SB 456, the STEAM Act, would amend section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to make geothermal exploration and development in certain previously studied or developed areas eligible for the same expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review framework that already applies to some oil and gas activities. The bill specifically adds references to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 and expands the statutory language so that geothermal projects can qualify for streamlined environmental review when they are located in areas that have already been studied or developed.
In practical terms, the measure is designed to reduce permitting delays for geothermal energy projects by treating them more like certain existing energy projects under federal review rules. It does not create a new geothermal leasing program or change substantive environmental standards; rather, it adjusts the review process to speed up exploration and development where prior analysis or development has already occurred. The bill was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Impact
The bill would amend federal law governing categorical exclusions and streamlined NEPA review under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, extending those provisions to geothermal resource exploration and development under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. Its effect would be to broaden the set of energy projects that can use expedited environmental review in previously studied or developed areas, potentially shortening federal permitting timelines for geothermal developers and affecting agencies that administer NEPA and geothermal leasing on federal lands.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable and bipartisan support for the bill’s purpose. It was introduced by Senator Cortez Masto with Senator Murkowski as a cosponsor, which indicates cross-party interest in advancing geothermal energy and permitting efficiency. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no evidence of formal opposition in the provided materials.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record. Based on the bill text, any debate would likely center on the balance between faster geothermal permitting and the scope of environmental review, especially whether expanding expedited NEPA treatment could reduce public scrutiny or environmental analysis. However, the available context does not identify any member, agency, or stakeholder explicitly raising objections.