An excellent article by Aidan McKenzie, Infrastructure Fellow at the Progress Institute, explores the differences in permitting requirements between geothermal energy and oil and gas in the U.S., despite the fact that the process is nearly identical for both industries. In addition, the article argues that the lengthy and multi-step permitting process for geothermal projects makes them vulnerable to opposition from renewable energy opponents and NIMBY organizations.

The full article can be read via the Progressive Institute link.

Categorical Exclusions Applicable to Oil and Gas The oil and gas industry enjoys categorical exclusions (CEs) for activities that require less than five acres of surface disturbance or a location that has received National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval for drilling within the past five years. These CEs were renewed as part of Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

With these exclusions, oil and gas developers benefit from a streamlined approval process.

Lengthy NEPA Process Increases Risks for Geothermal Projects Although the geothermal industry has a similar stage of development as oil and gas, the geothermal industry has not gained exclusion from the NEPA review process. Instead, geothermal projects are required to go through multiple NEPA review stages. This makes it more difficult to invest in geothermal projects because the certainty of the various stages of development depends on permitting decisions.

This cumbersome approval process also applies to the transmission lines needed to connect geothermal power facilities to markets. Transmission lines require dozens of local and state approvals and can take 10 to 15 years to complete. This is in contrast to natural gas pipelines, which are governed solely by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

level playing field

In order for geothermal to truly thrive, it needs to be on a level playing field with oil and gas. This means extending the CEs that the oil and gas industry has benefited from for decades, proposing streamlined CEs for exploratory drilling and well field development, and applying more stringent environmental requirements to the construction of power plants and transmission lines.

Congress should also limit the number of meritless lawsuits that have already blocked many U.S. geothermal projects and set limits on how long projects can be delayed by the courts.

Source: Institute for Progressive Studies

Anexcellent piece written by Aidan Mackenzie, Infrastructure Fellow at Institute for Progress, looks at the disparity of permitting requirements between geothermal and oil and gas in the context of the U.S., even though the two industries have processes that are virtually the same. Anexcellent piece written by Aidan Mackenzie, Infrastructure Fellow at Institute for Progress, looks at the disparity of permitting requirements between geothermal and oil and gas in the context of the U.S., even though the two industries have processes that are virtually the same. Moreover, the piece argues that the length and multi-step permitting process of geothermal projects leave them open to counter-action by opponents of renewable energy and NIMBY groups. The piece argues that the length and multi-step permitting process of geothermal projects leave them open to counter-action by opponents of renewable energy and NIMBY groups.

Thefull piece can be accessed at the Institute for Progressvia this link.

Categoricalexclusions that apply to oil and gasThe oil and gas industry enjoys categorical exclusions (CEs) for activities that require fewer than 5 acres of surface disturbance or drilling on locations that have received National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approvals within the last five years. The oil and gasThe oil and gas industry enjoys categorical exclusions (CEs) for activities that require fewer than 5 acres of surface disturbance or drilling on locations that have received National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approvals within the last five years. These CEs have been perpetuated as part of Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Withthese exclusions, oil and gas developers have benefited from a streamlined approval process.

LengthyNEPA process increases risk in geothermal projectsDespite having similar stages of development as oil and gas, the geothermal industry has not been granted exclusions from the NEPA review process. Instead, geothermal projects go through several NEPA review stages. This makes it harder to invest in geothermal projects, as the certainty of the individual stages of the NEPA review process is not always a given. This makes it harder to invest on geothermal projects, as the certainty of the individual stages of development become subject to permitting decisions.

Thedifficult approval process also applies to transmission lines that are needed to connect geothermal power generation facilities to markets. Transmission lines require dozens of local and state approvals and a process that takes between 10 to 15 years to complete. This is in contrast to the pipelines used for natural gas, which are under the authority only of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This is in contrast to the pipelines used for natural gas, which are under the authority only of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Alevel playing field

Forgeothermal to truly thrive, it needs to be at a level playing field as oil and gas. This means extending the CEs that the oil and gas industry has already benefited from decades. Streamlined CEs are recommended for exploration drilling and well field development, with the more stringent environmental requirements will then be applied to power plant and transmission line construction. Streamlined CEs are recommended for exploration drilling and well field development, with the more stringent environmental requirements will then be applied to power plant and transmission line construction.

Congressshould also restrict frivolous lawsuits that have already hamperedmany geothermal projectsin the U.S. and impose a limit on the amount of time that projects can be held up by the courts. that projects can be held up by the courts.

Source:Institute for Progress