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.
A conversation with VDE Americas CEO Brian Grenko.
This week’s Q&A is about hail. Last week, we explained how and why hail storm damage in Texas may have helped galvanize opposition to renewable energy there. So I decided to reach out to Brian Grenko, CEO of renewables engineering advisory firm VDE Americas, to talk about how developers can make sure their projects are not only resistant to hail but also prevent that sort of pushback.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Hiya Brian. So why’d you get into the hail issue?
Obviously solar panels are made with glass that can allow the sunlight to come through. People have to remember that when you install a project, you’re financing it for 35 to 40 years. While the odds of you getting significant hail in California or Arizona are low, it happens a lot throughout the country. And if you think about some of these large projects, they may be in the middle of nowhere, but they are taking hundreds if not thousands of acres of land in some cases. So the chances of them encountering large hail over that lifespan is pretty significant.
We partnered with one of the country’s foremost experts on hail and developed a really interesting technology that can digest radar data and tell folks if they’re developing a project what the [likelihood] will be if there’s significant hail.
Solar panels can withstand one-inch hail – a golfball size – but once you get over two inches, that’s when hail starts breaking solar panels. So it’s important to understand, first and foremost, if you’re developing a project, you need to know the frequency of those events. Once you know that, you need to start thinking about how to design a system to mitigate that risk.
The government agencies that look over land use, how do they handle this particular issue? Are there regulations in place to deal with hail risk?
The regulatory aspects still to consider are about land use. There are authorities with jurisdiction at the federal, state, and local level. Usually, it starts with the local level and with a use permit – a conditional use permit. The developer goes in front of the township or the city or the county, whoever has jurisdiction of wherever the property is going to go. That’s where it gets political.
To answer your question about hail, I don’t know if any of the [authority having jurisdictions] really care about hail. There are folks out there that don’t like solar because it’s an eyesore. I respect that – I don’t agree with that, per se, but I understand and appreciate it. There’s folks with an agenda that just don’t want solar.
So okay, how can developers approach hail risk in a way that makes communities more comfortable?
The bad news is that solar panels use a lot of glass. They take up a lot of land. If you have hail dropping from the sky, that’s a risk.
The good news is that you can design a system to be resilient to that. Even in places like Texas, where you get large hail, preparing can mean the difference between a project that is destroyed and a project that isn’t. We did a case study about a project in the East Texas area called Fighting Jays that had catastrophic damage. We’re very familiar with the area, we work with a lot of clients, and we found three other projects within a five-mile radius that all had minimal damage. That simple decision [to be ready for when storms hit] can make the complete difference.
And more of the week’s big fights around renewable energy.
1. Long Island, New York – We saw the face of the resistance to the war on renewable energy in the Big Apple this week, as protestors rallied in support of offshore wind for a change.
2. Elsewhere on Long Island – The city of Glen Cove is on the verge of being the next New York City-area community with a battery storage ban, discussing this week whether to ban BESS for at least one year amid fire fears.
3. Garrett County, Maryland – Fight readers tell me they’d like to hear a piece of good news for once, so here’s this: A 300-megawatt solar project proposed by REV Solar in rural Maryland appears to be moving forward without a hitch.
4. Stark County, Ohio – The Ohio Public Siting Board rejected Samsung C&T’s Stark Solar project, citing “consistent opposition to the project from each of the local government entities and their impacted constituents.”
5. Ingham County, Michigan – GOP lawmakers in the Michigan State Capitol are advancing legislation to undo the state’s permitting primacy law, which allows developers to evade municipalities that deny projects on unreasonable grounds. It’s unlikely the legislation will become law.
6. Churchill County, Nevada – Commissioners have upheld the special use permit for the Redwood Materials battery storage project we told you about last week.
Long Islanders, meanwhile, are showing up in support of offshore wind, and more in this week’s edition of The Fight.
Local renewables restrictions are on the rise in the Hawkeye State – and it might have something to do with carbon pipelines.
Iowa’s known as a renewables growth area, producing more wind energy than any other state and offering ample acreage for utility-scale solar development. This has happened despite the fact that Iowa, like Ohio, is home to many large agricultural facilities – a trait that has often fomented conflict over specific projects. Iowa has defied this logic in part because the state was very early to renewables, enacting a state portfolio standard in 1983, signed into law by a Republican governor.
But something else is now on the rise: Counties are passing anti-renewables moratoria and ordinances restricting solar and wind energy development. We analyzed Heatmap Pro data on local laws and found a rise in local restrictions starting in 2021, leading to nearly 20 of the state’s 99 counties – about one fifth – having some form of restrictive ordinance on solar, wind or battery storage.
What is sparking this hostility? Some of it might be counties following the partisan trend, as renewable energy has struggled in hyper-conservative spots in the U.S. But it may also have to do with an outsized focus on land use rights and energy development that emerged from the conflict over carbon pipelines, which has intensified opposition to any usage of eminent domain for energy development.
The central node of this tension is the Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline. As we explained in a previous edition of The Fight, the carbon transportation network would cross five states, and has galvanized rural opposition against it. Last November, I predicted the Summit pipeline would have an easier time under Trump because of his circle’s support for oil and gas, as well as the placement of former North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum as interior secretary, as Burgum was a major Summit supporter.
Admittedly, this prediction has turned out to be incorrect – but it had nothing to do with Trump. Instead, Summit is now stalled because grassroots opposition to the pipeline quickly mobilized to pressure regulators in states the pipeline is proposed to traverse. They’re aiming to deny the company permits and lobbying state legislatures to pass bills banning the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines. One of those states is South Dakota, where the governor last month signed an eminent domain ban for CO2 pipelines. On Thursday, South Dakota regulators denied key permits for the pipeline for the third time in a row.
Another place where the Summit opposition is working furiously: Iowa, where opposition to the CO2 pipeline network is so intense that it became an issue in the 2020 presidential primary. Regulators in the state have been more willing to greenlight permits for the project, but grassroots activists have pressured many counties into some form of opposition.
The same counties with CO2 pipeline moratoria have enacted bans or land use restrictions on developing various forms of renewables, too. Like Kossuth County, which passed a resolution decrying the use of eminent domain to construct the Summit pipeline – and then three months later enacted a moratorium on utility-scale solar.
I asked Jessica Manzour, a conservation program associate with Sierra Club fighting the Summit pipeline, about this phenomenon earlier this week. She told me that some counties are opposing CO2 pipelines and then suddenly tacking on or pivoting to renewables next. In other cases, counties with a burgeoning opposition to renewables take up the pipeline cause, too. In either case, this general frustration with energy companies developing large plots of land is kicking up dust in places that previously may have had a much lower opposition risk.
“We painted a roadmap with this Summit fight,” said Jess Manzour, a campaigner with Sierra Club involved in organizing opposition to the pipeline at the grassroots level, who said zealous anti-renewables activists and officials are in some cases lumping these items together under a broad umbrella. ”I don’t know if it’s the people pushing for these ordinances, rather than people taking advantage of the situation.”