Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act

Floor Speech

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source