Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Geothermal Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 531 would add geothermal to California’s one‑stop permitting program; supporters say it fills a firm‑power gap, rural counties warn over local control
Summary
Assemblymember Rogers’ AB 531 would let geothermal projects use the California Energy Commission’s expedited permitting (AB 205) process to speed development of firm renewable energy. Supporters said geothermal provides 24/7 renewable power needed for grid reliability; rural counties and some supervisors worry it dilutes local land‑use authority.
Assemblymember Lauren Rogers presented AB 531 to expand the state’s existing expedited permitting (AB 205) one‑stop shop to include geothermal projects below a specified size, arguing geothermal delivers reliable ‘‘clean firm’’ power needed to stabilize evening and winter demand.
‘‘Geothermal helps to plug that gap,’’ Rogers said, adding that Sonoma and Lake counties have demonstration projects and workforce capacity and that the bill would help California compete with other states where regulators offer streamlined permitting.
Supporters included Myles Horton of Sonoma Clean Power, who said geothermal is a cost‑effective pathway to 24/7 renewable electricity and can keep energy dollars and jobs in California; Chris Snyder of Operating Engineers Local 3 emphasized local training capacity and the opportunity to transition union members into geothermal construction and operations.
Rural County Representatives of California and several county boards urged caution, saying AB 531 further shifts permitting and land‑use discretion from local governments to the state and asking for amend ments to preserve local role and consent. ‘‘We want these projects, but not by sacrificing local control,’’ John Kennedy of RCRC said.
Committee amendments and discussion emphasized the bill would not eliminate local CEQA authority — the California Energy Commission would provide streamlined review, but local lead agencies would remain responsible for CEQA findings and mitigation for specific sites.
A motion to pass as amended to appropriations carried in committee; the committee recorded the vote and left the matter on call after a recorded dissenting vote.
