The Scaling Ceiling: How Permitting Bottlenecks Are Holding Back Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy is often praised as the holy grail of clean, baseload power. It’s reliable, emissions-free, and sits beneath our feet — yet it remains a niche contributor to global energy supply. Why? The answer isn’t a lack of resources or innovation. It’s permitting. Regulatory friction, fragmented policy, and inconsistent timelines are quietly dragging geothermal projects into multi-year delays. If we want geothermal to scale, we need to rebuild the permitting pipeline with the same urgency we apply to grid-scale solar and battery storage.

Core Insights

1. Multi-Layer Permitting Adds Years, Not Months

Most geothermal resources in the U.S. lie on federal or state lands. That means navigating a spiderweb of agencies: BLM, EPA, USFS, state geological offices, tribal consultations, and more. The result? Sequential — not parallel — reviews. Projects sit idle waiting for each rubber stamp.

These delays are especially acute in multi-jurisdictional regions where agencies operate with misaligned objectives. A developer in Nevada reported nearly 30 months of delay before receiving exploratory drilling approval, despite pre-cleared land status. Without integrated agency workflows, the system remains structurally inefficient.

2. Permitting Isn’t Designed for Speed or Scale

Current permitting frameworks evolved from oil & gas rules in the 1980s, not clean tech deployment needs. Agencies lack geothermal-specific playbooks. This creates regulatory improvisation, which slows everything down.

Permitting officers often apply mineral extraction standards to geothermal projects, requiring duplicative environmental reviews or irrelevant compliance criteria. This adds costs and confusion, and signals to investors that geothermal remains bureaucratically uncharted territory.

3. State-Level Disparities Compound the Problem

California has a streamlined CEQA process for certain geothermal zones. Nevada doesn’t. Texas is a wildcard. For multi-state developers or investors, this variability adds planning risk and compliance overhead.

Inconsistent timelines mean that a geothermal project in California might advance three times faster than one in Arizona, even with similar geophysical characteristics. For investors managing large portfolios, this unpredictability drives capital elsewhere.

4. Lack of Standardized Templates = Rework

Each agency demands different data, formats, and submission styles. Instead of a shared permitting database or pre-approved geothermal zones, developers start from scratch with every application.

A 2023 review by the Clean Air Task Force highlighted that more than 60% of geothermal permit applications required resubmission due to minor formatting errors, not substantive faults. These errors caused delays of up to 90 days on average and introduced cascading impacts on project cash flow (Clean Air Task Force, 2023). In a high-capex, time-sensitive sector, this kind of inefficiency is untenable.

5. Capital Avoids Friction

Private equity and infrastructure funds are actively investing in renewable portfolios, but geothermal is underweighted. Why? Time to cash flow. Solar farms can flip in 18 months. Geothermal is 5+ years. Permitting friction makes it even less attractive.

Capital markets prize speed. Until geothermal aligns its permitting track with investor expectations on timeline and clarity, it will continue to be the clean energy underdog.

What Reform Could Look Like

Geothermal’s permitting overhaul won’t come from marginal tweaks — it needs structural change. Here’s what meaningful reform could involve:

1. Coordinated Review Models

Instead of fragmented, sequential approvals, agencies should adopt concurrent review pipelines. This means BLM, EPA, tribal authorities, and state agencies working from the same playbook and deadlines, not passing the baton one at a time.

2. A DOE-Led Permitting Clearinghouse

Create a centralized geothermal permitting team within the Department of Energy that works alongside other agencies. Similar to the DOE's Loan Programs Office, this team would act as a guide, coordinator, and advocate across bureaucratic silos.

3. Pre-Zoned Geothermal Development Areas

Borrowing from solar and wind development zones, federal and state governments could identify low-conflict geothermal zones with pre-cleared environmental assessments, access rights, and infrastructure plans.

4. Global Benchmarks: Iceland, Kenya, Indonesia

Iceland’s geothermal permitting model is timeline-guaranteed and relies on strict environmental guardrails rather than endless studies. Kenya’s Geothermal Development Corporation pre-drills and surveys sites, then auctions them to private developers, massively accelerating market entry. Indonesia introduced a single-window system for permit applications. These models prove that reform is both possible and effective.

5. Predictable Timelines = Bankable Projects

Standardizing permit timelines and decision rules won’t just accelerate projects — it will also attract more risk-averse capital. A fund manager evaluating a geothermal portfolio is far more likely to commit if delays are the exception, not the rule.

The December 2024 IEA report The Future of Geothermal Energy echoes this concern, emphasizing that complex, fragmented permitting frameworks are a key obstacle to geothermal’s global expansion. The report recommends streamlining administrative steps and creating dedicated permitting pathways tailored to geothermal’s unique characteristics.

What’s at Stake: The Missed Market Opportunity

Despite its reliability and 24/7 baseload capacity, geothermal accounts for just 0.4% of global electricity generation. In contrast, wind and solar have surged to 7% and 6%, respectively, over the past decade, despite being intermittent. Why? Policy alignment and streamlined execution.

The IEA estimates that global geothermal capacity could triple by 2040 under an accelerated transition scenario. But under current permitting regimes, much of that growth is theoretical. U.S. geothermal developers currently face median lead times of 5 to 7 years to bring new projects online, compared to 18 months for utility-scale solar. That lag erodes investor interest, stalls innovation, and causes capital to flow elsewhere.

Geothermal also suffers from underutilized industrial applications. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and direct heat can support mining operations, food processing, district heating, and green hydrogen — yet permitting for these innovations is even less mature. If the permitting puzzle isn’t solved, we don’t just lose grid power — we miss broader industrial decarbonization potential.

Case in Point: Ormat Technologies in Nevada

Ormat Technologies, a major player in the geothermal space, faced multi-year delays at its Steamboat Hills site in Nevada. Despite the project’s relatively low environmental impact and strong community support, it encountered over 24 months of delays due to overlapping state and federal review processes. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alone took over a year, and BLM consultations required repeated resubmissions of nearly identical data. This case illustrates how even experienced developers struggle with misaligned permitting structures (Ormat Annual Report, 2023).

Strategic Implications

• Policy misalignment blocks private capital — Without predictable permitting, investors hesitate.

  
  

• Developers face compounding risk from fragmented oversight — Sequential review models mean a single delay cascades through entire buildout timelines.

  
  

• Permitting opacity discourages innovation — Newer tech like Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and hybrid district heating struggle to gain approvals due to a lack of precedents.

  
  

• Cost of capital rises when timelines are uncertain — Investors demand higher returns to offset regulatory delay risk, making project financing harder.

  
  

• Geothermal remains locked out of industrial decarbonization pathways — Permitting slowdowns affect industrial, agricultural, and residential heat applications projects.

  
  

• Federal leadership remains reactive — The absence of a geothermal-specific permitting task force contributes to lagging agency coordination.

  
  

• Geothermal can't scale under 1980s rules — Regulators must modernize frameworks.

  
  

• Federal agencies need centralized geothermal review teams — Similar to fast-track solar units.

  
  

• States should adopt geothermal-specific CEQA-style templates — Streamline environmental reviews.

  
  

Conclusion & Next Steps

Geothermal isn’t a tech problem — it’s a systems problem. The core engineering is proven. The economics work. What’s broken is the permitting pipeline — and it’s costing operators years of delay, millions in opportunity cost, and credibility in the clean energy race.

Here’s what you should do next:

• If you’re a policymaker or regulatory lead: Initiate a parallel review task force with DOE and BLM

  
  

• If you’re an operator: Start modeling capital efficiency loss due to permitting friction

  
  

• If you’re an investor: Ask whether your geothermal exposure is structured for predictable return windows

  
  

• And for all stakeholders: Share this article with your networks. We don’t fix slow systems by ignoring them.

  
  

Bottom line: Fix permitting and geothermal scales — fast. If you found this useful, share it with someone in your network who works in energy, infrastructure, or industrial strategy — and help push the conversation forward.

➡️ Curious how these insights apply to your project? Let's talk.