Russ Fulcher (R-ID)
Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act
A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 674.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act," seeks to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. The primary goal is to promote timely exploration for geothermal resources under existing geothermal leases. It establishes specific definitions for geothermal exploration projects and covered activities. Under these definitions, certain projects would not be considered major Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Additionally, the bill requires lease holders to provide notice to the Secretary at least 30 days before starting drilling.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill directly benefits energy company owners by streamlining the regulatory path for exploration.
- Scored +5
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Promoting geothermal exploration supports the transition to renewable, low-carbon energy sources.
- Scored +4
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
The bill streamlines the process for geothermal exploration, encouraging investment in renewable energy.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
By exempting certain projects from NEPA review, the bill reduces the level of environmental oversight and potential impact scrutiny.
- Scored -2
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Reducing environmental oversight on federal lands could negatively impact Indigenous communities who rely on land stewardship.
- Scored -2
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill alters traditional land management oversight by removing certain projects from NEPA review requirements.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Expedited Exploration: The bill aims to expedite the review and approval of geothermal exploration proposals on Bureau of Land Management lands (Section 3).
-
Streamlined Processes for Specific Projects: Geothermal exploration projects meeting specific criteria—such as those with less than 8 acres of unreclaimed surface disturbance and those completed in less than 180 days—will not be considered major Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 2(a)(1) and Section 2(b)).
-
Defined Scope for Activities: The bill provides clarity by defining "covered activity" to include geotechnical investigations, specific off-road travel, and the maintenance or repair of existing roads (Section 2(a)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Land Disturbance Requirements: While intended to be small, exploration projects still involve drilling temperature gradient, monitoring, or calibration wells, which causes surface disturbance (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Restoration Obligations: Lease holders are required to restore project areas to approximately their original condition within 3 years of the first drilling, unless the area is used for subsequent energy development (Section 2(a)(1)(D)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill directly benefits energy company owners by streamlining the regulatory path for exploration. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill may bring economic activity and development to rural areas where geothermal resources are located. Would union members be better off under this? — The expansion of geothermal energy infrastructure may create new energy-related job opportunities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Reducing environmental oversight on federal lands could negatively impact Indigenous communities who rely on land stewardship.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — By expediting geothermal exploration, the bill facilitates the development of the renewable energy sector which can lead to job growth. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Streamlining energy production processes supports long-term economic expansion through renewable energy.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promoting geothermal exploration supports the transition to renewable, low-carbon energy sources. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — The bill streamlines the process for geothermal exploration, encouraging investment in renewable energy. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The bill facilitates renewable energy, which acts as a long-term alternative to fossil fuels. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By exempting certain projects from NEPA review, the bill reduces the level of environmental oversight and potential impact scrutiny. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill alters traditional land management oversight by removing certain projects from NEPA review requirements.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill centralizes the authority to expedite energy projects through federal land management agencies. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Limiting environmental review processes may reduce the opportunity for public input and due process regarding land use. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Reducing NEPA review requirements may decrease the level of public transparency regarding environmental impacts.
- 8/27/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-773.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 674.
- 3/5/2026
- Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 16.
- 12/16/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 12/15/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/9/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
- 11/21/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/28/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/26/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
Nicholas BegichRepublican · Alaska
Mike KennedyRepublican · Utah
Celeste MaloyRepublican · Utah