Full Committee Markup on Geothermal, Tribal and Public Lands Bills

you're ready let's do it

the committee will come to order the chair notes the presence of a quorum pursuant to committee rules members of the committee may submit written opening statements for the record ask that members may revise and extend their remarks on the bills to be considered at this mark-up and have those remarks included in the record without objection. So ordered, without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. Pursuant to rule three i, the chair announces that "I may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote is ordered." I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good morning and thanks to everyone for joining us for our full committee mark-up. Today we're considering two bills under regular order that will expand access to America's geothermal energy resources. Geothermal energy is abundant on federal lands and developing these resources is crucial to meeting America's growing energy demand. While developing technologies support a high growth potential, federal leasing and permitting processes pose significant challenges to the development of geothermal resources. Both bills we are considering under regular order will address the permitting roadblocks that are preventing the development of geothermal energy on both federal and non-federal lands. Removing the red tape will allow developers and producers to better leverage new technology and harness greater amounts of geothermal energy. Increasing energy abundance will power our nation to continue its work, to remain energy dominant on the world stage, meeting our energy needs and those of our allies. In addition, reforming the permitting process to unleash energy production here at home will for American families and improve affordability across the country, decreasing cost to build, make and transport just about everything in our economy. Before becoming operational, federal geothermal projects must complete up to six rounds of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, with each review subject to layers of bureaucratic red tape. Each review comes with its own administrative delays, cost, and legal challenges. Representative Fulcher's bill, the Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act, will relieve producers from one of these hurdles by exempting certain geothermal exploration wells from NEPA review. By removing even a single review in this process, we will increase the efficiency of the exploration process, and decrease the cost of each project. The second bill we will consider makes a common sense fix that right-sizes the impacts of federal red tape on projects commensurate with the actual federal footprint of the project. Currently, geothermal producers on non-federal lands that utilize any amount of federal resources to produce energy, must abide by all federal laws and permitting processes, even when the federal share of the project is minuscule. Representative Kim's Harnessing Energy at Thermal Sources or HEATS Act will end this, ensuring exploration or production wells on non-federal lands are not subject to NEPA. specific sections of the Endangered Species Act or the National Historic Preservation Act, if the federal government holds an ownership interest of less than fifty percent of the subsurface geothermal estate, and applicable state permits and laws are in place. This will reduce the administrative work and responsibilities of federal agencies and expedite the permitting process for geothermal projects. After our regular order bills, we will consider six additional geothermal bills under unanimous consent. These bills have achieved broad bipartisan support, and I appreciate uh Ranking Member Huffman and the minority for working with us to reach consensus on these bills. Before I yield back, I do want to highlight one additional bipartisan piece of legislation that is included in today's mark-up, the bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act, sponsored by the gentleman from California, Mister Fong. After eight months of negotiations, we have reached agreement uh with Ranking uh Member Huffman to move this important bill by unanimous And again, I appreciate the the efforts on that. Today's consideration of the Save Our Sequoias Act is a culmination of bipartisan talks that date all the way back to twenty twenty two, when uh we had a group of three Republicans and three Democrats go to the Sequoia National Forest to see the devastation these giant sequoia growths faced firsthand. Over the span of a few short years, uh the planet has lost roughly twenty percent of the world's giant sequoias due to wildfire. Before this decade, the last recorded evidence of a giant sequoia mortality from fire was in twelve ninety-seven A D. In fact, when I was in forestry school, we were under the impression that you really couldn't destroy a giant sequoia by fire. But, uh, nature proved us wrong, uh, as the fires got up into the crowns of these sequoia groves and took out whole groves. Those trees won't come back um to their full size in our lifetime and they won't uh grow back to the sizes they were in our grandkids' lifetimes. The loss of twenty percent of the world's giant sequoias happened on our watch, but by setting aside our differences to come together on this bill, we now have the opportunity to say that we won't be the generation that let giant sequoias uh go extinct or more of these uh very few groves be destroyed by fire. And I uh look forward to the discussion and I yield back. Uh now I recommend uh recognize ranking member Huffman for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um what a crazy busy week here in Congress, although it's a very short week. Uh but since we were last together for a mark-up, President Trump of course has has launched uh what we believe is an illegal war of choice in Iran. No clear path for Uh, a positive outcome there for the American people, for our troops, for the people of Iran. Uh, gas prices are soaring. Uh, we have a vote on a war powers resolution later today, thankfully, so that Congress can at least try to have a voice, uh, on all of this. Uh, meanwhile, we're in a partial government shutdown with, uh, Republicans in Congress and this administration still refusing to negotiate in good faith with Democrats on reforms to ICE that the American people want to see. And of course there are near nonstop attacks on public health and our environment, but I will say, Mister Chairman, at a time when we are divided on so many things, when there's so much chaos and alarming news, uh, seemingly by the hour, uh, it is refreshing to have a unanimous consent package today, uh, that is robust, uh, to see that there's been some honest bipartisan cooperation and negotiation that went into the mark-up, uh, today. I'm grateful for that. Our our unanimous consent package has fourteen strong pieces of bipartisan legislation. Six of those will help promote responsible geothermal development on federal lands. Uh, geothermal should be a a point of strong bipartisan consensus. It's one of America's most promising and underutilized sources of energy. Uh, although it accounts for only half a percent of the uh energy mix today in the US, we are a global leader in geothermal capacity and in innovation and next generation There is enormous potential for this, including on federal lands. Uh, as we scale up deployment, it is essential that we do that efficiently and responsibly. That means ensuring our federal agencies have the staff expertise and the right technologies at their fingertips. It means finding ways to get permitting done faster, while maintaining essential safeguards to protect public health, the environment, and importantly, public trust. The six Geothermal bills in the UC package uh, including three sponsored by Democrats, three by Republicans, will help lower costs for Americans and promote responsible efficient permitting of this resource, through enhanced coordination, common sense royalty reforms, and placing the geothermal industry on the same footing as oil and gas. These bills will help us grow a twenty-four seven carbon pollution free source of electricity that will help us combat both the affordability crisis and the climate crisis. And I'm grateful to our colleagues across the aisle for working with us in good faith to make this happen. The unanimous consent package also includes an agreement on the Save Our Sequoias Act that you talked about, Mister Chairman. This took months of negotiation, and I wanna thank you and your team for working with us in good faith. A great deal of hard work went into refining this bill to include the right safeguards, and the result is a stronger, more balanced piece of legislation, better equipped to support the ongoing restoration and recovery of our giant sequoias. As climate driven wildfires threaten uh their very existence, this legislation provides some help, uh including coordinated focused response um that these agencies and uh the American people wanna see. Uh these trees are not just iconic keystone species, they're a profound ecological, cultural and scientific legacy, so it's important that we do this work, but I wanna be clear that uh a bill, including this bill, can only do so much. Restoration, reforestation, long-term monitoring uh will fail if the National Park Service and the Forest Service continue to struggle with shrinking budgets, and staffing shortages. Protecting these sequoia groves is not just about passing a piece of legislation, it's about ensuring these agencies tasked with their survival have the capacity and the expertise and the stability to continue this critical work. Now unfortunately, there are two remaining bills where the majority just didn't work with us. Um, H R fifty five seventy six from my friend, Mister Fulcher, and H R fifty five eighty seven from Representative Kim. Uh, Mister Fulcher's uh bill amends the Geothermal Steam Act of nineteen seventy fully to fully exempt certain exploration activities from NEPA, despite the fact that BLM has recently developed and adopted several categorical exclusions for similar activities. I I wish, Mister Fulcher, that you would work with us, I hope you still will as this bill goes forward because uh right now uh you've got a bill that uh exempts projects entirely from NEPA uh as well as waiving endangered species act requirement, undermining national historic preservation act protections. It doesn't need to have loopholes that big. We can tighten this up and make the bill better. And I hope you'll take the chance to work with us so we can have stronger and broader bipartisan

Gentlemen, yields back, pursuant to the mark-up notice, it is now in order to consider H R fifty-five seventy-six, the enhancing geothermal production on federal lands act. Ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill, without objection. So ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on this bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mister Fulcher, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh uh my good friend, Mister R- Mister Hoffman, I'm I'm happy to to to to connect on this further. Uh the way you had described it is is not uh my understanding of the implementation on this. And so, um what we what we've got is a um situation where the NEPA process can be implemented multiple times uh in regard to these projects. And geothermal projects on federal managed managed land may be subject to environmental review process as many as six times um and and require a separate review at every phase of that development. And so the in- the intent is to try to streamline that so that it doesn't have to just go through multiple reviews for the same thing over and over and over again. And and the time, uh, the the challenge time and all that can be multiplied up to six times. So what we're trying to do is is streamline that back. And again, happy to engage with you if that's not the interpretation that you have, but Uh, that is, that is the intent and that's what I believe we're trying to say and do here. But um, the urgency has to do with just our overall need for energy and the fact that this is really, really a good source. The, the environmental impact of it is, is minimal on the, on the surface. But the, the energy production and the stability and the base load and the cost and, and what not, comparatively speaking, is just a real attractive solution in my opinion amongst others that may not be in a as attractive. So that's the the purpose of this. Um And with that, uh, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

And the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? OK, I I would Mr. Hoffman, you're recognized.

Uh, thanks, Mr. Chairman. So, um, this bill as as we read it would waive all NEPA analysis. for certain geothermal exploration activities. Uh, as originally introduced, the bill at least paired that waiver with some direction for Interior to do a programmatic review of geothermal development on federal lands and identify priority areas of leasing. But in the ANS, the majority decided to strike that programmatic work and that priority designation uh process entirely. So that's one of the problems that, uh, you know, perhaps we could we could resolve if if we work together going forward. Now, all that's left in the bill is just a blanket NEPA waiver for exploration activities that disturb up to eight acres and drill well holes up to thirteen and three eighths inches in diameter so uh I am opposed to the legislation in that form for a couple of reasons we often talk about giving geothermal parity with oil and gas for permitting nothing like what I just described exists for oil. and gas. And I would much prefer that we didn't set this race to the bottom precedent, where every sector n will now want the new loophole. Um, also this is not even a legislative categorical exclusion, which uh also gives me cause. It is just a full MEPA waiver, uh which is a step further. And finally, uh as I've said several times, categorical exclusions should be left up to agency staff to decide what is appropriate, uh, and developed accordingly. Congress is not well-suited to make these calls, on highly technical decisions about acreage limits and well diameters and things like that these determinations are better left to agency staff on the ground, who know what they're doing, who work these projects every day, and can evaluate what activities consistently do or do not do, uh, with respect to environmental impacts. Now, I am sure the majority did their homework when they came up with exploration activities that impact exactly eight acres, uh, with, uh, a well diameter of exactly thirteen and three eights, three eights inches or less. Uh, the industry is changing rapidly and, uh, who knows if that's the well diameter that will be sufficient into the future. Another reason why Congress should just leave this to the folks that know what they're doing, and don't try to codify these categorical exclusions. In fact, the last time uh this bill was introduced, it was a five acre limit, uh with a well diameter of thirteen inches. So what the heck are we doing here folks? Um, let's stay in our lane. Um, two years before that, yeah. Um, another two years before that it was five acres and nine inches, so uh you get the point. These numbers keep changing because geothermal technology and industry practices keep evolving. Uh, that is exactly why we should be hard coding technical thresholds into statute. And I must point out that over the last several years, the BLM has adopted several categorical exclusions from other agencies and its own for geothermal exploration and resource confirmation. Uh, we do not need to do this. The BLM has the authority that it needs. Uh, in April, twenty twenty four, BLM adopted CEs from the Forest Service and the Navy under authorities granted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. um with respect to amendments to NEPA and these CE's cover certain geothermal exploration operations that include seismic surveys temporary drilling as well as pre-lease exploration for mapping and surveys in January BLM finalized a new CE for geothermal resource confirmation that allows drilling and testing with less than twenty acres of disturbance and previously developers would often need environmental assessments for exploration and resource confirmation. So these CEs uh will take care of that. In October, twenty twenty four, BLM began the process of developing a CE for that first step, for geothermal exploration operations, the very same activities covered by this uh NEPA waiver target we're talking about today. So uh public comments were due for that in November of twenty twenty four. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has not made any about next steps. Uh, as we saw under the Biden administration, BLM can get these CEs done quickly, especially when Congress uses its oversight power to push them instead of, um, launching off on, uh, legislative adventures like this. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and reconsider the basic strategy here. If we work together, we can get better policy enacted, uh, faster. I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the bill? Mister Stauber, you're recognized.

Just Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mister Chair. I rise in support of H R fifty five seventy six, introduced by my good friend from Idaho, Rep- Representative Fulcher. This bill streamlines permitting for a clean source of energy that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can support. In fact, today we're advancing several bills introduced by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, which will help advance uh advance development of this important resource. Representative Fulcher's bill streamlines the NEPA permitting process during the exploration phase of projects that do not have a large footprint. The bill would also require the Department of the Interior to designate geothermal leasing priority areas on federal lands that are economically viable for geothermal energy production. Geothermal energy has serious potential for growth in this country, but the best reservoirs are located in the west on federal lands, where the BLM is notorious for holding up the permitting process. Last spring, the Energy and Minerals Resources subcommittee traveled to Utah for a field tour, and hearing to evaluate our geothermal potential and the barriers to fully harness our real geothermal potential. We toured Fervo's Energy's Cape Station project, where they were building a world-class geothermal project that will generate five hundred megawatts of electricity by twenty twenty eight, to meet our growing energy ma- energy demand, much of it driven by growth in the AI sector. The subcommittee saw firsthand how Fervo was using the latest technology for geothermal exploration and development, technology adapted from the oil and gas sector that wasn't being used just a few years ago. I'll note this project was located right next to a wind farm, which had a much larger land disturbance and footprint than the geothermal project. And Fervo's operations would produce clean energy for decades longer than the wind farm. which would have to be dismantled and replaced in just another ten or so years. We learned from Ferbo and other Geothermal developers about their top challenge, permitting and regulatory hold-ups. These operators are forced to conduct round after round of NEPA reviews, multiple times for the same project. And at each turn, there's months if not years of delays, new litigation risks and increased cost. You know what that means, Mister Chairman, developers' cost for these projects. grow even higher. And these costs are eventually passed on to the end-user of these electrons, the American people. Or even worse, developers find that it is simply too costly and decide against developing a project in the first place, leading to fewer electrons on our grid. Yet again, what does this lead to higher costs for the American people? Every day we see our broken permitting system holding uh us back and hurting American families' bottom line. Mister Chairman, that's not right. We need to fix our broken permitting and regulatory system, streamline energy development, and lower costs for all American. This bill is a step in the right direction in fixing that. And I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, Mister Chair, and I yield back.

So you want me to yield this back? Is there further discussion on the bill? I recognize myself uh geothermal energy production in the United States has seen significant growth potential due to recent technological advancements as mister Stauber mentioned the committee visited the Fervor Energy uh Cape Station project in Southwest Utah, and some saw some of that technology being uh developed. Geothermal energy has grown eight percent uh just from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four but as mister Huffman mentioned it's still only a fraction of the percent of the total energy production in our country but it has a very promising future, both from the standpoint of of basically no fuel cost the minimal impact on the surface to utilize geothermal energy and a lot of other benefits as we look at the uh vast areas across the country where geothermal energy could be developed uh as has been mentioned uh most of that land is is really in the west it's where the bureau of land management uh has authority over geothermal leasing on approximately two hundred and forty five million acres of public lands and also a hundred and four million acres of forest service lands um we all know that any kind of energy production on federal lands is oftentimes fraught with challenges including long permitting timelines and increased litigation in fact most energy producers and infrastructure developers avoid federal lands at all cost as a way to expedite their projects We have heard testimony from geothermal advocates who have highlighted the various bottlenecks of operating on federal lands. And one of the most egregious aspects is that geothermal energy producers must undergo up to six rounds of environmental review for each project. This means six different times the project is subject to bureaucratic delays and frivolous litigation. Uh, what Mister Fulcher's legislation does is it does create a a CE and to mister hoffman's point uh it's quite specific but as geothermal technology and energy production advances i think legislation can advance as we move forward and i think what mister filcher has uh gives a uh a very good starting point that allows the geothermal energy production to increase without opening up the door too wide at this point uh i do urge my colleagues in joining me in supporting this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time is there any further discussion on the bill hearing none it is now in order to consider amendments to h. r. fifty five seventy six we will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h. r. fifty five seventy six offered by the gentleman from idaho mr. fulcher designated fulcher one a. n. s. without objection the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Mister Fulcher, you're recognized.

Great. Thank you, Mister Chairman, I just was conferring with staff just to make sure that it, I understood and that we were in agreement on, on the purpose of this. And so, there is an amendment to this, and what the, what the effort here and what the amendment does is it would would remove uh, the Department of Interior's requirement to do a survey uh, of a survey of the priority areas for uh, geothermal. And - and the purpose for that is two-fold. One is because the uh - the private companies do those, and - and have to do that for their own work. And secondly, it's frankly just a resource drain and the - the Department of Interior may or may not have the expertise to do and the resources to do it. And so that's the - the purpose of this. It's not to remove the - the base NEPA requirement. Um, the the language in the bill itself does remove multiple NEPA requirements. But what this amendment does is simply, uh, remove the requirement for the Department of Interior to survey the priority areas. And so, I I believe that that's that's reasonable. I believe that that's a a good, uh, amendment. And let the let the companies that have the expertise with this do that type of work. And, uh, with that, uh, Uh, Mister Chairman, that's the layman's description of this amendment as I understand it, and I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Fulcher. There's no further discussion. Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Yeah, thanks Mister Chairman. Just a point of clarification, we've been talking a lot about categorical exclusions, the, you know, we've read the text of this ANS and uh this does not legislate a categorical exclusion, it says that these projects with these very specific parameters uh are not major federal actions under NEPA, so they just get a blanket exemption. Uh, they don't have to do any NEPA review at all. That is different than a categorical exclusion, and I think it's a it's a distinction, uh, that is significant. Uh, with that I, uh, of course will oppose the bill and the ANS and yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment. It is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to H R fifty-five seventy-six. We'll now consider the amendment designated Huffman number one, offered by ranking member Huffman. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Ranking member Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, I'm gonna try to help my friend fix his bill here, and and get it on the right track and uh earn my vote, which uh I would love to be able to to provide him, cuz I support geothermal uh energy. I think we all do. Uh, this bill would simply strike the NEPA waiver in this legislation and replace it. uh, with what the bill should do, which is to direct the Department of Interior within one year of enactment to develop additional CEs. The department should develop CEs, cuz they've got the expertise, they will have the flexibility to figure out well diameters and acreage limits and other specifics that Congress should just stay the heck away from. Um, and this will apply to geothermal observation test projects and exploration projects, if appropriate. Uh, the secretary, of course, has to comply with NEPA when developing. these new CEs and consider any applicable extraordinary circumstances in determining whether to use any categorical exclusions. Those are sensible guardrails. That is not some far left dream. Uh, and I took this language almost word for word, uh, from a bipartisan piece piece of work in the Senate on the same, uh, subject, Chair Mike Lee and Ranking Member Martin Heinrich and their bipartisan geothermal bill from last Congress. Now, as a reminder, a version of Mister Fulcher's bill has been introduced in every Congress since twenty nineteen. Uh, it has been seven years of this stubborn effort, and if the majority adopts my language today, uh, we could end this Groundhog Day uh rerun, and the bill could pass the House in the next few weeks. We could work with the Senate and actually get something signed into law later this year. The geothermal industry could have its exploration categorical exclusion very soon, if the Trump administration, you know, has anyone there answering the phones and can actually do some work. Uh, but if they get their act together, uh, we could finish what the previous administration started and actually get this industry some relief and make something happen, instead of running the same stubborn bill every single year with the same result. And wouldn't you rather do it this way? Get someone's suspension that achieves what we all say is our shared goal? Let me remind you again the details of this proposed exploration well categorical exclusion have changed every time this legislation has been proposed. Uh, if we pass this waiver today in its current form, who's to say we won't be back trying to legislate a change next year and the year after, when the industry decides that the details in the technology have changed? And, Mister Chairman, you say, well, we can always revisit this. Um, i it it's hard to get an act of Congress past and why in the heck should the industry and everyone else have to depend on Congress legislating at that level of detail uh as circumstances on the ground change? This is just no way to make public policy. So uh directing DOI to establish a CE creates the flexibility uh that is appropriate, it leaves room for changes that this NEPA waiver approach simply does not. So I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment And let's develop a strong common sense adaptable policy rather than simply waiving NEPA um for these very specific parameters in the legislation. I'll just add a final fundamental concern. We seem to be playing whack-a-mole with all sorts of separate issues in the permitting system, trying to legislate direct fixes with specific deadlines and parameters and waivers and uh you know there is one solution that we could all get behind that would improve all of this. And that is actually support staffing and resourcing in these agencies that do the work. That would make a difference quickly and significantly. So I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. And uh, if they do, I would be happy to support this legislation today. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Chairman.

Mister Fulcher, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And and I I think I understand my good friend from California is going with this. My concern about that is what we're trying to do is we're trying to encourage we're trying to encourage this this ind- industry we're trying to encourage, this business we're trying to encourage, this this technology. And by by having that under Department of Interior and that uh CE provision it could, not that all administrations or all

You know, and yields back to the further discussion on the amendment. I recognize myself, I do oppose the amendment, it would gut the bill by replacing provisions that streamline geothermal

Geothermal

exploration with language that would do really nothing to advance geothermal energy development. Uh, ranking member asked why do we need to get involved legislatively, and I say it's because geothermal projects currently have to go through NEPA up to six times uh through the process uh that's in the bureaucracy right now. This bill eliminates one of the six review rounds for geothermal exploration projects, with a small footprint footprint that uh is proper uh promptly reclaimed after uh development. This amendment would open up geothermal exploration activities to no or to longer timelines and more litigation. If we're going to decrease domestic geothermal energy production or or increase domestic geothermal energy production, we must significantly increase geothermal exploration. Implementing better and more efficient reviews is what bill is all about. Instead, this amendment would enshrine the status quo, which we already know is not working. Mister Huffman, you had me right on the edge of my seat when you said if we really want to increase geothermal production I thought you were gonna say we could encourage the Senate to pass the SPEED Act which would help in so many ways um but again,

Ah.

I oppose this amendment, I courage urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by ranking member Huffman, designated Huffman number one. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.

A recorded vote, please.

A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Pursuant to the mark-up notices, now in order to consider H R fifty five eighty seven, the harnessing energy at thermal sources act or the heats act ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill without objection so ordered without objection the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill mister stauber you're recognized

uh uh mister chair this is fifty five eighty seven

The Heats Act.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Uh, Mister Chair, thank you, I rise in support of HR fifty five eighty seven, the bipartisan harnessing energy at uh Thermal Source uh Sources Act. This is another piece of legislation before us today that will increase our energy security, reliability, and most importantly, affordability. Uh, as is the case with much of our domestic energy productions, it occurs uh checkerboard parcels of land. A project often has a footprint encompassing federal, state and even private lands. When that's the case, it's a headache for our energy producers, it increases the number of agencies a producer needs to go through to get a project online. It increases the time we can get these resources online, along with the cost, which of course gets passed down to the American people. In these situations, one agency can hold up the entire process. More often than not, it's a federal agency. This bill would help alleviate the problem for geothermal projects, which again are projects that virtually everyone on this dia supports. The bill would prevent the BLM from having to permit geothermal wells on state and private lands, where the government holds an ownership interest of less than fifty percent of the geothermal estate. Under this bill, these projects, which have already gone through a rigorous state permitting process, would not be bogged down by the duplicative and burdensome federal process. Contrary to what some may argue, this bill doesn't waive the permitting process. It simply waives the process in certain cases where it is already being done at the state level. It's a common sense fix that is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back, Mister Chair.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mister Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I I am grateful to see my colleagues eager to work on renewable energy development on public land, uh, something President Trump and Secretary Burgum uh have made far too challenging these days. Uh unfortunately this bill, although it has a great acronym, uh otherwise misses the mark uh on on substance. Under this bill, when a geothermal project is proposed on land where the surface is not federally owned and is less than fifty percent federally owned subsurface, uh the requirement for a federal drilling permit uh is just eliminated. And this may sound innocuous uh without this federal permit, Uh, however, the core safeguards for development affecting federal resources would disappear. And that includes requirements under NEPA, uh, under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act. All of it would be waived for the geothermal exploration, development and production activities covered under this bill, and that goes entirely too far. Uh, it would be bad news for communities on the ground.

Mm.

all federal oversight would be taken away, along with public input and consultation requirements, including tribal consultation. Now it takes away opportunities for public involvement, takes away convening processes that the federal, tribal, state, and local entities uh can right now all participate in as part of the review process. These processes help agencies identify health and safety concerns, and other potential conflicts over resources owned by all Americans, even if they are below ground. Uh, this public input and compliance with federal laws like NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, and ESA are essential to building a solid foundation for our clean energy future. We don't need to waive them entirely. And because, uh, let's be clear, underground drilling can still have impacts above the ground. Uh, we should know that. Um, sinkholes, settling of land, earthquakes. Uh, other impacts. I will also say the bill's threshold is set at fifty percent federal subsurface ownership but less than fifty percent of a l very large area could still be really substantial. Fifty percent of two thousand acres is still one thousand acres, and that is a lot of land. Uh, another alarming point about this bill, without a federal drilling permit, it creates a gray area for underground injection control permits. where the potential for seismic activity uh is assessed, we need to be able to um have a review process and some oversight with respect to those impacts. And while not the Natural Resource Committee's jurisdiction, I strongly urge the majority to consider working with our colleagues at Energy and Commerce to at least add language clarifying that these permits are still required. There's no clear opportunity to require bonds that would otherwise be required for subsurface federal resources. What happens if something goes wrong, if there's a subsidence event within the federal resource? States and taxpayers would be on the hook, but there would be no way to uh address the bond that otherwise would protect them. We're talking about publicly owned resources, even if you can't see them, which the federal government has an obligation to steward responsibly. And last, uh, the oil and gas industry has been trying to get this policy enacted for its activities for years, uh so this is a precedent that we simply should not set in this bill. It will be um something that we'll we will see come back to us. To deploy clean energy, we don't need to create shortcuts and exemptions from oversight. What we need is to fully fund our agencies so they have the capacity to move things efficiently and quickly. I'm happy to work with colleagues across the aisle to advance

Gentlemen, yield back to further discussion. I recognize myself and I support H R fifty-five eighty-seven, sponsored by Representative Kim, which would reduce duplicative permitting requirements for geothermal projects operating on state and private lands. Currently, geothermal operators on non-federal land must satisfy all federal permitting requirements under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Historical or the National Historic Preservation Act. If their drilling produces any quantity of federal subsurface resources, even if the federal mineral's share of total production is minuscule. So one of the things I wanna point out here is we're talking about development on the surface that's totally off of federal land. So there's no federal um surface land that is in question here this is all subsurface and we're simply saying that if the geothermal uh reserve goes under federal or on the federal subsurface land that it exempts the project that's being developed on state or private land uh the current process creates unnecessary delays for developers who must already comply with rigorous state permitting requirements. In reducing red tape, H R fifty-five eighty-seven would also exempt the Bureau of Land Management from requiring permits for geothermal wells on state and private lands where the federal government owns less than fifty percent of the subsurface geothermal estate. Still, the legislation would uphold strong environmental standards by stipulating that federal requirements may be waived only if operators' drilling permits uh comply with state and lev state-level historic preservation laws. These common sense reforms will both streamline the permitting process for geothermal energy projects and reduce agency workloads allowing BLM to focus on projects with a true federal nexus. I appreciate Representative Kim and thank her for her work on this bipartisan legislation which will help to unleash the heat beneath her feet, and provide abundant, clean baseload geothermal energy for decades to come. Again, I encourage my colleagues to support H R fifty five eighty seven and yield back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to H R fifty five eighty seven. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifty five eighty seven offered by myself designated Westerman O six O A N S without objection. The amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. I urge my again uh once again I urge my colleagues to support the bill and with this ans, which would amend the short title of the bill be uh to be the harnessing energy at thermal sources act of twenty twenty six or the heats act. I want to emphasize the importance of this legislation. Energy demand is projected to skyrocket in the coming years and dual thermal energy stands ready to meet the moment and bring gigawatts of new base load power online. But to unleash geothermal energy's full potential, we must cut the red tape that is holding back key projects. I encourage everyone to vote for the ANS and the underlying bill, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the ANS? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to H R fifty five eighty seven. We will now consider the amendment designated in Randall number one, offered by the gentlewoman from Washington, Miss Randall. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Miss Randall, you're recognized.

Thank you. Um, Mister Chair, I I think we can all agree in this committee that we want to ensure that our neighbors can access energy that is affordable and reliable. We are seeing community members face such a uncertain economic reality right now with tariffs and repeals of uh green energy funding and programming and war causing our economy to spiral. We need to be doing more to create a a reliable energy market for our neighbors. My amendment doesn't seek to undermine the work of this bill, but it does seek to ensure that tribes are consulted before any decisions are made, regarding geothermal drilling permits on lands under existing NEPA um NHPA and Indian self-determination and education assistance act requirements. The federal government has, as everyone in this committee knows, a unique government-to-government relationship with tribal nations grounded in trust and treaty obligations and long-standing agreements that we are legally and morally bound to uphold. As i've said before, my district is home to twelve federally recognized tribes, each with distinct cultures, histories, and needs. And while the tribes I represent are diverse, they share a deep connection to their homelands, culturally, spiritually, and economically. And those homelands are not limited to reservation and trust land, the usual and accustomed territory of tribal nations and the land that we are obligated to preserve extends far beyond those borders. We as a federal government have a responsibility to ensure that tribes have healthy and sustainable lands that support thriving tribal communities, consistent with treaty rights and long-standing agreements. This amendment doesn't create new obligations, it simply reinforces long-standing federal trust responsibilities and existing requirements for tribal consultation when it comes to environmental activities impacting, not just on but impacting their lands. And while I appreciate this bill has a carve-out that say it says it won't apply to actions on Indian lands or resources managed in trust for the benefit of tribes, the provisions in the rest of the bill aren't sufficient to protect tribal consultation responsibilities. The language around the National Historic Preservation Act, for example, is In adequate, this bill would waive the NHPA requirements as long as there is a state law on the books to protect historic properties. So we could be protecting the facades of, you know, downtown district homes and not be upholding our treaty and trust responsibility for tribal nations. The NHPA requires tribal consultation and there's no requirement that these other state laws would have to require the same. as i said tribes have many interests and impacts beyond just the land held in trust and i know that the members of this committee respect our tribal trust and treaty obligations and respect the leaders of tribal nations across the country we have had many tribal leaders before this committee and incredible meaningful dialogue and i know that i know that this committee wants to uphold the obligations that we have to them to their land held in trust to their usual custom areas where they hunt and fish to the preservation of our lands and waters and forests for generations to come for our grandchildren's grandchildren i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment is failing to consult tribes meaningfully not just checking a box invites legal challenges, delays, recovery efforts, creates uncertainty for everyone involved, and is a moral and ethical failing. This amendment doesn't predetermine outcomes or block future actions, it just simply ensures that tribes have a seat at the table before irreversible decisions are made. Thank you and I yield back.

The lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.