119-HR-1077 Journalist Public Summary

Headline Summary

A bipartisan bill to speed geothermal projects on federal lands by letting some activities skip lengthy environmental reviews in previously studied or developed areas. [1]U.S. Government Publishing Office — H.R. 1077 text (Introduced) — GovInfo[2]Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School) — 42 U.S.C. § 15942 — NEPA rev…

What It Does

H.R. 1077 (the “STEAM Act”) would change Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 so that certain geothermal exploration and drilling activities—like drilling in a field analyzed in the last five years or at a site drilled within the last five years—qualify for a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That means, when the conditions are met, agencies can rely on a streamlined review instead of preparing a full environmental assessment or impact statement. [1]U.S. Government Publishing Office — H.R. 1077 text (Introduced) — GovInfo[2]Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School) — 42 U.S.C. § 15942 — NEPA rev…

Why It Matters

Supporters say faster, lower-cost permitting could help expand a 24/7, clean power source—especially in Western states with strong geothermal potential—by reducing delays for follow‑on work in areas that have already been studied or developed. They argue this mirrors past treatment of similar oil and gas activities under Section 390. [2]Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School) — 42 U.S.C. § 15942 — NEPA rev…[3]Office of Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto — Cortez Masto and Murkowski press releas…

Who’s For It

• Lead sponsors: Rep. Susie Lee (D‑NV) with Rep. Celeste Maloy (R‑UT) as original cosponsor; Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D‑NV) and Lisa Murkowski (R‑AK) introduced a companion bill (S.456). [1]U.S. Government Publishing Office — H.R. 1077 text (Introduced) — GovInfo[6]Congress.gov — S. 456 (119th) — STEAM Act text and referral
• Industry and clean‑energy advocates: Statements of support from groups and companies like ClearPath Action, Eavor, and Fervo Energy emphasize cutting red tape and achieving “permitting parity” with oil and gas. [3]Office of Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto — Cortez Masto and Murkowski press releas…

Who’s Against It

• House Natural Resources Committee Democrats (in prior Congress debate on a nearly identical bill) opposed writing new, broad “legislative” categorical exclusions into statute, warning they can limit site‑specific review and public input. [4]Congress.gov — House Report 118-689 on similar bill (H.R. 6474), including Mino…
• Some environmental advocates caution that expanding categorical exclusions risks weakening NEPA’s transparency and community participation; they generally favor resourcing agencies to do thorough, timely reviews instead. [7]Earthjustice — Earthjustice statement supporting restored NEPA rules (context o…
• The Interior Department’s legislative analysis on a similar proposal noted BLM may see limited processing‑time benefits because geothermal projects differ from oil and gas, suggesting the change might not deliver as much speed as hoped. [8]U.S. Department of the Interior — DOI pending legislation note on adding geothe…

What’s Next

As of December 10, 2025, the bill is in the House Natural Resources Committee and was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on December 9, 2025; a committee meeting is posted for December 16, 2025. A Senate companion (S.456) is in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. [9]Congress.gov — H.R. 1077 overview page (titles/status, latest action and commit…[6]Congress.gov — S. 456 (119th) — STEAM Act text and referral

If the House panel advances it, the bill would need to pass the full House, then the Senate, before going to the President.

Tone

Neutral, plain‑language overview for voters; highlights what the bill changes, why supporters and opponents care, and where it stands now.