AB 527 would exempt exploratory geothermal wells from CEQA under safeguards; opponents worry about fracking, wetlands and public access to information

Assemblymember Papan (presenting AB 527) told the Senate committee the bill would create a narrow exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for specified exploratory geothermal wells that meet environmental safeguards. The measure aims to reduce duplicative CEQA reviews that can follow the exploratory phase and later trigger full project-level review, a process supporters said increases costs and pushes developers to out-of-state projects serving California.

Supporters described the technology and demand for geothermal as a firm, around-the-clock renewable resource that complements solar and wind. Myles Horton (Sonoma Clean Power) and Matt Cremins (California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers) said exploratory wells are low-impact and critical to developing geothermal resources; Cremins emphasized workforce and apprenticeship requirements the bill would retain.

The author and supporters cited a federal categorical exclusion under NEPA adopted by the federal Council on Environmental Quality as precedent and said AB 527 would align California policy with that standard, including limits to avoid wetlands and conservation lands and requirements for site reclamation and tribal and biological surveys.

Opponents including Kim Delfino (Earthjustice, representing Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society) and Matthew Baker (Planning and Conservation League) said they supported geothermal but remained opposed to an exemption without stronger safeguards. Major concerns listed were:

- The proposed 12-acre threshold for previously undisturbed ground is substantially larger than historical exploration footprints (commonly ~5 acres); opponents said the larger area appears driven by a single company (Fervo) using enhanced geothermal stimulation and that the bill could effectively be tailored to that firm's method. - The bill could permit temporary roads, electrical lines and other disturbances through riparian corridors and streams that opponents say may have significant impacts. - Opponents expressed specific concern about hydraulic stimulation techniques (EGS, often called "fracking" in other contexts) and the chemicals used in stimulation fluids; they urged full CEQA review to ensure protection of water quality and public health.

Supporters and the author responded that geothermal hydraulic stimulation (Enhanced Geothermal Systems, EGS) differs from oil-and-gas fracking: EGS typically creates fractures in solid hot rock at depth and uses steel-lined pipes to keep fluids isolated from groundwater, and federal and state regulators (CalGEM and other permitting agencies) retain oversight and chemical-disclosure obligations. Amendments accepted in committee require biological, hydrological and tribal surveys before an exemption could be granted and require disclosure of chemicals used. Supporters said conventional exploration footprints average about 5 acres and that new technologies may need larger exploration footprints to develop geothermal more widely.

Several conservation organizations signaled willingness to continue negotiation; committee members voiced mixed views, citing recent legislation affecting CEQA and saying they were reluctant to add more exemptions without clear public participation and environmental safeguards. One member said they would not support additional CEQA exemptions given recent, broader CEQA changes earlier in the legislative session.

The committee accepted amendments and advanced the bill, but several opponents remained "opposed unless amended" and committee members said further amendments and transparency on chemical disclosures and public access to surveys would be necessary moving forward.