Considerations for Federal Leasing of Onshore Energy: Oil and Gas and Geothermal Power

Summary

Oil and Gas and Geothermal Power Sectors

Pre-drilling bond requirements

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/a^b

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

Minimum bid

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)).

Royalty

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. 117-169).

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.

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.

Noncompetitive sales

30 U.S.C. §226(b)(1)(A) and 30 U.S.C. §226(c).

30 U.S.C. §1003.

Operator responsibilities before various activities

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. §3162.3-3).

The APD is valid for two years (30 U.S.C. §226 (p)(4)).

Operator must meet requirements of site-specific and project-specific permits, including state regulations.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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

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

Pursuant to Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, "Declaring a National Energy Emergency"

Level of Anticipated Impacts

Required Documentation

Timeline

Public Notification or Participation Requirements

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.

Does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment or if the significance of effect is unknown.

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 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.

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."

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.

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-20^th 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 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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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 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).

Federal and Indian projects, FY2005-FY2025

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 119^th 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 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

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 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 for NEPA review may not result in equivalent reductions in the overall time required for O&G or geothermal projects to go into production.

Footnotes

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/energy-department-announces-organizational-realignment-strengthen-efficiency-and-unleash. Before the reorganization, geothermal research was under the former Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

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.

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.

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.

American Chemical Society, "Development of the Pennsylvania Oil Industry," https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/pennsylvaniaoilindustry.html.

Kevin Rafferty, "Geothermal District Heating: A Century of Service," ASHRAE Journal, September 1992, http://waterworkshistory.us/DH/ID/Boise/1992Ashrae.pdf.

Avenston, "Geothermal Energy: Passed Stage or Step into the Future," November 3, 2019, https://avenston.com/en/insights/geothermal-energy-stage-or-step.

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.

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.

EIA, "What Is Energy?" accessed August 20, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/sources-of-energy.php.

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-geothermal-market-report#market-future.

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.

For more details on comparison of these two industries, see CRS Report R47405, Oil and Gas Technology and Geothermal Energy Development, by Morgan Smith.

The magnitudes of these risks and impacts vary between energy types, as noted in the following section on differences.

Geothermal reservoirs are natural or man-made underground regions where heat, water, and porosity converge.

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-the-environment.php.

Agency-specific statutory and regulatory authorities guide different agencies in their processes.

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.

43 U.S.C. §1702(c).

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.

43 U.S.C. §1712.

BLM, "Types of Plans," accessed August 20, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/planning-101/types-of-plans; BLM, "What Informs Our Plans," accessed March 31, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/what-informs-our-plans.

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 (NPR-A): 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.

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.

30 U.S.C. §1004.

30 U.S.C. §226(b).

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.

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-Timely-Revenue-Collection.pdf.

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.

Other agencies that manage federal lands have different planning processes to determine where leasing may or may not be available.

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.

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.

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).

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/BLM-Public-Land-Statistics-2025.pdf.

BLM, Public Land Statistics 2025, July 2026, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2026-08/BLM-Public-Land-Statistics-2025.pdf.

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.

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 U.S.C. §4336(b)(1).

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 long-term 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.

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 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."

42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(2).

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."

42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(2).

A categorical exclusion (CE) may also sometimes be referred to as "CX" or "CatEx."

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.

42 U.S.C. §4336e(1).

42 U.S.C. §4336(a)(2).

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.

43 C.F.R. §§1601.0-6.

Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) authorized CEs for certain O&G activities, including the 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).

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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/alternative-arrangements-nepa-during-national-energy-emergency-2025-04-23-signed_1.pdf.

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.

30 U.S.C. §226(g).

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.

43 C.F.R. §3104.1(a).

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.

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.

BLM, "Oil and Gas Leasing," 91 Federal Register 38084, June 24, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-12734/oil-and-gas-leasing.

BLM, "Oil and Gas Bonding," accessed April 20, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/leasing/bonding.

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.

Section 70804, H.R. 5376 in the 117^th Congress, as reported in the House on September 27, 2021.

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.

30 U.S.C. §209.

30 U.S.C. §1004.

30 U.S.C. §1012.

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-the-federal-oil-and-gas-leasing-program-doi-eo-14008.pdf.

BLM typically issues leases for the development of O&G and geothermal resources. In contrast, BLM issues rights-of-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.

43 U.S.C. §3003.

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, 119^th Congress, 1^st sess., H.Rept. 119-106, book 1, May 20, 2025, p. 1071.

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/geothermal-guidance, and BLM, "Applications for Permits to Drill," https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/operations-and-production/permitting/applications-permits-drill. For more on BLM's APD review process, including delays, see Oil and Gas Permitting: Actions Needed to Improve BLM's Review Process and Data System (GAO-20-329), March 16, 2020.

43 C.F.R. § 3171.12.

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.

GAO, BLM Needs Better Data to Track Permit Processing Times and Prioritize Inspections, August 2013, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-572.pdf.

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.

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.

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.

Bills from previous Congresses include S. 2151 from the 115^th Congress, which would have streamlined the O&G permitting process, and H.R. 1449 and H.R. 1 from the 118^th Congress, which would have established deadlines for the consideration, notification, and issuance of geothermal drilling permits.

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, 119^th Cong., 2^nd sess., January 28, 2026, S.Hrg. 119-405 (GPO, 2026), pp. 51-64.

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.

See, for example, from the 119^th Congress, H.R. 1077 and S. 456; from the 118^th Congress, H.R. 6474; and from the 117^th Congress, S. 2949.

See, for example, from the 118^th Congress, S. 3954 and S. 879; and from the 117^th Congress, H.R. 7094, S. 3762, S. 2949, H.R. 5350, H.R. 2824, and H.R. 4334.

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-re-categorical-exclusions-7-12-23.pdf.

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.

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.