Industry and conservationists testify for faster geothermal permitting while urging environmental safeguards
Loading...
Summary
Industry witnesses told a House subcommittee that permitting delays — not technology or supply chains — are the main barrier to scaling geothermal, while conservation groups backed reform conditional on mitigation, monitoring and programmatic review; members pressed for 'extraordinary circumstances' language in categorical exclusions.
At a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing, industry witnesses and conservation representatives offered converging views that geothermal can expand rapidly if permitting is reformed, but they diverged on how to preserve environmental safeguards.
Tim Latimer, cofounder and CEO of Fervo Energy, told members that enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) are ready to scale, citing the Cape Station project in Utah (permitted for up to 2 gigawatts and slated to deliver 100 megawatts in its first phase). Latimer said Fervo has cut drilling time by roughly 75% and reduced cost per foot by about 70% since its 2022 wells, and that the company has raised more than $1 billion in capital. He argued the primary barrier to deployment is permitting on federal lands and urged support for bills that provide categorical exclusions for limited exploration, deadlines on agency decisions, and annual lease sales where resources exist.
Paul Thompson, vice president of business development at Ormat Technologies, described a royalty‑calculation problem that the Geothermal Royalty Reform Act (HR 5638) seeks to fix. He said the intent of prior law was a facility‑by‑facility royalty structure but that Office of Natural Resource Revenue implementation had grouped plants in a resource area, raising costs and discouraging expansion; the bill would restore plant‑level royalty treatment to spur investment and clustered development.
Dr. Carrie Rohrermeyer of The Nature Conservancy (Nevada) said her organization supports geothermal deployment if projects avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to people, cultural resources and nature. She recommended programmatic environmental review to enable categorical exclusions for limited exploration while retaining ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ language so that sensitive resources receive fuller NEPA review. Rohrermeyer and other witnesses also urged stronger agency staffing and clear expectations (for example, the proposed 'gold book') so statutory timeframes are paired with resources to meet them.
Members asked pointed questions about where categorical exclusions should apply and what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that would require further review. Representative Huffman inserted into the record a July 2025 review of categorical exclusions; he warned against removing extraordinary‑circumstances language from legislation. BLM’s John Rabe said categorical exclusions apply to routine activities, are identified through NEPA records and checklists, and that extraordinary circumstances (for example, endangered species, water resource impacts or unique farmland) trigger further analysis.
The exchange highlighted a practical tension: industry stressed consistency and speed to achieve rapid deployment and cost declines, while conservation witnesses sought explicit statutory protections and programmatic analyses to ensure projects are sited and operated with safeguards. Members pressed for measurable success metrics (permit counts, shortened timelines, MW online) and asked the witnesses to provide additional written data to the subcommittee record.
The hearing did not resolve policy language choices; the subcommittee left the record open for written questions and will consider statutory drafting and amendments as the bills proceed through the committee process.
