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:

The political coalition that has been assembled in support of advanced geothermal is bipartisan, but uni-regional: If you drew a broad strip from Las Vegas to Albuquerque and then dragged it north to the Canadian border, you would envelop Utah and Idaho (not to mention Arizona and big chunks of Wyoming and Montana). This stretch of John McPhee country includes some of biggest swaths of federal land — and some of the hottest rocks beneath it — in the country.
And so Senators Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Mike Lee of Utah, and James Risch of Idaho have found themselves crossing party lines, working together on a bill to encourage more production of geothermal energy, which the unique contours of this area make (potentially) especially abundant.
The Geothermal Energy Optimization Act, introduced last week, is a kind of test case for how a bipartisan energy policy could work. It combines deregulation with support for a non-carbon energy resource that leans heavily on expertise in the oil and gas industry while also not committing to any new spending.
But the bill isn’t just a victory for bipartisanship, it’s also a victory of geology. Thanks to tens of millions of years of plates sliding beneath each other and mountains collapsing, “you have a relatively thin crust before you get to that heat,” as Ben Serrurier, head of government affairs at Fervo, the enhanced geothermal startup, told me. (Fervo has operations in both Nevada and Utah.)
The bill would establish a “categorical exclusion” from environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act for some geothermal activity, including exploration, i.e. the drilling of wells to see whether a particular site is suitable for a geothermal project.
The law would both expand a provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established a categorical exclusion for some oil and gas projects, and write up a new one especially for geothermal. The bill would also require the Bureau of Land Management to have regular geothermal lease sales.
The 2005 bill was written at a time when an oil-industry-friendly White House wanted to make the country more energy self-sufficient, and deregulation oil and gas activities was an obvious way to do so. The GEO Act comes during another period of intense interest in energy policy, but not one in which the paramount goal is smoothing away obstacles to hydrocarbon extraction. Today, the United States is the biggest oil and gas producer in the world (thanks to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, technology that’s used in “enhanced” geothermal energy projects) and both the White House and the Democratic Party are friendly to non-carbon energy.
But while existing tax credits have been successful in boosting wind and solar deployment, there is still need for so-called “clean firm” technologies, energy resources that can provide power at all hours of the day, no matter the weather.
By speeding up and adding some certainty to the permitting process, the bill’s provisions would “enable us to raise capital and move forward with more projects on a faster timeline,” explained Serrurier. “We already face challenges trying to raise project finance,” he said. “Then we show them the permitting timeline.”
The bill would also create a “strike team” within the BLM that could advise field offices and staff on how to process and deal with geothermal permits. “The agency needs to implement it — and care about implementing — for it to work out well,” Aidan Mackenzie, a fellow at the Institute for Progress, told me.
The bill is a small-bore example of the biggest yawning gap in post-Inflation Reduction Act energy policy: permitting reform. While it’s often discussed in the context of building new transmission lines necessary to connect IRA-subsidized clean energy projects to energy consumers, permitting reform would also be a boon to emerging energy resources like geothermal.
In an emailed statement, Senator Heinrich touted New Mexico’s geothermal progress. “Accelerating the adoption of geothermal energy nationwide is key to unlock a clean energy independent future, lower costs for working Americans, and create more high-quality jobs that New Mexicans can build their families around,” he said.
In theory, at least, the GEO Act seems like something that could actually pass in this Congress. After all, Republicans tend to support removing regulatory fetters from energy projects, especially energy projects involving drilling, and Republicans in the Mountain West really, really like telling the BLM not to raise too many hackles when it comes to drilling.
“Geothermal has been kinda bipartisan for a while,” Mackenzie said. “Bipartisan in the sense that everyone kinda supports it and no one is willing to take it along.” But that may be starting to change. “Recent news has made it feel a bit more real to folks,” he said. “Like, it’s a real industry that could be in our state.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Kansas City, Missouri – Data centers are so toxic that politicians are using them as boogeymen in totally unrelated policy discussions.
2. Ingham County, Michigan – We have our first major anti-data center candidate in a Democratic congressional primary.
3. Nueces County, Texas - The Longhorn State is on a bull run towards data center hostility.
4. Pulaski County, Arkansas - We have yet another municipal employee losing their job over helping a data center.
5. Marathon County, Wisconsin - Yet again rural residents are poised to lose against state permitting primacy laws benefiting renewable energy.
This week’s conversation is with Grant Gutierrez, head of community impacts at carbon management company Carbon Direct. This week Carbon Direct published a white paper Gutierrez authored on opposition around data centers he’s studied. His research reinforces much of what Heatmap Pro has uncovered, but I was particularly intrigued by a topline finding – that transparency is the most common thread in the 46 data center fights he looked into. Was he seeing what I’ve been seeing? So I asked him to hop onto a Zoom call and let me know his thoughts.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
If you were to explain the findings in your white paper to someone at a bar… how would you put it?
What I would say is that we were really interested in the kinds of concerns communities were articulating as they were opposing or resisting data center development in the U.S. To answer and explore those questions, we developed our own data center cancellation tracker where we looked for cases where we could find a strong correlation between cancelation or withdrawal status and opposition. Then we did high-level analyses of the demographics surrounding those data centers, using standard best practices from environmental justice methodologies and pulling sociodemographic and environmental burden characters from EPA’s EJScreen tool. We were mostly looking at public records. Press materials. City council meeting minutes. Things you wouldn’t have to dig too hard to find.
The kinds of communities we saw successfully resisting data centers tracked across the demographic middle of the United States – slightly more middle income, slightly more white than a majority of the American community, but mostly what you’d consider the average American community.
What is the intended audience of this paper and what are you hoping to communicate?
I think it’s important for data center developers and the capital behind them is that they need to move their engagement to early stage, responsible design. A second audience is regulators, city councils, and local zoning commissions about how to engage with developers and advocate for the right disclosure requirements from industry.
The key topline message is that developers who treat community engagement as a permitting formality instead of a critical early stage input are burdening communities, breaking trust. This is resulting in reputational risk for developers, stranded assets, losing capital – and the loss of future opportunities as developers want to build 21st century infrastructure.
Walk me through what you saw evaluating these projects. What’s the development pattern that leads to such opposition?
We saw five key themes. Some of them you might expect – concerns around natural resources, water impacts, electricity rates, land. The rural character came up quite consistently. And then there was a lack of transparency through the use of NDAs.
The NDA example I was surprised to see was the most consistent in all of our case studies. Communities are largely concerned with the process that unfolds as much as the impacts. That’s a very important signal that transcends political lines. Communities want to be heard, involved in the process. They want large infrastructural development with impacts to listen to their concerns. When those decisions are made behind NDAs or with no transparency or equitable engagement, communities quickly mobilize and organize at a hyperlocal level and are successful in opposing these data centers.
I know there are a number of companies out there – without naming names – that are putting responsible development principles forward. The ones we advocate for across our business, whether we’re working in carbon removal or other things. I see companies leading and saying, if we’re involved in this infrastructure, we are not going to sign an NDA. Those who are pushing forward renewable energy commitments, community benefit agreements, and local public-private partnerships are leading with transparency and equity in their engagements.
How any of this carries in the broader industry is yet to be seen.
In your report you point to various ways opposition can crop up to a project. One of those ways was due to the presence of co-located gas – you note that gas power at a data center engendered environmental opponents, which then strengthened those fighting a data center. Can you elaborate on whether you think a new gas power presence is making it harder to get a data center built?
The case you’re pointing to, that’s the Ballico case where on top of the data center there was a 3,500 megawatt co-located gas plant. That quickly led to major community concerns and a partnership with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which became the legal anchor for thinking through the opposition here and commissioned the technical evidence, and provided the legal [support] there.
You see a broad coalition coalesce around not only the data center concern but the climate concerns that arise. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a repeated concern around the expansion of fossil energy and combustion sources going hand in hand with community opposition and organizing on data centers. But that remains to be seen.
What in your research have you seen when you compare opposition to data centers and campaigns against, let’s say, fossil fuels? Or mining? Or renewables?
What I think about with data centers is they’re the highways of the 21st century. As we know through the highway projects in the U.S., there were major disproportionate impacts on communities of color. I think there’s potential for data centers if they follow that playbook to have that same impact.
When it comes to comparing these, that’s something I have not done yet. But I think there’s a few things happening. I think the scale and scope of the buildout is taking the American public by surprise. Articulation around impacts to natural resources and electricity prices in a heightened political climate and a difficult economy. It’s also the existential problem AI introduces, which is the role AI plays in society. This is unique compared to other kinds of extraction, which feed technologies already at play.
How do you feel about the fact that so many of us in energy, environment and climate are now talking about data centers all the time?
Never in my career, working in carbon removal and nature based solutions, I never thought data centers would be a major focus in my career as an environmental justice advocate and social scientist.
Data centers are probably emerging to be one of the biggest environmental justice problems of our time so while it’s not something I planned to work on, I am emboldened to see the response from the nonprofit community and others trying to wrap their heads around this. What is the right kind of information? What does the public need to know? How do we advocate for our communities and build the world we would like to build?
While data centers are moving fast, I’m encouraged to see communities organizing and advocating for their own needs as well. Over the next few years, the story will tell itself.
Last question – what was the last song you listened to?
DtMF by Bad Bunny.
Plus, a look into the future of solar and wind tax credits.
Heatmap AM and Daily will be off tomorrow for the July 4 holiday, but we’ll see you back here on Monday.
We’re staring down the barrel of a holiday weekend here in the United States, so I’ll keep it quick. Two things:
July 4 will mark the formal end of the solar and wind tax credits in the United States. These incentives — which date back in some form to 1978 — were repealed by President Trump’s tax cuts and spending law last year. In order to qualify for the last of these subsidies, solar and wind projects must “commence construction” by Saturday and be ready to generate power by the end of 2027.
Although the policies haven’t yet expired, there’s already chatter about bringing them back. Some Democrats want to revive the incentives should they win back Congress and the White House in two or six years. But 2029 or 2032 will likely look different than the earlier years of this decade, when the Inflation Reduction Act was written and passed: Power prices are higher now, the grid more congested, and the federal budget more constrained. So today, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo previews one of the next big questions in climate policy: Should Democrats try to bring back the solar and wind tax credits?
Her story is great, and one disconnect in particular stuck out to me. Among the climate and clean energy wonks Emily interviewed, “everyone” agreed that “in the near term, the most important thing Congress could do to help clean energy is break down some of the non-cost barriers to development through permitting reform.” Permitting reform, after all, has no fiscal cost and could be achieved during this Congress.
But Democratic lawmakers themselves sound far less sure about its importance. “I don’t think Democrats can engage in a serious way with Republicans on permitting reform,” Representative Jared Huffman, the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, tells her. Read the rest of Emily’s story for more on how lawmakers are thinking about this question, which will only get more important as we get closer to ‘28.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
We’ve begun to get Q2 sales data for global automakers — and there’s actually decent news for electric vehicles. Some highlights:
Enjoy your holiday weekend, and remember: We’re now in Q3. Thanks, as always, for reading.