earnings result ever, while Exxon announced its largest profit in four years. None of this was a surprise: The Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz’s closure sent oil prices soaring around the world in the spring, making the supermajors’ domestic refinery business especially profitable. Despite its big result, Exxon actually underperformed Wall Street’s expectations — that’s how expected all of this was.
Still, though — the oil companies benefited from a supply shock that was hurting everyone else in the economy. Although this kind of volatility is part and parcel of the commodities business — it is part of what makes commodities so enticing to investors — it is, at the very least, not a good look. And in times like these, progressive policymakers will sometimes call for a windfall profits tax, a one-time levy on large and unexpected profits arising from a situation outside a company’s control. (Centrists and conservatives tend to prefer making different reforms to the tax system that tax “supernormal” profits.)
The United States last imposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the 1970s, but other countries still use them today: The U.K. implemented one after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drove up gas prices in 2022, as did a handful of European countries. More recently, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Ro Khanna of California proposed a windfall tax after gasoline prices shot up in March.
I wouldn’t have counted President Trump among Whitehouse’s and Khanna’s number. Yet speaking to reporters from the Oval Office today, Trump said the oil companies were “making too much money” from the Strait of Hormuz closure.
“Chevron, too much money. ExxonMobil, too much money,” the president said. “When you look at one company where they made 12 times what they made the year before, they ought to give some of that back to the public … And they better cut the retail price, the consumer price.”
He noted that many reporters looked “surprised” he was saying it, but reiterated he “wasn’t happy.”
Now, the president hasn’t quite called for a windfall profits tax — he seems to have something more voluntary in mind. Yet given Trump’s fealty to the industry in virtually every other context, his comments are striking and make his political judgement around the war all the more perplexing. The president chose to go to war with Iran — and the almost certain outcome of that conflict, in any world, was going to be higher oil prices. If anything, the war has moved crude less than analysts would have thought. What was Trump expecting here?
I don’t expect these remarks to usher in some new era of Trumpian policy or politics — this is probably just another silly August story. But they reflect how much the politics of energy have changed since President Trump took office in January 2025. Americans know it, Democrats know it, and President Trump knows it too.
Data centers are a big test for the nascent industry. But they also can’t fill the orderbooks.
For the last few years, there’s been just one story dominating the economy, Silicon Valley, and much of the climate tech world too: artificial intelligence. It has consumed investor’s time and money, leaving relatively little for the rest of the startup ecosystem. But for companies that can hitch themselves to the AI boom and tie their value proposition to the data center buildout, this narrow funding focus can be a tailwind.
The most obvious beneficiaries so far have largely fallen into two camps: startups using AI to build cheaper, better products or those developing technologies to cleanly power data centers themselves. But what about the companies actually manufacturing the physical materials behind these facilities? The data center buildout is ultimately an investment in the physical economy, which largely means an investment in concrete — the most widely used man-made material on Earth.
Cement, the key ingredient that binds concrete together, accounts for 8% of global CO2 emissions, and is a major driver of hyperscaler’s scope 3 emissions. Microsoft and Google’s recent sustainability reports, for example, reveal that their largest emissions category isn’t electricity but “capital goods,” which includes the embodied carbon in their physical assets and infrastructure such as the concrete, steel, server racks, and silicon used to build data centers.
Cement is a big part of that picture because producing it typically requires burning limestone in kilns at extremely high temperatures, a process that both uses large amounts of fossil fuels and releases CO2 through the underlying chemical reaction itself. So if hyperscalers are serious about decarbonization, one might expect them to be pretty interested in startups such as Brimstone, Sublime Systems, and Fortera, each of which is pursuing a different approach to reducing cement’s carbon footprint.
And they are interested. But that alone won’t fill these company’s orderbooks or offset the headwinds generated by the Trump administration rescinding previously obligated grants. That challenge has only been compounded by climate tech’s broader fall from favor as investors chase flashier, more explicitly AI-centric bets.
Still, Cory Waltrip, Sublime’s VP of business development, told me that data centers make a fantastic beachhead market for the company’s low-carbon cement, which it produces through an electrochemical process that eliminates the need for high-temperature kilns. Hyperscalers, he said, have both the market power and financial runway to think long-term about “the way that they’re signing agreements” and “how you can structure those agreements.” Of course, “the balance sheet and the amount of capital that they allocate towards sustainability commitments” doesn’t hurt either.
Last May, Microsoft signed an offtake agreement with Sublime to purchase up to 622,500 metric tons of cement from the company’s future demonstration plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, as well as a yet-to-be-sited full-scale facility. The deal is unique because it doesn’t require Microsoft to actually use Sublime’s cement in its data centers. Since cement is expensive and impractical to ship long distances, what Microsoft really purchased is the cement’s so-called “environmental attributes,” allowing Sublime to sell the physical product to local customers while Microsoft gets to claim the associated emissions reductions.
It was one of the first deals in the cement industry to decouple the physical product from its environmental benefits. But that good news was quickly overshadowed. Just eight days later, Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced the cancellation of 24 awards from the DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, including a $87 million grant for Sublime and a $189 million grant for Brimstone. That sent Sublime into a tailspin: In December, it paused plans for its demo plant, and in March it laid off roughly two-thirds of its workforce. The company has since filed a suit in the court of federal claims, alleging that the DOE breached its contract with Sublime, but a resolution could take years.
All the cement-hungry data centers in the world would struggle to make up for the loss of that federal funding. Hyperscalers want to buy low-carbon cement from companies that already have a credible pathway to commercial production, not foot the bill for a first-of-a-kind plant.
So Sublime is now pursuing “alternative scale up plans” that don’t involve the Holyoke facility, with Microsoft remaining “a committed customer,” Waltrip said. The most promising option involves co-locating with existing but underutilized standard cement plants in North America or Europe. Doing so could reduce capital costs by roughly 20% to 40%, Waltrip told me. “We can use all of the existing crushing, grinding, finishing, and storage equipment that an existing cement plant already has.”
Building in Europe — something Sublime has yet to commit to but is certainly considering — could also open the door to other non-dilutive public financing, such as the bloc’s roughly €40 billion EU Innovation Fund, which regularly backs industrial decarbonization projects such as low-carbon cement.
In the meantime, the company also says it’s made significant process improvements that could drastically change the scale at which it builds plants. While former CEO Leah Ellis described Sublime’s future commercial facility as a “megaton-scale plant,” Sublime now thinks it could economically produce the material in 50,000 to 250,000 metric tons-per-year facilities. These smaller plants would be far easier to finance without relying on large government grants, Waltrip told me.
Sublime is exploring multiple other undisclosed data center engagements as well, as Waltrip revealed that “we’ve completed materials testing with at least one hyperscaler. We’ve completed a concrete demonstration pour with another hyperscaler,” and “we’ve negotiated or are in the process of negotiating commercial agreements with other hyperscalers beyond Microsoft.”
The company also conducted a small test pour of its low-carbon concrete last year with STACK Infrastructure, a data center developer that leases out its facilities. But while the material has exceeded performance standards, STACK is unlikely to become a customer anytime soon. “If we had a commercial plant ready to go, I think we would be having no issues with finding customers for that product,” Waltrip told me. The challenge is that developers outside the major hyperscalers typically lack the financial flexibility to sign long-term offtake agreements for a product that may not reach meaningful scale until the mid-2030s.
So for now, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon remain the most sought-after buyers.
Brimstone, another low-carbon cement company, also landed a major hyperscaler deal last year. The company, which still uses kilns but replaces limestone with carbon-free calcium silicate rocks in its production process, agreed to supply Amazon with an undisclosed amount of cement and supplementary cementitious materials, which can partially replace cement in concrete. CEO Cody Finke told me he couldn’t share any additional details, including the volume of materials reserved or when he expects deliveries to begin, though he readily acknowledges the impact of the data center boom.
“There’s no question that the data center buildout has increased the demand for these materials,” Finke told me. Early last year, the company announced that it’s also figured out how to adapt its process to produce alumina — the refined material that smelters turn into aluminum. Data centers also use this metal throughout their operations in structural panels, server racks, and cooling systems. Eventually, the company says it will be able to make additional critical minerals and materials including steel, magnesium, and titanium.
For now though, Brimstone is working to complete construction of its demo plant in Reno, Nevada, which the company recently said it expects to be operational in 2028. Finke was somewhat more cautious, however, telling me only that it should come online by “the end of the decade.” The company’s first full-scale plant, the location of which it’s yet to announce, is slated to begin operations around 2034, producing 350,000 metric tons of alumina and an undisclosed amount of cement and other materials.
But like Sublime, Brimstone also lost a major source of federal support when the Trump administration rescinded its $189 million DOE grant, which was intended to finance construction of the demo plant. Finke, however, insisted this hasn’t altered the company’s timeline because Brimstone, having netted over $80 million to date, “had effectively raised the money that we needed, regardless of the grant.”
Finke isn’t relying on the goodwill of hyperscalers either, even though many do appear willing to pay a green premium in order to align with their ambitious, if flailing, decarbonization agendas. “To be frank, I don’t think that it’s that important to the transition whether or not those climate policies exist, because the companies that really matter are going to be cheaper anyway,” he told me.
Brimstone, he argues, is one of those companies. By co-producing multiple products at once, each can effectively offset the cost of the others, and Finke expects even the cement produced at the Reno demo plant to sell at standard market rates. Ultimately, while he sees growth in the data center industry as a tailwind, he doesn’t think Brimstone depends on that market, noting these facilities still only account for a small sliver of global cement demand. The company’s primary customers, he said, will ultimately be traditional buyers: concrete producers purchasing cement and aluminum smelters buying alumina.
Yet data centers willing to negotiate multi-year contracts still represent uniquely valuable first customers in an industry where such agreements are exceedingly rare. Instead, producers typically sell cement into a merchant spot market, where buyers purchase from whatever supplier meets their myriad requirements at the time. But that leaves low-carbon materials startups in a bind, Fortera’s CEO Ryan Gilliam told me. “When you’re trying to bring a new technology to market like us, you typically use offtake agreements to get project financing to justify building up big projects,” he explained. Potential investors simply want to see demonstrated future demand.
Fortera, which has raised about $150 million and has an operational pilot plant in California, captures the CO2 emitted from conventional cement production and converts it into a mineral form that then becomes part of the cement itself. Last year, it secured a strategic investment from Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund to help finance its first commercial-scale facility, expected to produce 400,000 tons of cement per year. In return, the tech giant secured the right to procure Fortera’s low-carbon cement and its associated environmental attribute certificates — more of a reservation than the binding offtake contract it signed with Sublime.
Just one plant of this size “would meet all the hyperscalers’ needs easily,” Gilliam told me, underlining Finke’s point that data centers will by no means represent a cement company’s largest buyer long-term. “Most hyperscalers, you’re talking maybe upwards of 100,000 tons a year of requirements around cement, and that might even be at the upper end,” Gilliam explained. By comparison, standard cement plants typically produce about a million tons of product annually.
So while Gilliam and others are happy to ride the AI boom, they also recognize that data centers are likely more valuable as an early market signal than a long-term source of demand. Even now, it remains unclear whether the boom is even a net positive for the sector as a whole.
“The number of AI startups and the amount of money that’s been diverted into that space definitely changed the pool of investors that you can go to right now,” Gilliam told me. And that’s the core paradox. The data center boom has become one of the clean cement industry’s most promising early markets and one of its fiercest competitors for capital. Welcome to the AI economy.
The energy developer is backing off after a Heatmap report.
Clearway says it is backing off its plans to build a data center and gas power plant on federal land, days after Heatmap revealed the energy developer’s proposal.
Last week, I reported that Clearway asked the Trump administration’s Bureau of Land Management to swap a five year-old application for a solar farm’s permits with “a proposed data center and natural gas facility.” Clearway’s chief development officer John Woody had written in a letter to BLM dated April 3 that the swap was “the result of a shift in our internal development priorities” and intended “to better align with the goals of our Administration.” He also noted the plans were in “exploratory early stages.”
This news fit a trend. I obtained Clearway’s letter right after reporting on a different solar project on federal land that was being swapped for a data center. But it turns out, the company’s internal thinking continued to shift: on Friday, they reached out to me saying they are now nixing the data center and gas plant, after concluding it wasn’t the right call for their business.
“Since our initial filing, we’ve evaluated how to make the best use of this public land in a way that serves its intended purpose: the public interest. As a clean energy developer and operator, our focus in Nevada remains solar and battery storage,” Clearway said in a statement it provided to me from an unnamed spokesperson. “We are in the process of amending our application to reflect the state’s growing demand for low-cost, reliable energy.”
In addition, Clearway on Monday sent a letter to BLM formally alerting the agency it has no plans to build the data center, which it also provided to me.
When I first broke news of Clearway’s plans, I said it was an apparent aberration – they oversaw relatively few fossil projects and had never worked in data centers. I chalked this pivot up to yet another energy developer changing its tune with the winds of national politics. Now that the company is apparently sticking to its guns, I’m mostly just left wondering what happened here – and relieved some still remain committed to zero-emissions power in the booming business of electrons.