Geothermal policy

The House passed a bipartisan geothermal package (plus a freestanding bill) last week – big hits are statutory formalization of a NEPA categorical exclusion, expanding on the April 2026 categorical exclusion to cover development (not just exploration) of geothermal resources, and a faster leasing cadence (while provisions setting timelines for approvals are a move in the right direction, they’re probably less likely to be effective). Whether this passes the Senate, either on its own or riding on a larger permitting bill, remains an open question.

While it’s exciting to see policy movement on America’s most basically likeable energy source, it’s worth remembering that two of the most important binding constraints - better characterization of underground resources to make projects more bankable, and transmission to get electrons to where they’re needed - remain to be addressed. And Fervo’s March ‘26 comment on a California PUC transmission financing concept paper illustrates (part of) why transmission is an unpopular, if critical, cousin - allocating the costs remains fiendishly controversial. Nisha’s dispatch from Loudoun County this week shows what that opposition looks like on the ground.