HB5638 amends Section 5(a)(1) of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to require royalties on leased geothermal resources to be assessed “with respect to each electric generating facility producing electricity from such resources” and to specify that royalty calculations be tied to the amount “produced by such facility.” The bill inserts identical language into both subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that statutory subsection, but leaves the statutory royalty rates unchanged.
The change looks small on its face but shifts the unit of account for royalties from a lease-wide or aggregated production basis to a facility-specific basis. That creates immediate implications for how operators meter, report, allocate production from shared wells or piping systems, and how the Department of the Interior and revenue recipients (including states and tribes where revenue-sharing applies) will audit and collect royalties.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 30 U.S.C. 1004(a)(1) to require royalty calculations to be performed for each distinct electric generating facility that uses geothermal steam from a lease, inserting the phrases “with respect to each electric generating facility producing electricity from such resources” and “by such facility.” It does not change the royalty rates in the statute.
Who It Affects
Geothermal leaseholders and the owners/operators of electric generating facilities that take steam from leased resources; the Department of the Interior (including BLM), state and tribal revenue-sharing recipients, and third-party auditors and consultants who certify production and royalties.
Why It Matters
Moving the royalty unit of account to individual facilities alters accounting and metering practices, can change the distribution of royalties across operators and revenue recipients, and introduces new compliance and enforcement tasks for regulators and lessees. Professionals who handle royalty accounting, project finance, or regulatory compliance will need to reassess systems and contracts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law, royalties tied to geothermal leases are assessed under Section 5(a)(1) of the Geothermal Steam Act, which the Interior Department has historically applied using formulations that can aggregate production across a lease or otherwise rely on allocation rules. HB5638 does not alter the percentage royalties; instead it changes how production is attributed: the statute will explicitly require that royalties be computed with respect to each electric generating facility using the leased resource and based on output produced by that facility.
Practically, that means lessees and plant operators will need to demonstrate, for each generating unit, how much steam (or energy) that facility produced from leased resources. Where a single lease serves multiple plants, or where steam is commingled in pipelines or header systems before reaching generators, operators will face new measurement, allocation and reporting questions.
Those tasks will implicate metering placement, allocation methodologies (for shared wells or supply systems), inter-site contracts, and possibly new submetering investments.For regulators and royalty recipients, the change increases granularity in royalty receipts and may change the distribution of revenue among parties tied to a lease. The Department of the Interior will need to update reporting forms, auditing protocols, and guidance to implement the facility-by-facility approach.
Litigation and contract renegotiation are predictable near-term outcomes as stakeholders test allocation methods, dispute historical baselines, and resolve how the new statutory language interacts with existing leases, unitization agreements, and state or tribal revenue-sharing arrangements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 30 U.S.C. 1004(a)(1) — Section 5(a)(1) of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 — by inserting facility-level language into both subparagraphs (A) and (B).
It requires royalties to be calculated “with respect to each electric generating facility producing electricity from such resources” and ties the royalty base to the amount “produced by such facility.”, The statutory royalty rates in Section 5(a)(1) are not changed by this bill; the amendment alters allocation and measurement, not percentages.
The text is silent on effective date, retroactivity, or how to treat commingled steam, leaving implementation details to Interior (BLM) guidance, regulations, or litigation.
Because the change is measurement- and allocation-focused, expect new metering, reporting, and audit requirements and potential disputes among lessees, plant operators, and revenue recipients.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the statute’s short title as the “Geothermal Royalty Reform Act.” This is the only formal naming provision and has no substantive effect on implementation; it simply provides the bill’s public label.
Facility-specific royalty language added to subparagraph (A)
Section 2 inserts the phrase “with respect to each electric generating facility producing electricity from such resources” before the statutory royalty floor language in subparagraph (A), and adds “by such facility” after the word “produced.” That mechanics-focused edit changes the reference point for computing royalties so that each generating facility is treated as the unit for measuring produced geothermal steam or energy when calculating royalties under subparagraph (A). For operators, this creates a compliance requirement to show per-facility production; for Interior, it triggers a need for revised reporting and audit criteria specific to facilities rather than aggregated lease-level output.
Parallel facility-specific language added to subparagraph (B)
The bill makes the same insertions in subparagraph (B) as in (A), so the facility-level rule applies across the statutory royalty options in 5(a)(1). Because (B) often covers alternative royalty calculation methods or different classes of leases or uses under the statute, applying the facility standard to both subparagraphs ensures the change is uniform and prevents lessees from choosing an aggregation route under one subparagraph while being subject to facility accounting under the other. This uniformity reduces ambiguity about which method controls but also broadens the operational scope of the amendment.
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
- Federal Treasury and Interior (BLM) — The facility-level accounting increases granularity and may raise collectible royalties where aggregation previously masked higher-producing generators, improving revenue accuracy and potentially increasing receipts.
- State and tribal revenue recipients — Where revenue sharing applies, more precise allocation could shift and potentially increase payments to states and tribes tied to specific facilities drawing from leased resources.
- Royalty auditors, consultants, and meter vendors — The need to implement new allocation methodologies, perform audits, and install or upgrade metering creates demand for professional services and equipment sales.
Who Bears the Cost
- Leaseholders and plant operators — Operators must invest in metering, revise accounting systems, update compliance processes, and may face higher royalty bills or reallocation of past liabilities.
- Department of the Interior (BLM) — The agency will need to issue guidance, possibly write new regulations, and expand audit capacity to enforce facility-level royalty calculations without an appropriation or staff increase in the text.
- Smaller or co-located projects — Projects sharing wells or piping will face disproportionate compliance and allocation complexity; smaller operators may incur higher relative costs and administrative burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central conflict is between precision and practicality: the bill advances fairness and revenue accuracy by measuring royalties per generating facility, but that precision imposes measurement, allocation, and administrative burdens that can reduce project economics, complicate shared infrastructure, and shift costs onto operators who may have relied on lease-level aggregation for decades.
The bill is narrowly drafted but leaves major implementation questions unresolved. It does not specify how to measure or allocate steam when resources are commingled in a common header, when multiple generators tap the same wellfield, or when one operator sells steam or power to another entity.
The statute’s silence on metering standards, allocation formulas (energy vs. steam mass vs. thermal content), and dispute resolution means Interior rulemaking, guidance, or litigation will determine the practical rules. That creates a window of uncertainty for project finance and contract counterparties.
The lack of an explicit effective date or retroactivity rule is consequential. Without a transitional framework, parties will contest whether the facility-by-facility obligation applies to existing production histories, legacy unitization agreements, or revenue-sharing arrangements.
Administrative costs will rise—metering upgrades, audit readiness, contractual renegotiations—and those costs are concentrated on operators, while beneficiaries (treasuries or revenue recipients) capture potential gains. The operational reality of geothermal production systems — often networked, shared, and balanced across multiple plants — makes a clean per-facility accounting approach technically challenging and legally contestable.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.