Subcommittee hearing spotlights nine-bill package to speed geothermal permitting while retaining environmental safeguards

WITNESSES FROM industry, conservation groups and geothermal developers told the House Natural Resources subcommittee that a package of nine bills before the panel would reduce redundant environmental reviews, create more predictable permitting timelines, and accelerate deployment of geothermal power — while maintaining environmental and tribal protections.

Dr. Jones, a witness speaking for the geothermal industry, told the subcommittee that inconsistent review practices across Bureau of Land Management field offices mean identical review phases "can take 6 months in one BLM office and perhaps years in another," creating barriers to deploying gigawatts of geothermal energy. "We can either continue to strand gigawatts of clean, reliable domestic energy underground, or we can pass these common sense reforms and unlock one of our most abundant and untapped baseload energy resources," he said.

The package described by witnesses includes bills that would standardize procedures across field offices (the Geothermal Gold Book Development Act), reimburse agency permitting costs (the Geothermal Cost Recovery Authority Act), extend certain categorical exclusions to geothermal where appropriate (the Steam Act), and establish annual lease sales and deadlines for permit decisions (the Geo Act, cited in testimony as HR 301, and related measures). Witnesses characterized the reforms as designed to reduce needless duplication rather than to "gut environmental review." "These bills maintain environmental protection while removing unnecessary and duplicative barriers," Dr. Jones said.

Panel members pressed witnesses about tradeoffs and implementation. Carrie Rohrmeyer, Nevada Climate and Energy Strategy Director for The Nature Conservancy, said Congress should pursue permitting reforms but not at the expense of rigorous scientific review. She recommended improved interagency coordination, dedicated staffing with hydrological, cultural and biological expertise, adherence to the mitigation hierarchy, and programmatic environmental reviews leading to categorical exclusions only with safeguards in place.

Industry witnesses described persistent agency-level bottlenecks even after completion of National Environmental Policy Act reviews. Paul Thompson of Ormat Technologies described projects that completed NEPA and other reviews but then "sat for 36 months" awaiting administrative permits and argued for rules to prevent agency-level delays from stalling approved projects. Thompson also urged a facility-specific approach to federal royalties to encourage clustered development and additional investment.

Committee members asked about the role of state reviews, cost and time trends, and the space and community impacts of geothermal projects. Tim Latimer, cofounder and CEO of Fervo Energy, said state processes in places such as Nevada and Utah often have similar substantive requirements and can move more quickly than under-resourced federal offices. He pointed to rapid improvements in drilling performance and costs and said targeted permitting and transmission reforms — together with increased agency expertise — would be necessary to scale advanced geothermal.

The subcommittee left the hearing record open for 10 business days for written questions and required members to submit questions to the clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, December 19. The hearing concluded without any committee votes.

What’s next: witnesses said written responses would be supplied to members and staff, and congressional supporters signaled an intent to pursue the nine-bill package in coming legislative steps.