To exempt Federal actions related to energy and mineral activities on certain Federal lands from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
đź“ť TL;DR
This bill would exempt oil, gas, coal, and critical mineral projects on federal lands from environmental review requirements under NEPA. It aims to speed up energy development by eliminating the environmental impact assessment process for these activities, but would also remove public input opportunities and environmental protections.
Plain English Summary
HR 10528, introduced by Rep. Hageman on December 19, 2024, seeks to exempt certain energy and mineral development activities on federal lands from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review requirements. NEPA, enacted in 1969, requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of major federal actions through environmental impact statements or environmental assessments—a process that can take months or years to complete. This bill would classify specific categories of energy and mineral leasing and permitting actions as not constituting 'major Federal actions' under NEPA, thereby eliminating the requirement for environmental review. The legislation targets activities under two key mining laws: the Mineral Leasing Act (covering oil, gas, and coal) and the Mining Law of 1872 (covering critical minerals), reflecting ongoing tensions between energy development priorities and environmental protection requirements on public lands.
Detailed Analysis
The bill employs a straightforward legislative mechanism to achieve its goal: statutory redefinition of what constitutes a 'major Federal action' under NEPA Section 102(2)(C). Rather than repealing NEPA entirely or creating broad exemptions, HR 10528 uses precise language in its single operative section to carve out specific activities from NEPA's scope. The bill's structure is notably concise, containing only one substantive section that establishes two distinct categories of exempt actions. The first category addresses fossil fuel development under the Mineral Leasing Act, encompassing the full lifecycle of activities from initial exploration through production. The second category targets critical mineral extraction under the 1872 Mining Law, covering activities from exploration and location of claims through actual extraction operations. The bill's use of the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' creates a strong legal shield, suggesting intent to override not just NEPA requirements but potentially other environmental statutes that might require environmental review. The legislation's timing—introduced in the lame duck session of the 118th Congress—suggests it may be positioning language for future reintroduction rather than expecting immediate passage. The bill's reference to 'land that is open to mineral entry' in subsection (2) maintains existing restrictions on where mining can occur but eliminates environmental review requirements for activities on already-accessible lands. Notably absent from the bill are any substitute environmental protection measures, timelines, or gradual implementation provisions.
🎯 Key Provisions
NEPA Major Federal Action Redefinition: Establishes that specified energy and mineral activities will not be considered major federal actions under NEPA, effectively removing environmental review requirements. Uses override language to supersede conflicting laws. (Section 1 - 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following shall not be considered a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969')
Fossil Fuel Lease Exemption: Exempts the issuance, granting, or renewal of oil, gas, and coal leases, easements, and rights-of-way from NEPA review. Covers the complete spectrum of fossil fuel development activities on federal lands. (Section 1(1) - Activities under 'the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) for the exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or coal')
Critical Mineral Permit Exemption: Removes NEPA requirements for permits and authorizations related to critical mineral extraction under the 1872 Mining Law. Applies only to lands currently open to mineral entry. (Section 1(2) - Activities under 'the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) for the exploration, location, development, or extraction of a critical mineral on land that is open to mineral entry')
Comprehensive Activity Coverage: Ensures exemptions apply to initial permits as well as renewals, creating long-term relief from environmental review requirements for ongoing operations. (Section 1(1) and (2) - 'Issuing, granting, or renewing' permits, leases, easements, and authorizations)
Legal Override Provision: Establishes supremacy over conflicting legal requirements, potentially affecting other environmental statutes beyond NEPA that might require impact assessments. (Section 1 - 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law' language creates broad legal immunity from environmental review requirements)
Existing Land Use Restrictions Maintained: Preserves current limitations on where mining can occur by limiting critical mineral exemptions to lands already open to mineral entry under existing law. (Section 1(2) - Applies only to 'land that is open to mineral entry' under the Mining Law of 1872)
đź‘Ą Impact Analysis
Direct Effects If enacted, this bill would immediately eliminate environmental review requirements for a significant portion of federal energy and mineral development activities. Federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service would no longer need to conduct environmental impact statements or environmental assessments for oil, gas, coal, and critical mineral projects covered by the exemptions. This could substantially accelerate the timeline for approving energy and mining projects on federal lands, potentially reducing approval times from years to months. The legislation would also eliminate opportunities for public comment and input that are integral to the NEPA process, fundamentally altering how decisions about federal land use are made. Companies seeking to develop energy and mineral resources would face reduced regulatory compliance costs and faster project timelines.
Indirect Effects The elimination of environmental reviews could lead to increased environmental degradation on federal lands, as potential impacts to air quality, water resources, wildlife habitat, and cultural sites would no longer receive systematic assessment. This could result in future cleanup costs and liability issues for the federal government. The bill might also generate increased litigation as environmental groups challenge specific projects through other legal avenues, potentially creating legal uncertainty rather than the regulatory clarity it aims to achieve.
Affected Groups - Energy and mining companies - Environmental organizations - Federal land management agencies - Local communities near federal lands - Tribal nations with cultural ties to affected areas - Outdoor recreation industry - Taxpayers responsible for future environmental cleanup costs
Fiscal Impact The bill does not include specific funding provisions or cost estimates. However, it would likely reduce administrative costs for federal agencies by eliminating the need to conduct environmental reviews, which can cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per project. Conversely, the lack of environmental review could lead to increased long-term federal costs related to environmental cleanup, restoration, and potential legal liability. The Congressional Budget Office would need to provide formal cost estimates, but the fiscal impact is not quantified in the bill text.
đź“‹ Latest Action
12/19/2024
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.