S-4975-119
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
Sponsored by John Hoeven (R-ND)
What it does
This bill would amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the federal drilling permit requirement for geothermal exploration and production on non-federal surface land where the federal government owns less than 50% of the subsurface geothermal estate. It would also exempt those activities from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), from Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation, and from the National Historic Preservation Act (where a state law on historic preservation already exists). Operators would need only to submit a valid state permit and wait 30 days before beginning work. Federal royalty collection and inspection authority would remain in place, and the waiver would not apply to Indian lands.
Who benefits
Geothermal energy developers and operators who would face lower permitting costs and faster project timelines. Landowners on non-federal surface estates who want to develop geothermal resources. States with active geothermal permitting programs (e.g., Nevada, Idaho, Utah, California) whose regulatory authority would effectively substitute for federal review. Renewable energy investors and companies seeking to expand domestic clean energy production. Electricity consumers in geothermal-rich regions who could benefit from increased supply over time.
Who is hurt
Communities and individuals near geothermal drilling sites who rely on NEPA review to identify and comment on environmental impacts before projects begin. Environmental and conservation organizations that use NEPA and ESA processes to flag risks to ecosystems, water resources, and wildlife. Endangered or threatened species whose habitat overlaps with geothermal development areas, since Section 7 ESA consultation would no longer be required. Historic preservation advocates and tribal communities adjacent to (but not on) Indian lands, who may lose a federal review layer. Federal agency staff whose oversight role would be reduced. Competing energy developers who must still comply with full federal review requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that geothermal energy is a reliable, low-emission baseload power source that is being held back by duplicative permitting burdens — federal review processes that average 7–10 years for geothermal projects on federal land, compared to 2–3 years in states with streamlined programs. They contend that where the federal government owns less than half the subsurface estate and the surface is privately held, state regulators are better positioned to oversee local conditions, and that retaining federal royalty collection and inspection authority preserves meaningful federal accountability without the bottleneck of full NEPA review.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eliminating NEPA review and ESA Section 7 consultation removes the primary federal tools for identifying risks to groundwater, seismic activity, and protected species before drilling begins — harms that do not respect property boundaries and can affect communities well beyond the project site. They contend that state permitting programs vary widely in rigor and that substituting a state permit for federal environmental review creates an uneven patchwork of protections, potentially allowing projects in states with weaker standards to proceed without any meaningful assessment of cross-boundary ecological impacts.
Constitutional context
The bill's exemption from NEPA and the ESA implicates Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which underlies both statutes. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any remaining agency interpretations of the Geothermal Steam Act or NEPA's scope would face independent judicial review rather than deference, meaning courts would scrutinize whether the bill's carve-outs are consistent with the underlying statutory frameworks. The bill's explicit congressional authorization for the exemptions, however, is designed to sidestep the major questions doctrine concern raised in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) by having Congress — not an agency — make the policy choice directly.
Checks and balances
Congress would reduce executive branch (Interior/BLM) permitting authority over this subset of geothermal activities; the remaining checks are state permitting programs, federal royalty inspection authority, and judicial review of any statutory or constitutional challenges to the exemptions.
Historical precedent
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 previously streamlined geothermal permitting on federal lands and created categorical exclusions for certain small-scale geothermal activities under NEPA, establishing a partial precedent for reducing federal review requirements in this sector.