The Streamlining Thermal Energy through Advanced Mechanisms (STEAM) Act amends Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15942) to bring geothermal exploration and development under the same NEPA-related treatment currently applied to oil and gas activities. Concretely, the bill inserts a reference to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 for purposes of exploration or development and adds the word “geothermal” to two paragraphs in subsection (b).
This change means that the streamlined NEPA pathways or procedures established by Section 390 — which target activities in previously studied or previously developed areas — would apply to geothermal projects the same way they apply to oil and gas. For developers, regulators, and investors focused on geothermal deployment, the bill reduces a statutory obstacle to faster permitting in certain otherwise-qualified locations; for agencies and environmental reviewers, it reassigns review responsibilities and legal risk to existing Section 390 processes without creating new funding or substantive environmental standards in the text.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15942) by inserting a citation to the Geothermal Steam Act for exploration and development and by adding “geothermal” to two existing provisions in subsection (b). It therefore subjects geothermal projects in previously studied or developed areas to the same NEPA-treatment Section 390 provides for oil and gas.
Who It Affects
Geothermal developers seeking exploration or development on federal lands, the Bureau of Land Management and other federal permitting authorities that implement Section 390, and stakeholders in states with active geothermal programs (for example, Nevada and other western states). Environmental review practitioners and counsel who handle NEPA compliance will also see immediate workflow impacts.
Why It Matters
By folding geothermal into the Section 390 procedures, the bill can shorten permitting timelines in eligible locations and reduce duplication of analysis. That lowers a legal and administrative barrier to geothermal deployment, potentially unlocking investments in subsurface clean-energy projects while shifting how environmental review is managed.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core, the STEAM Act is surgical: it does not create a new permitting regime or change substantive environmental standards. Instead, it modifies the list of statutes and activities that Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 covers so that geothermal exploration and development performed under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 fall within Section 390’s streamlined National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.
The text inserts the Geothermal Steam Act into subsection (a) as an authorized statute for which the Section 390 procedures apply “for the purpose of exploration or development of geothermal resources.” In subsection (b), the bill then inserts the word “geothermal” into two numbered paragraphs, aligning the statutory language that currently references oil and gas to also reference geothermal activity. Those two edits are the entire substance of the bill.Practically, a geothermal operator who proposes exploration or development in an area that already has undergone prior environmental study or development qualifying under Section 390 would be able to proceed under the same expedited review path that Section 390 provides for oil and gas.
Agencies implementing Section 390 would apply the same screening, documentation, and decision-logic to geothermal proposals that they already use for other covered activities. The statute does not itself define new eligibility criteria, change mitigation obligations, or add funding for agencies — it simply moves geothermal projects into an existing procedural box.The net operational effect will depend on agency interpretation and implementing guidance: agencies will need to decide how the term “previously studied or developed areas” maps to geothermal contexts (exploration wells, prior leasing, seismic studies, or nearby well fields) and whether technical issues unique to geothermal — such as subsurface hydrology, induced seismicity, and thermal-resource assessment — require supplemental analysis beyond the Section 390 pathway.
The bill leaves those implementation contours to agencies and, ultimately, to courts if disputes arise.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 15942) to include the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 for exploration or development.
It inserts the word “geothermal” into two separate paragraphs of subsection (b), making geothermal an explicitly covered activity alongside oil and gas.
The streamlined NEPA procedures that Section 390 provides for activities in previously studied or developed areas will, if implemented, apply to qualifying geothermal projects without creating new environmental standards.
The text contains no appropriations, no new regulatory agency, and no changes to substantive permitting criteria; it operates by extending an existing procedural pathway.
The bill’s scope is limited to exploration and development activities “for the purpose of exploration or development of geothermal resources” under the Geothermal Steam Act; it does not expressly mention production, transmission, or offsite infrastructure in its text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title (STEAM Act)
Provides the Act’s short title: the Streamlining Thermal Energy through Advanced Mechanisms Act or the STEAM Act. The short title signals statutory intent but has no operative effect on permitting or agency obligations; it is a caption for the two-line substantive amendment that follows.
Add Geothermal Steam Act reference to the list of covered statutes
This clause inserts the phrase “or the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) for the purpose of exploration or development of geothermal resources” into subsection (a). Mechanically, that ties geothermal activities authorized under the Geothermal Steam Act to the procedural framework in Section 390. The practical implication is that geothermal proposals that otherwise meet Section 390’s eligibility will follow the same NEPA pathway the statute provides, rather than a distinct or fuller review track by default.
Explicitly include geothermal in subsection (b) eligibility language
This clause edits paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b) by adding “geothermal” alongside existing references (previously limited to oil or gas). The change creates textual parity so the statutory conditions, limitations, and any categorical statements in those two paragraphs apply equally to geothermal projects. Agencies will need to interpret whether the existing definitions and thresholds in subsection (b) (such as what constitutes a previously studied/developed area) translate directly to geothermal technical and operational realities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Geothermal developers and project sponsors — They gain access to the faster, already-established Section 390 NEPA pathway for exploration and development in qualifying areas, which can lower permitting time and upfront compliance costs.
- Private investors and lenders focused on geothermal projects — Reduced procedural uncertainty and potentially shorter timelines improve project bankability and lower holding costs while exploration proceeds.
- State energy offices in high-geothermal-resource states (e.g., Nevada and other western states) — Streamlined federal review for qualifying federal-land projects can accelerate state-level planning and integration of geothermal into regional energy portfolios.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal land-management agencies (e.g., BLM and other agencies implementing Section 390) — Agencies must extend existing Section 390 processes to geothermal cases, adapt guidance, and absorb workload shifts without new appropriations in the bill.
- Environmental review practitioners and NGOs concerned about thorough NEPA analysis — They face a reduced procedural window to influence analysis and may need to litigate to secure fuller review or mitigation where technical geothermal risks are significant.
- Local communities and tribes near potential geothermal sites — Faster approvals in previously studied areas could compress local consultation timelines and raise concerns about whether unique local impacts (water use, induced seismicity, cultural resources) will receive adequate site-specific scrutiny.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves the trade-off between speed and thoroughness: it aims to accelerate geothermal deployment by subjecting qualifying projects to existing expedited NEPA procedures, but in doing so it risks undercutting site-specific environmental analysis for technical geothermal risks — leaving agencies, communities, and courts to decide whether procedural efficiency or comprehensive review should prevail in practice.
The bill’s entire substantive change is procedural: it folds geothermal exploration and development (as authorized under the Geothermal Steam Act) into an existing NEPA pathway. That surgical approach solves a narrow bottleneck but leaves several implementation questions unresolved.
Key ambiguities include how agencies will interpret “previously studied or developed areas” for geothermal, whether geothermal-specific technical risks (hydrothermal connectivity, induced seismicity, reservoir depletion) require additional analysis beyond Section 390’s pathway, and how agencies will reconcile any additional mitigation needs with the expedited procedures.
Another tension arises from the bill’s silence on resources and enforcement. The statute does not provide funding or direct instructions to agencies to expand staffing, issue new guidance, or develop geothermal-specific review templates.
That could produce uneven implementation across regions: some field offices may apply the Section 390 process to geothermal confidently; others may limit its use, prompting administrative appeals or litigation. Finally, because the bill changes only procedural affiliation and not substantive environmental standards, any gaps between expedited review and on-the-ground environmental protections will likely be litigated, shifting costs to agencies and stakeholders during implementation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.