A complete substitute amendment significantly restructures the bill. v2 removes all detailed findings, streamlines agency coordination, adds a focus on foreign countries of concern, and expands the list of Indo-Pacific partners and multilateral mechanisms. The specific authorization of appropriations and transfer authority from v1 have been removed.
Pacific POWER Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
- Committees
- Foreign Relations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 27, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to bolster U.S. national security and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific by leveraging geothermal energy development to strengthen allies, counter adversary influence, and create markets for U.S. companies.
What it actually does
This bill establishes an International Geothermal Program led by the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to promote geothermal energy development in the Pacific and other regions. It mandates diplomatic engagement, the selection of at least five international partners, and the provision of technical and financial assistance to support geothermal exploration, deployment, and workforce development. The bill also requires an assessment of global geothermal resources and the involvement of foreign countries of concern in these sectors.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill enhances U.S. foreign policy objectives by strengthening energy security for key allies and partners, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, thereby reducing their vulnerability to coercion and expanding markets for American geothermal technology and expertise. They contend that geothermal energy is a reliable, dispatchable power source that can meet growing energy demands and contribute to climate goals, while also addressing geopolitical competition.
Opponents contend
No specific organized opposition to this bill is evident from the text or public record, given its bipartisan sponsorship and focus on energy security and renewable energy. Potential criticisms, if any, might revolve around the allocation of existing agency resources without new appropriations, the breadth of the program's mandate, or concerns about the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts in fostering large-scale energy development.
The bill is concise and structured clearly, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the Act as the 'Pacific Promotion of Workable Energy Resources Act' or the 'Pacific POWER Act'. This provides a common reference for the legislation.
Supporters argue
Naming the bill with a clear and concise title helps in public communication and legislative tracking.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision as it is standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, such as 'appropriate committees of Congress,' 'direct use' (of geothermal energy), 'geothermal partners,' 'next-generation geothermal' technologies (e.g., enhanced geothermal systems, closed-loop systems, supercritical temperature systems), and 'Secretary' (meaning the Secretary of State). These definitions are crucial for understanding the scope and intent of the bill's programs.
Section 4
Geothermal Diplomacy Mandate
This section directs the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to lead U.S. efforts in advancing geothermal energy globally, both bilaterally and multilaterally. This includes setting deployment goals, establishing research forums, developing risk-sharing tools, promoting regulatory reforms, and creating technical, environmental, safety, and community engagement standards. It specifically prioritizes engagement with key Indo-Pacific allies and partners (e.g., Taiwan, Philippines, Japan, Australia, Indonesia, India, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Thailand) and identifies existing multilateral mechanisms for cooperation.
Section 5(c)
Establishment of International Geothermal Program
This section mandates the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to establish the International Geothermal Program (the 'Program') within one year of the Act's enactment. The Program's purpose is to foster international collaboration on geothermal exploration and development, aligning with U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.
Section 5(d)
Scope of International Geothermal Program Activities
This section details the extensive activities of the International Geothermal Program. These include supporting large-scale geothermal deployment (including next-generation technologies and direct use), conducting research, facilitating resource exploration, integrating geothermal into energy planning, identifying opportunity zones, supporting workforce and supply chain development, promoting community engagement, assisting with risk-sharing and financial tools, aiding in predictable siting and permitting processes, creating financial incentives for investment, and identifying export opportunities for U.S. companies.
Section 5(e)
Selection Criteria for Geothermal Partners
This section mandates the Secretary of State to select at least five 'geothermal partners' concurrently with the Program's establishment. The selection must include at least three countries in the Indo-Pacific, at least one country that currently does not produce or consume geothermal energy at a commercial scale, and at least one country demonstrating significant potential to expand existing geothermal capacity. The choices must be informed by a prior assessment report.
Section 5(g)
Engagement with Private Sector and Nonprofits
This section requires the Secretary of State to establish an advisory mechanism to involve U.S. geothermal developers, equipment manufacturers, financial institutions, industry associations, and nonprofit organizations. This mechanism will help identify export opportunities for U.S. technology, advise on technical standards, data use, policy, supply chain, and workforce needs, and facilitate connections between U.S. companies and investment opportunities.
Section 6(a) and 6(d)
Program Implementation Strategy and Annual Reporting
This section mandates the Secretary of State to submit a detailed strategy report within 180 days of the Program's establishment, outlining the U.S. approach for each geothermal partner, including estimated personnel and assistance resources. Additionally, it requires annual reports to Congress summarizing activities, strategy changes, personnel assigned, and assistance provided, ensuring ongoing oversight and accountability for the Program's implementation.
The term 'Secretary' is defined as the Secretary of State, explicitly designating the Department of State as the lead agency for the International Geothermal Program.
Section 2(5)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms at the beginning of an act. However, for a program with significant technical and energy development components, placing the State Department in the lead is a substantive policy choice that might be less obvious if not explicitly highlighted.
Case for: Supporters would argue that leading with the Department of State ensures the program is integrated into broader U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives, leveraging diplomatic channels and expertise for international engagement.
Case against: Critics might contend that a program focused on energy technology and development would be more effectively led by the Department of Energy, which possesses greater technical and scientific expertise in geothermal systems.
Estimated impact: This designation fundamentally shapes the program's strategic direction, operational focus, and inter-agency coordination dynamics.
Geothermal diplomacy efforts must include developing community engagement standards and best practices, specifically mentioning 'early and consistent community engagement, including the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and other communities.'
Section 4(a)(5)(A)
Why it matters:While it's a detailed operational requirement, the inclusion of 'free, prior, and informed consent' represents a high standard for human rights and community engagement in development projects, which can be politically sensitive. Its placement might reflect an attempt to integrate it as a standard practice rather than a standalone, debated policy.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures ethical, equitable, and sustainable geothermal development, respecting the rights of local and Indigenous communities, which is crucial for long-term project success and U.S. values.
Case against: Some critics might argue that mandating 'free, prior, and informed consent' could add significant complexity, time, and cost to project development, potentially hindering the rapid deployment of geothermal resources.
Estimated impact: Establishes a robust ethical and social governance framework for U.S.-supported geothermal projects, potentially influencing international development norms.
The initial assessment report must evaluate 'the extent to which foreign countries of concern, as defined in section 4872(d) of title 10, United States Code, are involved in, or may seek to influence or control, the geothermal energy sectors, supply chains, infrastructure, financing, or related critical minerals' of potential partner countries.
Section 5(a)(4)
Why it matters:It is a highly significant national security and geopolitical screening mechanism. Its placement within the assessment criteria ensures it is a foundational element of the program's strategy without being a primary 'action' item in the program's public description.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this is essential for protecting U.S. national security interests, preventing adversary influence over critical energy infrastructure, and ensuring the resilience and security of geothermal supply chains in partner countries.
Case against: Critics might suggest that such a focus could lead to politicization of energy projects, potentially limiting investment or technical assistance from non-U.S. sources even if they offer competitive solutions, or could be perceived as an overreach into the sovereign decisions of partner nations.
Estimated impact: Integrates a direct counter-intelligence and national security screening element into the program's foundational assessment, influencing partner selection and project development.