The STEAM Act would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to broaden NEPA review to cover geothermal resources. It inserts a cross-reference to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 for exploration or development of geothermal resources and expands the resources listed under NEPA in two places.
The amendments target exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas, signaling a targeted effort to streamline geothermal permitting within known sites while preserving the existing environmental review framework.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include geothermal resources in NEPA reviews—by inserting references to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 for geothermal exploration or development and by adding geothermal to the resource lists.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that conduct NEPA analyses for energy projects (e.g., DOE, Interior agencies) and geothermal project developers operating in areas already studied or developed.
Why It Matters
It clarifies geothermal as a covered resource under NEPA, potentially reducing duplicative analyses and speeding targeted geothermal projects within known sites.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The STEAM Act makes a precise change to how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to geothermal energy. It adds a formal cross-reference to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 in the NEPA framework, so geothermal exploration or development becomes part of the environmental review process alongside other energy resources.
The modifications are contained to existing NEPA structures and are focused on areas that have already been studied or developed, rather than opening up broad new sites. The intent is to reduce duplicative work in known locations while maintaining the safeguards NEPA provides.
There are no new penalties or timelines attached to these changes; the act simply clarifies and narrows the scope within the current process. The practical effect will depend on how agencies implement the updated references and how they identify which areas qualify as “previously studied or developed.”
The Five Things You Need to Know
The act adds the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 reference into NEPA’s scope for geothermal exploration or development.
Section 390(a) is amended to insert geothermal resources after oil and gas.
Section 390(b)(2) is amended to read “gas, or geothermal.”, Section 390(b)(3) is amended to read “, gas, or geothermal.’, It applies specifically to exploration or development in previously studied or developed areas and does not create new penalties or timelines.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Section 1 designates the act as the STEAM Act. This naming aligns the bill with its purpose: streamlining geothermal energy development within the existing environmental review framework.
NEPA expansion to include geothermal resources
Section 2(a) adds a cross-reference to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to the purpose language of NEPA reviews, clarifying that geothermal resources can be considered in environmental analyses where exploration or development is contemplated. This anchors geothermal within the existing Act’s remit and signals an intent to treat geothermal similarly to oil and gas in the review process.
Geothermal added to the resource list (1)
Section 2(b)(2) modifies the NEPA resource list by replacing “or gas” with “gas, or geothermal,” thereby explicitly including geothermal resources in the second category of covered energy resources subject to NEPA analysis.
Geothermal added to the resource list (2)
Section 2(b)(3) makes a parallel change to the third listed category by inserting geothermal alongside gas, ensuring geothermal is treated as an energy resource for the purposes of the related NEPA considerations in that 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
- Geothermal energy developers operating in previously studied or developed areas, who would benefit from clarified scope and less duplicative environmental work.
- Federal NEPA reviewing agencies (e.g., Department of Energy, Interior offices such as the Bureau of Land Management and relevant agencies) seeking a more predictable, streamlined process.
- Environmental consulting firms and engineers specializing in energy permitting who can leverage clearer guidance to prepare analyses more efficiently.
- State energy offices in geothermal-rich jurisdictions that interface with federal permitting for project development.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal land-management and other NEPA-issuing agencies may incur transitional costs to implement the updated scope and identify eligible previously studied or developed areas.
- Private developers outside the currently studied/developed set could face transitional costs to adjust compliance practices and align with the clarified framework.
- Any interim administrative burden associated with coordinating interagency reviews under the revised scope.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speeding geothermal project progress by expanding the NEPA scope to geothermal resources while preserving robust environmental safeguards and reproducible analyses. Defining and enforcing what counts as a previously studied or developed area, and ensuring consistent interagency application, will determine whether the change meaningfully accelerates permitting without eroding NEPA's rigor.
The bill’s changes reflect a policy preference for targeted streamlining within the environmental review process, but they raise questions about how “previously studied or developed areas” will be defined and identified in practice. Implementation will depend on agency guidance and case-by-case determinations of project eligibility.
There is no explicit timeline, penalty, or new funding mechanism attached to these amendments, so the practical impact hinges on regulatory interpretation and agency workflow management.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.