The Subcommittee on Energy has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, January 7, 2026,
at 10:15 a.m. (ET) in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “American
Energy Dominance: Dawn of the New Nuclear Era.” The hearing will examine developments in
the nuclear industry relating to licensing, deployment, implementation of recently enacted
federal laws, and administration policies to facilitate the expansion of nuclear energy resources
to meet the nation’s urgent energy and security demands.
Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute
John Williams, Senior V.P., Technical Services & External Affairs, Southern Company
John Wagner, PhD, Director, Idaho National Laboratory
Judi Greenwald, President and CEO, Nuclear Innovation Alliance
Korsnick:
“Targeted government-sponsored tools to protect consumers, taxpayers, and investors are
needed to manage early-project cost and schedule risk, unlock private capital, and enable
repeatable deployment at scale.”
Williams:
“Mitigate ‘tail risk’ and create a federal program that provides cost sharing over a certain threshold of additional, unanticipated construction costs. The Accelerating Reliable Capacity Act of 2024, proposed by Senator Risch, is
a good example of this concept. Potential legislative consideration: Amend IRS limitations on transferability of tax credits.
Specifically, amend the tax code to eliminate the Section 6418(g)(4) Tax Credit Transfer Restriction to provide “early movers” with more cash flow during construction to mitigate the risk of credit downgrades and the ability to monetize credits based on qualified progress expenditures.”
Wagner: “We must reclaim nuclear leadership to project American values and standards globally.”
Greenwald:
“NRC’s rulemaking independence is clearly in the national interest because it provides nuclear energy — which has enormously important security, environmental, and energy reliability benefits — with the social license to operate.”
On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, at 10:00 AM ET, the Committee on Small Business (the
Committee) will hold a hearing titled “A Voice for Small Business: How the SBA Office of
Advocacy is Cutting Red Tape.” The meeting will convene in room 2360 of the Rayburn House
Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) Office of Advocacy’s (Advocacy) mission, its role in ensuring federal agency compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the importance of regulatory reform to support
small businesses.
H.R. 4593, the Saving Homeowners from Overregulation With
Exceptional Rinsing Act, amends the definition of a showerhead
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) by inserting
the 2024 American Society of Mechanical Engineers definition. This
change in definition opens the door for the Trump Administration
to weaken water efficiency standards for showerheads.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended EPCA to include a definition of ‘‘showerhead’’ and set a maximum water flow rate of 2.5
gallons per minute (GPM). However, in response to confusion and
uncertainty over how the EPCA definition of ‘‘showerhead’’ applied
to a showerhead product with multiple nozzles, the Department of
Energy (DOE) issued a regulatory definition in 2013. The definition
clarified that a showerhead must meet the 2.5 GPM statutory
standard regardless of how many individual nozzles the
showerhead system included.
In 2020, the Trump Administration amended the definition of
‘‘showerhead’’ to allow showerheads with multiple nozzles to sidestep the statutory water efficiency standard. More specifically, in
2020, DOE interpreted the updated definition of showerhead to
mean that each showerhead with multiple nozzles would be considered separate in terms of compliance with the 2.5 GPM standard.
This change would increase water and energy use, thereby increasing consumers’ utility bills. In response, the Biden Administration
reversed this action in 2021, asserting that a showerhead with
multiple nozzles must comply with the 2.5 GPM standard.
In April 2025, instead of ensuring regulatory certainty and preserving consumer cost savings, the Trump Administration continued the back-and-forth by signing an executive order directing
DOE to rescind and revise the 2021 Biden Administration definition of a showerhead to ‘‘end the Obama-Biden war on water pressure.’’ However, the water efficiency standards for showerheads
set by Congress in 1992 do not regulate water pressure. Importantly, the standards concern water flow. Water pressure is determined by engineering decisions in the manufacturing process, and
several other factors can interact to impact water pressure and
flow, like clogs, leaks, and sediment build-up. In testing showerheads, Consumer Reports found that water flow does not
predict the performance of a showerhead.
H.R. 4593 attempts to codify an ambiguous and unclear definition of a showerhead, which will only open the door for further regulatory confusion and uncertainty. The definition change proposed
in the bill lends support to the Trump Administration’s misguided
efforts to weaken standards for showerheads, allowing for increased water and energy usage, which, in turn, will raise consumer utility bills.
H.R. 5184, the ‘‘Affordable Housing Over Mandating Efficiency
Standards Act,’’ prevents households that live in manufactured
housing from benefiting from energy efficiency standards that are
established by energy sector experts. Specifically, H.R. 5184
amends Section 413 of the bipartisan Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and removes this authority from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) jurisdiction, thus sending energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes to another federal agency
that does not specialize in energy efficiency rulemaking. Additionally, the bill prevents DOE’s May 2022 energy conservation standard for manufactured housing from taking effect and lowering
household utility bills. For these reasons, the Committee Minority
strongly opposes H.R. 5184.
H.R. 5184 amends section 413 of EISA, shifting authority of
manufactured housing efficiency standards to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). EISA passed in a bipartisan fashion, and Congress explicitly directed DOE to develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes. The law directs
DOE to base the standards on the most recent International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) unless the Secretary finds that
IECC is not cost-effective or that a more stringent standard would
be cost-effective. Prior to the passage of EISA, HUD, which was
responsible for energy standards for manufactured homes, had not
updated its energy provisions since 1994.2 EISA requires DOE to
provide notice and the opportunity for comment from manufacturers and stakeholders, and to consult with the HUD Secretary on
energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing.3 DOE has a
rigorous rulemaking process with extensive stakeholder engagement and energy sector expert input, and has significant experience setting energy efficiency standards. Amending Section 413 of
EISA undermines this important DOE authority.
H.R. 5184 also prevents the final rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Manufactured Housing’’ published in
the Federal Register on May 31, 2022, from having any effect. In
May 2022, DOE finalized a court-mandated rule adopting energy
conservation standards for new manufactured homes. The rule will
help those living in manufactured housing save up to $475 per year
on average on their utility bills.4 Energy costs are about 70 percent
higher per square foot in manufactured homes compared to site built homes.5 The median energy burden of manufactured housing
residents is 39 percent higher than that of single-family households.6 The Committee Minority believes it is important to support
this standard and the crucial savings the standard will provide for
these households.
In developing the May 2022 final rule, DOE consulted HUD to
appropriately balance the upfront costs of manufactured homes
with long-term affordability, recognizing that ‘‘access to affordable
housing and reducing energy burdens of the purchasers are of the
utmost importance in the manufactured housing market.’’ 7 Thus,
to accommodate price-sensitive, low-income purchasers of manufactured homes, DOE adopted a tiered approach based on the size of
the manufactured home in the final rule.8 As such, the final rule
is cost-effective, with the benefits of the rule far outweighing the
costs.
Additionally, H.R. 5184 was amended during the November 19,
2025, Subcommittee on Energy markup to allow DOE to submit
recommendations for revisions to HUD’s conservation standards for
manufactured housing based on specific criteria. While the amendment marginally improved the bill by removing the outright repeal
of section 413 of EISA, the amendment still failed to address the
major flaws in the underlying bill. As amended, H.R. 5184 still nullifies DOE’s May 2022 manufactured housing energy conservation
standard, jeopardizing more than $5 billion in savings for manufactured housing residents.9 As amended, the bill still undermines
DOE’s authority to set efficiency standards by shifting the responsibility to HUD. The bill fails to specify what HUD should do with
DOE’s recommendations; even if DOE submitted recommendations,
it is likely that they will have no effect.
Entrusting HUD with setting efficiency standards for manufactured homes will not improve affordability. As previously mentioned, when HUD was the lead agency responsible for setting energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes prior to the passage of EISA, the agency had failed to meaningfully update the
standards since 1994, leaving manufactured housing residents with
disproportionately high energy bills for years. By repealing DOE’s
court-mandated and long-awaited energy conservation standard for
manufactured homes, H.R. 5184 deprives residents of significant
and desperately needed cost savings. At a time when electricity
prices are up thirteen percent nationwide, strong energy efficiency
standards are imperative to safeguard consumers.
On Thursday, December 18, 2025, the Committee on Homeland Security will hold a
Member Day hearing to receive testimony from Members on proposed legislation within the
Committee’s jurisdiction. The Committee will meet at 12:00 p.m. EST in 310 Cannon House
Office Building.
Members wishing to testify before the Committee at this hearing should relay their
intention to attend to Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk, at [email protected] no later than
12:00 p.m. EST, Tuesday, December 16, 2025.
Federal actions have caused concerns about potential liability in the wake of EPA’s designation of two PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability (CERCLA) Act. This hearing is an opportunity to assess the current statutory and regulatory landscape for PFAS and consider what steps Congress may need to take to respond to these concerns.
Lawrence W. Falbe, Esq., Chair, International Council of Shopping Centers Environmental and Land Use Policy Committee
G. Tracy Mehan, Executive Director, Government Affairs, American Water Works Association
Emily Donovan, Co-Founder, Clean Cape Fear
The prepared testimony of Bodine, a George W. Bush EPA official and corporate polluter lawyer and lobbyist, questions the risks of PFOA and PFAS (“I don’t believe anyone would argue that PFOA and PFOS are benign. But, it is possible that EPA has overstated the risks through its selection of critical effects and studies”), criticizes CERCLA (“draconian consequences”), and recommends shielding “inadvertent parties” from Superfund liability, saying Superfund is sufficiently capitalized (“the EPA Superfund program is now funded at historically high levels and can take action to address any actual health risks caused by releases associated with an exempt party”).
The prepared testimony of Falbe, a corporate polluter lobbyist and lawyer, claims a “chilling effect on real estate transactions and development” because “CERCLA’s strict, joint-and-several, retroactive liability framework—applied to ubiquitous legacy chemicals—will unintentionally shift cleanup costs onto passive receivers - like shopping center owners and small businesses.” His testimony also calls CERCLA “draconian.” Falbe calls for a “‘passive receiver’ exemption” from Superfund liability for “real estate owners, particularly in the retail sector.”
The prepared testimony of Mehan calls for an “exemption for water and wastewater utilities” from Superfund liability for PFAS, specifically H.R. 1267, the Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act.
Donovan, who is a member of the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, testified in opposition of CERCLA exemptions.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources will meet to consider four pieces of legislation.
S. 2273, Wyoming Education Trust Modernization Act
S. 2546, A bill to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs.
S. 2881, A bill to provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of California, and for other purposes.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. ET, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will hold a Member Day hearing. The hearing will convene in room HVC210 of the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. Members of Congress, regardless of Committee
assignment, are invited to testify on issues within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including
specific legislation or topics of importance to them, their district, and their constituents.
Members who wish to appear before the Committee are requested to notify the Majority
staff at [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 12, 2025.
Members are requested to submit their statements through the Committee’s electronic
repository at [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 15,
2025.
On Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, will hold a legislative hearing on nine pieces of geothermal legislation.
H.R. 301 (Rep. Maloy), “Geothermal Energy Opportunity Act” or the “GEO Act”
H.R. 398 (Rep. Ocasio-Cortez), “Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act of 2025”
H.R. 1077 (Rep. Lee), “Streamlining Thermal Energy through Advanced Mechanisms Act” or the “STEAM Act”
H.R. 1687 (Rep. Fulcher), “Committing Leases for Energy Access Now Act” or the “CLEAN Act”
H.R. 5576 (Rep. Fulcher), “Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act”
H.R. 5587 (Rep. Kim), “Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act” or the “HEATS Act”
H.R. 5617 (Rep. Ansari), “Geothermal Gold Book Development Act”
H.R. 5631 (Rep. Hurd), “Geothermal Ombudsman for National Deployment and Optimal Reviews Act”
H.R. 5638 (Rep. Kennedy of UT), “Geothermal Royalty Reform Act”
Witnesses:
Panel I (Members of Congress)
To Be Announced
Panel II (Administration Witness)
Mr. Jon Raby, Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Reno, NV [All Bills]
Panel III (Outside Experts)
Tim Latimer, Co-Founder and CEO, Fervo Energy, Houston, TX [H.R. 301, H.R. 1077, H.R. 5587 and H.R. 5631]
Paul Thomsen, Vice President of Business Development, Ormat Technologies, Inc., Reno, NV [H.R. 301, H.R. 5638]
Dr. Bryant Jones, Executive Director, Geothermal Rising, Boise, ID [All Bills]
Dr. Kerry Rohrmeier, Nevada Climate and Energy Strategy Director, The Nature Conservancy, Reno, NV [All Bills] [Minority Witness]
Geothermal power is a baseload renewable energy resource derived by capturing heat from an
underground water reservoir or from naturally occurring steam under high pressure. Geothermal
energy can be used for both electricity generation and heating applications. It is abundant in the
western U.S., where the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has authority over geothermal
leasing on approximately 245 million acres of public lands, including 104 million acres of U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) lands.
In 2023, geothermal power plants across seven states produced about 17 billion kilowatt hours
(kWh) of electricity, equal to 0.4 percent of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation. Most
of the nation’s geothermal power plants are found in western states, including Hawaii, where
geothermal energy resources are closer to the earth’s surface. California generates more
electricity from geothermal power than any other state, while Nevada has the highest proportion
of its electricity generation attributed to geothermal power.
Geothermal was the first renewable energy technology that BLM approved for production on
public lands, with the first project approved in 1978. Today, 51 operating power plants produce
geothermal energy from BLM-managed lands, with a combined installed capacity of more than
2.6 gigawatts (GW).
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates several programs that support research
and development of geothermal energy resources. The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (GSA)8
directs USGS to conduct national-scale assessments of geothermal resources, the most recent of
which was published in 2008. Additionally, through the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, the
agency coordinates priorities with the Department of Energy (DOE) Geothermal Technologies
Office to collect useful data for both critical mineral and geothermal resources.
As conventional and next-generation geothermal technologies seek to reduce development costs
and help meet skyrocketing domestic energy demand, reforming cumbersome leasing and
permitting processes on federal lands is essential. Interest in federal lands for geothermal energy
production has grown significantly in recent years. In October 2025, BLM held a lease sale in
Nevada that generated a record $9.4 million in bids for 86 parcels of land. BLM held further
2025 lease sales in Utah, Oregon, Idaho, and California, highlighting the important role that
federal lands can play in bolstering geothermal potential.
H.R. 301 (Rep. Maloy), “Geothermal Energy Opportunity Act” or “GEO Act”
H.R. 301 would prevent the Department of the Interior (DOI) from delaying authorized projects
out of fear of litigation. Despite its November 2021 approval of the Dixie
Meadows Geothermal Project in Nevada, BLM later delayed construction on
the project in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s listing of the Dixie Valley toad
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). During the required Section 7 consultation under the
ESA, the developer decided to reduce the project’s footprint to a single geothermal power plant
with an estimated output of about 12 megawatts. In 2023, the agency announced it would
conduct a third review of the project.
H.R. 301 would require DOI to process drilling permits and other authorizations within 60 days, unless a federal
court vacates the underlying lease.
H.R. 398 (Rep. Ocasio-Cortez), “Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act of 2025”
Cost recovery authority allows federal agencies to charge fees for processing applications and
other documents. This authority is provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976(FLPMA), the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA),20 and the Independent Offices
Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA). Additionally, Section 3021(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 201522 directs BLM to collect a fee for processing oil and gas applications
for permit to drill (APDs) from Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 through FY 2026. From FY 2006 through
FY 2015, however, fees for APDs and geothermal drilling permits (GDPs) were suspended by
Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05).
H.R. 398 would explicitly authorize the DOI to charge geothermal leaseholders fees to recover
costs for geothermal lease applications, GDPs, utilization plans, site licenses, facility
construction permits, commercial use permits, and other approvals related to a geothermal lease,
including inspection and monitoring of exploration activities, drilling and plugging of wells, as
well as the construction, operation, and reclamation of well sites.
H.R. 1077 (Rep. Lee of NV), “Streamlining Thermal Energy through Advanced Mechanisms
Act” or “STEAM Act”
H.R. 1077 would expedite geothermal development by amending the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to allow for a new
categorical exclusion (CE) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for
geothermal energy. Section 390 of EPAct’05 grants five different CEs for oil and gas activities.
These CEs expedite the development of oil and gas projects where a well has previously been
drilled on certain land, or where a field has been developed and an approved land use plan, or
any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA requirements, found that drilling is a
reasonably foreseeable activity.
H.R. 1687 (Rep. Fulcher), “Committing Leases for Energy Access Now Act” or “CLEAN
Act”
The GSA requires DOI to hold “a competitive lease sale at least once every [two] years for land
in a [s]tate that has nominations pending.” BLM, however, has often ignored this requirement.
In California, for example, BLM failed to hold a competitive geothermal lease sale for nearly 11
years until the Trump administration held one in the summer of 2025.
H.R. 1687 would relieve geothermal leasing and permitting backlogs by amending the GSA to
require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to hold annual lease sales for geothermal energy.
If a lease sale is missed for any reason, the bill would require the Secretary to hold replacement
sales during the same year. The bill would also require the Secretary to respond to geothermal
drilling permit applications within 30 days of receipt, informing applicants whether their
applications are complete. If the Secretary determines an application is complete, then the
Secretary would have an additional 30 days to issue a final decision on the application.
H.R. 5576 (Rep. Fulcher), “Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act”
The four stages of geothermal resource development within a lease are exploration, resource
drilling, production, and reclamation. Each stage under the lease requires separate authorizations
and NEPA compliance when ground-disturbing activities are proposed.
H.R. 5576 would exempt geothermal exploration wells (temperature gradient wells, monitoring wells, and
calibration wells) from NEPA reviews. Prior to developing a geothermal facility, operators must drill exploratory
wells to characterize the resource and collect data. To be eligible for the bill’s streamlining
provisions, an operator must ensure that its exploration well is under 13 3/8 inches in diameter,
the surface disturbance is less than 8 acres, activities are completed in 180 days, and the site will
be reclaimed within three years. The bill would also exclude geotechnical investigations and road
construction and maintenance (within existing rights-of-way) from NEPA.
H.R. 5587 (Rep. Kim), “Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act” or “HEATS Act”
H.R. 5587 would expedite the development of geothermal energy on non-federal lands where
federal minerals are already developed. Currently, geothermal operators on non-federal land
producing any quantity of federal resources must abide by all federal laws and permitting
processes H.R.
5587 would exempt geothermal exploration or production wells on non-federal lands from NEPA, Section 7 of ESA, or Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) if (1) the U.S. holds an ownership interest of less than 50
percent of the subsurface geothermal estate and (2) the operator receives a drilling permit from
the applicable state.
H.R. 5617 (Rep. Ansari), “Geothermal Gold Book Development Act”
DOI’s and USFS’s joint publication, “Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and
Gas Exploration and Development” (Gold Book), was developed to assist oil and gas operators
by “providing information on the requirements for obtaining permit approval and conducting
environmentally responsible oil and gas operations on federal lands and on private surface over
[f]ederal minerals (split-estate).” The Gold Book’s contents not only inform operators but also
guide BLM staff assigned to oil and gas development on federal land. Although this
publication was last revised in 2007, it remains a useful supplement to other federal guidance
that has been released or is planned to be released.
Despite the significant growth in geothermal operations on federal land, the BLM has yet to
publish a similar book of practices for geothermal energy production. Accordingly, H.R. 5617
would direct DOI to publish a Gold Book detailing efficient and environmentally responsible
geothermal leasing and permitting practices for use by BLM field offices and geothermal
operators. The bill would also require DOI to review and revise the Gold Book at least once
every five years. With a geothermal Gold Book, BLM staff will have improved guidance for
reviewing and approving geothermal lease sales, permitting applications, and drilling and
production operations.
H.R. 5631 (Rep. Hurd), “Geothermal Ombudsman for National Deployment and Optimal
Reviews Act”
Reviews for GDPs, utilization plans,
commercial use permits, and other
geothermal authorizations are managed
primarily by the BLM field offices with
jurisdiction over the federal land in which
a given project is located. For example, in
Utah, geothermal permitting
responsibilities are divided among 11
BLM field offices.
With geothermal permitting, the
mechanisms that allow for collaboration
between field and state offices within
BLM, or between BLM and other bureaus
across DOI, are limited. Instead, local
field office personnel must fully process
geothermal authorizations within their
respective jurisdictions.
According to industry stakeholders, field
office-specific processing requirements
have produced significant variations in
geothermal permitting outcomes. For
example, developers have noted that as
geothermal energy expands into new regions, some BLM field offices lack experience with key
technical aspects of project development, resulting in significant delays across a range of permits
and approvals. Additionally, field offices in remote jurisdictions often face greater challenges
recruiting and retaining staff with requisite geothermal permitting expertise than do field offices
in more populated regions.
H.R. 5631 would improve coordination by appointing a Geothermal Ombudsman (Ombudsman)
from within BLM. The Ombudsman would be responsible for liaising between field offices and
the BLM Director, providing dispute resolution services between field offices and applicants,
monitoring permit processing, developing best practices, and coordinating with the Federal
Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC).
H.R. 5638 (Rep. Kennedy of UT), “Geothermal Royalty Reform Act”
Currently, operators producing electricity from geothermal resources on federal land pay a
royalty rate of at least 1 percent but not exceeding 2.5 percent of gross proceeds from the sale of
electricity produced under the lease during the first 10 years of production. Thereafter, the
royalty rate increases to at least 2 percent but not exceeding 5 percent of gross proceeds from
electricity produced under the lease.
H.R. 5638 stipulates that geothermal facilities on the same geothermal lease are treated as
separate facilities with respect to royalty payments. Under the current interpretation of the law,
all facilities on the same lease must pay the same royalty rate, provided that one facility has met
the time-in-service threshold for the higher royalty rate. This bill’s clarification would allow for
geothermal facilities on the same lease to pay different royalties, based on each individual
facility’s time in service.