Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How Texas unleashed a geothermal boom

News Feed
Saturday, April 20, 2024

With its nation-leading renewables fleet and oil and gas industry, Texas is poised to dominate what boosters hope will be America’s next great energy boom: a push to tap the heat of the subterranean earth for electricity and industry. That technology, known as geothermal energy, has demonstrated the rare ability to unite the state’s warring political camps — and is fueling a boom in startups that seek to take it national.  While other forms of renewable energy lost ground during Texas's 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions before a legislature that combined a hard-right political bent with a focus on building more "dispatchable" power, the geothermal industry advanced. State lawmakers passed four key bills in 2023  that helped lay the foundation for a new generation of drilling — with just one vote against.  In the 2023 session, "we didn't get put into the renewable bucket, we didn't really get put into the oil and gas bucket,” said Barry Smitherman, former Republican head of the state Railroad Commission and head of the Texas Geothermal Energy Alliance. Instead, “we became this hybrid that was acceptable to people on both sides of the aisle"​ The regulatory clarity established by those bills  has laid the groundwork for a new generation of startups powered by the state’s urgent need for reliable electricity in the face of increasingly extreme weather, as well as a growing trickle of oil and gas veterans leaving an industry they see as plagued by boom-and-bust cycles. As of last year, Texas had 11 of the 27 total geothermal startups in the US. On Wednesday, startup Bedrock Energy unveiled a new geothermal-powered heating and cooling system at a commercial real estate complex in Austin. Earlier this month, next-generation drilling company Quaise — which uses high powered radio waves to drill through hard rock — filed a permit with the state energy regulator to begin field testing its drills, years ahead of what industry insiders had thought was possible. Houston-based Fervo is building a 400-megawatt project in Utah. Military bases across the state are looking into geothermal as a potential source of secure electricity in an era of price spikes and cyberattacks. And later this year, Sage Geosystems, a company founded by three former Shell executives, will begin using a fracked well as a means of storing renewable energy — which CEO Cindy Taff said will get the company most of the way towards the ultimate goal of commercially viable geothermal electricity. The rise in geothermal startups comes alongside a broader surge in Texas renewable energy. Last month, solar generation eclipsed coal both in terms of power generation and market share. Texas also has more utility-scale wind and solar capacity than any other state, though it lags California when it comes to rooftop solar.  The Sage project shows the conceptual benefits of geothermal energy to the Texas grid, which increasingly runs on wind and solar energy. When the sun is high, the wind is blowing and demand is low, Sage will pump water into subterranean wells, creating zones of high pressure that utilities can tap as "batteries" when other energy supplies fall.  Though it lags California in total capacity, Texas is set to add the most utility scale batteries in the country in 2024, but these can only store power for two to six hours — creating a niche for projects like Sage, which aim to store power for up to a day. In building out its projects, Sage benefited from that nearly-unanimous package of legislative reforms passed by the during the notably acrimonious 2023 session, which opened the way to operators like Taff — and offered a potential roadmap to other oil and gas states looking to set up geothermal industries of their own. In its campaign for those pivotal laws, the geothermal lobby benefited from a recent traumatic experience for Texas: the brutal, deadly and staggeringly expensive legacy of 2021’s Winter Storm Uri. In addition to resulting in hundreds of deaths from freezing temperatures and carbon monoxide poisoning from generators, the storm left tens of millions across the state without power for nearly a week and caused electricity prices in Texas’s spot markets to soar to an unheard-of $9,000 per megawatt hour — costing ratepayers an estimated $17 billion in overcharges, a court ruled in 2023. The total cost was even higher: an estimated $300 billion, higher than that of Hurricane Katrina, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. That tragedy was weaponized by both sides in the state’s frenetic culture wars. Republicans blamed the wind industry, which had 27 percent of its turbines freeze, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Meanwhile, Democrats blamed the lack of weatherization in the natural gas industry, which FERC found had lost 58 percent of its generation or pipeline capacity during the storm — undercutting the "firm" or "dispatchable" supply of energy needed to avert blackouts.  As Republicans sought to restrict the state’s burgeoning renewables industry, geothermal threaded the needle — aided by its lobbyists' deep ties to the oil industry and the Republican establishment. The lobby pushed the message of “geothermal as firm, dispatchable, 24/7, on-off switch, clean,” Smitherman told The Hill. “And it just resonated with everyone.” Lobbyists were “playing offense on three bills,” Smitherman said. First, in S.B. 785, the industry tackled the question of who owns geothermal heat — the subterranean energy that future projects will want to tap for industrial use or to generate electricity. That was a thorny question, because Texas law divides up surface rights — which include rights to land and the groundwater beneath — and mineral rights, which govern commodities like oil and gas below the surface.  During the fracking boom, that division created ugly situations in which mineral-rights holders allowed drilling rigs to operate on — and pollute — lands that they didn’t live on, sometimes against the wishes of the people on the site.  In S.B.785, legislators agreed with the industry that heat is legally more like water than oil — which makes the process of exploration substantially easier. For operators like Sage, Taff said, “that means we go in and we just really have to have an agreement with a landowner,” rather than having to sign separate deals with the mineral rights holder and landowner. S.B. 786 clarified that the geothermal industry is regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission, the state’s confusingly-named oil and gas regulator — rather than a mix of the commission, the state environmental regulator and the state utility commission for different aspects of the industry.  And in S.B. 1210, the legislature overwhelmingly voted that the state's thousands of “orphaned wells” — inactive, non-producing oil and gas wells — can be converted to geothermal wells without an additional permit. (As The Texas Tribune reported, Sage used one of these for a test well in south Texas.) Finally, in what Smitherman called “a defensive play,” the lobby worked to ensure through H.B. 5 that geothermal energy was eligible for the same tax breaks as other forms of dispatchable power — a privilege that would otherwise have only been available to coal, nuclear and natural gas. Together, these laws mean that a geothermal startup now just has to talk to a single regulator and a single rights holder; can cut costs on drilling using an existing well; and can realize tax breaks previously available only to far more established forms of power generation. It can also take advantage of the state’s burgeoning startup scene and huge oil and gas workforce — a necessary ingredient in a sector that is built on exploring the subsurface and drilling holes. For oil and gas workers, geothermal offers its own appeal. Part of this is emotional: Taff told the Tribune about how she moved to geothermal after a decade of being pressured by her daughter to leave the “dark side” of oil and gas for renewables — and found that geothermal offered her a chance to use her downhole experience in a way that wind and solar would not. ”That redemption arc is really, really inspiring for oil and gas people,” said Jamie Beard of Project Innerspace, a nonprofit geothermal advocacy group. Involvement in the industry lets former oil and gas workers “feel like they can use their entire life's work for something that they're going to be respected for — and right now they are villainized for,” she said. But in a state — and an energy sector — where belief in climate change remains controversial, geothermal can also make a more prosaic pitch: a stable job after the rollercoaster of oilfield work. “Oil and gas is very feast and famine,” Joselyn Lai, the CEO of Bedrock Energy, told The HIll.  “It's good times — and then it's like everyone's unemployed for like six months. There's definitely this hope and belief that the clean energy future will be one where there's more consistent jobs, and that it's where growth is happening.” That pitch comes as automation and efficiency have cut oilfield jobs — and as many projections suggest that oil demand will peak this decade, even as production is currently at record levels. One Bedrock employee who had specialized in well completions — the process of inserting pipe and bringing out oil and gas — described being laid off from an oil company because his job could be done by a worker in South Asia at a tenth the price. By drilling so many wells and dialing in their efficiency so much, he said, “we drilled ourselves out of a job.” Now he helps Bedrock drill 1,000 foot wells into the stable temperature of the subsurface, which can be used to dump heat in the summer or retrieve warmth in the winter — potentially offering commercial real estate clients a way to cut their heating and air conditioning costs by two to four times. That kind of project exemplifies a main part of geothermal’s appeal: It is a consistent product, which despite being zero-carbon offers the kind of electricity that utilities are used to working with.  The industry also faces serious challenges — particularly when it comes to securing financing to roll out and develop prototypes. First-of-their-kind geothermal projects often struggle to get across what the startup industry calls the “valley of death” — the dangerous period when they have secured initial investment and are paying for operations and payroll but aren’t yet making any money. (All of the companies listed in this article are in this difficult zone.)  Despite the promise of geothermal, many potential corporate partners “want to be first to go fifth,” Bedrock investor Gabriel Scheer of Elemental Excelerator, a nonprofit investment firm focused on climate technologies.  But for those investors who take the risk, Scheer said, there is the upside of getting a jump on a new technology — and getting to shape the way it unfolds. And in Texas specifically, the geothermal industry has certain distinct advantages. First, the experience of Winter Storm Uri means state businesses may be more focused on securing reliable heat and electricity than other states. Geothermal also benefits not just from the need to buttress the large wind and solar fleet, but also from the trail that those industries have blazed in terms of innovative forms of financing. In particular, virtually every wind and solar project in the state is built after developers sign a “power purchase agreement” with potential customers — something that the geothermal industry can easily adapt, said Dennis Wamsted of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. In Texas, Wamsted said, “Geothermal has the ability to come in and say, ‘You guys are familiar with all these contracts? Here, we are doing exactly the same thing.” Beard, the industry advocate, argued that Texas offers a model for other fossil fuel-rich states — like North Dakota or Pennsylvania — that want to transition their own industries. She was one of more than a dozen coauthors of “The Future of Geothermal in Texas,” a landmark 2023 report by five state universities that helped establish the industry’s bonafides before that year’s legislative session.  In the next six months, her team intends to replicate that report in ten such states, including Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. “The idea is, if you go into a state that has a big, significant oil and gas industry and you catalyze geothermal —  you all of a sudden have a bipartisan solution,” she said. Geothermal, she conceded “has really struggled on a federal level, with things like permitting and incentives.” But if such a research and lobbying effort were replicated across “all the oil and gas states, all of a sudden you have a federal coalition. You have movement on the federal level, and that’s the eventual outcome of all of the state work.” A national boom in geothermal would offer significant climate benefits. And in a world where the past pollution from oil and gas production is already anticipated to cut mid-century incomes by nearly 20 percent — even with aggressive climate action — it also has notable economic appeal. But in her pitch to investors or clients, Lai told The Hill, she doesn’t make the environmental pitch — because she doesn’t need to. At the end of the day, she said, “it's about the financial benefits.”

With its nation-leading renewables fleet and oil and gas industry, Texas is poised to dominate what boosters hope will be America’s next great energy boom: a push to tap the heat of the subterranean earth for electricity and industry. That technology, known as geothermal energy, has demonstrated the rare ability to unite the state’s warring...

With its nation-leading renewables fleet and oil and gas industry, Texas is poised to dominate what boosters hope will be America’s next great energy boom: a push to tap the heat of the subterranean earth for electricity and industry.

That technology, known as geothermal energy, has demonstrated the rare ability to unite the state’s warring political camps — and is fueling a boom in startups that seek to take it national. 

While other forms of renewable energy lost ground during Texas's 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions before a legislature that combined a hard-right political bent with a focus on building more "dispatchable" power, the geothermal industry advanced. State lawmakers passed four key bills in 2023  that helped lay the foundation for a new generation of drilling — with just one vote against. 

In the 2023 session, "we didn't get put into the renewable bucket, we didn't really get put into the oil and gas bucket,” said Barry Smitherman, former Republican head of the state Railroad Commission and head of the Texas Geothermal Energy Alliance.

Instead, “we became this hybrid that was acceptable to people on both sides of the aisle"​

The regulatory clarity established by those bills  has laid the groundwork for a new generation of startups powered by the state’s urgent need for reliable electricity in the face of increasingly extreme weather, as well as a growing trickle of oil and gas veterans leaving an industry they see as plagued by boom-and-bust cycles. As of last year, Texas had 11 of the 27 total geothermal startups in the US.

On Wednesday, startup Bedrock Energy unveiled a new geothermal-powered heating and cooling system at a commercial real estate complex in Austin. Earlier this month, next-generation drilling company Quaise — which uses high powered radio waves to drill through hard rock — filed a permit with the state energy regulator to begin field testing its drills, years ahead of what industry insiders had thought was possible. Houston-based Fervo is building a 400-megawatt project in Utah. Military bases across the state are looking into geothermal as a potential source of secure electricity in an era of price spikes and cyberattacks.

And later this year, Sage Geosystems, a company founded by three former Shell executives, will begin using a fracked well as a means of storing renewable energy — which CEO Cindy Taff said will get the company most of the way towards the ultimate goal of commercially viable geothermal electricity.

The rise in geothermal startups comes alongside a broader surge in Texas renewable energy. Last month, solar generation eclipsed coal both in terms of power generation and market share. Texas also has more utility-scale wind and solar capacity than any other state, though it lags California when it comes to rooftop solar. 

The Sage project shows the conceptual benefits of geothermal energy to the Texas grid, which increasingly runs on wind and solar energy. When the sun is high, the wind is blowing and demand is low, Sage will pump water into subterranean wells, creating zones of high pressure that utilities can tap as "batteries" when other energy supplies fall. 

Though it lags California in total capacity, Texas is set to add the most utility scale batteries in the country in 2024, but these can only store power for two to six hours — creating a niche for projects like Sage, which aim to store power for up to a day.

In building out its projects, Sage benefited from that nearly-unanimous package of legislative reforms passed by the during the notably acrimonious 2023 session, which opened the way to operators like Taff — and offered a potential roadmap to other oil and gas states looking to set up geothermal industries of their own.

In its campaign for those pivotal laws, the geothermal lobby benefited from a recent traumatic experience for Texas: the brutal, deadly and staggeringly expensive legacy of 2021’s Winter Storm Uri.

In addition to resulting in hundreds of deaths from freezing temperatures and carbon monoxide poisoning from generators, the storm left tens of millions across the state without power for nearly a week and caused electricity prices in Texas’s spot markets to soar to an unheard-of $9,000 per megawatt hour — costing ratepayers an estimated $17 billion in overcharges, a court ruled in 2023.

The total cost was even higher: an estimated $300 billion, higher than that of Hurricane Katrina, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.

That tragedy was weaponized by both sides in the state’s frenetic culture wars. Republicans blamed the wind industry, which had 27 percent of its turbines freeze, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Meanwhile, Democrats blamed the lack of weatherization in the natural gas industry, which FERC found had lost 58 percent of its generation or pipeline capacity during the storm — undercutting the "firm" or "dispatchable" supply of energy needed to avert blackouts. 

As Republicans sought to restrict the state’s burgeoning renewables industry, geothermal threaded the needle — aided by its lobbyists' deep ties to the oil industry and the Republican establishment.

The lobby pushed the message of “geothermal as firm, dispatchable, 24/7, on-off switch, clean,” Smitherman told The Hill. “And it just resonated with everyone.”

Lobbyists were “playing offense on three bills,” Smitherman said. First, in S.B. 785, the industry tackled the question of who owns geothermal heat — the subterranean energy that future projects will want to tap for industrial use or to generate electricity.

That was a thorny question, because Texas law divides up surface rights — which include rights to land and the groundwater beneath — and mineral rights, which govern commodities like oil and gas below the surface. 

During the fracking boom, that division created ugly situations in which mineral-rights holders allowed drilling rigs to operate on — and pollute — lands that they didn’t live on, sometimes against the wishes of the people on the site. 

In S.B.785, legislators agreed with the industry that heat is legally more like water than oil — which makes the process of exploration substantially easier. For operators like Sage, Taff said, “that means we go in and we just really have to have an agreement with a landowner,” rather than having to sign separate deals with the mineral rights holder and landowner.

S.B. 786 clarified that the geothermal industry is regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission, the state’s confusingly-named oil and gas regulator — rather than a mix of the commission, the state environmental regulator and the state utility commission for different aspects of the industry. 

And in S.B. 1210, the legislature overwhelmingly voted that the state's thousands of “orphaned wells” — inactive, non-producing oil and gas wells — can be converted to geothermal wells without an additional permit. (As The Texas Tribune reported, Sage used one of these for a test well in south Texas.)

Finally, in what Smitherman called “a defensive play,” the lobby worked to ensure through H.B. 5 that geothermal energy was eligible for the same tax breaks as other forms of dispatchable power — a privilege that would otherwise have only been available to coal, nuclear and natural gas.

Together, these laws mean that a geothermal startup now just has to talk to a single regulator and a single rights holder; can cut costs on drilling using an existing well; and can realize tax breaks previously available only to far more established forms of power generation.

It can also take advantage of the state’s burgeoning startup scene and huge oil and gas workforce — a necessary ingredient in a sector that is built on exploring the subsurface and drilling holes.

For oil and gas workers, geothermal offers its own appeal. Part of this is emotional: Taff told the Tribune about how she moved to geothermal after a decade of being pressured by her daughter to leave the “dark side” of oil and gas for renewables — and found that geothermal offered her a chance to use her downhole experience in a way that wind and solar would not.

”That redemption arc is really, really inspiring for oil and gas people,” said Jamie Beard of Project Innerspace, a nonprofit geothermal advocacy group. Involvement in the industry lets former oil and gas workers “feel like they can use their entire life's work for something that they're going to be respected for — and right now they are villainized for,” she said.

But in a state — and an energy sector — where belief in climate change remains controversial, geothermal can also make a more prosaic pitch: a stable job after the rollercoaster of oilfield work.

“Oil and gas is very feast and famine,” Joselyn Lai, the CEO of Bedrock Energy, told The HIll. 

“It's good times — and then it's like everyone's unemployed for like six months. There's definitely this hope and belief that the clean energy future will be one where there's more consistent jobs, and that it's where growth is happening.”

That pitch comes as automation and efficiency have cut oilfield jobs — and as many projections suggest that oil demand will peak this decade, even as production is currently at record levels.

One Bedrock employee who had specialized in well completions — the process of inserting pipe and bringing out oil and gas — described being laid off from an oil company because his job could be done by a worker in South Asia at a tenth the price.

By drilling so many wells and dialing in their efficiency so much, he said, “we drilled ourselves out of a job.” Now he helps Bedrock drill 1,000 foot wells into the stable temperature of the subsurface, which can be used to dump heat in the summer or retrieve warmth in the winter — potentially offering commercial real estate clients a way to cut their heating and air conditioning costs by two to four times.

That kind of project exemplifies a main part of geothermal’s appeal: It is a consistent product, which despite being zero-carbon offers the kind of electricity that utilities are used to working with. 

The industry also faces serious challenges — particularly when it comes to securing financing to roll out and develop prototypes. First-of-their-kind geothermal projects often struggle to get across what the startup industry calls the “valley of death” — the dangerous period when they have secured initial investment and are paying for operations and payroll but aren’t yet making any money. (All of the companies listed in this article are in this difficult zone.) 

Despite the promise of geothermal, many potential corporate partners “want to be first to go fifth,” Bedrock investor Gabriel Scheer of Elemental Excelerator, a nonprofit investment firm focused on climate technologies. 

But for those investors who take the risk, Scheer said, there is the upside of getting a jump on a new technology — and getting to shape the way it unfolds.

And in Texas specifically, the geothermal industry has certain distinct advantages. First, the experience of Winter Storm Uri means state businesses may be more focused on securing reliable heat and electricity than other states.

Geothermal also benefits not just from the need to buttress the large wind and solar fleet, but also from the trail that those industries have blazed in terms of innovative forms of financing.

In particular, virtually every wind and solar project in the state is built after developers sign a “power purchase agreement” with potential customers — something that the geothermal industry can easily adapt, said Dennis Wamsted of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

In Texas, Wamsted said, “Geothermal has the ability to come in and say, ‘You guys are familiar with all these contracts? Here, we are doing exactly the same thing.”

Beard, the industry advocate, argued that Texas offers a model for other fossil fuel-rich states — like North Dakota or Pennsylvania — that want to transition their own industries. She was one of more than a dozen coauthors of “The Future of Geothermal in Texas,” a landmark 2023 report by five state universities that helped establish the industry’s bonafides before that year’s legislative session. 

In the next six months, her team intends to replicate that report in ten such states, including Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. “The idea is, if you go into a state that has a big, significant oil and gas industry and you catalyze geothermal —  you all of a sudden have a bipartisan solution,” she said.

Geothermal, she conceded “has really struggled on a federal level, with things like permitting and incentives.”

But if such a research and lobbying effort were replicated across “all the oil and gas states, all of a sudden you have a federal coalition. You have movement on the federal level, and that’s the eventual outcome of all of the state work.”

A national boom in geothermal would offer significant climate benefits. And in a world where the past pollution from oil and gas production is already anticipated to cut mid-century incomes by nearly 20 percent — even with aggressive climate action — it also has notable economic appeal.

But in her pitch to investors or clients, Lai told The Hill, she doesn’t make the environmental pitch — because she doesn’t need to. At the end of the day, she said, “it's about the financial benefits.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Renowned Astronomers Push to Protect Chile's Cherished Night Sky From an Industrial Project

Chile’s Atacama Desert is one of the darkest spots on earth, a crown jewel for astronomers who flock from around the world to study the origins of the universe in this inhospitable desert along the Pacific coast

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — Chile’s Atacama Desert is one of the darkest spots on earth, a crown jewel for astronomers who flock from around the world to study the origins of the universe in this inhospitable desert along the Pacific coast.“It's a perfect cocktail for astronomy,” said Daniela González, executive director of the Skies of Chile Foundation, a nonprofit that defends the quality of the country’s night skies. A private company is pressing ahead with plans to construct a giant renewable energy complex in sight of one of Earth’s most productive astronomical facilities — the Paranal Observatory, operated by an international consortium known as the European Southern Observatory, or ESO.In the letter, 30 renowned international astronomers, including Reinhard Genzel, a 2020 Nobel laureate in astrophysics who conducted much of his prize-winning research on black holes with the ESO-operated telescopes in the Atacama Desert, describe the project as “an imminent threat” to humanity's ability to study the cosmos, and unlock more of its unknowns.“The damage would extend beyond Chile’s borders, affecting a worldwide scientific community that relies on observations made at Paranal to study everything from the formation of planets to the early universe,” the letter reads. “We are convinced that economic development and scientific progress can and must coexist to the benefit of all people in Chile, but not at the irreversible expense of one of Earth’s unique and irreplaceable windows to the universe.”The scientists join a chorus of voices that have been urging the Chilean government to relocate the hydrogen-based fuel production plant since the plan was unveiled a year ago by AES Andes, an offshoot of the American-based multinational AES Corp. In response to a request for comment, AES Corp. said that its own technical studies showed the project would be “fully compatible” with astronomical observations and compliant with the Chilean government's strict regulations on light pollution. "We encourage trust in the country’s institutional strength, which for decades has guaranteed certainty and environmental protection for multiple productive sectors," the company said.The plan, which is still under environmental review, calls for 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) of wind and solar energy farms, a desalination plant and a new port. That means not only a major increase in light pollution but also new dust, ground vibrations and heightened atmospheric turbulence that blurs stars and makes them twinkle. All of that — just three kilometers (miles) from the Paranal Observatory’s high-powered telescopes — will mess the view of key astronomical targets and could obstruct scientific advances, experts say. “At the best sites in the world for astronomy, stars don't twinkle. They are very stable, and even the smallest artificial turbulence would destroy these characteristics,” said Andreas Kaufer, the director of operations at ESO, which assesses that the AES project would increase light pollution by 35%.“If the sky is becoming brighter from artificial light around us, we cannot do these observations anymore. They're lost. And, since we have the biggest and most sensitive telescopes at the best spot in the world, if they're lost for us, they're lost for everyone." “Major observatories have been chased out to remote locations, and essentially now they’re chased out to some of the last remaining dark sky locations on Earth, like the Atacama Desert, the mountain peaks of Hawaii, areas around Tucson, Arizona,” said Ruskin Hartley, the executive director of DarkSky International, a Tuscon-based nonprofit founded by astronomers. “All of them are now at risk from encroaching development and mining. It’s happening everywhere.”DeBre reported from Buenos Aires, Argentina Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

New control system teaches soft robots the art of staying safe

MIT CSAIL and LIDS researchers developed a mathematically grounded system that lets soft robots deform, adapt, and interact with people and objects, without violating safety limits.

Imagine having a continuum soft robotic arm bend around a bunch of grapes or broccoli, adjusting its grip in real time as it lifts the object. Unlike traditional rigid robots that generally aim to avoid contact with the environment as much as possible and stay far away from humans for safety reasons, this arm senses subtle forces, stretching and flexing in ways that mimic more of the compliance of a human hand. Its every motion is calculated to avoid excessive force while achieving the task efficiently. In MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and Laboratory for Information and Decisions Systems (LIDS) labs, these seemingly simple movements are the culmination of complex mathematics, careful engineering, and a vision for robots that can safely interact with humans and delicate objects.Soft robots, with their deformable bodies, promise a future where machines move more seamlessly alongside people, assist in caregiving, or handle delicate items in industrial settings. Yet that very flexibility makes them difficult to control. Small bends or twists can produce unpredictable forces, raising the risk of damage or injury. This motivates the need for safe control strategies for soft robots. “Inspired by advances in safe control and formal methods for rigid robots, we aim to adapt these ideas to soft robotics — modeling their complex behavior and embracing, rather than avoiding, contact — to enable higher-performance designs (e.g., greater payload and precision) without sacrificing safety or embodied intelligence,” says lead senior author and MIT Assistant Professor Gioele Zardini, who is a principal investigator in LIDS and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and an affiliate faculty with the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS). “This vision is shared by recent and parallel work from other groups.”Safety firstThe team developed a new framework that blends nonlinear control theory (controlling systems that involve highly complex dynamics) with advanced physical modeling techniques and efficient real-time optimization to produce what they call “contact-aware safety.” At the heart of the approach are high-order control barrier functions (HOCBFs) and high-order control Lyapunov functions (HOCLFs). HOCBFs define safe operating boundaries, ensuring the robot doesn’t exert unsafe forces. HOCLFs guide the robot efficiently toward its task objectives, balancing safety with performance.“Essentially, we’re teaching the robot to know its own limits when interacting with the environment while still achieving its goals,” says MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering PhD student Kiwan Wong, the lead author of a new paper describing the framework. “The approach involves some complex derivation of soft robot dynamics, contact models, and control constraints, but the specification of control objectives and safety barriers is rather straightforward for the practitioner, and the outcomes are very tangible, as you see the robot moving smoothly, reacting to contact, and never causing unsafe situations.”“Compared with traditional kinematic CBFs — where forward-invariant safe sets are hard to specify — the HOCBF framework simplifies barrier design, and its optimization formulation accounts for system dynamics (e.g., inertia), ensuring the soft robot stops early enough to avoid unsafe contact forces,” says Worcester Polytechnic Institute Assistant Professor and former CSAIL postdoc Wei Xiao.“Since soft robots emerged, the field has highlighted their embodied intelligence and greater inherent safety relative to rigid robots, thanks to passive material and structural compliance. Yet their “cognitive” intelligence — especially safety systems — has lagged behind that of rigid serial-link manipulators,” says co-lead author Maximilian Stölzle, a research intern at Disney Research and formerly a Delft University of Technology PhD student and visiting researcher at MIT LIDS and CSAIL. “This work helps close that gap by adapting proven algorithms to soft robots and tailoring them for safe contact and soft-continuum dynamics.”The LIDS and CSAIL team tested the system on a series of experiments designed to challenge the robot’s safety and adaptability. In one test, the arm pressed gently against a compliant surface, maintaining a precise force without overshooting. In another, it traced the contours of a curved object, adjusting its grip to avoid slippage. In yet another demonstration, the robot manipulated fragile items alongside a human operator, reacting in real time to unexpected nudges or shifts. “These experiments show that our framework is able to generalize to diverse tasks and objectives, and the robot can sense, adapt, and act in complex scenarios while always respecting clearly defined safety limits,” says Zardini.Soft robots with contact-aware safety could be a real value-add in high-stakes places, of course. In health care, they could assist in surgeries, providing precise manipulation while reducing risk to patients. In industry, they might handle fragile goods without constant supervision. In domestic settings, robots could help with chores or caregiving tasks, interacting safely with children or the elderly — a key step toward making soft robots reliable partners in real-world environments. “Soft robots have incredible potential,” says co-lead senior author Daniela Rus, director of CSAIL and a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “But ensuring safety and encoding motion tasks via relatively simple objectives has always been a central challenge. We wanted to create a system where the robot can remain flexible and responsive while mathematically guaranteeing it won’t exceed safe force limits.”Combining soft robot models, differentiable simulation, and control theoryUnderlying the control strategy is a differentiable implementation of something called the Piecewise Cosserat-Segment (PCS) dynamics model, which predicts how a soft robot deforms and where forces accumulate. This model allows the system to anticipate how the robot’s body will respond to actuation and complex interactions with the environment. “The aspect that I most like about this work is the blend of integration of new and old tools coming from different fields like advanced soft robot models, differentiable simulation, Lyapunov theory, convex optimization, and injury-severity–based safety constraints. All of this is nicely blended into a real-time controller fully grounded in first principles,” says co-author Cosimo Della Santina, who is an associate professor at Delft University of Technology. Complementing this is the Differentiable Conservative Separating Axis Theorem (DCSAT), which estimates distances between the soft robot and obstacles in the environment that can be approximated with a chain of convex polygons in a differentiable manner. “Earlier differentiable distance metrics for convex polygons either couldn’t compute penetration depth — essential for estimating contact forces — or yielded non-conservative estimates that could compromise safety,” says Wong. “Instead, the DCSAT metric returns strictly conservative, and therefore safe, estimates while simultaneously allowing for fast and differentiable computation.” Together, PCS and DCSAT give the robot a predictive sense of its environment for more proactive, safe interactions.Looking ahead, the team plans to extend their methods to three-dimensional soft robots and explore integration with learning-based strategies. By combining contact-aware safety with adaptive learning, soft robots could handle even more complex, unpredictable environments. “This is what makes our work exciting,” says Rus. “You can see the robot behaving in a human-like, careful manner, but behind that grace is a rigorous control framework ensuring it never oversteps its bounds.”“Soft robots are generally safer to interact with than rigid-bodied robots by design, due to the compliance and energy-absorbing properties of their bodies,” says University of Michigan Assistant Professor Daniel Bruder, who wasn’t involved in the research. “However, as soft robots become faster, stronger, and more capable, that may no longer be enough to ensure safety. This work takes a crucial step towards ensuring soft robots can operate safely by offering a method to limit contact forces across their entire bodies.”The team’s work was supported, in part, by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Scholarships, the European Union’s Horizon Europe Program, Cultuurfonds Wetenschapsbeurzen, and the Rudge (1948) and Nancy Allen Chair. Their work was published earlier this month in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Robotics and Automation Letters.

FirstEnergy seeks looser reliability rules as outages grow more common

Extreme weather is making the grid more prone to outages — and now FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities want more leeway on their reliability requirements. Put simply, FirstEnergy is asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to let Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison, and Toledo Edison take longer to…

Extreme weather is making the grid more prone to outages — and now FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities want more leeway on their reliability requirements. Put simply, FirstEnergy is asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to let Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison, and Toledo Edison take longer to restore power when the lights go out. The latter two utilities would also be allowed slightly more frequent outages per customer each year. Comments regarding the request are due to the utilities commission on Dec. 8, less than three weeks after regulators approved higher electricity rates for hundreds of thousands of northeast Ohio utility customers. An administrative trial, known as an evidentiary hearing, is currently set to start Jan. 21. Consumer and environmental advocates say it’s unfair to make customers shoulder the burden of lower-quality service, as they have already been paying for substantial grid-hardening upgrades. “Relaxing reliability standards can jeopardize the health and safety of Ohio consumers,” said Maureen Willis, head of the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which is the state’s legal representative for utility customers. ​“It also shifts the costs of more frequent and longer outages onto Ohioans who already paid millions of dollars to utilities to enhance and develop their distribution systems.” The United States has seen a rise in blackouts linked to severe weather, a 2024 analysis by Climate Central found, with about twice as many such events happening from 2014 through 2023 compared to the 10 years from 2000 through 2009. The duration of the longest blackouts has also grown. As of mid-2025, the average length of 12.8 hours represents a jump of almost 60% from 2022, J.D. Power reported in October. Ohio regulators have approved less stringent reliability standards before, notably for AES Ohio and Duke Energy Ohio, where obligations from those or other orders required investments and other actions to improve reliability. Some utilities elsewhere in the country have also sought leeway on reliability expectations. In April, for example, two New York utilities asked to exclude some outages related to tree disease and other factors from their performance metrics, which would in effect relax their standards. Other utilities haven’t necessarily pursued lower targets, but have nonetheless noted vulnerabilities to climate change or experienced more major events that don’t count toward requirements. FirstEnergy’s case is particularly notable because the company has slow-rolled clean energy and energy efficiency, two tools that advocates say can cost-effectively bolster grid reliability and guard against weather-related outages. There is also a certain irony to the request: FirstEnergy’s embrace of fossil fuels at the expense of clean energy and efficiency measures has let its subsidiaries’ operations and others continue to emit high levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide. Now, the company appears to nod toward climate-change-driven weather variability as justification for relaxed reliability standards. FirstEnergy filed its application to the Public Utilities Commission last December, while its recently decided rate case and other cases linked to its House Bill 6 corruption scandal were pending. FirstEnergy argues that specific reliability standards for each of its utilities should start with an average of the preceding five years’ performance. From there, FirstEnergy says the state should tack on extra allowances for longer or more frequent outages to ​“account for annual variability in factors outside the Companies’ control, in particular, weather impacts that can vary significantly on a year-to-year basis.” “Honestly, I don’t know of a viable hypothesis for this increasing variability outside of climate change,” said Victoria Petryshyn, an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Southern California, who grew up in Ohio. In summer, systems are burdened by constant air conditioning use during periods of extreme heat and humidity. In winter, frigid air masses resulting from disruptions to the jet stream can boost demand for heat and ​“cause extra strain on the grid if natural-gas lines freeze,” Petryshyn said.

Trump order to keep Michigan power plant open costs taxpayers $113m

Critics say JH Campbell coal-fired plant in western Michigan is expensive and emits high levels of toxic pollutionTrump administration orders to keep an ageing, unneeded Michigan coal-fired power plant online has cost ratepayers from across the US midwest about $113m so far, according to estimates from the plant’s operator and regulators.Still, the US energy department last week ordered the plant to remain open for another 90 days. Continue reading...

Trump administration orders to keep an ageing, unneeded Michigan coal-fired power plant online has cost ratepayers from across the US midwest about $113m so far, according to estimates from the plant’s operator and regulators.Still, the US energy department last week ordered the plant to remain open for another 90 days.The Trump administration in May ordered utility giant Consumers Energy to keep the 63-year-old JH Campbell coal plant in western Michigan, about 100 miles north-east of Chicago, online just as it was being retired.The order has drawn outrage from consumer advocates and environmental groups who say the plant is expensive and emits high levels of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas.The costs will be spread among households across the northern and central regional Miso grid, which stretches from eastern Montana to Michigan, and includes nine other states“The costs of unnecessarily running this jalopy coal plant just continue to mount,” said Michael Lenoff, an attorney with Earthjustice, which is suing over the order.Gary Rochow, Consumers Energy’s CEO, told investors in a 30 October earnings call that the Trump administration in its order stated that ratepayers should shoulder the costs, and detailed how the company should pass on the costs.“That order from the energy department has laid out a clear path to cost recovery,” Rochow said.The utility has said in regulatory filings that the order is costing customers about $615,000 per day. The order has been in place for around six months.Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel filed a motion for a stay in federal court, alleging the administration’s latest order is “arbitrary and illegal”.The coal plant is one of two in Michigan that the Trump administration has moved to keep open under the president’s controversial national energy emergency executive order, which is being challenged in court by multiple lawsuits.The other plant is not scheduled to close for two years. The two factories emit about 45% of the state’s greenhouse gas pollution.Trump has also used his emergency energy order to keep gas plants near Baltimore and Philadelphia online.Consumers Energy said it did not ask for Campbell to remain open. The Trump administration did not consult local regulators, a spokesperson for the Michigan public service commission (MPSC), which regulates utilities and manages the state’s grid, told the Guardian in May.“The unnecessary recent order … will increase the cost of power for homes and businesses in Michigan and across the midwest,” the chair of the MPSC, Dan Scripps, said in a statement at the time.The latest figures proved Scripps correct.In May, an energy department spokesperson insisted in a statement that retiring the coal plants “would jeopardize the reliability of our grid systems”.But regulatory data from Miso and the MPSC over the last six months shows that statement was wrong.The Miso grid had excess power far above what Campbell provided during peak demand this summer. And the plant often was not operating at full capacity, likely because its power was not needed, advocates say. But the plant still costs ratepayers even when not operating at capacity.The energy department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the data showing it was not necessary to keep the plant open.Campbell and Michigan’s other coal plant that the Trump administration is aiming to keep online release high levels of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter into the air. Meanwhile, their coal ash ponds leach arsenic, lead, lithium, radium and sulfate into local drinking water and the Great Lakes.Consumers Energy had since 2021 been planning for the Campbell’s closure as required by the state’s energy plan. The company said the plant’s closure would save ratepayers in the state about $600m by 2040.

Mark Carney reaches deal with Alberta for oil pipeline opposed by First Nations

Prime minister says deal ‘sets the state for an industrial transformation’, but project is likely to face wide oppositionMark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast, a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said. Continue reading...

Mark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast – a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the beaming Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but also nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said.The agreement was praised by Smith for its potential to “unleash” investment in Alberta.Carney and Smith made the announcement after weeks of negotiations, which mark a dramatic shift in relations between the federal government and Alberta.. The two have sparred in recent years amid accusations from Alberta that Ottawa is harming its economic potential by restricting carbon emissions.The premise of the agreement is to increase oil and gas exports while attempting to meet the federal government’s climate targets. Carney’s government will exempt a possible pipeline project from the existing coastal oil tanker moratorium and emissions cap. In exchange, Alberta must raise its industrial carbon pricing and investing in a multi-billion-dollar carbon capture project.Critically, however, no company has expressed an interest in backing the project, which would probably face stiff opposition from the province of British Columbia and among First Nations communities on the Pacific coast.The move also reflects a political shift by Carney, who, before entering politics, developed credentials as an economist guiding capital markets towards a net zero future. Now, he must sell a plan that appears at odds with those values.The agreement has already prompted grumbles from lawmakers within Carney’s Liberal party. The cabinet minister Gregor Robertson, for example, argued against the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion when he was mayor of Vancouver, calling the project environmentally irresponsible. Carney must also convince the former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, a longtime environmental activist who now serves as minister of Canadian identity and culture.Talks between Alberta and the federal government notably excluded neighbouring British Columbia, whose leader has voiced strong opposition to a new pipeline passing through his province. The BC premier, David Eby, has said he opposes a pipeline and also the prospect of allowing tanker traffic through the narrow, tempestuous waters of the north coast. Instead, his government offered to expand the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.But Alberta’s government is adamant it wants a new pipeline, not just expanded capacity, and has repeatedly pledged to submit a proposal by spring.Before passing a bill in June that gave his government the power to override environmental regulations and fast-track projects in the national interest, Carney said any new pipeline would have to have the support of First Nations whose territory is unceded to provincial or federal governments.Even before Carney and Smith made their announcement, however, First Nations said any new pipeline was effectively dead on arrival.“We are here to remind the Alberta government, the federal government, and any potential private proponent that we will never allow oil tankers on our coast, and that this pipeline project will never happen,” said Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations (CFN), a group that represents eight First Nations along the coast.Slett, the elected chief of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, has previously warned about the risks of an oil spill in a sparsely populated region with little rapid-response infrastructure. She saw the effects first-hand in 2016, when 100,000 litres of diesel spilled near her community. Slett warned that no deal could “override our inherent and constitutional Rights and Title, or deter our deep interconnection of mutual respect for the ocean”.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.