Geothermal Permitting Autonomy Act

Summary#

This bill (the HEATS Act) adds a new rule to the Geothermal Steam Act that lets some geothermal projects proceed without a federal drilling permit. The main change is that, when the surface is privately or state owned and the United States owns less than 50% of the underground geothermal rights, operators can use a state permit instead of a federal drilling permit. The bill also limits several federal environmental reviews for those projects while keeping royalty payment rules in place.

Key changes:

• Federal drilling permit waived for geothermal exploration and production on non‑federal surface land when the United States owns under 50% of the subsurface geothermal estate and the operator submits a state permit to the Secretary (the federal official named in the law).
• NEPA treatment changed: such projects “shall not be considered a major Federal action” under NEPA (the law that often requires federal environmental reviews).
• Less federal involvement: the bill says no additional federal action is required, the project may begin 30 days after the state permit is submitted, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (federal species consultation) does not apply.
• Historic preservation rule limited: the federal historic‑property law (NHPA) applies only if the state has no law on historic preservation.
• Royalties and inspections kept: the bill says federal royalty amounts are unchanged and the Secretary may inspect to ensure measurement, reporting, and royalty payment.
• Indian lands excluded: the rules do not apply to Indian lands or trust resources for tribes.

What it means for you#

• Geothermal developers / Operators

  • Could skip a federal drilling permit in many cases and rely on a state permit instead.
  • May be able to start work 30 days after submitting the state permit to the Secretary.
  • Must still follow federal royalty rules and can expect federal inspections for production and payments.

• State governments

  • State permitting will play a larger role for covered geothermal projects.
  • States may see more responsibility for ensuring environmental and cultural protections through their own permit processes.

• Federal agencies

  • Agencies would have less mandatory federal review and fewer formal consultations for these projects in the covered cases.
  • The Secretary retains authority to inspect and enforce royalty collection.

• Tribes and Indian landowners

  • The bill does not apply to Indian lands or resources held in trust. Projects on Indian lands remain subject to existing federal law.

• Neighbors, communities, and local environment

  • Projects may proceed with fewer federal environmental reviews (NEPA) and without federal endangered‑species consultation under the specified conditions. This could speed development, but it would change the mix of state versus federal oversight for environmental and cultural impacts.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill text does not include a fiscal note or cost estimates.
• Possible fiscal effects (not estimated in the bill):
  • Federal agencies could have lower permitting workload but may have added inspection and enforcement costs for royalties.
  • States could face increased responsibility and costs from handling more permitting and oversight.
  • Private developers may face lower federal compliance costs and potentially faster timelines.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to speed up geothermal exploration and production when most surface control is non‑federal and the federal government owns less than half of the subsurface interests.
• Supporters may argue that allowing reliance on state permits reduces duplicative federal permitting and shortens the time before work can start (30‑day window).
• This could be seen as encouraging fossil‑free energy development by lowering a federal permitting barrier.
• Keeping the royalty rules and allowing federal inspections maintains federal revenue collection and some accountability for production.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that removing NEPA review and Section 7 endangered‑species consultation could reduce federal environmental oversight for projects that still affect federal subsurface interests.
• The bill does not clearly explain how “less than 50 percent” federal subsurface ownership is measured in complex property situations; that could create legal uncertainty.
• Limiting the historic preservation law (NHPA) where states have laws could produce uneven protection for historic sites across states with differing rules.
• The shift of primary permitting to states may lead to variation in standards and enforcement from state to state.
• It is unclear whether reduced federal permitting will change long‑term monitoring, mitigation, or enforcement capacity; the bill does allow inspections but gives no funding or staffing details.