Last week, the House passed two bills focused on geothermal energy production led by Representative John Curtis (R-UT) and Representative Michelle Steel (R-CA) with large bipartisan support. Passage of the two bills marks another milestone towards an updated U.S. geothermal energy policy aiming to speed deployment of this technology. Coupled with the geothermal provisions in Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Senator John Barrasso’s (R-WY) bipartisan Energy Permitting Reform Act (EPRA) which cleared the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in August, the advancement of the two House bills further cements the political momentum for this domestic clean energy resource. These developments come as part of growing national attention on permitting reform, with Vice President Kamala Harris promising policy action on permitting in a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania speech last week as well.
Today, large-scale geothermal for power generation exists in several western states. Whereas deployment is limited at a modest 3.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, new technologies could unlock 5,500 GW spanning most states—four times the current generating capacity of the entire U.S. grid. Deploying more of this zero-emissions resource will require overcoming a constellation of challenges. Policymakers from both parties have sponsored bills in this Congress, including in the House and Senate, intended to dismantle geothermal energy roadblocks.
What’s in the Curtis and Steel bills?
Representative Curtis’s Geothermal Energy Opportunity Act (the GEO Act) addresses the processing of applications related to geothermal energy leases on public lands. The bill would establish a 60 day deadline for federal agency action once all regulatory requirements, such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental reviews, are complete.
Representative Steel’s bill expands the categorical exclusion (catex) language in Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to cover geothermal energy as well as existing coverage of oil and gas. This would create equal treatment for geothermal with oil and gas for this categorical exclusion. Recent BLM action has adopted existing catexes for geothermal exploratory drilling from the U.S. Forest Service and the Navy. Senator Manchin and Barrasso’s EPRA includes the Section 390 expansion covering geothermal, and also would codify a directive to the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture to develop catexes for geothermal exploration activities.
Context: geothermal energy permitting challenges
Niskanen’s research points to numerous permitting-related challenges for geothermal deployment, as well as promising solutions. For example, projects face multiple, sequential federal environmental reviews spanning the project development process. Authorizations are often needed from both federal and state agencies. As a lesser known energy technology, geothermal can also raise community concerns about water impacts and induced seismicity.
Policy changes can address each of these challenges. Evidence-based limitations on environmental review can reduce overall permitting timelines, for instance through categorical exclusions under NEPA. Strengthened government capacity to perform basic permitting tasks via staffing, training, technology investment, and experienced employee retention is another important solution. This also encompasses coordination functions across federal agencies and between the state and federal levels. Community engagement is also a critical mechanism for de-conflicting projects and adapting deployment to align best with community needs and goals.
The GEO Act could expedite timelines for a limited number of steps within the full geothermal permitting process, providing modest permitting acceleration in this clean energy subsector. Representative Steel’s Section 390 amendments would streamline NEPA review for certain geothermal development activities, though Section 390 has raised questions of interpretation and implementation that are worth considering. Importantly, comprehensive reforms are needed to significantly accelerate geothermal project development—in this vein, the EPRA includes seven subsections on geothermal leasing and permitting, encompassing agency deadlines, categorical exclusions, concurrent review approaches, a coordinating Geothermal Ombudsman, and more. Overall, the Curtis and Steel bills on the House side are aimed in the right direction and are complementary to efforts like EPRA in the Senate.
Conclusion
The broad, bipartisan support for both of these bills demonstrate how seriously Congress is considering geothermal technology as part of our domestic power supply. Geothermal technology has the potential to supply a sizable portion of U.S. energy needs from a clean, domestic source, further diversifying our energy mix. As permitting reform continues to gain momentum, the 118th Congress has developed numerous policy proposals, several of which are advancing through the legislative process. Both Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated commitment to policy reforms aimed at expanding geothermal deployment. Addressing the range of barriers this technology faces would enable geothermal to contribute to a clean, reliable, and secure 21st century energy system.