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 U.S. just made permitting easier for geothermal, but industry and lawmakers say we should be going farther.

The federal government is really excited about geothermal: A Department of Energy report published in March said that geothermal can “become a key contributor to secure, domestic, decarbonized power generation for the U.S.” — particularly the kind of clean, always available power that grids love.
Big companies are really excited about geothermal: A group comprised of Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, the steel company, together put out a request in March for power projects that could generate clean power 24 hours a day, including “next-generation geothermal” (i.e. projects that don’t require finding hot water or steam underground, but instead use drilling to apply fluid to already hot rocks).
But are the nation’s regulators — especially those who oversee public lands in the vast American West and Great Basin, where some of the nation’s hottest and shallowest rocks are located — excited about geothermal?
The answer matters tremendously. The Bureau of Land Management approves leasing for geothermal projects on some 245 million acres of land. This also means that geothermal projects often have to run the full gamut of federal environmental review at each stage of development. Over the decade or so that a geothermal project can take from start to finish, there may be as many six reviews mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, according to the Institute for Progress, a technology policy think tank.
This week, the BLM alleviated part of that burden, saying Monday that it would apply two existing “categorical exclusions” – i.e. permissions to skip environmental review for certain actions — to geothermal exploration projects. This authority to adopt other agencies’ categorical exclusions (in this case from the Forest Service and the Navy) was included in the 2022 debt limit deal.
And yet, all the industry advocates I talked to expressed measured enthusiasm at best. “I think this is a very good step in the right direction,” Aidan Mackenzie, a fellow at the Institute for Progress, told me. On top of saving companies time, it also saves the government time. Creating a new categorical exclusion “requires notice and comment, which is more challenging for an agency,” Mackenzie said. “Adopting an existing categorical exclusion is a much easier process.”
This move comes as a bipartisan effort to clear away bureaucratic barriers for geothermal companies to operate on public lands appears to be cresting in Congress. Last month, four senators — two Democrats and two Republicans — co-sponsored a bill, the Geothermal Energy Optimization Act that would establish a categorical exclusion for all exploration activities, modeled on the existing one for oil and gas that’s been in place since 2005.
Two prominent geothermal startups, Eavor and Fervo, both welcomed the BLM’s decision while pushing gently but insistently for the full legislative solution.
Jeanine Vany, Eavor’s executive vice president of corporate affairs, told me the BLM’s action would “move the needle slightly in the right direction,” but that a legislative solution — specifically the GEO Act — would be “much more comprehensive and would be longer lasting.”
In an emailed statement, Fervo CEO Tim Latimer said essentially the same thing, calling the BLM's move “a commonsense approach to enabling development.”
“While the actions here cover only a small portion of activities in the geophysical exploration process,” he wrote, ”we are optimistic that both agency and legislative updates in the future that encompass some routine development and drilling activities will continue to unlock the potential of this important 24/7 carbon-free energy resource.”
One of the authors of the GEO Act, New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich, also emailed to say that “BLM is right to scale up geothermal production,” but that now, “Congress should pass my GEO Act to take us a step further in fully harnessing the power of geothermal.”
At the same time, the BLM is working to carve out its own exclusions specific to the work it does on geothermal permitting. A BLM spokesperson told me the agency is “currently working on two categorical exclusions related to geothermal permitting,” one for exploration and another for “resource confirmation,” the process of drilling to show more definitively that the necessary hot rocks or (hot fluids) are there and can be drilled for heat.
Still, “there’s a strong case for Congress, especially, to do more,” Mackenzie said. The GEO Act, he explained, would “derisk” the exploration process for geothermal. “Right now, there’s a big cost to messing it up," he said. "If you have to do a full [Environmental Assessment], it takes or year or two — you might get sued. If you finally do the exploration and the resource isn’t what you think it would be, you have to go back and wait years to try again.”
Shortening the timeline for geothermal will be key to achieving what the industry, energy buyers, and the federal government all seem to want for next-generation projects, in terms of both cost and production. The Department of Energy has said that it wants to see costs fall by some 90% by the middle of the next decade, and that the sector could grow 20-fold by 2050, to 90 gigawatts of capacity, which would be slightly greater than the capacity of hydropower today.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There is a heat wave in Europe, the world’s fastest warming continent. And so, as you may have heard, a perennial topic of online climate discourse has returned: Why don’t more Europeans have air conditioning?
I’m partially convinced this is psy op, or at least a figment of how social media organizes attention. I have a hypothesis that various “For You” page algorithms, especially that of the social network X, began to reward content that performed unusually well across national borders a few years ago. Since then, the amount of America vs. Europe content has surged. (Of course, writers have been comparing American and European lifestyles for much longer than that.)
Suffice it to say, though: It’s a fraught topic. I’ve assumed that as extreme heat gets worse as the climate changes, Europeans will simply get on with it and install AC, much as Americans in the Pacific Northwest have done. Yet there are cultural and regulatory obstacles to AC’s growth in Europe.
I’m sure I’ll write about it in the future, but for now I want to get a grip on the facts themselves. And so as a Friday special, I present to you — the facts about European AC, as I understand it:
Thanks so much for reading, and talk soon.
The movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.