The Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act of 2025 amends the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to let the Secretary of the Interior require geothermal lease applicants and holders to reimburse the United States for ‘‘reasonable administrative and other costs’’ tied to processing applications and performing inspections. That authority is explicitly time-limited, running from enactment through September 30, 2032.
The bill matters because it changes who pays for the Bureau of Land Management’s geothermal program work: instead of relying solely on annual appropriations, DOI can collect offsetting receipts from industry and credit them to DOI accounts — but only to the extent appropriations Acts make them available. The measure also creates a five-year reporting obligation to assess program effects and recommend whether the authority should be continued or adjusted.
At a Glance
What It Does
Gives the Secretary authority (through Sept 30, 2032) to require geothermal lease applicants and holders to reimburse the federal government for reasonable costs of processing lease-related applications and for inspecting and monitoring exploration, drilling, and facility activities. Reimbursements are credited to DOI accounts as discretionary offsetting collections and are available only if appropriated.
Who It Affects
Applies to applicants for and holders of federal geothermal leases and related approvals (operations plans, drilling permits, utilization plans, site licenses, construction and commercial use permits). It directly affects the Bureau of Land Management’s geothermal program and downstream contractors who perform inspections or reclamation.
Why It Matters
The change alters the funding model for federal geothermal oversight, potentially speeding processing if collections are used for program work, but it also transfers cost risk to developers and may raise barriers for smaller firms. The required 5-year report forces an evidence-based review before any reauthorization.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core change of the bill is straightforward: for a fixed window ending September 30, 2032, the Secretary of the Interior can require geothermal lease applicants and lessees to repay the United States for ‘‘reasonable administrative and other costs’’ tied to permitting and oversight. That phrase is broad by design; the bill lists a long set of applications and approvals — operations plans, geothermal drilling permits, utilization plans, site licenses, facility construction permits, commercial use permits — and it also lists categories of inspection and monitoring activities the costs can cover, from geophysical exploration to drilling, plugging and abandonment, and construction, operation, termination and reclamation of well sites and facilities.
The bill directs the Secretary to take a pragmatic approach in deciding whether to require reimbursement. If a cooperative cost-share agreement already exists between the United States and a leaseholder, the Secretary must factor that into the decision.
The Secretary also has explicit discretion to reduce required payments where full reimbursement would cause economic hardship or where accepting a reduced payment is necessary to ‘‘promote the greatest use of geothermal resources.’' That creates a built-in flexibility intended to avoid blocking commercially important projects or small operators.Money collected under the authority does not flow automatically into BLM’s pocket. The statute requires that reimbursements be credited to the currently applicable DOI appropriation, account, or fund as discretionary offsetting collections, and makes them available only to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
In practice that means Congress still controls whether collected funds can be spent and for what purposes, even if DOI records the receipts. Finally, the law requires the Secretary to solicit input from industry and other stakeholders and produce a public report within five years assessing how the authority affected BLM’s geothermal program and recommending whether to reauthorize or revise the provision.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The cost‑recovery authority is time‑limited: it begins on enactment and expires on September 30, 2032.
The Secretary may require reimbursement for ‘‘reasonable administrative and other costs’’ tied to processing lease‑related applications (operations plans, drilling permits, utilization plans, site licenses, construction and commercial use permits, and similar approvals).
Reimbursable inspection and monitoring activities explicitly include geophysical exploration, drilling/plugging/abandonment of wells, and construction, operation, termination, and reclamation of well sites and facilities.
The Secretary must consider existing cooperative cost‑share agreements and may reduce required reimbursements if full payment would cause economic hardship or if a reduction would promote greater use of geothermal resources.
Collections are credited as discretionary offsetting receipts to DOI accounts and are only available if appropriations Acts make them available; the Secretary must also deliver a public report within five years assessing program effects and recommending any reauthorization or changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Geothermal Cost‑Recovery Authority Act of 2025
This short-title clause simply names the statute. Practically, it signals that the bill is narrowly focused on creating a temporary cost‑recovery mechanism rather than a broad reworking of geothermal law.
Secretary may require reimbursement for permitting and oversight costs
This is the operative authorization. It allows the Secretary to require applicants or leaseholders to reimburse the United States for ‘‘all reasonable administrative and other costs’’ incurred in processing applications and in inspecting and monitoring a specified list of activities. The provision identifies a set of covered approvals and monitoring activities, which anchors the otherwise broad ‘‘administrative and other costs’’ language and signals what BLM can reasonably charge for.
Must consider cooperative cost‑share agreements
Before imposing charges, the Secretary must consider whether a cooperative cost‑share agreement already exists between the United States and the leaseholder. That creates a procedural guardrail: cost recovery is not automatic where parties have negotiated alternative arrangements, and it preserves existing collaborative financing models between industry and government.
Discretion to reduce charges for hardship or resource promotion
The Secretary can reduce the amount to be reimbursed on two enumerated grounds: economic hardship for the applicant or when accepting less than full reimbursement would promote the greatest use of geothermal resources. Those carve‑outs give the agency explicit policy levers to avoid pricing out small developers or slowing strategic projects, but they also create subjective standards that will require internal guidance and consistent application to avoid arbitrary or uneven outcomes.
Treatment of collections and five‑year reporting requirement
Collected amounts are defined as discretionary offsetting collections credited to the currently applicable DOI appropriation, account, or fund and are available only if appropriations Acts provide them in advance. This preserves congressional control over spending even where receipts exist, and means collections do not automatically expand program authority. Separately, the Secretary must, within five years, prepare a public report — developed with stakeholder input — assessing the effect of the new authority on BLM’s geothermal program and recommending whether to reauthorize or change the provision.
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
- Bureau of Land Management and DOI program managers — they gain a statutory tool to recover some program costs, which can ease pressure on annual appropriations and potentially support faster processing and more inspections if Congress permits spending of collected funds.
- Large geothermal developers — they may benefit from improved permitting capacity and predictable inspection resources funded by collections, especially on projects that can absorb reimbursement charges.
- Energy consumers and grid planners — by creating a funding path that could accelerate deployment and oversight of geothermal projects, the bill could indirectly support faster development of baseload renewable capacity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Geothermal applicants and leaseholders — the primary burden falls on firms seeking or holding federal geothermal leases, which will face additional reimbursable charges for application processing and monitoring.
- Small or early‑stage developers and community projects — these actors are most exposed to economic hardship from added fees and may be disproportionately discouraged unless the Secretary consistently applies hardship reductions.
- Department of the Interior (implementation costs) — DOI must develop fee schedules, billing and collection processes, and internal guidance to apply the subjective reduction standards and to track collections against appropriations, creating upfront administrative work even as it gains a revenue tool.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: funders want program capacity and oversight paid for without tapping general appropriations, but shifting costs onto applicants risks raising barriers to entry and favoring well‑capitalized developers; the law trades predictability for discretion and accountability for flexibility, and implementing it fairly will require reconciling those competing priorities.
The statute creates a tension between fiscal sustainability for oversight and access to leasing. By shifting costs to industry, DOI can justify more inspection and processing activity, but the law leaves discretion over reductions and the concept of ‘‘reasonable’’ costs undefined; implementing consistent, defendable fee policies will require careful rule‑making or internal guidance to avoid litigation and accusations of arbitrary enforcement.
The link between collections and appropriations further complicates the picture: DOI may record receipts, but Congress retains final say over whether those funds can actually be spent. That dynamic can produce a mismatch where industry pays fees but DOI cannot deploy corresponding resources without further appropriations.
The bill’s flexible carve‑outs (economic hardship; promoting greatest use) are sensible policy tools but are open to subjective interpretation. They create both necessary relief for smaller operators and a potential route for preferential treatment.
Finally, the five‑year mandatory report forces an empirical review but does not prescribe metrics, creating uncertainty about what evidence will justify reauthorization. Stakeholders will press for transparent reporting standards and for rulemaking that clarifies fee bases, calculation methods, and appeal mechanisms for disputed charges.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.