Networked Geothermal in Massachusetts

SPP 609 Applied Policy Workshop | UMass Amherst School of Public Policy | Spring 2026
Client Partner: Berkeley Lab

Workshop Team: Catherine Bult, Depre Carr, Collier Davis, Edinam Glymin, Hyunju Kang, Anncy Berthe Najac, Alice Potapov, William Sullivan.

Faculty: Juniper Katz.

Massachusetts is the first state to both fund a feasibility program and pass utility regulation that opens space for networked geothermal. The HEET Kickstart program, funded through the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, distributed $450,000 across thirteen communities to study the technology. The Department of Public Utilities approved the first Eversource pilot under Docket 19-120, the 2020 gas rate case. Its later Order 20-80, the December 2023 Future of Gas decision, restricted cost recovery for new gas infrastructure unless utilities first consider non-gas alternatives. The Commonwealth’s record now offers an unusual case for studying how networked geothermal interacts with regulatory frameworks, municipal governance, utility structures, and community expectations.

This workshop systematically documents nine networked geothermal projects across the Commonwealth, spanning utility-led pilots, college campus systems, community-driven initiatives, and a private industrial redevelopment. The research asks what these early cases reveal about the conditions under which networked geothermal advances, stalls, or is abandoned.

What Is Networked Geothermal

A networked geothermal system is a system of networked ground-source heat pumps that delivers heating and cooling to connected buildings. A closed loop of pipe installed underground circulates water (or a water-glycol mixture) between boreholes drilled into the ground and heat pumps installed in each building. In cold weather, the heat pumps extract thermal energy from the loop; in hot weather, they transfer excess heat back into it. Unlike individual ground-source heat pump installations, which serve one building at a time, networked systems connect multiple buildings through shared underground infrastructure. The concept is sometimes compared to a gas distribution network, but carrying water instead of fuel. Related terms include thermal energy network, geothermal micro-district, and community heat pump system. For a fuller introduction, see the Networked Geothermal Wiki or HEET’s overview.

Findings

Six patterns hold across the nine cases.

• No single body holds the longitudinal record. MassCEC, HEET, the DPU, and individual municipalities each hold pieces of the picture. A lead agency for project tracking would help future deployment.
• One project is fully operating. Framingham, the nation’s first utility-owned networked geothermal system, demonstrates the technology works. The other eight cases sit in feasibility, construction, or cancellation.
• The binding constraint is rarely geological. Ownership, financing, and building density determine which projects move forward. Massachusetts has built strong enabling policies but has not yet built the institutional pathway from feasibility to construction.
• Utility-led pilots demonstrate technical feasibility. Per-building costs remain high, and replicability beyond a flagship project depends on bringing those costs down or on sustained subsidy.
• Self-financed campus pathways work but do not scale. Amherst College and Smith College built their systems against institutional capital that municipalities and housing authorities do not have.
• Density matters. Networked geothermal works when many buildings share the underground loop and spread the cost of drilling and piping across many connections. Deerfield’s feasibility study found that the town’s lower density did not justify the upfront investment, and that air-source heat pumps were the better fit there.

Findings draw on the draft workshop report, May 2026.

Case Profiles

Each profile is a standardized brief documenting one project’s characteristics, governance, funding, permitting, and community engagement record. Profiles are available on this site and as downloadable PDFs.

Methods and Data

Eight graduate students in the Master of Public Policy and Administration program each documented one project through review of feasibility studies, municipal records, meeting minutes, regulatory filings, and news coverage. Students constructed a structured project database with standardized fields across all nine cases, produced the case profiles above, and conducted stakeholder interviews with municipal officials, housing authority staff, nonprofit advocates, and engineering consultants involved in these projects. This is applied student research produced under the constraints of a single semester. The profiles rely on publicly available documents and a limited number of interviews. Some projects had substantially more documentation available than others, and gaps in the public record are noted throughout. Errors may remain in the case profiles and the report.

Questions and Corrections

Use this form to reach the workshop with questions, corrections, source pointers, or interest in further collaboration.

SPP 609 Applied Policy Workshop
UMass Amherst School of Public Policy | Spring 2026
Instructor: Juniper Katz
Client Partner: Berkeley Lab