H.R. 5587House bill · 119th CongressIn progressEnergy

HEATS Act

Sponsored byYoung KimR-CA-40Introduced Sep 26, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 15, 2026) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Sep 26, 2025

Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act or the HEATS Act

This bill exempts certain geothermal activities on state and private lands (except Indian lands) from drilling permit requirements as well as environmental and historic preservation review requirements.

First, the bill prohibits the Department of the Interior from requiring an operator to obtain a drilling permit under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 for any geothermal exploration and production activity conducted on a nonfederal surface estate (i.e., the part of the estate that is above ground) if (1) the United States holds an ownership interest of less than 50% of the subsurface geothermal estate to be accessed by the proposed action, and (2) the operator submits to Interior a state permit to conduct the geothermal exploration and production activity on the nonfederal surface estate.

Next, the bill states that such geothermal exploration and production activity is not considered a major federal action under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Thus, such activity does not trigger NEPA's environmental review requirements.

In addition, the bill exempts such activity from the consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It also exempts the activity from review under the National Historic Preservation Act unless the state in which the activity occurs does not have a state law that addresses the preservation of historic properties.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • decisive vote

    House · Apr 23, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.

    231186

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

9 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
17
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea28d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
11
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay17d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
11
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay27d ago
My objection is scope creep. The title describes something narrow; the text is considerably broader than the title suggests.
9
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea18d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
1
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea22d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
2
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea25d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
9
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay20d ago
Opposed, mainly on process — this hasn't had a hearing that I can find, and it's moving fast for something with this much reach.
8
yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Nay24d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
0
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea21d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
Your position on H.R. 558752% Yea · 21 VoteWire users