The old map is not the next project
Production was concentrated. EIA’s table assigns California 68.6% and Nevada 24.7% of national geothermal generation. Those percentages describe each state’s share of geothermal output, not geothermal’s share of all electricity in that state. They also do not measure how much usable heat remains underground. [1]
The concentration makes location part of the business question. A project would need a usable resource and a way to deliver power to its customer. The historical map does not say the next successful plant must be in those states. Nor does a national expansion plan settle the costs of a particular site.
Follow the output and the bills
Capacity is a plant’s potential output; generation is the electricity actually produced over time. A buyer would need the delivery profile, not just the nameplate rating. Measure production and downtime across the hours that matter to the customer. A larger rating could still fail to reduce the buyer’s need for another supply.
Developers would have to fund construction and financing before recovering those costs through power sales. Buyers would judge price and useful delivery. Operating costs, delays and any additional supply still needed belong in the comparison. A cost removed from one bill but added to another is not automatically a saving for the project as a whole.
Electricity is only one geothermal use. EIA distinguishes direct use and district heating, power plants, and geothermal heat pumps. Heat pumps use near-surface temperatures to heat and cool buildings. The generation figures do not combine these different applications, whose useful outputs and economic comparisons are different. [1]
What would change the historical picture?
The strongest counterargument to relying on the old footprint is that new engineering could change where and how plants work. The 2025 share is not a ceiling. Sustained output from new projects at competitive full costs would overturn a pessimistic reading. A promising design or announced capacity alone would not; preliminary totals may also change.
The useful next record is plant-level: delivered electricity, downtime, construction and financing costs, and operating expenses. Compare it with the buyer’s actual needs and remaining supply costs. A project can succeed locally before moving national totals. More output still does not prove attractive investor returns without the money needed to produce it.
Source limits and remaining unknowns
- EIA describes 2025 figures as preliminary and distinguishes electricity production from direct heat and ground-source heat pumps. Small national share does not imply technical failure or a forecast of rapid growth.
What remains uncertain
- The 2025 figures are preliminary and national output shares are not resource estimates. Electricity must remain separate from direct heat and heat pumps.
- Announced capacity can fail to become useful generation. Construction, financing, downtime and remaining supply costs could offset the value of more power; investor returns remain unestablished.
Watch the brief
51 seconds · AI-generated narration and artwork. The article and sources provide the full context.
Read the video transcript
Geothermal supplied four-tenths of one percent of US utility-scale electricity in twenty twenty-five. That small share can’t tell a buyer what a new plant is worth. EIA’s preliminary figures put production at roughly sixteen billion kilowatt-hours, mostly in California and Nevada. That’s a production map, not a limit on future resources. Buyers need power at useful hours. Developers need sales to repay construction, financing and operation. A bigger capacity rating settles neither side of that bargain. New engineering could change the picture. Sustained output at competitive full costs would challenge a pessimistic reading. But an announced plant isn’t electricity delivered, and preliminary totals can change. Watch actual production, downtime and full costs, including supply still needed elsewhere. A local success could matter before it changes the national share.
Outcome: inconclusive
A subsequent EIA capture still describes geothermal as about0.4% of US utility-scale generation in2025, using preliminary annual data. It provides no measurement of whether later projects delivered more electricity at commercially sustainable full costs. The historical share remains a baseline, not evidence that expansion has succeeded or failed.
Use of geothermal energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Sources
- Use of geothermal energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) US Energy Information Administration · accessed 02 Oct 2026
Supporting excerpt
In 2025, the United States had geothermal power plants in seven states, which produced about 0.4%, or 16 billion kilowatthours (BkWh) of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation.
Supporting excerpt
Utility-scale power plants have at least 1,000 kilowatts (1 megawatt) of electricity generation capacity.
Supporting excerpt
California 68.6% 5.2% Nevada 24.7% 8.6%
Supporting excerpt
Direct use and district heating systems Geothermal power plants Geothermal heat pumps
This article distinguishes sourced information from interpretation and scenarios. It may contain errors and is not individual investment, legal or tax advice. No return is guaranteed. Corrections: hello@priag.com.
