Summary#
This bill, called the HEATS Act, would change federal review rules for many geothermal drilling projects. It removes the requirement for a federal drilling permit when the surface is private (non‑Federal), the United States owns less than half of the subsurface geothermal estate, and the operator has a State permit. The bill’s stated aim is to speed up and simplify geothermal exploration and production on certain non‑Federal lands.
Key changes:
- Main change: No federal drilling permit required for geothermal activities on non‑Federal surface land if the U.S. owns under 50% of the subsurface geothermal estate and the operator has a State permit.
- Reduced federal review: These projects would not be treated as a “major Federal action” under NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act), would require no additional federal action, and could start 30 days after the State permit is submitted to the Secretary.
- Statutory exemptions: Projects would not be subject to consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. They would only count as an undertaking under the National Historic Preservation Act if the State lacks its own law on historic preservation.
- Royalties and oversight: The bill says it does not change royalties owed to the United States. The Secretary may do onsite inspections to check production measurement and royalty payments.
- Limits: The rule does not apply to Indian lands (lands in reservations or lands held in trust or restricted for tribes or individual Indians).
- What is unclear: The bill does not explain how to measure the “less than 50 percent” U.S. ownership in every case, who pays for inspections, or what standards State permits must meet compared with current federal permits.
What it means for you#
- Developers / Operators: You could avoid getting a federal drilling permit for many projects on private surface land if the U.S. owns less than half the subsurface geothermal rights and you hold a State permit. You may begin work 30 days after submitting the State permit to the federal Secretary, unless the Secretary takes other action. You still must pay royalties and may face federal inspections.
- State governments: State permits become the primary approval for covered projects. States may see increased responsibility and workload for permitting and environmental review.
- Federal agencies (Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management): Agencies would have less permit review work for these projects but retain the authority to inspect and verify production and royalties.
- Local communities / public: There would often be no federal NEPA environmental review and no federal endangered species consultation for covered projects. State review would govern environmental and historic preservation protections unless State law is absent.
- Tribes / Indian landowners: Indian lands are excluded, so current federal permitting and environmental review would still apply on tribal trust or restricted lands.
- Taxpayers: The bill keeps royalty requirements but shifts some review duties to states. The bill does not state clear federal cost impacts.
Expenses#
No publicly available information on a fiscal estimate or formal cost estimate was included with the bill text.
Possible cost areas from the bill text:
- The federal government may have administrative costs for onsite inspections and royalty oversight. The bill does not say who pays these costs.
- States may incur additional costs if they take on more permitting and environmental review work.
- Operators may save time and permit fees tied to federal permits, but they still must comply with State requirements and pay royalties.
- There is no provided estimate of lost or increased federal revenue from faster development or changed administrative burdens.
Proponents' View#
The bill appears intended to:
- Speed up geothermal exploration and production on certain private‑surface lands by removing a federal permitting step.
- Shift primary permitting responsibility to State governments when the United States does not hold a majority subsurface interest.
- Reduce duplication between State and federal permitting processes, which could make projects start sooner.
- Keep federal royalty collection in place while allowing the Secretary to conduct inspections to protect federal revenue.
Opponents' View#
Possible concerns and trade-offs drawn from the bill text:
- One concern is that exempting covered projects from NEPA and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act reduces federal environmental review and endangered‑species protections for those projects.
- The limited National Historic Preservation Act coverage could leave historic resources protected only where a State has its own law.
- The bill does not explain how to measure “less than 50 percent” U.S. ownership in complex land‑title situations, which could cause legal disputes.
- It is unclear who bears the cost of federal inspections and whether federal agencies will have sufficient resources to enforce royalty and reporting rules.
- Shifting review to States may lead to uneven standards across States. The bill does not set minimum environmental or procedural standards for State permits.