HEATS Act
Introduced September 26, 2025 · Last action July 15, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill amends the Geothermal Steam Act to waive the federal drilling permit requirement for geothermal exploration and production on non-federal land when the federal government owns less than 50% of the subsurface geothermal estate. It also exempts these activities from federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and from the Endangered Species Act, allowing operations to begin 30 days after submitting a state permit.
Who benefits
Geothermal energy developers and private operators drilling on non-federal land with less than 50% federal subsurface ownership (including companies like Ormat Technologies, Calpine, and other independent geothermal producers); private landowners with geothermal resources on their property; state regulators in geothermal-rich states (Nevada, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Utah) who gain authority over permitting; electric utilities and direct-use customers accessing geothermal energy at faster timelines and lower permitting costs.
Who pays / loses
Federal land management agencies (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service) who lose permitting authority and oversight; environmental groups and advocacy organizations who lose NEPA review and public comment rights; endangered species protection advocates who lose Endangered Species Act consultation requirements; historic preservation advocates who lose National Historic Preservation Act protections in states without equivalent state law; Native American tribes and indigenous groups (excluded from waiver but facing adjacent project impacts on trust lands and water resources); the public in affected geothermal regions who lose federal environmental review transparency and participation opportunities.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Geothermal energy companies and independent power producers lobbying for streamlined federal permitting stand to benefit from reduced regulatory delays and costs. The geothermal industry, including major producers like Ormat Technologies and smaller independent operators, has consistently advocated for streamlined permitting on private and mixed-ownership lands. Utility companies purchasing geothermal power, oil and gas drilling companies with geothermal operations, and private landowners with geothermal leases represent direct financial beneficiaries. Energy trade associations supporting permitting modernization and deregulation (American Petroleum Institute, Independent Oil & Gas Association, Geothermal Energy Association) typically back such legislation.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Geothermal energy operators and exploration companies in western states (Nevada, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Utah) with the most geothermal development potential; private landowners in geothermal regions; Native American tribes and indigenous communities whose trust lands, water resources, and sacred sites may be affected by adjacent geothermal drilling conducted under state-only oversight; environmental organizations and conservation groups; residents of geothermal development regions with interests in water quality, groundwater, seismic activity monitoring, and air quality.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill reduces unnecessary federal red tape, accelerates clean energy development, and respects private property rights by allowing state-level permitting for activities on non-federal land. They contend geothermal energy is low-carbon and that faster permitting will increase domestic renewable energy production. Critics argue the bill strips critical environmental safeguards, eliminates federal oversight and public input on projects with potential environmental impacts (groundwater contamination, induced seismicity, subsidence), and weakens protection for endangered species and cultural resources on adjacent federal and tribal lands. Non-partisan analysis has not been published on this specific bill, but environmental groups and tribal advocates consistently flag that NEPA exemptions and ESA carve-outs reduce agency capacity to assess cumulative impacts and transboundary effects of geothermal development.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, geothermal drilling on mixed-ownership parcels moves from multi-year federal permitting (typically 2–4 years under NEPA) to 30-day state permitting, significantly accelerating project timelines. Operators avoid federal environmental review, endangered species consultation, and historic preservation review, reducing permitting costs by millions per project. The bill creates a regulatory arbitrage: developers choose to drill on non-federal surface with federal subsurface co-ownership to avoid federal review, shifting all environmental oversight to state regulators. Nevada and California, which host the majority of U.S. geothermal capacity, will assume full permitting authority for projects affecting federal geothermal resources. Precedent from oil and gas permitting suggests exemptions from NEPA correlate with faster development but reduced documented environmental baseline data and fewer opportunities for cumulative impact analysis. Native American tribes lose federal consultation requirements under ESA and NHPA on projects on nearby non-Indian land, reducing their ability to protect groundwater, sacred sites, and treaty resources. The bill preserves royalty collection but relies on state-level environmental monitoring and enforcement rather than federal oversight, creating potential gaps in accountability for projects affecting federal interests and transboundary resources.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
NEPA Exemption for Federal Subsurface Rights
Activities are exempted from National Environmental Policy Act review even when the federal government owns any portion of the subsurface geothermal estate, meaning no environmental impact assessment occurs regardless of federal ownership level.
AffectsEnvironmental groups, Native American tribes, and downstream communities who rely on NEPA's public comment process to identify potential water contamination, seismic activity, or habitat impacts from geothermal drilling.
Endangered Species Act Blanket Exemption
Geothermal operations are exempt from Endangered Species Act protections entirely, eliminating consultation requirements for threatened or endangered species in the project area.
AffectsConservation organizations and species protection advocates; particularly impacts threatened geothermal-zone species and habitats, especially in the Great Basin and other ecologically sensitive regions.
30-Day Auto-Approval Mechanism
Federal approval of operations is automatic after 30 days of submitting a state permit, with no affirmative federal decision required and no mechanism to deny or delay based on federal concerns.
AffectsFederal land management agencies (USGS, BLM) lose practical authority to condition or refuse operations even when they retain subsurface mineral rights; affects consistency of federal mineral management policy.
Definition of 'Federal Ownership' Threshold
The 50% threshold for when a waiver applies is based on ownership of the geothermal estate itself, which may differ from surface or mineral ownership calculations used in other federal statutes, creating inconsistency in regulatory treatment.
AffectsOperations on checkerboard lands or properties with complex ownership histories; may create situations where adjacent parcels receive different regulatory treatment based on technical definition disputes.
State Permit Sufficiency Standard
The bill authorizes operations based solely on a 'state permit' with no federal definition of what constitutes an adequate state permit or minimum state environmental standards the permit must meet.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (2)
RRep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large]DRep. Gray, Adam [D-CA-13]
Vote Record
Passed: 231–186R 209–0 · D 22–186
| Name | Party | State / District | Vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12] | D | NC-12 | Nay |
| Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4] | R | AL-4 | Yea |
| Rep. Aguilar, Pete [D-CA-33] | D | CA-33 | Nay |
| Rep. Alford, Mark [R-MO-4] | R | MO-4 | Yea |
| Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12] | R | GA-12 | Yea |
| Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1] | D | RI-1 | Nay |
| Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] | R | NV-2 | Yea |
| Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3] | D | AZ-3 | Nay |
| Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19] | R | TX-19 | Yea |
| Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4] |
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$146,006.94
Finance$13,705
Technology$3,984.88
Construction$3,300
Law$3,250
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.