Passed
231 Yea186 Nay12 Not voting1/2 required
HR-5587-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Young Kim (R-CA)
What it does
This bill would exempt geothermal exploration and production activities on non-federal surface land from three federal requirements, provided the U.S. holds less than 50% of the subsurface geothermal estate and the operator holds a valid state permit. First, it would prohibit the Department of the Interior from requiring a federal drilling permit under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. Second, it would declare such activities are not "major federal actions," removing the requirement for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Third, it would exempt such activities from Endangered Species Act consultation requirements and from National Historic Preservation Act review, unless the state where the activity occurs lacks its own historic preservation law.
Who benefits
Geothermal energy developers and operators on state and private lands, who would face lower permitting costs and faster project timelines. States with significant geothermal resources (particularly Nevada, California, Idaho, Utah, and Oregon) that prefer state-level oversight. Landowners on whose property geothermal development occurs, who may receive lease or royalty income more quickly. Renewable energy investors and companies seeking to expand domestic clean energy capacity. Electricity consumers in geothermal-rich regions who could benefit from increased energy supply. Utilities seeking to diversify their generation portfolios.
Who is hurt
Environmental and conservation groups that rely on NEPA review and ESA consultation to identify and mitigate ecological impacts of drilling. Endangered or threatened species whose habitats may overlap with geothermal development areas, and whose protections would be reduced. Historic preservation advocates and communities — including potentially Native American tribes near (but not on) Indian lands — who rely on federal review to protect culturally significant sites. Federal agency staff whose oversight role would be reduced. Competing energy developers who must comply with full federal review. States without robust historic preservation laws, where the federal backstop would be removed entirely.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that geothermal energy is a reliable, carbon-free baseload power source that is being held back by duplicative federal permitting on land where the federal government has little or no ownership stake. They contend that when a state has already issued a permit and the federal subsurface interest is minimal, layering on NEPA reviews, ESA consultations, and historic preservation reviews adds years of delay and cost without meaningful additional protection — a burden not imposed on oil and gas development in many comparable situations. They point to the Department of Energy's own assessments showing geothermal could supply a significant share of U.S. electricity if permitting barriers are reduced.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that NEPA, ESA, and historic preservation reviews exist precisely because geothermal drilling can disturb subsurface ecosystems, trigger seismic activity, and damage irreplaceable cultural sites — harms that cross property and jurisdictional lines regardless of who owns the surface estate. They contend that state permitting standards vary widely and that removing the federal backstop in states with weak environmental or preservation laws creates a race to the bottom. They further argue that the ESA exemption is particularly problematic because endangered species do not respect property boundaries, and that eliminating federal consultation removes the primary mechanism for identifying and avoiding harm to protected wildlife.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which underpins federal environmental statutes like NEPA and the ESA, and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. By withdrawing federal jurisdiction over activities on non-federal land where the U.S. holds a minority subsurface interest, the bill raises questions about the scope of federal commerce power over intrastate resource extraction — a question that has become more contested following Sackett v. EPA (2023), which narrowed federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, and post-Loper Bright (2024), under which courts independently assess whether agency authority extends to the regulated activity.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Interior, EPA, and relevant agencies) would lose permitting and review authority over qualifying geothermal activities; the primary check would shift to state governments through their own permitting regimes, with Congress retaining the ability to restore federal oversight by statute.
Historical precedent
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 streamlined geothermal permitting on federal lands and established categorical exclusions for certain low-impact geothermal activities, but no prior federal law has broadly exempted non-federal geothermal operations from NEPA, ESA, and historic preservation review simultaneously.
Passed