Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Geothermal Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee advances geothermal draft clarifying ownership and shortening proprietary hold‑times

Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee · October 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee reviewed draft geothermal amendments clarifying geothermal resource ownership (surface-owner interest), shortening proprietary data hold from five years to one year, and preserving a streamlined permitting process administered by the Division of Water Rights; sponsors asked the committee to carry the draft as a committee bill.

Sen. Mark McKell presented draft geothermal amendments that clarify ownership of geothermal resources, reduce proprietary-data withholding from five years to one year, and preserve Utah’s fast, single‑agency permit approach for many geothermal projects.

Theresa Wilhelmsen, state engineer, and Jim Goddard, geothermal program manager, explained Utah regulates three primary geothermal categories differently: (1) closed‑loop ground-source heat exchange (heating/cooling), (2) direct‑use systems (district heating, greenhouse use) that generally require a water right, and (3) hydrothermal electricity generation (statutory geothermal permits and associated water rights where applicable). The Division emphasized that tying geothermal rights to surface ownership and a concurrent water-right process simplifies permitting and encourages private development. The division also described advanced and enhanced geothermal technologies (FORGE/Fervo, Rototherm) that do not always rely on produced geothermal water and noted commercial projects nearing operation.

Sponsors asked that the committee favorably recommend the draft as a committee bill for continued stakeholder discussion during the session; the committee voted to recommend the draft while directing sponsors to route the bill through regular committee hearings (not put on consent) to allow additional review.