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:
Democrats and Republicans both love it. But will they find the money for it?

As the 118th Congress prepares to clear the way for a new set of legislators who will be responsible for confirming cabinet picks, passing tax legislation, and whatever else the President-reelect throws at them, it is also quietly working on bills to ease the development path for the one form of clean, firm power that Republicans and Democrats can peaceably unite around: geothermal.
Geothermal has something to offer for everyone in Washington. “It’s a source of clean energy, which makes it appealing to Democrats,” Aidan Mackenzie, a fellow at the science and technology policy group the Institute for Progress, told me. It can also generate electricity 24 hours a day with no greenhouse gas emissions, thus potentially making it a key part of the decarbonized grid of the future.
For Republicans, it does all this while also employing the people, skills, and sometimes the actual gear of the oil and gas industry to drill deep into pockets of trapped heat, which are often in states Republicans control. For this reason, it “fits very well with ‘drill baby drill’ Republican ethos,” Mackenzie added.
This overlap has opened up space for bipartisan cooperation, especially on tailoring and rewriting permitting rules for the industry. This week, the House passed two bills with essentially unanimous Republican and some Democratic support: the HEATS Act, which exempts some geothermal exploration activity from permitting requirements, and the CLEAN Act, which mandates more geothermal lease sales by the Department of the Interior.
At the same time, a group of moderate Democrats have pressed House and Senate leadership to pass the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, proposed by Senators Joe Manchin and John Barrasso. That bill includes several policies either borrowed from the Senate’s bipartisan GEO Act or mirroring the new House bills, including measures to exempt some geothermal development from environmental reviews and establish an ombudsman to coordinate permitting. The bill has already passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which Manchin and Barrasso are the co-chairs, and negotiations to get a bill that could pass the House and a full Senate vote are ongoing.
Traditionally, geothermal has been limited by the availability of the resource, namely extremely hot water or steam trapped in the Earth’s surface, which is then tapped through drilling. Next generation technologies bring fluid to hot rocks underground, vastly expanding the potential of the technology.
“The U.S. electricity market is desperate for 24/7 new power,” Jeremy Harrell, chief executive officer of the conservative environmental group ClearPath, told me. The Department of Energy has estimated that so-called next generation geothermal could provide some 90 gigawatts of continuous clean energy generating capacity by 2050, which could help unlock truly decarbonized grids.
All of this makes the case for bipartisanship pretty clear. The HEATS and CLEAN Act were sponsored by Republicans Young Kim of California and Russ Fulcher of Idaho, while the GEO Act was sponsored by two Republicans, James Risch of Idaho and Mike Lee of Utah, alongside two Democrats, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. Two of those sponsors, Lee and Heinrich, will be the chair and ranking members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, respectively, in the upcoming Congress.
“Scaling our investments in research, development, and demonstration, and reforming the way we permit geothermal projects on our public lands are bipartisan priorities,” Heinrich told me in an emailed statement. “As we approach the next Congress, I remain committed to putting geothermal projects on an equal footing with oil and gas projects on public lands and accelerating the deployment of advanced geothermal energy systems nationwide.”
Those oil and gas companies are also sometimes investors in geothermal projects, and in the case of enhanced geothermal technology, share workers, drilling techniques, and equipment. Enhanced geothermal startup Fervo, for instance, counts the fracking company Liberty Energy among its investors. Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, is Liberty’s CEO.
Something else that may benefit geothermal in the years to come: It received relatively few benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act compared to other clean energy sectors, and therefore isn’t closely associated with a law passed on a partisan basis. “We notoriously got left out of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the IRA. That’s well documented,” Jeanine Vany, the co-founder of the closed-loop advanced geothermal company Eavor, told me.
Geothermal did get some money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including $84 million for pilot demonstration projects, Harrell pointed out. But that “wasn’t a ton,” he said, and there’s still a “a need for reasonable but targeted investments.” And while Republicans and Democrats may be able to play nice on reforming regulatory requirements for geothermal, agreeing to spend more money may be more difficult.
“The question is, are the two parties willing to strike a deal?” Mackenzie said. “For Democrats, it’s accepting permitting changes. For Republicans, it’s a question of whether they are willing to spend any money on this.”
Senator Heinrich has called on Senate appropriators to include $100 million for next-generation geothermal demonstration projects, an effort that was notably joined only by his fellow Democrats.
The Institute for Progress and Employ America, an economic policy group, have proposed funding the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to help advance geothermal. The Office has already shelled out billions for advanced nuclear and carbon capture programs.
“It’s a question in an era where there’s a big focus of cutting back and not expanding,” Mackenzie told me. “Is there any actual room to get money out there?”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that Employ America is a partner on the proposal for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
1. Marion County, Indiana — State legislators made a U-turn this week in Indiana.
2. Baldwin County, Alabama — Alabamians are fighting a solar project they say was dropped into their laps without adequate warning.
3. Orleans Parish, Louisiana — The Crescent City has closed its doors to data centers, at least until next year.
A conversation with Emily Pritzkow of Wisconsin Building Trades
This week’s conversation is with Emily Pritzkow, executive director for the Wisconsin Building Trades, which represents over 40,000 workers at 15 unions, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association. I wanted to speak with her about the kinds of jobs needed to build and maintain data centers and whether they have a big impact on how communities view a project. Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
So first of all, how do data centers actually drive employment for your members?
From an infrastructure perspective, these are massive hyperscale projects. They require extensive electrical infrastructure and really sophisticated cooling systems, work that will sustain our building trades workforce for years – and beyond, because as you probably see, these facilities often expand. Within the building trades, we see the most work on these projects. Our electricians and almost every other skilled trade you can think of, they’re on site not only building facilities but maintaining them after the fact.
We also view it through the lens of requiring our skilled trades to be there for ongoing maintenance, system upgrades, and emergency repairs.
What’s the access level for these jobs?
If you have a union signatory employer and you work for them, you will need to complete an apprenticeship to get the skills you need, or it can be through the union directly. It’s folks from all ranges of life, whether they’re just graduating from high school or, well, I was recently talking to an office manager who had a 50-year-old apprentice.
These apprenticeship programs are done at our training centers. They’re funded through contributions from our journey workers and from our signatory contractors. We have programs without taxpayer dollars and use our existing workforce to bring on the next generation.
Where’s the interest in these jobs at the moment? I’m trying to understand the extent to which potential employment benefits are welcomed by communities with data center development.
This is a hot topic right now. And it’s a complicated topic and an issue that’s evolving – technology is evolving. But what we do find is engagement from the trades is a huge benefit to these projects when they come to a community because we are the community. We have operated in Wisconsin for 130 years. Our partnership with our building trades unions is often viewed by local stakeholders as the first step of building trust, frankly; they know that when we’re on a project, it’s their neighbors getting good jobs and their kids being able to perhaps train in their own backyard. And local officials know our track record. We’re accountable to stakeholders.
We are a valuable player when we are engaged and involved in these sting decisions.
When do you get engaged and to what extent?
Everyone operates differently but we often get engaged pretty early on because, obviously, our workforce is necessary to build the project. They need the manpower, they need to talk to us early on about what pipeline we have for the work. We need to talk about build-out expectations and timelines and apprenticeship recruitment, so we’re involved early on. We’ve had notable partnerships, like Microsoft in southeast Wisconsin. They’re now the single largest taxpayer in Racine County. That project is now looking to expand.
When we are involved early on, it really shows what can happen. And there are incredible stories coming out of that job site every day about what that work has meant for our union members.
To what extent are some of these communities taking in the labor piece when it comes to data centers?
I think that’s a challenging question to answer because it varies on the individual person, on what their priority is as a member of a community. What they know, what they prioritize.
Across the board, again, we’re a known entity. We are not an external player; we live in these communities and often have training centers in them. They know the value that comes from our workers and the careers we provide.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone who says that is a bad thing. But I do think there are other factors people are weighing when they’re considering these projects and they’re incredibly personal.
How do you reckon with the personal nature of this issue, given the employment of your members is also at stake? How do you grapple with that?
Well, look, we respect, over anything else, local decision-making. That’s how this should work.
We’re not here to push through something that is not embraced by communities. We are there to answer questions and good actors and provide information about our workforce, what it can mean. But these are decisions individual communities need to make together.
What sorts of communities are welcoming these projects, from your perspective?
That’s another challenging question because I think we only have a few to go off of here.
I would say more information earlier on the better. That’s true in any case, but especially with this. For us, when we go about our day-to-day activities, that is how our most successful projects work. Good communication. Time to think things through. It is very early days, so we have some great success stories we can point to but definitely more to come.
The number of data centers opposed in Republican-voting areas has risen 330% over the past six months.
It’s probably an exaggeration to say that there are more alligators than people in Colleton County, South Carolina, but it’s close. A rural swath of the Lowcountry that went for Trump by almost 20%, the “alligator alley” is nearly 10% coastal marshes and wetlands, and is home to one of the largest undeveloped watersheds in the nation. Only 38,600 people — about the population of New York’s Kew Gardens neighborhood — call the county home.
Colleton County could soon have a new landmark, though: South Carolina’s first gigawatt data center project, proposed by Eagle Rock Partners.
That’s if it overcomes mounting local opposition, however. Although the White House has drummed up data centers as the key to beating China in the race for AI dominance, Heatmap Pro data indicate that a backlash is growing from deep within President Donald Trump’s strongholds in rural America.
According to Heatmap Pro data, there are 129 embattled data centers located in Republican-voting areas. The vast majority of these counties are rural; just six occurred in counties with more than 1,000 people per square mile. That’s compared with 93 projects opposed in Democratic areas, which are much more evenly distributed across rural and more urban areas.
Most of this opposition is fairly recent. Six months ago, only 28 data centers proposed in low-density, Trump-friendly countries faced community opposition. In the past six months, that number has jumped by 95 projects. Heatmap’s data “shows there is a split, especially if you look at where data centers have been opposed over the past six months or so,” says Charlie Clynes, a data analyst with Heatmap Pro. “Most of the data centers facing new fights are in Republican places that are relatively sparsely populated, and so you’re seeing more conflict there than in Democratic areas, especially in Democratic areas that are sparsely populated.”
All in all, the number of data centers that have faced opposition in Republican areas has risen 330% over the past six months.
Our polling reflects the breakdown in the GOP: Rural Republicans exhibit greater resistance to hypothetical data center projects in their communities than urban Republicans: only 45% of GOP voters in rural areas support data centers being built nearby, compared with nearly 60% of urban Republicans.

Such a pattern recently played out in Livingston County, Michigan, a farming area that went 61% for President Donald Trump, and “is known for being friendly to businesses.” Like Colleton County, the Michigan county has low population density; last fall, hundreds of the residents of Howell Township attended public meetings to oppose Meta’s proposed 1,000-acre, $1 billion AI training data center in their community. Ultimately, the uprising was successful, and the developer withdrew the Livingston County project.
Across the five case studies I looked at today for The Fight — in addition to Colleton and Livingston Counties, Carson County, Texas; Tucker County, West Virginia; and Columbia County, Georgia, are three other red, rural examples of communities that opposed data centers, albeit without success — opposition tended to be rooted in concerns about water consumption, noise pollution, and environmental degradation. Returning to South Carolina for a moment: One of the two Colleton residents suing the county for its data center-friendly zoning ordinance wrote in a press release that he is doing so because “we cannot allow” a data center “to threaten our star-filled night skies, natural quiet, and enjoyment of landscapes with light, water, and noise pollution.” (In general, our polling has found that people who strongly oppose clean energy are also most likely to oppose data centers.)
Rural Republicans’ recent turn on data centers is significant. Of 222 data centers that have faced or are currently facing opposition, the majority — 55% —are located in red low-population-density areas. Developers take note: Contrary to their sleepy outside appearances, counties like South Carolina’s alligator alley clearly have teeth.