Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy: Oil and Gas and Geothermal Power
Congressional research reportSep 14, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Considerations for Federal Leasing of
Onshore Energy: Oil and Gas and Geothermal
Power
Updated September 14, 2026
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R48064
SUMMARY
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore
Energy: Oil and Gas and Geothermal Power
Both oil and gas (O&G) and geothermal power are long-standing energy sectors for the United
States. The two sectors have many similar characteristics, including use of subsurface resources,
ability to provide baseload electricity production, development timelines, drilling technologies
and processes, and types of environmental impacts. The technologies also have significant
differences. O&G is a more mature sector, with more investment potential and more potential for
competitive leasing, but it depends on finite, carbon-intensive resources. Geothermal power has
growth potential due to developing technologies like enhanced geothermal systems and the
potential to deliver lower-carbon electricity. Geothermal power also has challenges to greater
deployment, including high capital costs, difficult operating conditions, lower profit margins on
electricity compared to fossil fuels, and other market challenges. These similarities and
differences influence how current onshore federal leasing and permitting laws and regulations
impact each sector and can inform what changes might be relevant for the future management
and development of federal lands and resources.
R48064
September 14, 2026
Morgan Smith
Analyst in Energy Policy
Lexie Ryan
Analyst in Energy Policy
Heather McPherron
Analyst in Environmental
Policy
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the agency responsible for administering onshore
energy and mineral resources on federal lands, covering more than 700 million acres of the federal subsurface mineral estate.
In general, BLM manages leasing on federal lands for O&G and geothermal energy resources pursuant to the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA; 30 U.S.C. §§181 et seq.) and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. §§1001 et seq.),
respectively. Additionally, leasing activities by BLM and development activities by the lessee are subject to legal and
regulatory management requirements of the federal agency responsible for managing the land on which the lease is located,
as well as other federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.), the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.), and the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) and any relevant state and local
laws governing resource use and protection. With respect to NEPA compliance for O&G and geothermal development on
onshore federal lands, some categorical exclusions (CEs) have been established in statute or administratively that identify
activities that normally do not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and thus do not require
further environmental reviews under NEPA.
Federal leasing terms and requirements may vary between O&G and geothermal development on federal lands. However,
both sectors have periodic competitive and noncompetitive bidding processes that require the lessee to pay bids, rents (paid
prior to energy production, based on the amount of land), and royalties (paid once production begins, generally based on the
value of the resource being accessed or extracted). Some of the lease terms are set by law at fixed or minimum values,
whereas others may be left to BLM to determine based on agency objectives and best-use determinations. Whether and to
what degree current leasing and permitting requirements meet various federal priorities is a subject of congressional debate.
These priorities include BLM’s mission to ensure multiple-use and sustained yield of federal resources or broader federal
goals of providing a reliable electricity supply, ensuring energy security, safeguarding the environment, or providing for
fiscal security through federal leasing revenue.
Congress has reviewed and may further consider a variety of topics associated with federal leasing and use of O&G and
geothermal resources. These topics could include
•
guidance or requirements for financial bonding—often used to support site reclamation after project
completion;
•
•
•
lease terms to address nonproductive leases and/or intermediate land uses;
•
•
requirements on applications for drilling permits and timelines for reviewing and decisions; and
conditions for when competitive and noncompetitive leasing opportunities could be allowed;
how much authority BLM has to set lease terms; whether such terms should be fixed values, minimum
values, or ranges of values; and their time frames;
appropriateness of the CEs available to O&G or geothermal projects to support resource development
and/or to ensure proper evaluation of environmental impacts.
Congressional Research Service
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Contents
Oil and Gas and Geothermal Power Sectors ................................................................................... 1
Development of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources in the United States ............................... 2
Bureau of Land Management’s Role in Energy and Mineral Development.................................... 5
Federal Lease Terms ........................................................................................................................ 6
Changes to Federal Oil and Gas Lease Terms in the 119th Congress ........................................ 9
Past Amendments to Federal Geothermal Lease Terms .......................................................... 10
Federal Permitting and Leasing Process........................................................................................ 10
Developing Projects: Productive and Nonproductive Leases ........................................................ 13
NEPA Environmental Review Process .......................................................................................... 14
BLM’s Implementation of NEPA ............................................................................................ 15
BLM’s Implementation of NEPA for O&G and Geothermal Activities amid the
Declared National Energy Emergency ................................................................................. 16
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 18
Bonding and Project Reclamation ........................................................................................... 18
BLM Authority to Set Royalty Rates ...................................................................................... 19
Productive and Nonproductive Leases .................................................................................... 21
Noncompetitive Leases ........................................................................................................... 21
Drilling Activities and Review Processes ............................................................................... 21
Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) and Geothermal Drilling Permits
(GPDs) ........................................................................................................................... 21
Environmental Reviews .................................................................................................... 24
Figures
Figure 1. Average APD Processing Times ..................................................................................... 23
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Lease Terms for Federal Oil and Gas (O&G) and Geothermal
Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2. Summary of Changes to Oil and Gas Leasing Terms in the Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA; P.L. 117-169) and the FY2025 Reconciliation Law (P.L. 119-21) .............................. 9
Table 3. Selected Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Permitting and Leasing Processes
for Geothermal and Oil and Gas Resources ................................................................................ 11
Table 4. Features of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Analyses Under
Alternative Arrangements Adopted by the Department of the Interior (DOI) ........................... 17
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 26
Congressional Research Service
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Oil and Gas and Geothermal Power Sectors
Congress plays a role in energy development on federal lands, including by providing authority
and guidance to federal agencies that are responsible for resource management. The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and other federal agencies support development of both nonrenewable
and renewable resources on federal lands, which contribute to federal revenues, the energy supply
for the U.S. economy, and other national priorities.
Oil and gas (O&G) and geothermal energy are two such resources. They have a variety of
similarities and differences that can affect their contributions to the U.S. economy and their
management as a resource. Review of these similarities and differences may help inform
Congress on whether to maintain the current laws and regulations that govern management and
development of lands and resources or to make changes to best serve federal priorities.
The federal government may seek to regulate both sectors’ development similarly, because these
two energy resources generally share many physical and operational characteristics. These
include similar subsurface location of resources; development processes and timelines; resource
identification, access, and production technologies; similarities in the types of potential
environmental impact considerations from their development; similar workforce knowledge and
skill sets; and similar capability for generation of baseload electricity. The Trump Administration
has taken actions to align its approach to technology development for both sectors, with the
Department of Energy (DOE) moving geothermal energy to the renamed Hydrocarbons and
Geothermal Energy Office in November 2025.1 Congress may weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of aligning other aspects of resource development between O&G and geothermal.
Alternatively, the federal government may continue to regulate these resources differently
because of different goals for their exploitation or because of the differences between the
resources. These differences include challenges related to accessing resources and their
production (including potential development risks, costs, and timelines; operation in different
geologies and subsurface conditions; and the need for technology development and adaptations);
the degree of emissions and other environmental impacts from development; the fact that O&G is
nonrenewable but geothermal is renewable; industry size, investment opportunities, and sector
maturity, including long-term profit and development potential; and how each resource can
contribute to different national priorities or future development scenarios.
The following sections describe how processes for leasing and permitting on onshore federal
lands are applied to O&G and geothermal energy. These sections note how these two resource
types are treated similarly or differently and provide context for federal O&G and geothermal
energy development regulations. The final section of this report discusses several issues for
potential congressional consideration, including bonding and project reclamation, productive and
nonproductive leases, agency authority to set lease terms, and application review processes.
In part because of BLM’s role in administering the subsurface mineral estate and federal leasing
for O&G and geothermal energy, this report focuses on selected BLM processes, including
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et
seq.). Multiple other federal, state, and local laws may also require permitting or other procedures
for the approval and operation of an O&G or geothermal project on federal lands, depending on
the scope and nature of the activities, potential environmental impacts, and other factors. In
1 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Energy Department Announces Organizational Realignment to Strengthen
Efficiency and Unleash American Energy,” press release, November 20, 2025, https://www.energy.gov/articles/energydepartment-announces-organizational-realignment-strengthen-efficiency-and-unleash. Before the reorganization,
geothermal research was under the former Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Congressional Research Service
1
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
general, this report does not provide a comprehensive analysis of all relevant laws or approvals
that may apply to a given project. In addition, this report does not cover O&G and geothermal
resources on federal land managed by other federal agencies;2 other onshore energy resources on
federal lands (such as solar, wind, or coal); offshore energy resources; or energy resources on
tribal lands.3
Development of Oil and Gas and Geothermal
Resources in the United States
O&G and geothermal power are two long-operating energy sectors in the United States. The first
successful well intended to produce natural gas was dug in 1821 in Fredonia, NY.4 The first
American natural gas company was formed in Fredonia in 1858. The first commercial well drilled
specifically for oil in the United States was the Drake Well near Titusville, PA, in 1859.5 John
Rockefeller invested in his first oil refinery near Cleveland, OH, in 1863, leading to the creation
of Standard Oil in 1870.6 In 2025, O&G contributed 73% of total U.S. primary energy
consumption and supplies energy and products to a variety of industries.7 Even with continued
policy and market trends toward lower-carbon energy sources, O&G will likely continue to play
an important role in the U.S. energy mix for decades.
The world’s first geothermal district heating system was created in Boise, ID, in 1892.8 The first
small-scale geothermal power plant (250 kilowatts) was installed at The Geysers in Northern
California in 1922. 9 The first large-scale commercial power plant (11 megawatts) was also
installed at The Geysers, in 1960.10 In 2025, geothermal power contributed 0.12% of U.S.
primary energy consumption in the form of electricity and direct use (heating and cooling).11 The
2 Other federal land management agencies include the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Park Service. The Department of Defense and other agencies also manage some federal lands. See CRS In
Focus IF10585, The Federal Land Management Agencies, by Carol Hardy Vincent et al.
3 For information on offshore oil and gas (O&G) leasing, see CRS Report R44692, Five-Year Offshore Oil and Gas
Leasing Program: Status and Issues in Brief, by Laura B. Comay, and CRS Report R46195, Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues, by Laura B. Comay. For federal onshore O&G leasing, see
CRS Report R46537, Revenues and Disbursements from Oil and Natural Gas Leases on Onshore Federal Lands, by
Lexie Ryan. For coal, see CRS Infographic IG10076, U.S. Coal Production & Federal Lands, by Lexie Ryan. For
O&G leasing on tribal lands, see CRS Report R47640, Energy Leasing and Agreement Authorities on Tribal Lands: In
Brief, by Mariel J. Murray.
4 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Energy Timelines – Natural Gas,” accessed August 20, 2026,
https://www.eia.gov/kids/history-of-energy/timelines/natural-gas.php.
5 American Chemical Society, “Development of the Pennsylvania Oil Industry,” https://www.acs.org/education/
whatischemistry/landmarks/pennsylvaniaoilindustry.html.
6 Keith Poole, “Biography: John D. Rockefeller, Senior,” American Experience, accessed August 20, 2026,
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/rockefellers-john/.
7 Primary energy is the total amount of energy available for practical use after extraction from nature—from all energy
sources including oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power, and renewables. Measured in British thermal units (Btu). EIA,
“U.S. Energy Facts Explained,” accessed April 20, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/.
8 Kevin Rafferty, “Geothermal District Heating: A Century of Service,” ASHRAE Journal, September 1992,
http://waterworkshistory.us/DH/ID/Boise/1992Ashrae.pdf.
9 Avenston, “Geothermal Energy: Passed Stage or Step into the Future,” November 3, 2019, https://avenston.com/en/
insights/geothermal-energy-stage-or-step.
10 John W. Lund, “100 Years of Geothermal Power Production,” Geothermal Heat Center Bulletin, September 2004,
https://web.archive.org/web/20100617221828/http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull25-3/art2.pdf.
11 Measured in Btu. EIA, “Table 1.3. Primary Energy Consumption by Source,” Annual Energy Review, 2025,
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?tbl=T01.03#/?f=A&start=2020&end=2025&charted=1-2-3-5-12.
Congressional Research Service
2
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
U.S. Energy Information Administration identifies geothermal power as a renewable resource that
could provide baseload electricity generation to support the changing electrical grid.12
Additionally, new drilling and power generation technologies, including enhanced geothermal
systems (EGS), are enabling access to significant new amounts of geothermal power.13 DOE
projects that geothermal power—particularly due to the potential from EGS development—could
provide 90 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity by 2050 (4.6% of total projected U.S.
2050 capacity, providing 11.6% of U.S. electricity).14
These two energy sectors share some general operational characteristics, including the subsurface
location of resources, general development timelines, technologies, and the types of potential
environmental impacts from drilling:15
•
•
•
•
Both sectors access underground energy resources tied to specific geographical
locations and conditions. Accessing either resource involves many similar types
of risks and challenges, including lengthy project development timelines,
difficult-to-access resources, and potential well-development failures.
The two sectors use similar technologies and techniques, including drilling and
well-completion technologies, underground resource assessment technologies,
and power plant technologies (common to many thermal power generation
applications).
The two sectors’ workforces employ similar skill sets and knowledge bases.
Development requires related knowledge and understanding of geology and
resource potentials.
The two sectors can affect the environment similarly during drilling, especially if
proper precautions are not followed, including the potential for ground water
impacts, induced seismicity, and other impacts from the use of drilling rigs and
the construction of access roads, power plants, and pipelines.16
The two energy sectors also have significant differences, including industry size and investment,
long-term profit and development potential, the degree of emissions and other environmental
impacts, and the applications for each energy type:
12 EIA, “What Is Energy?” accessed August 20, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/sources-of-
energy.php.
13 Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) use directional drilling and hydraulic stimulation technologies to add porosity
and fluid circulation to locations of naturally occurring underground heat to create conditions necessary for geothermal
energy production. Fervo Energy started operation of a 3.5-megawatt (MW) enhanced geothermal system (EGS) plant
in Nevada in November 2023. Other plants and demonstration projects are being developed at several sites in the
United States. For more details on EGS, see CRS Report R47256, Enhanced Geothermal Systems: Introduction and
Issues for Congress, by Morgan Smith; and National Laboratory of the Rockies (formerly National Renewable Energy
Laboratory), 2025 U.S. Geothermal Market Report, June 2026, https://www.nlr.gov/geothermal/2025-us-geothermalmarket-report#market-future.
14 With 90 gigawatts (GW) of projected capacity, geothermal power could generate approximately 672 terawatt-hours
(TWh) of electricity. EIA’s 2050 projections for U.S. electricity supply are 1,965 GW of capacity and 5,782 TWh of
electricity generation. Chad Augustine et al., “Enhanced Geothermal Shot Analysis for the Geothermal Technologies
Office,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, January 2023, https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy23osti/84822.pdf; Energy
Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2026, April 8, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
tables_ref.php.
15 For more details on comparison of these two industries, see CRS Report R47405, Oil and Gas Technology and
Geothermal Energy Development, by Morgan Smith.
16 The magnitudes of these risks and impacts vary between energy types, as noted in the following section on
differences.
Congressional Research Service
3
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geothermal energy is largely used for building heating or electricity generation—
whereas O&G has industrial and building heating, electricity generation, liquid
fuel, and chemical feedstock applications. Since geothermal power is renewable,
the sustainable operation of geothermal plants and the potential for expanded
applications—from the continuing electrification of industrial and residential
markets—means geothermal projects have the potential for long-term operations
and sustained profits.
The knowledge of geothermal resources—including their location and subsurface
conditions—is generally more limited than the knowledge of fossil fuel
resources.
Geothermal projects—while facing some of the same general challenges as O&G
development—have unique operating conditions that generate different risks and
different chances of failure. In addition to navigating more uncertainty in location
and subsurface conditions compared to O&G, geothermal drilling generally
requires larger diameter wells with higher temperatures, involves drilling through
harder rock, and accesses deeper resources than O&G drilling. Additionally,
geothermal power plants tend to have higher capital costs than other similarly
sized thermal power projects, such as natural gas-fired plants, due to operational
and plant design factors—geothermal systems generally pump higher fluid
volumes, manage more challenging reservoir17 conditions (e.g., reservoir
geochemistry and geofluid mechanics), and incorporate more complex plant
designs to maximize efficiency.
Geothermal power produces low or no carbon emissions, whereas O&G produces
significant emissions.18 Geothermal projects also generate fewer byproducts or
other wastes requiring handling and disposal.
Relative to the geothermal sector, the O&G sector is larger, more mature, and
generally better understood by potential investors, developers, and other partners,
which can decrease risks and support more and/or easier project development.
O&G has more capital available for investment due to high productivity and high
profit levels. Potential investors and developers are more familiar with O&G
risks, investments, benefits, and markets. O&G also has a larger workforce and
more extensive experience with, and knowledge of, its underground resources.
Some recent policy and social trends—such as business guidance that
incorporates considerations of an action’s environmental, social, and governance
effects—cast O&G resources as finite, fossil-fuel-based, carbon-intensive energy
sources, with the potential for a variety of negative environmental and human
impacts. Geothermal resources are renewable, low-carbon energy sources, with
more limited degrees of negative environmental and human impacts. Some
decisionmakers in corporate, social, and governmental policy and markets, such
as those who support greenhouse gas reduction goals, seek to shape U.S. energy
17 Geothermal reservoirs are natural or man-made underground regions where heat, water, and porosity converge.
18 For example, geothermal power plants have 97% less emissions of sulfur compounds, which may contribute to acid
rain, and 99% less carbon dioxide emissions. EIA, “Geothermal Explained: Geothermal Energy and the Environment,”
accessed September 2, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/geothermal/geothermal-energy-and-theenvironment.php.
Congressional Research Service
4
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
development to include more renewable, carbon-free sources, which may include
geothermal energy.19
Bureau of Land Management’s Role in Energy and
Mineral Development
Located within the Department of the Interior (DOI), BLM manages energy production and
mineral development from all federal surface lands (including lands managed by other agencies)
and the federal subsurface mineral estate. BLM also assists in energy development projects on
certain tribal lands (though it does not lease those lands). In general, BLM derives statutory
authority for leasing and developing O&G and geothermal resources from the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 (MLA; 30 U.S.C. §§181 et seq.) and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C.
§§1001 et seq.), respectively.
An initial step in BLM developing energy and mineral resources on federal land is land use
planning.20 BLM, which manages the majority of federal land where energy and mineral
resources are developed, derives its general statutory authority for the management of lands under
its authority, commonly referred to as “public lands,” from the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.).21 FLPMA directs BLM to manage public
lands for multiple use and sustained yield, which encompasses “a combination of balanced and
diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for
renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber,
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values.”22
Although FLPMA places certain requirements and constraints on BLM’s implementation of these
“multiple use” and “sustained yield” directives, some discretion is left to the agency for
interpreting how best to comply with this statutory mandate.23
FLPMA requires BLM to develop, maintain, and—when appropriate—revise land use plans
(which BLM refers to as “resource management plans,” or RMPs) for lands under their
jurisdiction in accordance with the “multiple use and sustained yield” principle.24 An RMP
describes the desired outcomes, allowable uses, and anticipated management actions for a given
area. Approval of an RMP is subject to the environmental review requirements under NEPA,
which is described in more detail in the “NEPA Environmental Review Process” section of this
report.25 Part of BLM’s management of federal lands under its multiple use directive is
determining the best use of the land, including where and when multiple simultaneous uses are
possible without interfering with each other. For example, grazing or recreation are often allowed
19 For more information on trends in energy, see EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2026, April 8, 2026,
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
20 Agency-specific statutory and regulatory authorities guide different agencies in their processes.
21 For background on the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), see Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as Amended, September 2016, https://www.blm.gov/
sites/blm.gov/files/AboutUs_LawsandRegs_FLPMA.pdf.
22 43 U.S.C. §1702(c).
23 43 U.S.C. §1702(c) and 43 U.S.C. §1702(h). For more information on BLM’s interpretation of these directives, see
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10982, Federal Land Management: When “Multiple Use” and “Sustained Yield” Diverge, by
Adam Vann.
24 43 U.S.C. §1712.
25 BLM, “Types of Plans,” accessed August 20, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/planning101/types-of-plans; BLM, “What Informs Our Plans,” accessed March 31, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/programs/
planning-and-nepa/what-informs-our-plans.
Congressional Research Service
5
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
on federal lands in conjunction with other designated uses. However, though an RMP for a given
area of land may designate multiple possible uses, an individual project may affect or prevent the
other potential uses of the land.
After the RMP is developed, BLM may also develop activity-level and/or project-specific plans
and decisions that describe the on-the-ground implementation of certain actions, programs, or
projects for a given area. BLM may revise any of its plans based on new information, newly
developed technologies, new policy goals, or other changing circumstances. Any proposed
development activity, such as for O&G or geothermal, must comport with the RMP and activity
plans for the parcel of land.
Federal Lease Terms
O&G and geothermal development on federal lands are managed through BLM leasing processes
that share many similarities in requirements but also have many differences. Differences between
O&G and geothermal leasing include fiscal terms, frequency of lease sales, and operator
responsibilities specific to the resource type. Past and current Congresses have debated and
continue to debate whether and to what degree current leasing and permitting requirements meet
various federal priorities. Such federal priorities include BLM’s mission to ensure multiple-use
and sustained yield of federal resources or more general federal goals of providing a reliable
electricity supply, ensuring energy security, safeguarding the environment, or providing for fiscal
security through federal leasing revenue.
Leases for federal onshore O&G development are generally administered pursuant to the MLA.26
Leases for geothermal projects on federal lands are administered pursuant to the Geothermal
Steam Act of 1970. Table 1 provides a summary of lease terms for O&G and geothermal
resources. Both resources have some similar lease terms, including the duration of the primary
lease and opportunities for renewals. Both require a nomination fee, but with different terms.
Both have competitive and noncompetitive lease options.27 Both leasing processes similarly
require the payments of bids (also known as bonuses), rents, and royalties.
Differences also exist in lease terms. O&G leases require a minimum bid, but geothermal leases
do not. The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 defines ranges (minimum and maximum rates) for the
royalties for geothermal production based on years from production start,28 but the MLA
establishes only a minimum rate for royalties for O&G.29 For rents, minimum rates are
established by statute for both resource types. Additionally, the minimum rent and royalty rates
are higher for O&G than for geothermal. As a result of these terms, payments from lessees may
be a greater percentage of sales or higher value per project for O&G compared to geothermal.
In addition to the terms summarized in Table 1, both O&G and geothermal leasing processes are
subject to land use decisions, activity plans, and NEPA compliance. Project operators for both
26
O&G leasing programs on some specific federal lands are administered pursuant to other laws. For example, the
National Petroleum Reserves Production Act (P.L. 94-258) authorized O&G development and established leasing terms
in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska; see CRS In Focus IF13119, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA): A Summary, by Mark K. DeSantis and Lexie Ryan. Also, acquired lands are subject to the Mineral Leasing Act for
Acquired Lands (P.L. 80-382); see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
27 The budget reconciliation measure often referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) eliminated
noncompetitive O&G leases. Three years later, the FY2025 reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21) reestablished
noncompetitive O&G leases.
28 30 U.S.C. §1004.
29 30 U.S.C. §226(b).
Congressional Research Service
6
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
resource types must also comply with requirements of site-specific and project-specific permits
and other applicable requirements of federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Table 1. Summary of Lease Terms for Federal Oil and Gas (O&G) and Geothermal
Resources
O&G
Geothermal
Primary lease length
10 years (30 U.S.C. §226(e))
10 years (30 U.S.C. §1005(a))
Lease renewal
Lease continues as long as there is
production of oil or gas in paying
quantities. If drilling operations commenced
before the end of the primary term, the
lease can be extended for two years and
any period thereafter during which oil and
gas is produced (30 U.S.C. §226(e)).
Lease may be extended for two five-year
periods provided work toward
development, or required payments, are
made. If geothermal production and use
commenced before the end of the primary
term, the lease can be extended for 35 years
with a preferential renewal option after that
(30 U.S.C. §1005).
Pre-drilling bond
requirements
Lessee or operator must post a bond
amounting to a minimum of $150,000 for a
single lease or $500,000 for all leases in a
state (43 C.F.R. §3104).a
For exploration operations, lessee or
operator must post a bond amounting to a
minimum of $5,000 for a single operation,
$25,000 for all operations in a state, or
$50,000 for all operations nationwide (43
C.F.R. §3251.14).
For drilling operations, lessee or operator
must post a bond amounting to a minimum
of $10,000 for a single lease, $50,000 for all
operations in a state, or $150,000 for all
operations nationwide (43 C.F.R. §3261.18).
Site License Bond
Requirements
n/a
For electrical generation, the site operator
must post a bond amounting to a minimum
of $100,000 (43 C.F.R. §3279.19).
Nomination fee
n/ab
Nomination fee is $150 plus $0.14 per acre
(43 C.F.R. §3000.120).
Application fee
Application fee is $3,175 for competitive
leases only (43 C.F.R. §3000.120).c
Application fee is $205 for competitive
leases or $535 for noncompetitive leases
(43 C.F.R. §3000.120).c
Minimum bid
Minimum bid is $10 per acre for the 10year period beginning on August 16, 2022.
The national minimum acceptable bid may
be increased after that period (30 U.S.C.
§226(b)).
n/a
Rent
Competitive leases: For the 10-year period
beginning on August 16, 2022, rent is not
less than $3 per acre for the first two
years, $5 per acre per year for the
following six-year period, and $15 per acre
per year thereafter (30 U.S.C. §226(d)).
Competitive leases: Rent is not less than $2
per acre per year for the first year, $3 per
acre per year for the following nine years,
and $5 per acre per year thereafter (30
U.S.C. §1004(a)).
Noncompetitive leases: Rent is $1 per acre
per year for the first 10 years, and $5 per
acre per year thereafter (30 U.S.C.
§1004(a)).
Congressional Research Service
7
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Royalty
O&G
Geothermal
Royalty is not less than 12½% of the value
of production. The Secretary of the
Interior is permitted to “waive, suspend or
reduce the rental, or minimum royalty” as
a production incentive (30 U.S.C. §226(b);
30 U.S.C. §209; 43 C.F.R. §3103.41(a)).
Royalty is not less than 1% and not more
than 2.5% of the gross proceeds of
electricity produced in first 10 years of
production; or not less than 2% and not
more than 5% thereafter (30 U.S.C. §1004).
The Secretary of the Interior is permitted to
“waive, suspend or reduce the rental or
royalty” for conservation purposes, to
encourage the greatest recovery of
resources, if necessary to promote
development, or if the lease cannot be
operated under those terms (30 U.S.C.
§1012).
Sources: U.S. Code and federal regulations as indicated in table.
Notes: n/a = not applicable. Bid (also known as a bonus) is the payment that an applicant offers to purchase the
lease of public lands. Rent is the payment made by a lessee before production occurs. Royalty is a required
payment made by a lessee to the federal government based on the value of the public resource involved.
a. In June 2026, after a review directed by Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025, “Unleashing American
Energy,” and Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3418 of February 3, 2025, “Unleashing American
Energy,” the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a proposed rule rescinding the 2024 rule that
updated O&G bonding levels. The rescission would decrease bonds to a minimum of $10,000 for a single
lease and $25,000 for all leases in a state. The proposed rule was open for a 60-day comment period ending
August 24, 2026. See BLM, “Oil and Gas Leasing,” 91 Federal Register 38084, June 24, 2026,
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-12734/oil-and-gas-leasing.
b. The FY2025 reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21) removed the $5 per acre expression of interest (EOI)
nominating fee established by the law commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117169).
c. Many fees adjusted annually are announced in the Federal Register and posted on the BLM website. BLM
posted fees for FY2026 on January 12, 2026. See BLM, “Fixed Filing Fees,” https://www.blm.gov/fixed-filingfee-schedule-blm-energy-and-minerals; 43 C.F.R. § 3000.120; and BLM, “Minerals Management: Annual
Adjustment of Cost Recovery Fees,” 91 Federal Register 1194, January 12, 2026,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/12/2026-00386/minerals-management-annualadjustment-of-cost-recovery-fees. Statutory authority for the Application of Permit to Drill fee expires at
the end of FY2026; H.R. 7831 would extend the statutory authority until the end of FY2037.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in several reports identified potential
deficiencies with some of the elements of BLM’s federal leasing program, including
noncompetitive leasing, royalty rates, data collection, fair return on federal resources, and
bonding and reclamation processes. GAO also recommended actions for BLM to improve the
related agency policies.30 DOI’s Office of Inspector General has also identified issues with
compliance and penalties, particularly on O&G leases.31 In 2021, in response to Executive Order
30 See, for example, the following GAO reports: Oil and Gas Royalties: Congress and Interior Should Strengthen
Safeguards to Better Ensure Accurate Payments (GAO-26-107669), November 25, 2025; Oil and Gas: Onshore
Competitive and Noncompetitive Lease Revenues (GAO-21-138), November 19, 2020; Federal Oil and Gas Revenue:
Actions Needed to Improve BLM’s Royalty Relief Policy (GAO-21-169T), October 6, 2020; Oil and Gas: Interior
Should Strengthen Management of Key Data Systems Used to Oversee Development on Federal Lands (GAO-21-209),
May 27, 2021; Federal Energy Development: Challenges to Ensuring a Fair Return for Federal Energy Resources
(GAO-19-718T), September 24, 2019; and Oil and Gas: Bureau of Land Management Should Address Risks from
Insufficient Bonds to Reclaim Wells (GAO-19-615), September 18, 2019.
31 See U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Inspector General, ONRR Needs to Consistently Enforce
Compliance and Timely Revenue Collection (Report No. 2024-CR-008), January 2026, https://www.doioig.gov/sites/
default/files/2021-migration/Final-Audit-Report_ONRR-Needs-To-Consistently-Enforce-Compliance-and-TimelyRevenue-Collection.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
(EO) 14008 of January 27, 2021, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” DOI
produced a report identifying many of these same issues as the GAO reports and a number of
recommendations to address them.32 See the section “Issues for Congress” for more information
on addressing these considerations.
Changes to Federal Oil and Gas Lease Terms in the 119th Congress
Legislation passed in the 119th Congress reverted several changes made by the 117th Congress to
onshore O&G terms. The law commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA;
P.L. 117-169) amended MLA provisions for onshore O&G leasing. Changes included increasing
the minimum bid required for a lease, increasing rental rates, increasing the minimum royalty
rate, assessing new royalties on flared or vented methane, eliminating noncompetitive leasing,
and implementing a fee to nominate lands for consideration to lease. The FY2025 reconciliation
law (P.L. 119-21) reverted some of these changes, reducing royalty rates back to pre-IRA levels,
repealing royalties on flared or vented methane, reinstating noncompetitive leasing, and repealing
the fee to nominate lands for consideration to lease. Table 2 summarizes the changes to O&G
leasing terms in the IRA and P.L. 119-21.
Table 2. Summary of Changes to Oil and Gas Leasing Terms in the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA; P.L. 117-169) and the FY2025 Reconciliation Law (P.L. 119-21)
Leasing Term and Details
IRA Change
P.L. 119-21 Change
Nominating fee: The Bureau of Land
Management solicits nominations
for lands for oil and gas leasing.
Expressions of interest (EOIs) must
include $5 per acre fee, adjusted for
inflation not less frequently than
every four years (Section 50262(d)).
Removed the nominating fee
submitted with EOI (Section
50101(a)(1)).
Noncompetitive leasing: Federal
leases not awarded through the
competitive leasing process were
made available for noncompetitive
leasing for a period of two years.
Noncompetitive leases were
awarded to the first qualified
applicant. No bonus payment was
required.
Eliminated noncompetitive leasing
(Section 50262(e)).
Reinstated noncompetitive leasing,
making parcels available for two
years after the competitive lease
sale for the first qualified applicant.
No bonus payment is required
(Section 50101(a)(2)).
Minimum bonus bid: Also known as
the bonus or the bid, the bonus bid is
the payment that an applicant offers
to purchase the lease of public
lands.
Set minimum bid to $10 per acre
for the 10-year period beginning on
August 16, 2022. The Secretary of
the Interior may increase the
national minimum acceptable bid
after that period by regulation
(Section 50262(b)).
No change.
Rent: Rent is the payment made by a
lessee before production occurs.
For the 10-year period beginning on
August 16, 2022, set rent to not
less than $3 per acre for the first
two years, $5 per acre per year for
the following six-year period, and
$15 per acre per year thereafter
(Section 50262(c)).
No change.
32 DOI, Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program, November 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
report-on-the-federal-oil-and-gas-leasing-program-doi-eo-14008.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Leasing Term and Details
IRA Change
P.L. 119-21 Change
Royalty: Royalty is a required
payment made by a lessee to the
federal government based on the
value of the public resource
involved. The Secretary of the
Interior is permitted to “waive,
suspend or reduce the rental, or
minimum royalty” as a production
incentive, at the Secretary’s
discretion.
Set royalty to exactly 16⅔% of the
value of production during the 10year period beginning on August 16,
2022, and not less than 16⅔%
thereafter (Section 50262(a)(1)).
Royalties are assessed on natural
gas that is vented or flared (Section
50263).
Set royalty to not less than 12½%
of the value of production (Section
50101(a)(1)).
Royalties are not assessed on
natural gas that is vented or flared
(Section 50101(a)(1)).
Sources: Noncompetitive leasing, 30 U.S.C. §226(b)(1)(A) and 30 U.S.C. §226(c); minimum bonus bid, 30 U.S.C.
§226(b); rent, 30 U.S.C. §226(d); royalty, 30 U.S.C. §226(b); natural gas that is vented or flared, 30 U.S.C. §1727.
Note: Before the FY2025 reconciliation law repealed the provisions, the nominating fee was at 30 U.S.C.
§226(q), and natural gas that is vented or flared was at 30 U.S.C. §1727.
Past Amendments to Federal Geothermal Lease Terms
Congress made changes to geothermal lease terms by amending the Geothermal Steam Act of
1970 as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Changes enacted in 2005 include
adding two potential 5-year extensions to the initial 10-year lease term, increasing the maximum
acreage of a single lease, and increasing the total acreage a single entity may lease in any one
state.
Federal Permitting and Leasing Process
The federal permitting and leasing processes are largely similar for both O&G and geothermal
projects.
BLM identifies land available for leasing through an RMP, identifies high- and low-preference
parcels, holds competitive and noncompetitive lease sales, and conducts environmental reviews
under NEPA at different stages during the processes, as required.33 Individuals, companies, or
contractors are able to nominate lands for BLM to consider, including for either O&G or
geothermal lease sales. BLM manages the leasing process for O&G and geothermal resources for
federal land managed by other federal agencies, though leases on these lands may have legal and
regulatory management requirements specific to the federal agency responsible for managing the
land on which the lease is located.
Operator responsibilities for leases include submitting specific permits at similar points in the
drilling timeline for both O&G and geothermal projects. For example, operators submit an
application for permit to drill (APD) to BLM before drilling for O&G projects (43 C.F.R.
§3162.3-1); operators submit a geothermal drilling permit (GDP) application to BLM before
drilling for geothermal projects (43 C.F.R. §3261). Both APDs and GDP applications contain
plans for drill pad location, surface reclamation, and other surface uses.
Despite these similarities, there are significant differences. For example, operator responsibilities
for exploration and drilling differ due to differences inherent to the resources. Table 3 compares
BLM permitting and leasing processes for O&G and geothermal resources and provides examples
33 Other agencies that manage federal lands have different planning processes to determine where leasing may or may
not be available.
Congressional Research Service
10
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
of similarities and differences. The table is intended to be illustrative and not comprehensive in
identifying similarities and differences that may arise in implementation.
Table 3. Selected Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Permitting and Leasing
Processes for Geothermal and Oil and Gas Resources
Oil and Gas
Both
Geothermal
Applicability of
federal and state
laws and
regulations
—
BLM and operator comport
with state and federal laws and
regulations through entire
process.
—
How land is
chosen for
evaluation and
leasing
BLM can select parcels to
include in a lease sale, but
typically a qualified
applicant submits
expressions of interest
(EOIs) to nominate lands
for leasing (43 C.F.R.
§3120). Nominated lands
must align with lands
designated as open for
development by the
resource management plan
(RMP).
BLM prepares leasing analysis.
A qualified entity may
nominate lands for
competitive sale by
submitting an applicable BLM
nomination form. BLM may
include land in a lease sale on
its own initiative (43 C.F.R.
§3203). BLM must have
information on potential
lands that indicate
geothermal resources that
could be produced are
present.
Competitive sales
and frequency
Competitive sales are held
in states with eligible lands
on at least a quarterly basis
(30 U.S.C. §226).
Competitive sales are required.
Competitive sales must be
offered at least once every
two years for states that
have nominations (30 U.S.C.
§1003).a
Noncompetitive
sales
30 U.S.C. §226(b)(1)(A) and
30 U.S.C. §226(c).
If a lease is offered
competitively but no bid
qualifies, the land becomes
available for noncompetitive
leasing for a two-year period.
30 U.S.C. §1003.
Congressional Research Service
11
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Oil and Gas
Operator
responsibilities
before various
activities
Operator must submit an
application for permit to
drill (APD) to BLM (30
U.S.C. §191(d); 43 C.F.R.
§3162.3-1). The fee for
FY2026 is $12,580.a The
APD form (BLM Form
3160-3) must include,
among other things, a
drilling plan, a surface use
plan, and evidence of
bond/surety coverage. The
surface use plan should
contain information on drill
pad location, pad
construction, the method
for containment and waste
disposal, and plans for
surface reclamation.
Operator may also need to
secure permits based on
project-specific needs to
transport the product, such
as right-of-way or pipelines,
or to flare gas.
Before other operations
that will result in additional
surface disturbance, the
operator submits a new
surface use plan of
operations (APD Form
3160-5) (43 C.F.R. §3162.33).
The APD is valid for two
years (30 U.S.C. §226
(p)(4)).
Both
Operator must meet
requirements of site-specific
and project-specific permits,
including state regulations.
Geothermal
Operator must submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to
Conduct Geothermal
Exploration Operations to
BLM (43 C.F.R. §3251),
including planned well
characteristics and drilling
and completion procedures.
Operator must secure a
geothermal drilling permit
(GDP) from BLM (43 C.F.R.
§3261), including a complete
operations plan and a
complete drilling program,
with information on plans for
well pads, roads, facilities,
water sources,
environmental protection
procedures, and surface
reclamation, among other
data.
Operator must submit a plan
of utilization (POU) and a
facility construction permit
to be approved by BLM (43
C.F.R. §3271). The POU
must include anticipated
environmental impacts and
mitigations. The construction
permit must address any
pipelines or facilities.
Source: U.S. Code and federal regulations as indicated in the table.
Notes: Though there are differences between APDs and GDPs, for the purposes of this analysis CRS is treating
them as analogous. Laws and requirements listed in the table are not exhaustive; additional requirements may
apply depending on the type of project, its location, and other factors.
a. On December 16, 2025, BLM released an instruction memorandum, Promoting Annual Competitive Geothermal
Lease Sales (IM 2026-004), which established the BLM policy to hold competitive lease sales annually.
b. BLM, “Minerals Management: Annual Adjustment of Cost Recovery Fees,” 91 Federal Register 1194, January
12, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/12/2026-00386/minerals-management-annualadjustment-of-cost-recovery-fees.
Multiple other federal, state, and local laws may also require permitting or other procedures for
the approval and operation of an O&G or geothermal project on federal lands, depending on the
scope and nature of the activities, potential environmental impacts, and other factors.
Requirements to comply with these laws and others remain and are separate from executive
orders issued by the second Trump Administration that aim to increase or promote O&G
development on federal lands (see text box below). Depending on the site-specific circumstances,
examples of other federal laws that may apply to a project include, but are not limited to, the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.), Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et
Congressional Research Service
12
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
seq.), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. §§300101 et seq.), Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. §§1271 et seq.), and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. §§3001 et seq.). NEPA authorizes a procedural framework for evaluating the
potential effects of proposed actions and potential alternatives to inform agency decisions under
other laws, but the NEPA process itself does not provide permitting or other regulatory approvals
to carry out a project. For further discussion, see the section “NEPA Environmental Review
Process,” below.
Executive Orders Supporting Oil and Gas and Geothermal Leasing on Federal
Lands
The second Trump Administration has issued several executive orders (EOs) that aim to increase or promote the
development of certain domestic energy resources on federal lands. These include the following:
•
EO 14154 of January 20, 2025, “Unleashing American Energy.” Among other measures, EO 14154
directs agencies to review actions that may “burden … domestic energy resources—with particular attention
to oil, natural gas” on federal lands. EO 14154 revoked several executive orders from previous
administrations, including EO 14008 of January 27, 2021, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.”
EO 14008 addressed the potential for climate change and federal actions to address it, including transitioning
the electricity sector to carbon-free electricity, which would include geothermal power.
•
EO 14156 of January 20, 2025, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency.” Among other measures,
EO 14156 directs agencies to facilitate the development of specified domestic energy resources, such as oil
and gas (O&G) and “geothermal heat,” including, but not limited to, those on federal lands.34
•
EO 14153 of January 20, 2025, “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential.” Among
other measures, EO 14153 calls for the development of O&G resources in Alaska (on both state and federal
lands), including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.35
Developing Projects: Productive and Nonproductive
Leases
While O&G and geothermal projects are being developed (i.e., any time before production starts)
their leases are classified as nonproductive. O&G and geothermal power have operational factors
that may extend development time (relative to other energy types), such as challenges related to
drilling wells, confirming resources, and—for geothermal projects—the complexities in
designing and constructing power plants. The base federal lease periods of 10 years—longer than
some other federal energy lease periods, such as for solar or wind testing—reflect these
development challenges.36
While longer initial lease terms may allow the successful development of many O&G and
geothermal projects, both successful and unsuccessful projects can result in leased parcels being
nonproducing for extended amounts of time. For a variety of reasons, including the operational
challenges mentioned above as well as market fluctuations or other business decisions, some
34 A presidential message on January 13, 2026, continued the national energy emergency declared in EO 14156: U.S.
President (Trump), “Report of the Continuation of the National Emergency That Was Originally Declared in Executive
Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, with Respect to Energy,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 172, no. 9
(January 13, 2026), https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/issue-9/senate-section/article/S159-3.
35 For more details on federal oil and gas leasing in Alaska, see CRS In Focus IF13119, National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska (NPR-A): A Summary, by Mark K. DeSantis and Lexie Ryan, and CRS In Focus IF12006, Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge: Status of Oil and Gas Program, by Laura B. Comay.
36 For example, BLM right-of-way grants or leases for wind and solar testing—which are used to determine whether an
area’s energy potential is adequate for development—have a maximum initial term of three years with an option for a
three-year renewal if accompanied by a development application (43 C.F.R. §2805.11).
Congressional Research Service
13
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
O&G and geothermal lease parcels are nonproductive for several years or may never become
productive. Of all onshore O&G leases held in FY2025, 5,707 out of 29,354 (19%) were not
producing—covering 8,373,674 out of 20,719,675 leased acres (40%).37 Out of all geothermal
leases held in FY2025, 522 out of 610 (86%) were not producing—covering 1,220,111 out of
1,322,389 leased acres (92%).38 Additionally, BLM has noted a variety of reasons for
nonproductivity—including “speculative leasing,” projects that are nonproductive likely pending
market changes, or projects that are ultimately unsuccessful—that often inhibit those lands from
being managed for other purposes, such as conservation or recreation.39
O&G projects—including exploratory and producing wells—must secure an approved APD from
BLM before commencing drilling operations. A lease may continue to be nonproducing even after
the APD is approved, for reasons mentioned above. As of June 1, 2026, BLM had approved 9,931
APDs.40
NEPA Environmental Review Process
Unless certain conditions are met, NEPA generally requires federal agencies to evaluate and
document the environmental impacts of a proposed federal agency action (i.e., through an
environmental review).41 How a federal agency demonstrates compliance with NEPA depends on
the level of the proposed action’s impacts. The different types of review vary in scope, purpose,
and procedural requirements and are intended to ensure that the level of analysis is appropriate
for the action’s potential environmental impact.
A proposed action that has a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the “quality of the
human environment” typically requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement
(EIS).42 An EIS is the most comprehensive level of review and includes a detailed analysis of
potential environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and public
input.43 EISs are to be completed in two years, with opportunities for extensions.44
37 Not all of these projects will be nonproducing by the end of their initial lease period; this is a snapshot of 2025
conditions. BLM, Public Land Statistics 2025, July 2026, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2026-08/BLMPublic-Land-Statistics-2025.pdf.
38 BLM, Public Land Statistics 2025, July 2026, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2026-08/BLM-PublicLand-Statistics-2025.pdf.
39 DOI, Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program, November 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
report-on-the-federal-oil-and-gas-leasing-program-doi-eo-14008.pdf.
40 BLM, FY 2026 Application for Permit to Drill (APDs) Status Report: 05/1/2026 to 05/31/2026, accessed June 10,
2026, at https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/operations-and-production/permitting/
applications-permits-drill.
41 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) establishes a national policy with respect to environmental
quality and the basic process for integrating environmental considerations into federal decisionmaking (i.e.,
“environmental reviews”). NEPA’s environmental review procedures do not typically apply to actions that are
exempted by statute, conflict with another provision of federal law, or involve nondiscretionary agency functions.
42 42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(1).
43 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C) requires federal agencies to evaluate reasonably foreseeable environmental effects,
reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided, a reasonable range of alternatives, the
relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of federal resources. 42 U.S.C. §4336a(c)
requires that an agency publish a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
includes a request for public comment on alternatives, impacts, and relevant information, studies, or analyses with
respect to the proposed agency action.
44 42 U.S.C. §4336a(g)(1)(A) requires that agencies complete an EIS no later than two years after the sooner of “(i) the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
If the proposed action does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of
the human environment, or if the significance of the effect is unknown, an agency typically
prepares an environmental assessment (EA).45 An EA is a concise public document prepared by
an agency to set forth the basis of the agency’s analysis. EAs are to be completed within one
year.46 If, after preparing the EA, the agency determines that the impact will not be significant,
the agency issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to conclude the NEPA process.47 If
the EA finds that significant impacts are likely, the agency must then prepare an EIS.
An agency is not required to prepare an EIS or EA if the major federal action is excluded pursuant
to one of the agency’s categorical exclusions (CEs)48 or if the agency can apply another agency’s
CE consistent with statute.49 CEs are categories of actions that a federal agency has previously
determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.50 When an
agency applies a CE to a proposed action, the agency does not prepare an EA or an EIS.51
BLM’s Implementation of NEPA
BLM follows DOI regulations and departmental guidance to carry out NEPA’s environmental
review process.52 BLM land use planning regulations specify that the preparation of an RMP
under FLPMA “is considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment” requiring an EIS under NEPA.53
BLM permitting or leasing decisions for land uses approved under an RMP would also be subject
to the preparation of an EIS if the proposed action is expected to have a reasonably foreseeable
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Alternatively, such decisions would be
subject to the preparation of an EA if the proposed action is not expected to have a reasonably
significant effect on the quality of the human environment or if the significance of such effect is
unknown.
Some O&G and geothermal activities of a more limited scope are categorically excluded from the
preparation of an EA or EIS under NEPA. Two O&G CEs are authorized in statute.54 BLM has
date on which such agency determines that section 4332(2)(C) of this title requires the issuance of an environmental
impact statement with respect to such action; (ii) the date on which such agency notifies the applicant that the
application to establish a right-of-way for such action is complete; and (iii) the date on which such agency issues a
notice of intent to prepare the environmental impact statement for such action.”
45 42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(2).
46 42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(2) and 42 U.S.C. §4336a(g)(1)(B), which requires that agencies complete an environmental
assessment (EA) no later than one year after the sooner of “(i) the date on which such agency determines that section
4336(b)(2) of this title requires the preparation of an environmental assessment with respect to such action; (ii) the date
on which such agency notifies the applicant that the application to establish a right-of-way for such action is complete;
and (iii) the date on which such agency issues a notice of intent to prepare the environmental assessment for such
action.”
47 42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(2).
48 A categorical exclusion (CE) may also sometimes be referred to as “CX” or “CatEx.”
49 42 U.S.C. §4336(a)(2). Further, 42 U.S.C. §4336c allows for an agency to adopt a CE listed in another agency’s
NEPA procedures.
50 42 U.S.C. §4336e(1).
51 42 U.S.C. §4336(a)(2).
52 43 C.F.R. Part 46 and DOI, Handbook of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, February
2026, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/doi-handbook-nepa-procedures.
53 43 C.F.R. §§1601.0-6.
54 Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) authorized CEs for certain O&G activities, including the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
also administratively established some CEs through agency guidance.55 Federal agencies may
also “adopt a categorical exclusion listed in another agency’s NEPA procedures for a category of
proposed agency actions for which the categorical exclusion was established.”56
BLM’s Implementation of NEPA for O&G and Geothermal
Activities amid the Declared National Energy Emergency
DOI NEPA regulations provide alternative procedures for NEPA compliance when “an emergency
exists that makes it necessary to take actions to address imminent threats to life, property, or
important natural, cultural, or historic resources before preparing an environmental document or
documenting the use of a CE.”57 For actions that must be taken beyond those that are urgently
needed but “in response and relation to such emergency action,” DOI NEPA regulations specify
that a “Responsible Official” may incorporate the use of “alternative arrangements” for NEPA
compliance.58 Alternative arrangements allow an agency to meet its NEPA obligations but do not
waive the requirements to comply with NEPA.59 For actions that are “likely to result in significant
effects,” DOI officials “must consult with the Council on Environmental Quality prior to
authorizing the use of alternative arrangements.”60
drilling of new wells within a developed field. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) authorized
several criteria for the Secretary of the Interior to apply a CE for certain gathering lines (i.e., pipelines installed to
transport oil, natural gas, and related constituents, or produced water from one or more wells).
55 DOI, Handbook of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, February 2026, pp. 65-67,
https://www.doi.gov/media/document/doi-handbook-nepa-procedures. DOI’s Handbook of National Environmental
Policy Act Implementing Procedures specifies eight BLM CEs related to O&G and geothermal activities. Three of
these CEs apply only to approval of geothermal activities—such as approval of an operations plan, notice of intent, or
other geothermal agreements—and specify certain conditions (e.g., resource utilization limitations, project size,
reclamation requirements, travel routes, and other resource protection) that may limit their application. Three CEs
apply to certain administrative or fiscal decisions, such as lease adjustments and royalty rate reductions. One CE
applies to BLM’s decision to suspend operations and production. And one CE applies to O&G and geothermal
exploration activities as long as there is no temporary or permanent road construction.
56 42 U.S.C. §4336c and DOI, Handbook of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, February
2026, pp. 99-102, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/doi-handbook-nepa-procedures. DOI’s Handbook identifies
eight CEs that bureaus have formally adopted related to O&G and geothermal activities.
57 43 C.F.R. §46.150. For actions that are “necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency that are
urgently needed to address imminent threats to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources,” the
“Responsible Official shall consider taking steps to mitigate reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts to
the extent practicable and consistent with agency authority” without first completing an environmental review.
58 43 C.F.R. §46.150(c)-(d). DOI’s Handbook of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures defines
responsible official as “the bureau employee who is delegated the authority to make and implement a decision on a
proposed action and is responsible for ensuring compliance with NEPA.”
59 Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance on Emergencies and the National Environmental Policy Act, January
21, 2026, p. 2, https://nepa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
Emergencies%20and%20NEPA%20Guidance%202026.pdf.
60 43 C.F.R. §46.150(d). NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the Executive Office
of the President. NEPA directs CEQ to—among other duties—assist and advise the President on certain environmental
matters, including NEPA implementation. Section 102(2)(B) of NEPA instructs federal agencies to “identify and
develop methods and procedures, in consultation with CEQ,” to implement NEPA.
Congressional Research Service
16
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Pursuant to EO 14156 of January 20, 2025, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,”61 DOI
adopted alternative arrangements to comply with NEPA for certain energy projects.62 These
alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance allow for shortened environmental reviews for
specified projects.63 Table 4 outlines the key features of the alternative arrangements to NEPA
compliance.
Table 4. Features of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Analyses Under
Alternative Arrangements Adopted by the Department of the Interior (DOI)
Pursuant to Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency”
Level of
Anticipated
Impacts
Public Notification or
Participation Requirements
Required Documentation
Timeline
Reasonably
foreseeable
significant effect
on the quality of
the human
environment.
Environmental impact
statement (EIS) addressing
the purpose and need,d
alternatives,e and a brief
description of environmental
effects in accordance with 43
C.F.R. 46.415(a)-(b). NEPA
review concludes with
publication of the EIS and any
record of decision.
Approximately
28 days.a
Publication of a notice of intent (NOI)
to prepare an EIS. A public meeting to
be held during preparation of the EIS.
Ten-day public comment period.b EIS
published on a public website and filed
with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).c
Does not have a
reasonably
foreseeable
significant effect
on the quality of
the human
environment or if
the significance of
effect is unknown.
Environmental assessment
(EA) addressing the purpose
and need,d alternatives,e
mitigation measures, and a
brief description of
environmental effects. NEPA
review concludes with a
finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) or, if the EA finds
that significant impacts are
likely, the responsible officialh
must then prepare an EIS.
Approximately
14 days.f
EA and FONSI published on a public
website.g
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Department of the Interior, Alternative Arrangements for Compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act amid the National Energy Emergency, April 23, 2025, https://www.doi.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/2025-04/alternative-arrangements-nepa-during-national-energy-emergency-2025-0423-signed_1.pdf.
Notes: Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” 90 Federal
Register 8433, January 29, 2025, declared a national emergency, stating that “the United States’ insufficient energy
production, transportation, refining, and generation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to our
61 The executive order declared a national emergency stating that “the United States’ insufficient energy production,
transportation, refining, and generation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to our Nation’s economy,
national security, and foreign policy.” Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, “Declaring a National Energy
Emergency,” 90 Federal Register 8433, January 29, 2025.
62 DOI, Alternative Arrangements for Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act amid the National
Energy Emergency, April 23, 2025, https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04/alternativearrangements-nepa-during-national-energy-emergency-2025-04-23-signed_1.pdf.
63 Specified projects include “projects that seek to identify, lease, site, produce, transport, refine, or generate energy
resources as defined in section 8(a) of EO 14156; and for which the project applicant(s) have submitted plans of
operations, applications for permits to drill, or other applications.” Letter from Katherine R. Scarlett, Chief of Staff,
CEQ, to Karen Budd-Falen, Acting Deputy Secretary, DOI, April 23, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2025/04/CEQ-to-DOI-re-Alternative-Arrangement_04.23.25.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Nation’s economy, national security, and foreign policy.” Pursuant to this emergency declaration, DOI adopted
alternative arrangements allowing it to meet its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et
seq.) obligations.
a. The EIS should be prepared within approximately 28 days of publishing the NOI.
b. DOI anticipates that most comment periods will be approximately 10 days. The responsible official will
determine the duration of the written comment period based on the nature of the action and the urgency
of the emergency response.
c. 42 U.S.C. §7609 requires the Administrator of EPA to review all draft EISs prepared by other federal
agencies and requires that EPA make these reviews public.
d. 42 U.S.C. §4336a(d) states that each environmental document shall include a statement of purpose and need
that briefly summarizes the underlying purpose and need for the proposed agency action.
e. 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C)(iii) requires federal agencies to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the
proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the
proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative. Alternatives must be technically and
economically feasible and meet the purpose and need of the proposal.
f.
The EA should be prepared within approximately 14 days of receiving a complete application. If the EA
supports a FONSI, documentation of such finding should be prepared concurrently within the same period
of approximately 14 days.
g. The responsible official is not required to seek public comment prior to finalizing the environmental
assessment, finding of no significant impact, and any decision.
h. The DOI’s Handbook of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures defines responsible official as
“the bureau employee who is delegated the authority to make and implement a decision on a proposed
action and is responsible for ensuring compliance with NEPA.”
Issues for Congress
The following sections discuss some options Congress could consider when addressing federal
leasing and permitting issues related to O&G and geothermal energy development. While some
issues are specific to one resource or the other (due to the technical, environmental, or market
considerations for that resource), certain issues discussed could potentially impact both.
Congress has considered a variety of changes to BLM leasing and permitting for O&G and
geothermal projects, some of which have been implemented in law, and others of which are still
being considered.
Bonding and Project Reclamation
The MLA directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish “adequate” bonding levels “by rule or
regulation”; these levels are not defined in statute.64 In 2024, BLM issued a rule, “Fluid Mineral
Leases and Leasing Process,” that updated bonding levels, which had not been changed since the
mid-20th century.65 Under the 2024 rule, the minimum bonding amount for an O&G lease
increased from $10,000 to $150,000 per lease bond, which covers all drilling operations on a
single lease, and from $25,000 to $500,000 for a statewide bond, which covers all of an
operator’s wells in a single state.66 BLM is to adjust bond amounts for inflation every 10 years.67
Any nationwide bonds (which cover all federal leases nationwide) or unit operator bonds (which
64 30 U.S.C. §226(g).
65 BLM, “Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process,” 89 Federal Register 30916, April 23, 2024,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/23/2024-08138/fluid-mineral-leases-and-leasing-process.
66 43 C.F.R. §3104.1.
67 43 C.F.R. §3104.1(a).
Congressional Research Service
18
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
cover operations on all federal leases under a unit agreement) filed by the O&G unit operator in
lieu of individual lease bonds were to be replaced with individual lease or statewide bonds.68
In June 2026, pursuant to EO 14154 and Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3418,69
BLM published a proposed rule that would rescind the 2024 rule.70 Under the proposed rule,
BLM would reduce lease bonds to $10,000 and statewide bonds to $25,000, and is considering
reinstating unit operator and nationwide bonds. The proposed rule was open for a 60-day
comment period ending August 24, 2026.
BLM estimates the average costs taxpayers bear to reclaim an O&G well is $71,000, which is
higher than pre-Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process bonding amounts for a single lease and
for all leases in a state.71 Some Members of Congress contend that because the full cost of
reclamation for a well may be higher than the bonding amount, taxpayers may have to pay for
wells that are abandoned.72
Representatives of the O&G industry have argued that most developers clean up their projects
and that setting bonding requirements higher will depress oil production on federal lands.73 Some
opponents of higher bonding amounts argue that the increase in statewide bonding amounts may
especially harm small companies that hold federal O&G leases.74
Congress has considered amending the law to clarify statutory requirements for bonding on
federal public lands and to establish bonding levels and structure in statute. For example, the
House-reported version of the IRA would have established bonding levels in statute ($150,000 for
lease bonds and $500,000 for statewide bonds, the same levels set by the Fluid Mineral Leases
and Leasing Process rule).75 The final version of the IRA enacted into law did not include this
language.
BLM Authority to Set Royalty Rates
Congress has regularly considered whether, and, if so, at what level, royalty rates should be set in
statute. As discussed, the royalty rate for O&G projects has been adjusted multiple times in recent
years. For example, in April 2022, BLM implemented a new royalty rate of 18.75%—for the first
time setting it above the minimum rate established under the MLA (12½%).76 In August 2022,
68 30 U.S.C. §226(g); 43 C.F.R. §3104.90. A unit agreement is a cooperative development plan adopted by multiple
lessees and approved by BLM; see 30 U.S.C. §226(m) and 43 C.F.R. §3101.3.
69 Secretarial Order 3418, “Unleashing American Energy,” February 3, 2025, https://www.doi.gov/document-library/
secretary-order/so-3418-unleashing-american-energy; and EO 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” 90 Federal
Register 8353, January 29, 2025.
70 BLM, “Oil and Gas Leasing,” 91 Federal Register 38084, June 24, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/publicinspection/2026-12734/oil-and-gas-leasing.
71 BLM, “Oil and Gas Bonding,” accessed April 20, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oiland-gas/leasing/bonding.
72 Letter from Sen. Michael F. Bennet et al. to Doug Burgum, Secretary, DOI, and Bill Groffy, BLM acting director,
November 24, 2025, https://www.bennet.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Quill_-_Letter_Bonding.pdf.
73 Heather Richards, “Biden Unveils Aggressive Rules for Public Land Oil Drilling,” E&E News, July 20, 2023,
https://www.eenews.net/articles/biden-unveils-aggressive-rules-for-public-land-oil-drilling/.
74 Letter from Melissa Simpson, president of Western Energy Alliance, to Bill Groffy, BLM acting director, November
20, 2025, https://www.westernenergyalliance.org/assets/pdf/Alliance+Letter+to+BLM+National+OfficeBLM+Leasing+Rule/.
75 Section 70804, H.R. 5376 in the 117th Congress, as reported in the House on September 27, 2021.
76 BLM, “June 2022 Oil & Gas Lease Sale: Set a Royalty Rate of 18.75 Percent,” April 18, 2022,
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2017575/510.
Congressional Research Service
19
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Congress, through the IRA, set the royalty rate at exactly 16⅔% for all new projects for the
following 10 years. P.L. 119-21 reverted the royalty rate increase, setting the minimum royalty
back to 12½%. Current statute retains BLM’s authority to set the royalty rate higher than 12½%,
but also permits the Secretary of the Interior to “waive, suspend or reduce the rental, or minimum
royalty” in certain situations, including as a production incentive.77 Congress most recently
updated the geothermal royalty rate in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). It set the rate
to “not less than 1 percent and not more than 2.5 percent” of the gross proceeds from electricity
sales for the first 10 years of production and “not less than 2 and not more than 5 percent”
thereafter.78 The Secretary of the Interior “may waive, suspend, or reduce the rental or royalty”
for conservation, resource recovery, or certain market reasons.79
Congress could consider the advantages and disadvantages of the current O&G and geothermal
royalty rates. Current federal oil and gas royalty rates are generally lower than levels seen in
leasing on state and private lands.80 While these lower rates may promote development on federal
lands, lower rates may also impact BLM’s other land management mandates (e.g., the under- or
overutilization of energy resources). Changes to royalty rates that result in a significant step
change in rates (such as the change in April 2022) have the potential to disrupt energy project
development.
Alternatively, rather than set statutory minimums for royalties, Congress could defer to BLM to
set royalty rates for O&G and geothermal leasing. Congress has taken similar approaches in the
context of wind and solar development on federal lands. For example, the Energy Act of 2020
(Division Z of P.L. 116-260) modified FLPMA to give BLM the ability to reduce the rates (for
acreage rents and capacity fees) for wind and solar rights-of-way “to promote the greatest use” of
those energy resources and for other reasons (43 U.S.C. §3003).81 Since then, BLM has made
multiple revisions to the wind and solar rates, including setting uniform capacity fees regardless
of the technology deployed and adjusting those fees to be based on the actual electricity generated
and its market value (rather than on the prior basis of the potential maximum capacity of the
project). In P.L. 119-21, Congress set a fixed royalty rate of 3.9% of the gross proceeds of
electricity sales; however, the Secretary of the Interior still retained the authority to reduce the
actual rates as appropriate.82 Congress could decide to grant BLM similar flexibility on O&G and
geothermal royalty rates to support expanding O&G development or supporting more widely
available geothermal power deployment (such as deployment enabled by EGS). BLM might, for
example, choose to establish state- or zone-based rates to account for regional differences in
project costs and energy values. Congress could also decide that the current terms and authorities
for leasing are suitable to support the various federal goals and thus opt to make no changes.
77 30 U.S.C. §209.
78 30 U.S.C. §1004.
79 30 U.S.C. §1012.
80 See “Table 1: Oil and Gas Royalty Rates Across Federal Public, Private, and State Lands” in DOI, Report on the
Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program, November 2021, p. 8, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-on-thefederal-oil-and-gas-leasing-program-doi-eo-14008.pdf.
81 BLM typically issues leases for the development of O&G and geothermal resources. In contrast, BLM issues rightsof-way grants for certain wind and solar projects. Similarly, BLM charges royalties to O&G and geothermal producers
based on the value of production from the lease. For wind and solar leases, BLM charges a capacity fee based on the
gross proceeds of sale of electricity. For the purposes of this comparison, CRS has treated leases and rights-of-way
grants as analogous and royalties and capacity fees as analogous.
82 43 U.S.C. §3003.
Congressional Research Service
20
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Productive and Nonproductive Leases
Congress could consider modifications of leasing terms or requirements related to nonproductive
leases. Shorter initial lease periods could reduce nonproductive times, whereas longer lease
periods could support more development of these energy resources. Congress could consider
modifying requirements for BLM’s regular review of nonproductive leases, requirements for
lessees to show progress, and/or requirements relating to the termination or re-competition of
nonproductive leases. Higher rent rates (which are paid by lessees prior to achieving production)
could disincentivize longer nonproductive lease periods but could also discourage some
development. Partial rent rebates for projects that ultimately become productive could incentivize
leases of lands with the best resource development potential. Congress could also consider
guidance to BLM regarding the development of activity plans that specifically accommodate and
encourage intermediate land uses during nonproductive lease periods, as appropriate.
Noncompetitive Leases
Congress could consider changing whether noncompetitive lease offerings should be available for
either O&G or geothermal leases. Some Members of Congress criticized noncompetitive oil and
gas leases as having “led to the hoarding of low-priced land by oil and gas companies, much of
which they never bring into production.”83 Congress, through the IRA, eliminated noncompetitive
offerings for O&G and then reinstated them in P.L. 119-21. Congress could reconsider the
purpose of noncompetitive leasing in relation to the various energy resources. For example,
noncompetitive leasing could support development of individual resources based on specific
policy or economic goals. For geothermal leasing, noncompetitive leases may be appropriate for
the geothermal industry due to its smaller size—meaning there is generally less competition or
potential funding for project development compared to O&G development—or because of other
development or operational challenges. Additionally, as the geothermal industry develops,
Congress could determine these challenges are no longer decisive and thus noncompetitive leases
should be eliminated. Conversely, Congress could determine that the effects of some markets and
policy trends—for example, natural gas and oil prices—may continue to support the suitability of
noncompetitive leases for O&G.
Drilling Activities and Review Processes
Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) and Geothermal Drilling Permits
(GPDs)
Congress could consider changes to applications for permits to drill (APDs or GDPs) and the
timelines associated with reviewing, processing, and deciding on applications; notifying
applicants; and issuing permits. APDs/GDPs can contribute to the administrative overhead and to
the length of the development timeline for O&G or geothermal projects.84 Regulation requires
83 See “Sec. 80102. Noncompetitive Leasing” in the “Dissenting Views” section of U.S. Congress, House Committee
on the Budget, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, report to accompany H.R. 1, 119th Congress, 1st sess., H.Rept. 119-106, book
1, May 20, 2025, p. 1071.
84 After a geothermal or O&G lease has been obtained, a geothermal drilling permit (GDP) or an application for a
permit to drill (APD) must be approved for each well to be drilled. For more information on GDPs/APDs, see BLM,
“Geothermal Guidance,” https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/geothermal-energy/geothermalguidance, and BLM, “Applications for Permits to Drill,” https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-andgas/operations-and-production/permitting/applications-permits-drill. For more on BLM’s APD review process,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
BLM to decide whether to approve, approve subject to conditions, defer, or deny an APD within
30 days of receiving it, but projects frequently face delays past the 30-day mark.85
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided timeline requirements and introduced a pilot program in
an attempt to streamline the O&G permitting process—the law provided a fund to support
increased staffing for the pilot and required agency staff with expertise relevant to processing
applications to be co-located in central offices to improve coordination and communication.
Following the act’s passage, BLM noted some individual process improvements. BLM reported
that NEPA processing time (one step in the overall process) for APDs and rights-of-way
applications fell from 81 days to 61 days, or roughly 25%, due to co-location of agency staff and
other factors.86 The field offices for the pilot program processed more APDs in each of 2006 and
2007 than in previous years (though the total number of applications processed decreased from
2006 to 2007). Additionally, all the pilot sites reported more completed inspections—
environmental, drilling, and operational inspections performed in parallel with the APD
processing—in 2006 and again in 2007 than in previous years, and in 2007 the pilot sites
completed 100% of planned inspections.
Despite BLM reporting these individual statistics, GAO noted that, as of August 2013, BLM had
not completed a full program review and report to Congress, as required under the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, making it challenging to determine the overall success of the pilot effort. GAO’s
own analysis indicated that APD processing times increased between 2005 and 2007 in the seven
pilot offices.87 Funding for the pilot program was made permanent under the FY2015 National
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-291).
Despite the changes made in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and other administrative efforts
within BLM to streamline APD processing times, APD processing times have not decreased
overall. Average processing times between FY2005 and FY2025 are shown in Figure 1. Between
FY2005 and FY2011 the trend in average APD processing time was increasing. In BLM’s budget
justification for FY2012, it stated that it expected shorter processing times in the future. Despite
that expectation, while the average APD processing time did decrease from the local high in
FY2011, and while processing times were relatively lower on average between FY2018 and
FY2021, the average processing time has not decreased overall. Between FY2005 and FY2011,
the average processing time was 224 days. Between FY2012 and FY2025, the average was 227
days. Between FY2005 and FY2025, the average was 226 days.88
including delays, see Oil and Gas Permitting: Actions Needed to Improve BLM’s Review Process and Data System
(GAO-20-329), March 16, 2020.
85 43 C.F.R. § 3171.12.
86 Booz Allen Hamilton, Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005: Year Two Report for the Pilot Project to
Improve Federal Permit Coordination, prepared for BLM, February 2008.
87 GAO, BLM Needs Better Data to Track Permit Processing Times and Prioritize Inspections, August 2013,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-572.pdf.
88 The average total time required to approve an APD includes both days waiting on operators and BLM-dependent
days. BLM Oil and Gas Statistics, 2017, Table 12, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
Table12_Time_to_Complete_an_APD1.pdf; and BLM Oil and Gas Statistics, 2025, Table 12, https://www.blm.gov/
programs-energy-and-minerals-oil-and-gas-oil-and-gas-statistics.
Congressional Research Service
22
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Figure 1. Average APD Processing Times
Federal and Indian projects, FY2005-FY2025
Source: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oil and Gas Statistics, 2017, Table 12, https://www.blm.gov/sites/
blm.gov/files/Table12_Time_to_Complete_an_APD1.pdf; BLM Oil and Gas Statistics, 2025, Table 12,
https://www.blm.gov/programs-energy-and-minerals-oil-and-gas-oil-and-gas-statistics.
Notes: APD = application for permit to drill. The average total time required to approve an APD includes both
days waiting on operators and BLM-dependent days, which are days under review by BLM after the operator has
completed the APD. Years are fiscal years.
Data on the time required to process GDPs is more limited. Analysis by staff from the National
Laboratory of the Rockies (formerly the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) reported that
GDPs have been approved typically following a determination of NEPA adequacy (DNA) or an
environmental assessment (EA), though there are exceptions where assessments have been
covered by a CE.89 Typical time frames for these approvals have been 1 month for a DNA, 2
months for a CE, and 10 months for an EA.90
Bills in the 119th Congress would establish statutory deadlines for the approval or rejection of
APDs/GDPs or modified processes, technology, or funding to speed up leasing and project
approval. For example, H.R. 1687 would establish a 30-day deadline (after a completed
application) for BLM to consider a GDP application. As another example, H.R. 5631 would make
several changes related to geothermal leasing and permitting; the bill would establish a 60-day
deadline for BLM to consider GDP applications and other similar geothermal applications. The
bill would also provide BLM with greater authority to charge geothermal developers fees for
various permitting and monitoring tasks and would provide dedicated funding support for those
administrative tasks. The bill would create an ombudsman and a permitting task force within
89 Katherine R. Young et al., “Geothermal Permitting and NEPA Timelines,” GRC Transactions, vol. 38 (2014),
https://gdr.openei.org/files/1258/Geothermal%20Permitting%20and%20NEPA%20Timeline%20Analysis%20%20FINAL.pdf.
90 Aaron Levine and Katherine R. Young, “Efforts to Streamline Permitting of Geothermal Projects in the United
States,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Journal, vol. 55, no. 1 (2018), p. 1, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/
purl/1467102.
Congressional Research Service
23
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
BLM. The bill would modify the federal timeline determining production royalties to
accommodate modern geothermal project developments—projects with multiple generation units
coming online at different dates. The bill would modify an existing CE under the NEPA for oil
and gas exploration to also include geothermal exploration.91
Environmental Reviews
If Congress is concerned about the time required to complete environmental reviews for federal
actions associated with O&G and geothermal development, it could consider whether changes to
the existing statutory framework are warranted. Congress could seek to improve timeliness by
addressing either the duration of NEPA reviews or the circumstances in which environmental
documents (i.e., EAs or EISs) are required. Alternatively, Congress could maintain the existing
framework, which already includes generally applicable NEPA deadlines and mechanisms
intended to facilitate timely review, and allow additional experience with their implementation to
inform whether further legislative changes are warranted. These options present different
potential effects and tradeoffs regarding review times, agency resources, and environmental
analysis, and are described in more detail below.
Congress may choose to establish environmental review deadlines specifically for O&G and
geothermal development that are shorter than NEPA’s generally applicable one- and two-year
deadlines. The most direct effect of this option would be greater predictability regarding the
maximum duration of NEPA review. Deadlines primarily regulate how long agencies have to
perform review, rather than reducing the analytical work required. Proposed actions with complex
environmental issues, incomplete applications, additional consultation requirements, or limited
available staff could, therefore, be more difficult for agencies to review within the shorter
deadlines. Energy developers and industry organizations have generally supported efforts to
establish more predictable and timely federal environmental reviews, arguing that lengthy or
uncertain review periods can increase project costs, complicate investment decisions, and delay
energy development.92 Critics of mandatory deadlines argue that shorter review periods could
strain agencies’ ability to evaluate complex environmental effects or to provide opportunities for
public participation, and that shorter review periods may not necessarily address the underlying
sources of delay, such as incomplete applications, requirements under other environmental
statutes, agency capacity, and state and local permitting requirements, among other things.93
Congress may choose to authorize additional CEs or to direct agencies to establish CEs for
certain O&G and geothermal activities. 94 CEs offer one tool to expedite environmental reviews
under NEPA. By allowing agencies to forgo preparation of an EA or an EIS, CEs may produce
greater time savings than shortening environmental review deadlines, can reduce documentation
requirements, and may shorten review timelines. For geothermal activities specifically, some
91 Bills from previous Congresses include S. 2151 from the 115th Congress, which would have streamlined the O&G
permitting process, and H.R. 1449 and H.R. 1 from the 118th Congress, which would have established deadlines for the
consideration, notification, and issuance of geothermal drilling permits.
92 See, for example, testimony of Dustin Meyer, Senior Vice President of Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs,
American Petroleum Institute in U.S. Congress, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Hearing to
Examine the Federal Environmental Review and Permitting Processes, Part II, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., January 28,
2026, S.Hrg. 119-405 (GPO, 2026), pp. 51-64.
93 See, for example, Edward (Ted) Boling and Kerensa Gimre, NEPA Permitting Process Crucial to Renewable
Infrastructure Project Success, Center for American Progress, September 7, 2023, https://www.americanprogress.org/
article/nepa-permitting-process-crucial-to-renewable-infrastructure-project-success/.
94 For additional information on the mechanisms Congress has used to develop CEs, see CRS Report R48595,
Legislative Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act, by Heather McPherron.
Congressional Research Service
24
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
Members of Congress introduced bills that would have amended the CE created by Section 390
of the Energy Policy Act of 200595 or would have added a CE under the Geothermal Steam Act of
1970.96 Policy considerations include the types of O&G and geothermal power activities
involved, whether a CE would be appropriate for certain types of projects regardless of the
significance of the environmental effects, and opportunities for public input. Energy developers
and industry organizations have generally supported expanded use of CEs, contending that
requiring an EA or EIS for activities with predictable or limited environmental effects can add
time and cost to a project without necessarily producing substantially new information about
environmental impacts.97 Environmental and conservation organizations have generally raised
concerns about broadly defined CEs, particularly where statutory CEs do not incorporate
consideration of extraordinary circumstances that allow agencies to conduct additional analysis
where there could be significant site-specific effects.98
Congress could also decide that no additional legislative changes are warranted. In 2023,
Congress amended NEPA to include several mechanisms directed at timeliness: Section 107(f)
permits applicants to prepare environmental documents under agency supervision; Section
107(g)(1) establishes two-year deadlines for EISs and one-year deadlines for EAs; and Section
107(g)(3) provides a judicial mechanism for enforcing those deadlines.99 Congress also recently
established an option for project sponsors to pay a fee in order to obtain shorter statutory
deadlines in Section 112 of NEPA.100 Under this approach, BLM would continue to conduct
environmental reviews following long-standing NEPA practice, recently enacted provisions
intended to expedite environmental reviews enacted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L.
118-5), and DOI’s alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance associated with the energy
emergency declared in EO 14156. Maintaining the existing NEPA framework could allow
agencies to use existing mechanisms to address project-specific circumstances while also
providing Congress with an opportunity to evaluate whether recently enacted reforms have
reduced review times as intended.
Regardless of whether Congress maintains the existing framework or adopts additional measures
to expedite environmental reviews, the time required to advance O&G and geothermal
development may depend on factors outside the NEPA process itself. Project timelines may be
affected by the completeness of applicant submissions, agency staffing and resources,
consultation and permitting requirements under other federal laws, state and local requirements,
and changes to project proposals. Accordingly, measures that reduce the time or effort required
95 See, for example, from the 119th Congress, H.R. 1077 and S. 456; from the 118th Congress, H.R. 6474; and from the
117th Congress, S. 2949.
96 See, for example, from the 118th Congress, S. 3954 and S. 879; and from the 117th Congress, H.R. 7094, S. 3762, S.
2949, H.R. 5350, H.R. 2824, and H.R. 4334.
97 See, for example, letter from Dustin Meyer, Senior Vice President of Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs,
American Petroleum Institute, et al. to Brenda Mallory, Chair, CEQ, September 29, 2023, https://www.api.org/-/media/
files/news/2023/09/29/api-joint-trades-comments-nepa-phase-2.pdf. See also, for example, Bipartisan Policy Center,
The Role of Categorical Exclusions in Achieving Net-Zero by 2050, September 27, 2022, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/
report/categorical-exclusions/.
98 See, for example, letter from Christopher D. Eaton, Earthjustice, et al. to Debra Haaland, Secretary of the Interior,
July 12, 2023, https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_oil_drilling/pdfs/BOEM-petition-recategorical-exclusions-7-12-23.pdf.
99 Section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5), enacted on June 3, 2023, amended NEPA by
including several provisions aimed at facilitating a more efficient, effective, and timely environmental review process.
100 Section 60026 of P.L. 119-21, enacted on July 4, 2025, established project sponsor opt-in fees for environmental
reviews that allow a project sponsor to pay certain fees for halved environmental review deadlines—one year for an
EIS and 180 days for an EA.
Congressional Research Service
25
Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy
for NEPA review may not result in equivalent reductions in the overall time required for O&G or
geothermal projects to go into production.
Author Information
Morgan Smith
Analyst in Energy Policy
Heather McPherron
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Lexie Ryan
Analyst in Energy Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R48064 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
26
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.