California Assembly Bill AB531

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/11/25
• Refer: 3/3/25
• Report Pass: 4/3/25
• Refer: 4/3/25
• Report Pass: 4/22/25
• Refer: 4/22/25
• Refer: 5/14/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 6/2/25
• Refer: 6/3/25
• Refer: 6/11/25
• Report Pass: 7/3/25
• Refer: 7/7/25
• Report Pass: 7/16/25
• Refer: 7/16/25

Caption

Geothermal powerplants and projects: certification and environmental review.

Impact

The implications of AB 531 are significant for California's energy landscape, as it seeks to enhance the development of geothermal energy—a renewable resource with a relatively low environmental impact. By allowing geothermal projects to qualify for streamlined regulatory benefits, the bill is intended to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy technologies. This could not only contribute to the state's energy independence but also support its climate goals by reducing reliance on fossil fuels. As such, the bill potentially opens the doors for increased investment in geothermal infrastructure across the state.

Summary

Assembly Bill 531, introduced by Assembly Member Rogers, aims to amend Section 25545 of the Public Resources Code related to geothermal powerplants and geothermal field development projects. The bill seeks to expand the types of facilities eligible for certification as environmental leadership development projects under the California Energy Commission (CEC). This amendment facilitates the inclusion of geothermal powerplants in the environmental leadership certification program, allowing these projects to benefit from streamlined environmental review processes under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This move aligns with the state's overarching goal of increasing renewable energy production as part of its policy initiatives towards cleaner energy sources.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 531 appears to be largely positive among proponents of renewable energy, who argue that it will enable faster deployment of geothermal technologies. Legislators and advocates view it as a step forward in building a more sustainable energy future for California. Conversely, there may be concerns from environmental watchdogs about the comprehensive impact of such projects on local ecosystems, particularly in sensitive areas where geothermal activities might take place. The debate may reflect broader tensions between the urgency of renewable energy development and the necessity for thorough environmental oversight.

Contention

Key points of contention may center around the balance between accelerating energy production and ensuring adequate environmental protections. Critics could argue that streamlining the regulatory process might bypass critical assessments that safeguard ecological and community interests. Furthermore, questions about the sufficiency of CEQA protections in context to new geothermal projects could lead to discussions about whether the benefits risk overshadowing local impacts. The legislative evaluation of AB 531 is likely to delve into these competing priorities as California continues to navigate its energy policy framework.