Accelerated Permitting for Energy Projects Is Gaining Steam: Examining BLM's Approval of New-Build Geothermal Plants on Federal Land in Nevada

On June 23, 2026, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), exercising the authority of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, authorized a Utilization Plan, permanent right-of-way (ROW) grant, and temporary linear construction work area for the Pearl Geothermal Development Project proposed by Ormat Nevada Inc. BLM's approvals collectively allow for the development of two 30-megawatt (MW) binary geothermal power plants and associated wells and facilities on 136 acres of BLM managed public lands and a 29-mile long 120-kilovolt (kv) generation-tie transmission (gen-tie) line. Although the project will be open to judicial challenges for some time, relying on the Secretary's authority insulated the Project from an administrative appeal under 43 C.F.R. Part 4, a tactic that has long been employed by BLM where, as here, it has exercised new and untested forms of authority to permit energy generation projects.

DOI's Alternative Arrangements for Expedited Environmental Review

The Pearl Geothermal Project appears to be the first new geothermal power plant authorized pursuant to the BLM's recently adopted 14-day expedited environmental review process for Environmental Assessments (EAs) conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Proposed in response to President Trump's Executive Order (EO) 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” and DOI Secretary Doug Burgum's ensuing Secretary Order (SO) 3417, "Addressing the National Energy Emergency", BLM secured authorization from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to use "Alternative Arrangements for NEPA Compliance" on April 23, 2025 (Alternative Arrangements). These measures, among other things, empower project applicants to invoke the Alternative Arrangements for any project that "seek[s] to identify, lease, site, produce, transport, refine, or generate energy resources", which include “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals, as defined by 30 U.S.C. § 1606(a)(3).” Applicants must additionally commit to (1) operate in accordance with their approved project application, (2) "take measures to mitigate reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment", and (3) "abide by applicable federal (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act), state, and local environmental laws." Projects that purport to meet these requirements and, in the judgement of the Responsible Officer, are not likely to have significant environmental impacts, shall be evaluated in a "focused, concise, and timely environmental assessment addressing the purpose and need for the proposed action, alternatives, mitigation measures, and a brief description of environmental effects." "The Responsible Official is not required to seek public comment prior to finalizing the environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact, and any decision", all of which "should be prepared within approximately 14 days of receiving a complete application." For reference, as recognized in DOI's press release on the Alternative Arrangements and other, concurrently issued guidance for expediting energy project permitting, this process normally and previously would take up to one year.

Pending Opposition to the Alternative Arrangements

The States of Washington, California, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, the People of the State of Michigan, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts came together shortly after DOI and other agencies adopted orders, guidance and policy frameworks implementing EO 14156 to challenge the EO as an unlawful exercise of the President's authority under the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. They contend that the EO unlawfully "command[ed] that federal agencies disregard the law and in many cases their own regulations to fast-track extensive categories of activities [that] will result in damage to waters, wetlands, critical habitat, historic and cultural resources, endangered species, and the people and wildlife that rely on these precious resources." (See Compl., Washington v. Trump, Case No. 2:25-cv-00869 (W.D. Wa. filed May 9, 2025.) Regarding DOI's Alternative Arrangements specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they "do not follow Interior’s own regulations governing when alternative NEPA procedures can be adopted" and that concurrently adopted alternative procedures for informal, expedited project consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act "completely skip otherwise required formal consultation under the ESA", delaying it until after the "'termination or expiration of the national energy emergency.'" The Plaintiff States committed to amend their complaint if and when Interior moves forward with Alternative Arrangements for projects within their borders, however, to date, no further action has been taken.

Alternative Arrangements in Practice

The State of Nevada, which is not a party to the pending litigation, has in contrast been a hotbed of planned and executed activity to implement the expedited emergency permitting procedures. Prior to the Pearl Geothermal Project noted above, on May 30, 2025, DOI announced its intent to utilize its new procedures to evaluate three projects related to geothermal energy production in the Silver State. These included the Diamond Flat Geothermal Project (to drill test wells and assess geothermal resource viability), the McGinness Hills Geothermal Optimization Project (to add new wells, advanced heat exchangers, cooling fans, and a 15 MW solar photovoltaic field to existing geothermal power plants), and the Pinto Geothermal Project (to evaluate geothermal potential on leased public lands). After preparing EAs, BLM approved Diamond Flat and McGinness Hills almost a month later, on June 27, 2025, without public comment but outside the aspirational 14-day timeframe described in the Alternative Arrangements. BLM has not announced any further action on Pinto.

Pearl Geothermal is thus notable both because the approval claimed to have fulfilled the promise of a two-week review period under NEPA, and it further did so on a project proposing a new, 60MW power plant – not just exploratory activities or expansion of an existing facility. However, the action taken on June 23, 2026, must be viewed in context of the many decisions that preceded it. First, BLM had to approve a Resource Management Plan (RMP) that authorized the proposed use. Adopted in 1997, the Tonopah RMP, which governs the Pearl Geothermal Project area, committed, among other promoted uses, to "'provide opportunity for exploration and development of fluid minerals such as . . . geothermal resources, using appropriate stipulations to allow for the preservation and enhancement of fragile and unique resources'" and "in a way that minimizes conflicts with other resource values." In 2008, BLM conducted a public process to amend 114 BLM land use plans in the 11 western states (including the Tonopah RMP) "to allocate lands to be open for geothermal resource leasing with a reasonably foreseeable development analysis, and also standardized geothermal leasing and permitting operations on federal lands." These underlying plan documents, and the programmatic mitigation measures they adopted, underwent a comprehensive environmental review process that the Pearl Geothermal Project adheres to through its conformance.

In addition, geothermal development involves three distinct regulatory phases, which each require a separate authorization action supported by review, as appropriate, under NEPA. These include:

1. exploratory drilling (requires a permit and review under NEPA if environmental impacts could be significant and ancillary facilities, including new well pads or roads, whether permanent or temporary, are needed),
2. resource confirmation (requires an operations plan and drilling program to support flow testing and, until recently when BLM adopted a new categorical exclusion (CX), required the Responsible Official to prepare an EA to comply with NEPA; additionally requires an approved Geothermal Drilling Permit (GDP) (Form 3260-2) and reclamation plan for each well, and
3. utilization (requires a plan for production/injection well drilling, power plant(s), pipelines, roads, and transmission lines and preparation of an EA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with NEPA).

Before undertaking steps 2 and 3, a developer also must obtain a lease for the proposed geothermal development site, which also undergoes review for compliance with NEPA.

The Pearl Geothermal Project underwent all of these phases before BLM approved the final stage, the Utilization Plan, using the Alternative Arrangements. Ormat secured several leases that collectively became the project site through a series of competitive leasing offerings over the course of several years, starting in 2016 (NVNV105377428, NVNV105693070, NVNV105693071, and NVNV105723155). Geothermal exploration activities previously authorized in 2023 pursuant to an EA and Determinations of NEPA Adequacy (DNAs) included the development of resource wells, well pads, two aggregate pits, road improvements, and 52 acres of access roads, infrastructure that will be incorporated into the buildout of the power plant. Moreover, despite press release claims that BLM fast-tracked the EA through a 14-day process, the almost 70 pages of impacts analysis, plus supporting attachments, tell a different story. Indeed, Ormat submitted its first version of the Utilization Plan and Plan of Development for the gen-tie line in mid- to late-2023. Tribal consultation, including two site visits in 2025, was initially meaningful. Although the final stages moved quickly, with Ormat submitting a final updated version of the Utilization Plan in March 2026 and requesting in writing that BLM rely on the Alternative Arrangements for NEPA compliance on May 6, 2026, BLM took over a month to approve the request (on June 10, 2026).

Whether geothermal projects first conceived by developers after the advent of the Alternative Arrangements will not just shortcut, but undercut, NEPA's objectives remains to be seen. As the Pearl Geothermal Project demonstrates, even with ambitious commitments to fast-tracking, the muti-phased approach to geothermal development cannot, for now, entirely escape environmental review. With the threat of, and actual, litigation pending, project proponents furthermore need to assess for themselves whether, and when, to trigger expedited review, as the Alternative Arrangements are not something DOI agencies will implement in their own discretion. Strategically requesting coverage after a defensible amount of analysis has already been undertaken may be the best approach. At the very least, however, the option to request expedited environmental review made available to applicants through the Alternative Arrangements provides, for as long as it may last, a lever developers can pull at any time to advance a project on their own timeline. This is a particularly useful tool to have when projects get hung up on a discrete bit of analysis that might not be all that central to the overall project. In early tests of this power, BLM has demonstrated both a willingness and capability to meet these new demands, which is not always the case when a permitting agency is given fast track authority.