[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 168 (Thursday, November 14, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5994-H5998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HARNESSING ENERGY AT THERMAL SOURCES ACT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call
up the bill (H.R. 7409) to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to
waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain
activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1568, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 7409
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Harnessing Energy At Thermal
Sources Act'' or the ``HEATS Act''.
SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR GEOTHERMAL ACTIVITIES
ON CERTAIN LAND.
The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 30. NO FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR GEOTHERMAL
ACTIVITIES ON CERTAIN LAND.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall not require an
operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal
exploration and production activities conducted on a non-
Federal surface estate, provided that--
``(1) the United States holds an ownership interest of less
than 50 percent of the subsurface geothermal estate to be
accessed by the proposed action; and
``(2) the operator submits to the Secretary a State permit
to conduct geothermal exploration and production activities
on the non-Federal surface estate.
``(b) No Federal Action.--A geothermal exploration and
production activity carried out under subsection (a)--
``(1) shall not be considered a major Federal action for
the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
``(2) shall require no additional Federal action;
``(3) may commence 30 days after submission of the State
permit to the Secretary;
``(4) shall not be subject to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973; and
``(5) shall only be considered an undertaking under
division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the `National Historic Preservation
Act'), if, with respect to the State in which the activity
occurs, there is no State law in effect that addresses the
preservation of historic properties in such State.
``(c) Royalties and Production Accountability.--(1) Nothing
in this section shall affect the amount of royalties due to
the United States under this Act from the production of
electricity using geothermal resources (other than direct use
of geothermal resources) or the production of any byproducts.
``(2) The Secretary may conduct onsite reviews and
inspections to ensure proper accountability, measurement, and
reporting of the production described in subsection (a), and
payment of royalties.
``(d) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply to actions
on Indian lands or resources managed in trust for the benefit
of Indian Tribes.
``(e) Indian Land.--In this section, the term `Indian land'
means--
``(1) any land located within the boundaries of an Indian
reservation, pueblo, or rancheria; and
``(2) any land not located within the boundaries of an
Indian reservation, pueblo, or rancheria, the title to which
is held--
``(A) in trust by the United States for the benefit of an
Indian tribe or an individual Indian;
``(B) by an Indian tribe or an individual Indian, subject
to restriction against alienation under laws of the United
States; or
``(C) by a dependent Indian community.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 7409.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7409, the Harnessing
Energy At Thermal Sources Act, or the HEATS Act.
First, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), my friend,
for being a leader on this issue and working with my staff and me to
bring this bipartisan bill to the floor.
H.R. 7409, the HEATS Act, is a commonsense bill that would expedite
the development of geothermal energy on non-Federal lands containing
Federal minerals.
Currently, geothermal operators on non-Federal land producing any
amount of Federal resources must abide by all Federal laws and
permitting processes, even if the share of Federal minerals is
minuscule.
Under this bill, such projects would still undergo a rigorous State
permitting process but would not be bogged down by duplicative and
burdensome Federal permitting processes.
H.R. 7409 stipulates that geothermal wells on non-Federal lands are
not subject to NEPA, ESA, or NHPA if the United States holds an
ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the geothermal estate and
the operator receives a drilling permit from the respective State.
Notably, the bill would not impact the royalty paid to the Federal
Government. Therefore, it would not reduce the Federal revenues
generated by geothermal production. In fact, it would actually increase
Federal revenues by reducing the administrative responsibilities of
Federal agencies and expediting the permitting process for geothermal
development.
[[Page H5995]]
Enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, are created by injecting fluid
deep underground in carefully controlled conditions to create new
fractures and causing preexisting fractures to open, increasing
permeability below the surface. The process employs established
technology already commonly utilized in the energy sector, and the DOE
estimates that EGS could generate 60 gigawatts of electricity by 2050,
which represents 8.5 percent of the U.S. generation capacity.
The best geothermal reservoirs suitable for EGS are located in States
with Federal minerals, including Colorado, California, Utah, Nevada,
Idaho, New Mexico, and Oregon.
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, Federal streamlining efforts like this bill will be
necessary to realize EGS' full potential. Federal minerals, however,
come with red tape.
This bill provides a rational approach to streamlining the
development of a proven renewable energy source. This commonsense bill
will help spur geothermal energy development and promote American
energy independence as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to another Natural
Resources bill which, much to my dismay, I would love to have the
opportunity to work on, on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, this bill
is another technical bill that is masquerading as an effort to support
energy development on public lands but is another assault on permitting
processes, and, specifically, on the National Environmental Policy Act,
or NEPA.
Under this bill, a geothermal project that starts on non-Federal
surface lands and drills into Federal subsurface would not need a
Federal drilling permit if the subsurface makes up less than 50 percent
of the total area drilled.
If your eyes crossed when you heard me describe that technical
language, let me explain. The Federal Government manages our Federal
lands on the surface. That is where the soil, the trees, and all of
that is. There is a separate permitting process for the subsurface.
That is where we find oil and gas, other valuable minerals, and, in
this case, geothermal resources that we may want to develop for energy
sources. They are two different permitting processes.
What this says is if you have a power plant or some other energy
source on a piece of private land that is adjacent to or nearby Federal
lands, you don't have to go through the permitting process to figure
out whether or not the drilling from here down, across, and under our
Federal lands would be harmful. That is crazy.
Mr. Speaker, wouldn't we want to know as a scientific basis and a
community basis whether or not the drilling under our Federal lands
would be harmful for our communities? Of course we would. That is why
we have Federal permitting laws. That is why we conduct scientific
assessments on whether or not drilling or permitting of resource
extraction in the subsurface is a good or bad idea.
As we have seen in some cases, it can cause seismic activity with
certain oil and gas operations. In other cases, it can cause
contamination of groundwater. In other cases, it can cause subsidence
of the surface which could damage a national park or some sort of
sacred site for a community or just your viewshed.
Taking away the permitting process means that folks can do things on
private lands, using our Federal resources, without having to ask the
public if they think it is a good idea. I am a fan of geothermal. It is
a great energy resource. There is nothing wrong with geothermal, but
all of our energy resources have a footprint. They all look like
something.
In this case, as you can see in this picture, geothermal is also an
industrial activity. So what we are talking about is building these
kinds of facilities which might be an energy facility on a piece of
private land, next to your favorite national park, next to your
favorite BLM lands where you like to go fishing, next to Tribal lands
that are sacred and important to our Tribal communities.
Don't you want the ability to weigh in with the Federal Government
about whether or not you want this to be happening in your backyard?
Again, it is just common sense. Why are we running bills that are
trying to take away commonsense protections for our public and for the
communities that would be impacted by them?
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Representative Kim. We have
worked on a bipartisan basis on many issues including fire and science.
Like I said, I am a fan of geothermal. In fact, we have been working on
a bipartisan basis with our Republican colleagues on a number of
geothermal permitting bills. In fact, there are two of them that passed
by voice vote here on the House floor.
Representative Curtis' GEO Act supports efficient approval of
geothermal permit applications without sacrificing environmental and
community review. A lot of Members on this side of the aisle think that
is a good idea. Why are we not trying to pass that bill? Maybe it has
something to do with what was said during the last debate about what
happens on January 20.
Representative Steel's H.R. 6474 would create a narrow categorical
exclusion--again, more technical language--for geothermal exploration
and development in recently studied or developed areas, giving
geothermal parity with oil and gas development. Again, going back to
the science, if we have already done an assessment of subsurface and we
know it is not going to have impacts, maybe it makes sense to have some
sort of streamlined purpose.
Mr. Speaker, to give carte blanche to private entities that might
want to use Federal resources without creating a process to look at the
scientific integrity, the potential environmental impacts, the
potential community impacts, to not provide a legal process for
communities to weigh in and potentially hold them accountable just
doesn't make sense.
We do have a problem with this particular approach. We would support
responsible, well-balanced stewardship of our geothermal resources that
do protect the public interest and do protect our Federal lands. This
bill is not really about that.
Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the intent, which I hope
is good, behind this bill, we do need to protect the public interest as
we develop these large-scale projects, big or small, that are adjacent
to and that would impact the Federal subsurface.
No matter what, we are seeing time and time again in the final waning
hours of this Congress that our friends are trying to advance bills
that we know are really a setup for the next administration. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this bill. We have other bills that would address
the needs of this industry.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we lived in a place called Utopia, a lot of this
might be possible. I come from an engineering background. Some of the
things I remember from those classes long ago, laws like energy can't
be created or destroyed, it just changes form.
It would be nice if we could get electricity in the wire without a
geothermal plant or to mine coal or to mine gas or to build the solar
farm. We haven't figured out how to do that yet.
If we want energy, we are going to have to use the sources that we
have got where they are. If we want minerals, we are going to have to
get them out of the ground. That can be a good thing because that can
create jobs, that can create economic growth. We can do it in a
responsible way.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not remove all permitting. It requires
landowners to still get permits from States. It has protections built
in for the environment. It gives States and local communities a bigger
seat at the table than to rely on some permit coming out of Washington,
D.C., to develop a project that has a slight interest in Federal
minerals.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Kim) and commend her for bringing this bill forward.
[[Page H5996]]
Mrs. KIM of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for
yielding and for his leadership in moving this bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bipartisan bill, H.R.
7409, Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act, or the HEATS Act.
Geothermal energy is a clean, renewable source of energy that can
generate electricity, heat homes and buildings, and power industrial
processes. More geothermal energy production will lower our
environmental footprint and benefit the climate.
Despite having a similar extraction process to that of oil and gas,
geothermal energy is constrained by Federal permitting restrictions.
Currently geothermal operators on nonFederal land that produce any
Federal resources are subject to all Federal laws and permitting
processes, even if minimal amounts of Federal minerals are present.
My State of California is a major producer of geothermal energy and
has ample energy resources below the earth ready to be tapped into. The
current Federal permitting process and State regulations have hurt
progress in harnessing this clean energy source.
The HEATS Act would waive Federal drilling permit requirements for
geothermal wells that are on State and private lands. This means
geothermal operators would not need a Federal drilling permit for wells
that are on State and private lands on which the subsurface geothermal
estate is less than 50 percent Federal.
Operators must still go through a rigorous permitting process at the
State level. They will, however, no longer be burdened by the Federal
process, allowing us to harness this untapped energy source faster.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7409 is a commonsense measure that will lower costs
for Americans, reduce emissions, protect our national security, and
expand our energy portfolio. The Natural Resources Committee passed the
HEATS Act by a bipartisan vote, and I look forward to this bill passing
out of the House in a timely bipartisan manner.
I thank my colleague Representative Duarte for co-leading the HEATS
Act with me and, also, House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman
Westerman for his commitment to accelerating geothermal production and
promoting energy independence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7409.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will start by agreeing with my colleague across the
aisle. We do not live in a Utopia where energy just magically appears.
I completely agree that we are in a massive transition where we have
to explore all options to produce and to supply the energy needs that
our Nation needs in order for people to survive and to thrive, as long
as it is done in a way that informs the community, it is done in a
responsible, environmentally friendly way, and a way that does not
affect climate. Of course we want our communities to have a say in what
we do.
I want to address what we heard: Well, it will be protected under the
States. We are not talking about State resources. We are talking about
Federal resources. The United States public lands belong to all of us.
The surface, our national parks, our favorite streams on BLM lands and
in our national forests, the subsurface belongs to the American people.
All of the things that we have been talking about today are the
American people's resources. The minerals that will be mined are the
American people's minerals. The geothermal resources are the American
people's resources. Even the oil and gas are the American people's
resources.
The reason why we have permitting processes is because the American
people get to decide: Do we want to give the great riches of this
Nation over to private companies who want to provide a good or service
to the American people? The American people get to decide because those
are our resources.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we have Federal processes to determine, one,
if it is a good idea from a scientific and engineering standpoint; and
two, to decide if it is going to impact our communities adversely.
Imagine going to your favorite stream to go fishing and find out that
a permit for subsurface materials had caused the bottom to drop out and
a land subsidence that destroyed your favorite fishing spot and nobody
ever told you because the geothermal plant had gone in a few miles away
and drilled underneath it.
That is why we have Federal permitting processes. It is so that the
American people can decide if this is what we want to do with our
precious lands, our precious resources, and the things that belong to
all of us.
Mr. Speaker, there are solutions here in Congress. There are
solutions that are supported by the vast majority of Members across the
aisle that would protect the public interest, that would protect the
environment, and would protect American interests in our resources.
Unfortunately, permit streamlining that does away with subsurface
permit authority and public comment of our democratically owned natural
resources is not the solution. For these reasons, I oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I guess things depend on the perspective
from which you look at them. They took the geothermal plant picture
down that was up on the other side of the aisle, but I will point out
that if that plant were to be built on Federal lands, it would go fully
under Federal permitting process.
We are talking about facilities that are built on State or private
lands that are close to Federal lands. What we are really talking about
is not what is on the surface; it is what is below the surface.
If the geothermal energy that is going to this facility, if 50
percent or less of that is coming off of the Federal estate, then the
developer would not have to go through the Federal permitting process
but would go through the State permitting process.
They would still pay the Federal Government the royalty for the
geothermal energy that is coming off of the Federal estate, but they
just wouldn't have to go through the Federal permitting process.
You can look at that and say, oh, they are being exempted from the
Federal permitting process, but if you look at it from the other
perspective, why should a State or private landowner be subject to the
Federal permitting process on their private or State land just because
less than half of the energy that is going into this facility is coming
off of the Federal Government?
Should the Federal Government be dictating to States and private
businesses and private landowners what gets developed on their land?
Again, I guess it is just the perspective of how you look at it, but
the one thing we know is, you can't harvest and harness this renewable
geothermal energy that could make up 8\1/2\ percent of our electricity
generation without getting it out of the ground and having a facility
to utilize that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7409, the
HEATS Act, introduced by my good friend from California, Mrs. Kim.
This is an important piece of legislation that will increase our
energy security and reliability and help lower energy costs for
Americans across this great Nation.
As is the case with much of our domestic energy production,
geothermal energy is often developed on checkerboard parcels of land.
Such a project often has a footprint encompassing Federal, State, and
private lands.
When that is the case, it is a headache for our energy producers as
it often means more red tape and more regulatory hoops for energy
developers to jump through.
These duplicative regulatory requirements increase the time it takes
to get projects online, along with price tags for these projects to get
moving. Ultimately, that means higher energy costs for the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today will help fix this project for
geothermal projects by cutting down on the number of duplicative
regulatory reviews a project developer needs to go through.
[[Page H5997]]
This bill would prevent the BLM from having to permit geothermal
wells on State and private lands where the Federal Government holds an
ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the geothermal estate.
These projects, which have already gone through a rigorous State
permitting process, would not be bogged down by the duplicative and
burdensome Federal process.
Contrary to what some may argue, this bill doesn't waive the
permitting process; it simply reduces the redundancy.
It is a commonsense fix. It will bring much-needed geothermal energy
production online, providing much-needed energy to the American people
at a much lower cost.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting
this legislation.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. While I appreciate that part of the debate has been framed as
a difference in perspective, it is actually a difference in the actual
facts on the page of what the bill says.
Let me read to you from the bill that is being proposed to be passed
right now.
In General, the Secretary--they are talking about the Department of
the Interior--shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal
drilling permit for geothermal exploration and production activities
conducted on non-Federal subsurface estates.
I know this is confusing. They are talking about those lands that the
Feds manage for the American people. The claim that was just made was
that, oh, this isn't about exempting Federal permitting, that is what
the bill says. Mr. Speaker, I am reading from their bill.
Now, it has the specific reasons under which the permit would be
allowed to be excluded, and, as was stated, it says: ``The United
States holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the
subsurface estate. . . .''
Now, I love when my colleagues across the aisle claim that industry
is so confused and that is why we have to streamline these bills.
I ask the American people: When you hear this language, does it sound
streamlined? I don't think so.
Mr. Speaker, I have a very high-tech drawing I will use to help the
American people understand what they are talking about here.
You have got this geothermal energy producer. Here is a good example
of a power plant using geothermal. If they are taking subsurface
geothermal resources from private lands, let's say this side, and over
50 percent of their geothermal resources are coming from the private
side, they are saying, if you drill down underneath this plant and go
under your favorite national park, your favorite stream on BLM lands,
your favorite place to go fishing on public lands, they don't have to
get a permit. They can just do it. That is what the bill says.
This isn't a difference of perspective, it is literally what the bill
is trying to do, and that is to exempt Federal permit requirements on
the Federal subsurface estate adjacent to private lands.
The claim that State permitting would apply is not true. State
permitting only applies to private lands. State permitting requirements
do not apply to Federal lands. Even if you have a State permitting
regime like States that protect the environment, it is not going to
help you over here on the Federal estate.
If you live in a State where there are not State environmental
protections for the environment, then guess what? You are screwed.
That is why we are trying to protect the Federal estate and the
community and environmental interests here. We are not trying to stop
geothermal. As I said, we are fans. Let's do this, but let's do it in
an environmentally responsible and community-informed way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman pointing out the language on page
3 of the bill. I will point that out too because it says, ``The
Secretary shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal drilling
permit for geothermal exploration and production activities conducted
on a non-Federal surface estate. . . .''
I think most people would agree that we don't want the Federal
Government telling States and private landowners that they have to
obtain a Federal permit to extract energy off of their land. That is
exactly why we are proposing this bill, and it is not coming from the
standpoint that the government knows best, that somebody sitting here
in D.C. in a nondescript cubicle should be telling somebody thousands
of miles away how to develop their land. No.
We shouldn't require Federal permitting on State and private land,
which is what we are talking about. That is what this bill would do. It
is only in the case where when you get below the surface, if more than
50 percent of the geothermal energy is coming off of Federal land, then
you still have to go through the Federal permitting.
If it is less than 50 percent, then the State permitting would rule.
It is a commonsense bill. It would promote economic development. It
would promote renewable energy development. It is a bill that needs to
be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Duarte), who also worked closely on this bill.
Mr. DUARTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 7409, the HEATS
Act.
This bill will assist working families, small businesses, and the
geothermal energy producers streamline the permitting process for one
of the cheapest and cleanest energy sources. We are talking about steam
coming out of the ground and creating electricity. That is what we are
talking about today.
Geothermal is a big word. Let's not miss that. This is simply turning
steam out of the ground into electricity.
One of the cheapest and cleanest energy sources in the United States
is prioritized and supported by the Federal Government. During a
Natural Resources hearing earlier this year, I asked Federal regulators
what we, the people, gain by requiring a Federal permitting process on
geothermal energy, one of the cleanest, cheapest energy sources in the
world.
There was no coherent answer. Instead of restricting geothermal
energy, we should be supporting and encouraging advancements in this
field. Currently, the Bureau of Land Management is practicing
regulation by imagination, with no real instances of negatives of
geothermal energy production.
I am proud to work with Representative Kim to take the necessary
steps to make it easier to produce clean, affordable geothermal energy
in California.
California produces more geothermal energy than any other State, but
the Bureau of Land Management is preventing California from growing our
clean energy to our fullest potential. This bill ensures that
geothermal energy producers do not need to obtain a Federal permit if
they are drilling on land that is not owned by the Federal Government.
With this commonsense change, we can grow our geothermal energy
production. This would provide cheaper energy to working families,
create good-paying jobs in California, and cement California and the
United States as a global clean energy leader.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7409. It is a
commonsense bill that will lower energy costs for working families.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I will go back to the language of the text. As I read the text
as it appears on the page as introduced, it is seeking to exempt
Federal permitting requirements for the subsurface estate, so that
means Federal resources.
They are saying, if it is private land on top but public on the
bottom, you don't have to get a permit. That is what they are saying.
Now, I know that boggles the mind for some folks, but that is
essentially an American resource. The people of this country should
have a say as to whether or not they want an energy plant to go in, for
drilling to happen under their lands, for resources to be extracted. It
is just common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I will also make the point that there were some comments
[[Page H5998]]
made about the administration trying to restrict geothermal. That is
just patently untrue.
This is not about trying to restrict or trying to stop geothermal;
this is just about maintaining the existing requirements that we have
in protecting American resources in the subsurface so that the
taxpayers get a fair shake and that the American public can say whether
or not they think it is a good idea to have a private company drilling
and removing resources under our feet. It is common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7409 is another loophole disguised
as permitting reform and streamlining. It would create a path for
geothermal projects to bypass critical environmental and community
reviews based on arbitrary line drawings and new convoluted, not
streamlined, language regarding the Federal subsurface estate.
It sets a dangerous precedent. I know they keep saying this is about
streamlining and making it easier. This bill is not common sense when
you read it. It would allow more energy projects to move forward
without community input and oversight.
We have already worked on bipartisan solutions. We already have some
bills that we all agree on, but here we are debating, in the final
hours of this Congress, a bill that would do away with just basic,
commonsense public input through the process.
{time} 1345
We didn't spend a lot of time talking about it today, but the Federal
agency that manages our subsurface, the Bureau of Land Management, has
raised legitimate concerns about this bill, opposes this bill, and has
warned that it would undermine our ability to enforce safety
regulations, to uphold environmental laws, to do Tribal consultation,
and to ensure that these projects are aligned with our multiple-use
mandate, meaning we can protect our public lands for other uses.
As experts on the process, we have to listen to these folks. This is
what they do every day.
We understand that there are opportunities to improve permitting. It
is part of why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. It is part of why
we are making an over $1 billion investment in expediting the
permitting process and helping to get energy projects on the ground.
We are in the middle of a major energy transition, but we can't do
that in an irresponsible manner by fast-tracking projects that need
public input.
All energy projects have impacts, and this bill takes away the
opportunity to just take a look and give the opportunity for the public
to weigh in.
We have to keep this in mind as we move forward and work to build a
more just and sustainable future where our communities continue to have
a say in what we do with the Federal estate, whether it is on the top
or it is underneath our feet.
For these reasons I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7409, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in support of
H.R. 7409. The HEATS Act would expedite geothermal energy production by
removing the requirement that geothermal operators receive a Federal
drilling permit for wells on State and private lands where the
subsurface geothermal estate is less than 50 percent Federal.
Operators would still be required to receive State permits and
approval but would be exempt from Federal permitting regulations like
NEPA, the ESA, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. That is a mouthful of words, but let's look at in practicality.
We are talking about a geothermal production facility that is going
to have a footprint on the surface of the land. It is going to be on
the surface of State or private land. Then we are going drill a hole
thousands of feet into the ground, an 8- to 12-inch in diameter hole
that is going to go a mile or so deeper, maybe 2 miles deep into the
ground. Then it is going to turn horizontal, and it is going to start
picking up geothermal energy from a large area.
What my friends across the aisle seem to want to do is to invoke a
NEPA permit on a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They want to be able
to implement the ESA because of a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They
want to do a National Historic Preservation assessment because of a
hole in the ground 2 miles deep.
What they really want to do is be able to link this private facility
on State or private land back to the Federal Government so they can use
these laws that are well-intentioned, well-meaning laws to stop that
facility from being built on State or private land.
There is no environmental benefit of doing an ESA analysis on a hole
in the ground 2 miles deep. There is no historical preservation that is
going to be improved by permitting a hole 2 miles deep, not when this
has already been through a robust State permitting process and these
States have requirements and regulations for developing energy
resources within their borders. What this does is it eliminates
duplicative bureaucracy at the Federal level that has no intent or
purpose other than to impede geothermal energy development.
This bill will lower emissions and energy costs for American families
and strengthen U.S. energy independence. Accelerating renewable
geothermal production and deployment is a win for our economy, our
national security, and the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1568, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Stansbury of New Mexico moves to recommit the bill H.R.
7409 to the Committee on Natural Resources.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________