[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                   H.R. 1449, H.R. 2855, H.R. 6009,
                             AND H.R. 6011

=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                      Wednesday, October 25, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-72
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
       

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
53-921 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024         

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		 Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA		 Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 
Tom McClintock, CA		 Jared Huffman, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ			 Ruben Gallego, AZ
Garret Graves, LA		 Joe Neguse, CO
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	 Mike Levin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA		 Katie Porter, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		 Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	 Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		 Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Pete Stauber, MN		 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
John R. Curtis, UT		 Kevin Mullin, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI			 Val T. Hoyle, OR
Jerry Carl, AL			 Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT		 Seth Magaziner, RI
Lauren Boebert, CO		 Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Cliff Bentz, OR			 Ed Case, HI
Jen Kiggans, VA			 Debbie Dingell, MI
Jim Moylan, GU			 Susie Lee, NV
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		       
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio


                                 ------                                


                                CONTENTS

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, October 25, 2023......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     2
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York, prepared statement of..........    51

    Panel I:

    Boebert, Hon. Lauren, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Colorado..........................................     3
    Soto, Hon. Darren, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................     4
    Fulcher, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Idaho.............................................     5

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Grace, Gene, General Counsel, American Clean Power 
      Association, Washington, DC................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     7

    Jewett, Sarah, Vice President of Strategy, Fervo Energy, 
      Houston, Texas.............................................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Hornbein, Melissa, Senior Attorney, Western Environmental Law 
      Center, Helena, Montana....................................    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    24
    Kropatsch, Tom, Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas 
      Conservation Commission, Casper, Wyoming...................    29
        Prepared statement of....................................    31
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    40

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record.........    55

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        National Stripper Well Association, Statement for the 
          Record.................................................    59

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

        Citizens for a Healthy Community, Statement for the 
          Record.................................................    63
        Elisabeth Winslow, CO-03 Constituent, Statement for the 
          Record.................................................    70
        Laura Bloom Neilsen, CO-03 Constituent, Statement for the 
          Record.................................................    71
                                     

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1449, TO AMEND THE GEOTHERMAL STEAM 
   ACT OF 1970 TO INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF LEASE SALES, TO 
REQUIRE REPLACEMENT SALES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``COMMITTING 
LEASES FOR ENERGY ACCESS NOW ACT'' OR ``CLEAN ACT''; H.R. 2855, 
 TO DIRECT THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 
TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO MAP ZONES THAT ARE AT GREATER RISK OF 
SINKHOLE FORMATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SINKHOLE MAPPING 
ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 6009, TO REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU 
 OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO WITHDRAW THE PROPOSED RULE RELATING TO 
    FLUID MINERAL LEASES AND LEASING PROCESS, AND FOR OTHER 
PURPOSES, ``RESTORING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE ACT''; AND H.R. 
6011, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY 
OF AGRICULTURE TO NOTIFY APPLICANTS OF THE COMPLETION STATUS OF 
RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 501 OF THE FEDERAL LAND 
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 AND SECTION 28 OF THE MINERAL 
   LEASING ACT, ``RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATION TRANSPARENCY AND 
             ACCOUNTABILITY ACT'' OR ``ROWATA ACT''

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, October 25, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Lamborn, Fulcher, 
Boebert; Magaziner, and Lee.
    Also present: Representatives Hageman; and Soto.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Wyoming, 
Ms. Hageman, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you all for being here today to discuss 
these important pieces of legislation.

    Earlier this Congress Republicans established our 
commitment to an all-of-the-above approach to domestic energy 
policy. This includes oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, along 
with the minerals that are needed to produce them. It is 
important that we embrace all forms of energy and we let the 
best rise to the top.
    We must also make sure that we produce energy here, instead 
of relying on foreign adversarial nations that are hostile 
toward the United States and that have weak environmental, 
labor, and safety standards. Unfortunately, the Biden 
administration has set an anywhere-but-America, any-worker-but-
American energy policy, and they have drawn a hard line at a 
renewable-only energy agenda that is making us more dependent 
on our adversaries.
    In our hearing on the Administration's historically 
atrocious offshore 5-year plan last week, I said that instead 
of American energy dominance, this Administration would rather 
beg Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries for 
increased oil production. Later that afternoon, the Biden 
administration announced they planned to ease sanctions on 
Venezuelan-produced energy. You can't make this up.
    This America-last mentality being pushed by this 
Administration must stop, or else we risk our energy security 
at a time of increased global uncertainty. It is time that 
America lead. The bills we have before us today are a very good 
start on putting us back on the path of strength.

    H.R. 1449, the Committing Leases for Energy Access Now Act, 
or the CLEAN Act, introduced by my friend, Representative 
Fulcher from Idaho, would increase the frequency of geothermal 
lease sales and streamline the process for geothermal drilling 
permits. Geothermal energy has serious potential for growth in 
our country, but the best reservoirs are located on Federal 
lands in the West. We must do all we can to ensure that 
bureaucratic red tape does not hamper this resource moving 
forward, and I appreciate Representative Fulcher's work on this 
issue.

    H.R. 2855, the Sinkhole Mapping Act, introduced by 
Representative Soto, would direct the U.S. Geological Survey to 
study the short- and long-term effects of sinkholes, and map 
the highest risk areas. Over the past 15 years, damage from 
sinkholes has cost an average of $300 million annually. 
However, there is currently no national database of sinkhole 
damage costs, so the true expense may be higher than 300 
million annual estimated. I look forward to working with 
Representative Soto to find an offset for this bill so that we 
can move it forward.

    H.R. 6009, the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act, 
introduced by the gentlelady, Representative Boebert from 
Colorado, would force the BLM to withdraw its proposed onshore 
leasing regulation which is part of the Biden administration's 
war on traditional energy sources. The regulation proposed in 
July would significantly increase fees for operators, which 
will crush small businesses and tie up capital that would 
otherwise go toward increasing production, something this 
Administration has said it wants.
    The regulation also introduces a new, nebulous preference 
criteria for onshore leasing that could lock up thousands of 
acres of Federal lands for leasing, which is the last thing we 
need right now. This provision is just another tool for this 
Administration to shut down the domestic oil and gas industry.
    I am proud to serve as an original co-sponsor of this 
legislation, and I would like to thank Representative Boebert 
for her leadership here.

    H.R. 6011, the Right of Way Application Transparency and 
Accountability Act, introduced by Representative Valadao, would 
expedite right-of-way applications on Federal lands by 
requiring agencies to notify applicants if their right-of-way 
application is complete or deficient within 60 days. This all-
of-the-above energy bill would help renewable and conventional 
energy projects on Federal lands, and would cut down the time 
it takes to permit and build a project here in the United 
States.
    I look forward to a robust discussion today on these bills.
    I will now yield to my colleague from Colorado, 
Representative Boebert.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAUREN BOEBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From Day 1 of his 
administration, Joe Biden has declared an all-out war on 
American energy production and exploration. He has made it 
clear that he cares more about appeasing the radical climate 
change activists than protecting the millions of oil and gas 
workers and producers in America. I was disappointed, but not 
surprised, this July, when the Biden administration filed this 
proposed rule entitled, ``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing 
Process,'' which mandates provisions from the partisan so-
called Inflation Reduction Act, which increased the royalty 
rate for production on Federal lands, while also increasing and 
creating new fees for domestic energy producers.
    This fluid mineral leasing rule is further proof that Joe 
Biden is using every tool in his Administration to dismantle 
American energy production. It codifies pieces of the highly-
partisan so-called Inflation Reduction Act and makes major non-
statutory changes to the BLM's onshore leasing program. It 
increases bonding levels for production on Federal lands, and 
proposes ending nationwide bonding and increasing the minimum 
bond amounts for individual lease bonds and statewide lease 
bonds from $10,000 to $150,000 and from $25,000 to $500,000, 
respectively.
    This significant increase will tie up capital that would 
otherwise be put back into production and is unjustifiable, as 
there are only 37 orphaned oil and gas wells on BLM managed 
lands. These increases will impact smaller producers who can't 
afford to operate in this market. These additional fees will 
ultimately harm returns and reduce revenues to state and local 
governments by disincentivizing development on our Federal 
lands.
    The proposed rule also introduces the idea of using 
preference criteria to inform the BLM's selection of lands for 
lease sales. BLM's rationale for this change is to avoid 
conflict areas with ``sensitive cultural, wildlife, and 
recreation resources.'' This means the BLM field offices could 
avoid leasing in all areas with endangered or threatened 
species, critical habitat, or nearby recreation areas, a move 
that would greatly limit leasing on Federal lands.
    With the wars happening in the Middle East and in Europe, 
and with OPEC significantly lowering oil production, we can't 
rely on other foreign nations to control our energy supply. 
This is why I introduced the Restoring American Energy 
Dominance Act, to terminate this proposed rule and to protect 
American energy producers.
    America makes the cleanest, most reliable, most affordable 
energy in the world. American innovation, in particular, 
fracking, has allowed America to be the global leader in 
reducing emissions since the year 2000. We need to stop buying 
oil and gas from Russia, stop begging OPEC, Venezuela, and even 
Iran to produce energy for us, and start producing more energy 
responsibly right here in America.
    I have always been a strong supporter of oil and gas 
workers, certainly in my district in Colorado, as well as 
across the country. I look forward to working with the 
Committee to openly push for the increased production to 
unleash American energy now. We must restore America's energy 
security, energy independence, and pursue energy dominance.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now will 
recognize Representative Soto from the 9th District of Florida 
for his testimony on his bill.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARREN SOTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, for this opportunity 
to present our Sinkhole Mapping Act, and I also appreciate 
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez.
    We know that sinkholes have been a cause of billions of 
dollars in damages across the nation over many years, and it 
truly affects just about every state. Our bill would require 
the U.S. Geological Survey to create a database of sinkhole 
collapses through the United States so this data is available, 
as well as be proactive in individual state geological surveys 
like in Florida to track reported collapses within their 
states, and to develop and maintain a national scale of karst 
areas and other areas prone to sinkhole formation, not just 
sinkholes themselves.
    We have seen the Florida Surveying and Mapping Society, the 
National Society of Professional Surveyors, and the U.S. 
Geospatial Executive organizations endorse this bill. It is 
bipartisan, it has been co-sponsored by Representatives 
Bilirakis, Luna, and Fitzpatrick on the Republican side.
    This is a big issue in central Florida and throughout the 
Sunshine State. We saw as recently as November 29 of last year 
that in Volusia County, just north of us in Representative 
Waltz's district, a sinkhole opened up after Hurricane Ian and 
was aggravated by Hurricane Nicole.
    We also saw reported subsidence incidences, sinkholes 
recorded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection: 
11 in my home county of Osceola; 194 in Orange County; 236 in 
Polk County and other areas of the district; and a total of 
over 3,000 across Florida. But this is happening in other 
states.
    Chairman, your state is known for 10,000 lakes, but for 
more than 25 years Fountain, Minnesota has called itself the 
Sinkhole Capital of the United States. And there are over 
10,000 sinkholes, as well, I don't expect that to change any 
state mottos anytime soon, around Fillmore County, Minnesota.
    I also was going to point out to Ranking Member Ocasio-
Cortez that each year over 2,000 to nearly 4,000 sinkholes open 
up per year in New York City. One just this past August, a 
sinkhole swallowed a car with driver and passengers inside it 
from flooding near Rochester, New York. So, this is truly a 
national problem affecting all of us.
    Thank you, Chairman, for the time today, and I am happy to 
answer any questions, at the Chairman's discretion.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Soto, for your 
comments. I will now recognize Representative Fulcher from the 
great state of Idaho's 1st District to speak on his bill.
    Representative Fulcher.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSS FULCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I do, Mr. Soto, I think you just explained why maybe 
we have a $33.6 trillion debt. It is that giant sinkhole. All 
the money is going in there. That must be what it is.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to introduce 
this bill, and I thank the Committee for holding this hearing 
today.
    The bill I am introducing is H.R. 1449, Committing Leases 
for Energy Access Now, or the CLEAN Act. It amends the 
Geothermal Steam Act to establish deadlines for consideration 
of geothermal projects requiring yearly lease sales for 
geothermal energy. Currently, the Act requires at least a sale 
every 2 years. This bill requires the Interior to hold a sale 
at least once per year, and there are plenty of applications to 
do this.
    This is just a way to try to encourage geothermal energy. 
And Mr. Chairman, of all the discussions we have had on various 
energy sources, and all the debates we have had that have gone 
back and forth, geothermal is one that is clean, it is 
efficient, it is extremely environmentally friendly. And my 
state of Idaho has been a leader on that, and it is just a good 
solution that we need to encourage a little bit more, so that 
is what this bill intends to do.
    Securing American energy independence should be a top 
priority for Congress. Geothermal is a renewable power source 
that could help us accomplish that goal. As I mentioned 
earlier, Idaho already plays a leading role in geothermal 
energy production.
    To begin developing geothermal resources on federally 
controlled lands, a project must first obtain a lease. Ninety 
percent of viable geothermal resources are estimated to be 
located on these federally controlled lands. That is 90 
percent. It makes constituent lease sales crucial to the 
expansion of the energy source.
    Geothermal is proven clean and efficient, and it provides 
baseload, reliable power to residents in rural areas. And that 
is something also, Mr. Chairman, I don't think a lot of people 
realize. It is baseload power. This is not peaking power. 
Prioritizing geothermal exploration on Federal lands will 
increase certainty for domestic companies looking to explore 
for geothermal resources, while still requiring a full EA if 
the resources prove exploitable.
    So, to the Committee and Mr. Chairman, specifically, thank 
you for your time and consideration of H.R. 1449, and I look 
forward to moving this through the Committee process.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Fulcher. We will now 
move to introduce our witnesses.
    Let me remind all the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on your microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement as 
soon as practical.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    Our first witness is Mr. Gene Grace. He is General Counsel 
for the American Clean Power Association, located right here in 
Washington, DC.
    Mr. Grace, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF GENE GRACE, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN CLEAN POWER 
                  ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Grace. Thank you, Chairman Stauber and the other 
members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to be here to testify 
in front of you today. I am Gene Grace, the General Counsel for 
the American Clean Power Association. We represent nearly 1,000 
utility-scale, clean energy companies that are dedicated to 
advancing solar, wind transmission, energy storage, and green 
hydrogen.
    Our nation is about to really break through to domestic 
energy production driven by the strength of traditional energy 
sources combined with a massive deployment of clean energy. The 
challenge we face today, however, is that this progress is 
really being hamstrung by a permitting process that is 
inefficient and slow, and making it really almost impossible to 
modernize our energy economy.
    Without further permitting reform, it is estimated that 
clean energy investments that total about $3.5 trillion won't 
be realized within the next decade. This is why the American 
Clean Power Association has been a champion and supporter of 
common-sense permitting reforms, and we will continue to be so.
    Nowhere is this dynamic playing out greater than on Federal 
public lands. While BLM has more than 200 million acres of land 
that could host thousands of megawatts of clean energy, 
currently there is only a fraction of clean energy. Less than 5 
percent of all total clean energy deployed today is on public 
lands. Projects opt instead to go on private lands because they 
are concerned about the long permitting timelines. This should 
come as no surprise when, for instance, it takes longer than a 
decade to permit a transmission line on public lands.
    The good news is that we can solve these problems without 
creating new processes or gutting bedrock environmental laws. 
The Fiscal Responsibility Act and the permitting reform 
provisions in it really kind of provide a roadmap of how to 
solve these problems. They focused on common-sense reforms that 
had really two key ingredients. They focused on process-
oriented reforms and ones that did no harm to the environment.
    While those recent permitting reforms focused on the 
environmental phase of the permitting process, more needs to be 
done, and there are other phases of the permitting process that 
need to be focused on that should have clear and predictable 
timelines. The Right of Way Application Transparency and 
Accountability Act is such a bill, and it will help fill that 
gap by providing greater certainty with respect to the right-
of-way application process on public lands.
    While BLM strives to provide a decision on an actual 
application within 60 days, ironically, there is no timeline by 
which they have to make a completeness determination. This 
creates a perverse incentive for BLM to essentially drag their 
feet and not make a completeness determination so as not to 
trigger the 60-day clock. Not surprisingly, it can take over a 
year to get a completeness determination and more than 5 years 
to ultimately get a permit. This bill will cut down on the 
completeness determination, and therefore the ultimate time 
that it takes to actually get a permit.
    To further improve the ROW application process, we also 
recommend that BLM be required, if there is a deficiency, that 
they notify the applicant of that deficiency in writing so the 
applicant can cure the deficiency quickly and get on with the 
permitting process.
    In short, the American Clean Power Association supports 
bills like this one that are common-sense permitting reforms 
that will help us to build clean energy at the scale and at the 
speed we need to meet our economic and energy goals.
    Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to the 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gene Grace, General Counsel, American Clean Power 
                              Association
          on H.R. 6011, Right of Way Application Transparency
                         and Accountability Act

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify at today's 
hearing in favor of the Right of Way Application Transparency and 
Accountability Act (``ROWATA'') and, more generally, about the need for 
reforming the permitting process for clean energy projects on federal 
public lands.
    My name is Gene Grace, and I am the General Counsel for the 
American Clean Power Association (ACP). ACP represents nearly 800 
companies focused on deploying utility-scale clean energy. We unite the 
power of solar, onshore and offshore wind, storage, green hydrogen and 
transmission developers, along with manufacturers and construction 
companies, owners and operators, utilities, and corporate purchasers of 
clean energy.
    Our nation is on the precipice of a breakthrough in domestic energy 
production. Seizing this opportunity is dependent on the continued 
strength in traditional energy production with unleashing a massive 
deployment of a wide range of clean energy technologies.
    Clean power has already become a significant part of our nation's 
energy mix. Approximately 15 percent of our nation's power comes from 
wind and solar and today there is enough wind, solar, and battery 
storage installed across the U.S. to power more than 59 million homes. 
The industry provides 443,000 American jobs, supporting jobs in every 
state in our country, and delivers over $2.8 billion each year in state 
and local taxes and landowner lease payments.
    Over just the last 14 months, we have seen massive capital 
investments and commitments to accelerate the deployment of a wide 
range of clean energy--resulting in more than 230 major clean energy 
projects, more than $200 billion in private-sector investments, and 
more than 80,000 jobs announced across 40 states. The industry is 
poised to see further significant growth over the next 10 years with 
expanded investments in clean energy infrastructure that will unleash 
further economic growth, create more good-paying American jobs, 
strengthen the reliability and resiliency of the grid, and lower carbon 
emissions.
    The challenge we face today, though, is a system of regulations and 
procedures that are slowing the private sector from modernizing our 
energy production and, in turn, making it hard to realize our nation's 
energy security, and reliability imperatives. For instance, it often 
takes more than a decade to permit high-capacity transmission lines 
across public lands, driving away private investments.
    These delays are largely due to procedural inefficiencies in 
processing permits and have ripple effects throughout the economy--
throwing off project timelines, domestic supply chains, and the 
indirect jobs and economic activity that would otherwise occur. Without 
further permitting reform, the United States may not be able to meet 
our growing energy demand and could fall short of its potential to 
unlock more than $3 trillion in clean energy investments over the next 
decade. That is why ACP has been and will continue to be a strong 
advocate for permitting process reforms that will expedite timelines, 
increase transparency and accountability, and reduce duplication and 
bureaucratic red tape.
    A case in point is permitting energy projects on federal public 
lands. While these lands have the potential to play an integral role in 
supporting the energy transition, because of outdated, burdensome, and 
lengthy permitting processes, they are being vastly underutilized. The 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 245 million acres of land with 
the potential to host tens of thousands more megawatts of clean 
energy.\1\ However, as of 2023 a little over 60 solar and wind projects 
have been approved on BLM lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Yale Center for Business and the Environment et al., Key 
Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy on Public Lands (May 2020), p. 
15, https://www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/
CBEY_WILDERNESS_Renewable%20Energy%20Report_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This underutilization is made especially clear when contrasting 
clean energy development on public lands with that on private land. 
Since 2015, less than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic and 
220 MW of onshore wind projects have been deployed on public lands.\2\ 
In the same period, 42,900 MW of utility-scale photovoltaic and 64,900 
MW of onshore wind was built on private lands across the country.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Bureau of Land Management. Wind Energy Rights-of-Way (ROW) on 
Public Lands. May 2021. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/docs/
2021-05/PROJECT%20LIST%20WIND_May 2021.pdf.
    \3\ American Clean Power Association. Clean Power IQ. Data Accessed 
9/21/21, available at https://cleanpoweriq.cleanpower.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reforms to the way in which renewable energy is permitted on these 
lands, including the pace at which rights of ways (ROWs) are reviewed, 
is the key to ensuring that these lands are an attractive option for 
developers.
    The good news is that we do not need to reinvent whole new 
processes nor erode our bedrock environmental laws to support energy 
development on public lands. Process reforms, like ROWATA, can 
successfully unleash deployment of well-planned, predictable, and 
coordinated development of clean energy resources, as well as other 
critical infrastructure, on federal public lands without putting our 
environment at risk.
ROWATA Helps Deliver Key Reform to the Permitting Process for Critical 
        Infrastructure on Public Lands

    ROWATA builds on the process reforms enacted in the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act (FRA). While the FRA timelines improve 
inefficiencies and certainty around the environmental review process, 
there is still a need for the other phases of the permitting process, 
to have a predictable time frame.
    Today, the average timeline for a project to obtain a ROW is often 
over 5 years, largely due to the delays between filing an application 
and getting to the Notice of Intent to begin the environmental review 
process. This act is a start at reducing that time frame by improving 
the timeliness and transparency of the ROW application process.
    As a general rule, a ROW is needed whenever a developer wishes to 
build on public land. It is an authorization to use a specific piece of 
public land for a certain project, such as roads, pipelines, 
transmission lines, solar or wind farm, and communication sites. It is 
typically granted for a term that covers the life of a project.
    BLM strives to provide ROW applicants a decision within 60 days 
from the receipt of a completed application or inform the applicant 
within 30 days if processing will take longer than that time and 
provide a specific date by which such a determination will be made. 
However, there is no timeline in place for a determination to be made 
regarding whether an application is deemed complete or deficient. There 
are also no firm standards in place to advise applicants what 
information is needed to achieve a ``completeness'' determination.
    Without any such deadline, there is no incentive (and potentially a 
disincentive) to make a determination that the application is complete, 
as it starts that clock running on the need to approve or deny the 
application. Not surprisingly, just getting a decision as to whether 
the application is complete can take more than half a year, and even 
longer in certain circumstances. In short, projects can be 
significantly delayed by a process that should entail a relatively easy 
``check-the-boxes'' exercise of determining whether an application is 
complete and ready for processing.
    These types of delays and uncertainty serve to deter deployment of 
clean energy infrastructure on public lands, as increased time 
translates into increased costs for a project. By requiring a 
notification as to whether a ROW application is complete or deficient 
within 60 days, this bill will minimize these delays and increase 
transparency, as well as expediting the time in which a decision 
approving or disapproving a project can be expected.
    To further improve the ROW application process, ACP recommends the 
bill be expanded to require that BLM inform an applicant as to why an 
application was found deficient and to clarify what needs to be 
submitted for the application to be determined complete. Such a 
requirement would allow developers to timely correct a deficiency.
Further Reforms to Make Clean Energy Development on Public Lands More 
        Attractive

    If we are to truly unleash America's diverse energy resources, 
including clean energy, we must speed up the federal permitting process 
from start to finish. While ROWATA would help address a specific issue 
related to the ROW application process, more needs to be done across 
the board to improve timelines for the entire permitting process on 
public lands. To that end, ACP recommends this Committee also pursue 
legislation that would ensure the timely review and processing of all 
the decision points related to permits. Specifically, ACP recommends 
consideration of the following:

     Passing the bipartisan Public Land Renewable Energy 
            Development Act (PLREDA), which would expedite the 
            permitting process for wind, solar, and energy storage 
            development on federal lands, as well as provide a revenue 
            sharing mechanism that would ensure a fair return for 
            states, counties, conservation, and taxpayers and 
            incentives for development on ``priority'' lands and 
            ``development'' lands.

     Strengthening Renewable Energy Coordination Office 
            authority to ensure faster approval of renewable energy 
            projects on BLM lands.

     Passing an increased renewable permitting target for 
            public lands, which builds upon the target in the Energy 
            Act of 2020.

    It is also important to recognize that improvements to regulations 
can only go so far if BLM offices are understaffed, do not have the 
appropriate expertise on staff, and/or do not prioritize ROW 
applications. To that end, Congress should continue to work with BLM to 
ensure it has the necessary skills and improved coordination 
efficiencies needed to effectively manage an increasing clean energy 
workload and to effectuate additional responsible deployment of clean 
energy on public lands.
Conclusion

    ACP strongly supports permitting process reforms, such as ROWATA, 
that are vital to unleashing our nation's clean energy potential across 
the United States. The increased certainty provided by this commonsense 
bill will encourage timely development of clean energy projects on 
federal public lands--commensurate with their potential to host clean 
energy. This will, in turn, help the nation achieve Congress' direction 
in the Energy Act of 2020 to permit 25 gigawatts of clean energy on 
public lands by 2025, thereby reducing electricity costs, improving 
energy security, enhancing grid reliability, reducing emissions, and 
creating good-paying jobs for Americans.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Grace. Our next 
witness is Ms. Sarah Jewett, and she is the Vice President of 
Strategy for Fervo Energy, and she is stationed in Houston, 
Texas.
    Ms. Jewett, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF SARAH JEWETT, VICE PRESIDENT OF STRATEGY, FERVO 
                     ENERGY, HOUSTON, TEXAS

    Ms. Jewett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative 
Fulcher, for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. My 
name is Sarah Jewett and, as the Chairman said, I am the Vice 
President of Strategy at Fervo Energy, a utility-scale, next-
generation geothermal energy developer. I am grateful that the 
Committee has convened today to discuss a critical issue: 
leasing and permitting for geothermal projects on public lands.
    Today, the geothermal energy industry provides about 3,800 
megawatts, or 0.4 percent of the U.S. electricity mix. But we 
are seeing a period of extraordinary growth driven by an 
elevated need for more diverse, reliable energy, and a secure 
domestic energy supply.
    Over the last 20 years, as the shale revolution has boomed 
across the country and across the world, America has led 
cutting-edge innovation in subsurface technologies that are 
directly transferable from the fossil fuel industry into the 
geothermal energy industry. This innovation sets the United 
States up to be the leader in geothermal energy research, 
development, and deployment.
    The Department of Energy's 2019 Geovision report found that 
geothermal energy could provide over 120 gigawatts of emission-
free, round-the-clock power by 2050, accounting for at least 20 
percent of the U.S. electricity supply. With these projects 
comes stable jobs. According to National Renewable Energy 
Laboratories Jedi Job Creation model, each new geothermal plant 
creates thousands of construction and operations jobs, 
including many that require workers with drilling expertise and 
oil and gas backgrounds, and hundreds of permanent positions at 
job sites in rural areas.
    With the right blend of Federal policy and market 
incentives, the U.S. geothermal energy industry can leverage 
America's innovation and experienced workforce to create non-
weather-dependent, clean, resilient power, securing our 
electricity supply in an era of international competition and 
growing national security threats.
    H.R. 1449 proposes highly productive measures to enhancing 
the efficiency and predictability of leasing and permitting for 
geothermal projects. By reducing the time between lease sales 
and ensuring replacement sales are held if previous sales are 
delayed or canceled, the volume of geothermal leases will 
increase, spurring more activity in this high-demand industry, 
and increasing state and Federal revenues from geothermal 
leases.
    Additionally, by requiring that the Bureau of Land 
Management acknowledge and make a determination on geothermal 
drilling permits within a set time frame, the bill discourages 
prolonged, unexplained permitting delays, allowing for 
operators to plan and execute clean energy projects 
predictably.
    Just a few weeks ago, Fervo Energy celebrated a 
groundbreaking to mark the start of our newest and what will be 
the world's largest utility-scale next-generation geothermal 
project called Cape Station in Beaver County, Utah. The first 
two phases of Cape Station will provide 400 megawatts of 24/7 
carbon-free electricity beginning in 2026, employing 6,600 
people during the construction period and a staff of 160 during 
the permanent operations phase. This project has been an 
outstanding success, from a permitting perspective.
    Fervo engaged the BLM, state, and local officials, involved 
regulatory agencies and local impacted stakeholders early, 
deliberately, and consistently in order to educate all about 
the project and lay a productive path for communication and 
feedback. With this highly collaborative approach, the BLM 
staff at the state and local level have proven to be incredibly 
helpful, professional, responsive, and dedicated, and we have 
received decisions efficiently following clear and effective 
communication.
    The Cape Station project is a unique example of how the 
U.S. Federal permitting system can work really well in its 
current form. But as our national requirements for clean, firm 
power grow, and as the country steps up in the great geothermal 
race, we need to do more to maintain consistency across BLM 
state and local offices to ensure that we can predictably and 
effectively build projects at home.
    Congress and the Administration can increase the 
consistency and efficiency of geothermal permitting, while 
still maintaining robust environmental safeguards and community 
engagement and protections. To do this, Congress should work 
with the Administration to standardize the approach to leasing 
and permitting on Federal lands across the states, authorizing 
a more holistic approach.
    With the Federal Government making these efforts, private 
sector companies like Fervo can have more certainty in project 
timelines, lower project costs, and expand new technologies to 
harness clean energy resources like the Earth's heat to power 
homes and businesses. With this in mind, we applaud 
Representative Fulcher for his introduction of H.R. 1449, the 
CLEAN Act, and for his continued leadership on geothermal 
energy.
    The geothermal industry stands ready to scale today, 
providing well-paying jobs across America. We look forward to 
working with you on this. Thank you again for the opportunity 
to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jewett follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Sarah A. Jewett, Vice President of Strategy, 
                              Fervo Energy
                              on H.R. 1449

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing.
    My name is Sarah Jewett, and I am Vice President of Strategy at 
Fervo Energy, a company that develops next-generation geothermal 
projects to deliver 24/7 clean and reliable electricity to the grid. 
I'm grateful that the Committee has convened today and grateful for the 
invitation to discuss a critical issue: leasing and permitting for 
geothermal projects on public lands.
    Climate change is elevating the need for a diverse and reliable 
energy mix and global conflict is elevating the value of secure, 
resilient domestic energy supplies. Wind and solar are continuing to 
add capacity to the grid, and we now see a rapidly expanding role for 
clean, firm energies that produce around the clock and contribute to 
grid reliability and energy security.
    Among these clean, firm energy options exists a long-slumbering 
giant: geothermal energy, which harnesses a nearly infinite well of 
heat from the earth's core to create baseload, emissions-free heat and 
power. This heat exists everywhere, but across vast swaths of the 
western United States, it happens to exist at a depth that is easily 
accessible using modern drilling and completions technology developed 
by the oil and gas industry during the shale revolution over the last 
twenty years.
    With massive resource potential, strong demand, a uniquely 
American-made supply chain, a highly trained fossil fuel workforce 
ready to do the work, and U.S.-based companies like Fervo hard at work 
to bring geothermal energy to market, America is poised to take first 
on the global stage in geothermal energy leadership. I thank the 
committee for elevating the topics of leasing and permitting for 
geothermal projects, which will contribute to solidifying this 
leadership position.
Expanding Next-Generation Geothermal Energy Development on Public Lands 
        Is a Critical Strategy to Enhancing American Energy Security

    Utility-scale geothermal energy is produced by drilling wells into 
the earth to access high temperature rock and using water to pull heat 
from these rocks to the surface. This hot fluid is transported via 
pipeline to a nearby power facility where it is used to spin a turbine 
to generate electricity before being reinjected into the ground.
    Over the last twenty years, as the shale revolution has boomed 
across the country and across the world, America has led cutting edge 
innovation in subsurface technologies that are directly transferable 
from the fossil fuel industry into the geothermal industry. With these 
projects will come stable jobs: according to the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory's (NREL) JEDI job creation model, each new geothermal 
plant creates thousands of construction and operational jobs, including 
many that require workers with drilling expertise and oil and gas 
backgrounds, and hundreds of permanent positions at job sites in rural 
areas.
    Today, geothermal energy only provides about 3,800 MW or 0.4% of 
the U.S.'s electricity, but we are seeing a period of extraordinary 
growth. The Department of Energy's (DOE) 2019 GeoVision report found 
that geothermal could provide over 120 GW of clean, firm power by 2050, 
accounting for 20% of U.S. electricity supply. With the right blend of 
federal policy and market incentives, the U.S. geothermal energy 
industry can leverage America's innovation and experienced workforce to 
create 24/7, clean, resilient power, securing our electricity supply in 
an era of international competition and growing national security 
threats.
    Now is the time for the U.S. to take action to maintain leadership 
in a rapidly evolving geothermal energy landscape. International 
geothermal competition is heating up as quickly as we are scaling at 
home. In early 2023, the European Union announced a nearly $100 million 
grant to demonstrate a next-generation geothermal project in Germany. 
This single grant totaled $16 million more than what the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law provided to divide across multiple projects on home 
soil. China, too, has taken notice--the Chinese Government's energy 
development plans have included a substantial role for geothermal 
energy.\1\ And, at the 2023 World Geothermal Conference, held in 
Beijing, researchers from the China National Geothermal Energy Center, 
China Academy of Engineering, and other institutions released findings 
touting China's ``significant progress on geothermal technology.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.efchina.org/Blog-en/blog-20220905-en
    \2\ ``High-Quality Development of China's Geothermal Industry--
China Country Report of the World Geothermal Conference 2023.'' 
Xunsheng GUO, Liqiang DANG, Zhiguo HAN, Dianbin GUO. Proceedings World 
Geothermal Congress 2023 Beijing, China, September 15-17, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    America is primed and ready to lead a highly productive geothermal 
resurgence, and we must act quickly to solidify that leadership 
position. For Congress and the Administration to achieve this goal and 
enhance U.S. energy security, we need to invest in next-generation 
geothermal energy development and improve support for its deployment on 
public lands, where the majority of these resources can be found.
Improved Leasing and Permitting for Next-Generation Geothermal Energy 
        Is Essential to Ensuring a Clean and Reliable Electric Grid

    Over 90% of American geothermal resources exist underneath 
federally managed lands, arming the U.S. with immense ownership of 
instigating a powerful domestic energy resource. Unfortunately, leasing 
of and permitting on federal lands can hinder projects rather than 
facilitate them, creating prolonged, unpredictable development 
timelines and introducing major financial risk.
    I strongly believe that renewable energy development on public 
lands should incorporate careful consideration of environmental 
impacts. However, the current process of approving geothermal energy 
development is replete with duplicative assessments under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and opaque, prolonged 
processing, making it difficult to plan, finance and build projects 
effectively.
    Like any renewable energy project, geothermal energy developers 
require a certain set of conditions to build an economic and long-
lasting system. Unlike solar and wind energy, whose conditions are 
easily observable above ground, the conditions required for a 
successful geothermal system exist thousands of feet below the surface, 
hidden by many layers of highly heterogeneous rock. Separate NEPA 
analyses are required to:

     Lease the land

     Perform low-impact resource exploration activities

     Perform full-fledged exploration drilling to confirm the 
            resource

     Execute full-field drilling to complete the wellfield 
            development

     Construct the power facility and connect to the grid

    In addition to NEPA processes, subsequent activities including 
surface disturbance to build roads, pads, and right-of-ways and 
drilling and injecting into geothermal wells must be approved by in-
state regulatory agencies and the BLM. These approvals add an 
additional layer of uncertainty to geothermal development. This means 
that developers like Fervo will often put large amounts of capital at 
risk before there is any assurance that power plants can be built, and 
this risk is not meaningfully retired as a project progresses.
    For America to build and maintain leadership in geothermal energy 
development, it must address some of this uncertainty.
H.R. 1449 is a Productive Step Forward
Leasing

    Section 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) to hold competitive lease sales at least once 
every two years for lands available for leasing in a state that has 
nominations pending. Despite this requirement, Nevada is the only 
western state that has held regular, predictable lease sales, offering 
acreage ripe for geothermal development both competitively and non-
competitively on an annual basis.
    H.R. 1449 proposes highly productive modifications to the 
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to increase the frequency and 
predictability of geothermal lease sales. By reducing the time between 
lease sales and ensuring a replacement sale is held in the event that a 
sale is delayed or canceled, the volume of geothermal leases will 
increase, spurring more activity in the industry, allowing projects to 
commence, and increasing state and federal revenues from geothermal 
lease sales.
Permitting

    After a full NEPA assessment has been approved, subsequent 
regulatory permitting processes must be completed in order to perform 
activities at any field site. To drill each geothermal well, a 
developer must submit a geothermal drilling permit application to the 
state BLM office and to additional in-state regulatory agencies. Today, 
there are no deadlines for review or approval of these permits, and an 
organization can be left waiting on their applications indefinitely, 
even if a NEPA environmental assessment is in place.
    H.R. 1449 proposes highly productive deadlines for consideration of 
geothermal drilling permits. By requiring that a BLM acknowledge within 
thirty days whether an application is complete, H.R. 1449 encourages 
the approving agency to review the permit in a timely fashion, allowing 
for operators to plan and execute clean energy projects predictably.
Fervo Energy is Leading the Way on Developing Next-Generation 
        Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands In Collaboration with the 
        Bureau of Land Management

    Just a few weeks ago, Fervo celebrated a groundbreaking to mark the 
start of the exploratory drilling campaign for our newest utility-scale 
next-generation geothermal project, Cape Station, in Beaver County, 
Utah. Cape Station will provide 400 Megawatts of 24/7 carbon-free 
electricity beginning in 2026, employing 6,600 people during the 
construction period and a staff of 160 during the permanent operations 
phase. Fervo was proud to host Utah Governor Cox and the Department of 
the Interior's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and 
Minerals Management Laura Daniel-Davis at the groundbreaking alongside 
Beaver County Commissioner Tammy Pearson and other local officials.
    This project has been an outstanding success from a permitting 
perspective. Fervo engaged the BLM, local officials, state regulatory 
agencies, and local impacted stakeholders early and deliberately to 
maximize communication and educate all about the project. With this 
highly collaborative approach, the BLM staff at the state and local 
level have proven to be professional, responsive, and dedicated, and we 
have received decisions efficiently following clear and effective 
communication.
    The Cape Station project is an example of how, with extensive 
planning, deep technical expertise and deliberate, conscientious 
community outreach, the permitting system currently in place in the 
U.S. can work well. But, as our national requirements for clean, firm 
power grow, and as other countries step up in the race to own the 
geothermal technologies of the future, we need to do more to maintain 
consistency across BLM state and local offices to ensure that we can 
predictably and effectively build projects at home.
Congress Should Take Further Action to Clear Up Roadblocks for 
        Developing Next-Generation Geothermal Energy At Scale

    Congress and the Administration can increase the consistency and 
efficiency of geothermal permitting while still maintaining robust 
environmental safeguards and community engagement and protections. To 
do this:

  1.  Congress should pass legislation authorizing a more holistic 
            approach to permitting geothermal energy generation, 
            including associated transmission resources. This would 
            help avoid unnecessary delays and costs, provide more 
            certainty for developers and investors, and enable faster 
            development of firm renewable energy.

  2.  Congress and the Administration should take steps to reduce 
            project development timelines by surging resources to 
            expedite BLM permit consideration and allowing use of more 
            efficient NEPA processes (such as Categorical Exclusions) 
            when more in-depth environmental reviews have already been 
            conducted.

  3.  Congress and the Administration should work together to create 
            dedicated teams of geothermal experts. These experts are 
            badly needed to develop best practices, build training 
            materials and standard operating procedures, and provide 
            technical support to field offices to ensure timely review 
            of geothermal projects on federal lands

    With the federal government making these efforts, private sector 
companies like Fervo can have more certainty over project timelines, 
lower project costs, and expand new technologies to harness renewable 
resources like the earth's heat to power our homes and businesses.
    With this in mind, we applaud Representative Fulcher for his 
introduction of H.R. 1449, the Committing Leases for Energy Access Now 
(CLEAN) Act and for his continued leadership on geothermal energy.
    The geothermal industry stands ready to scale clean, firm power, 
building out thousands of well-paying jobs across America. We look 
forward to working with you on this. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Ms. 
Melissa Hornbein, and she is a Senior Attorney for Western 
Environmental Law Center located in Helena, Montana.
    Ms. Hornbein, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MELISSA HORNBEIN, SENIOR ATTORNEY, WESTERN 
           ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, HELENA, MONTANA

    Ms. Hornbein. Thank you, Chairman Stauber and members of 
the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is 
Melissa Hornbein. I am an attorney with the Western 
Environmental Law Center, which is a non-profit law firm that 
works to safeguard the public lands, wildlife, and communities 
of the western United States in the face of a changing climate.
    I fear I am likely also one of those radical climate 
activists, but I am in full agreement with the sponsor of H.R. 
6009 that we should be producing more energy responsibly right 
here in America. For that reason, I urge this Subcommittee to 
reject H.R. 6009 because the BLM's rulemaking is necessary.
    There is an urgent need for reform of the Federal oil and 
gas program in three critical areas, and I will address each of 
those in turn.
    First, the rule is necessary to protect American taxpayers 
from the costs of oil and gas cleanup. In addition to a 
revision of royalty rates that hadn't been changed for 100 
years, the agency's proposed overhaul of the bonding program is 
badly needed. A properly implemented bonding system does two 
things: first of all, it encourages producers to clean up after 
themselves and clean up the messes they make on Federal public 
land; secondly, if a producer is unable or unwilling to 
complete that cleanup, an adequate bond allows the Bureau of 
Land Management to complete that remediation process itself 
without passing those costs along to U.S. taxpayers.
    BLM's proposal to raise minimum bond amounts for individual 
leases to $150,000 represents an absolute minimum amount to 
increase bond amounts to bring them in line with actual 
reclamation costs. Those are costs that, without this bond 
increase, will be directly passed on to American taxpayers.
    It is also crucial that BLM be allowed to update its 
regulations and adopt these increased bonding amounts or, even 
better, adopt full cost bonding to encourage prompt plugging 
and remediation of oil and gas wells because uncapped, idle, 
and abandoned wells are ongoing sources of pollution and a risk 
to the public.
    Second, BLM needs to be given the opportunity, which it has 
not taken advantage of yet, to address the climate crisis as 
part of its rulemaking. The proposed rule fails to acknowledge 
that carbon dioxide emissions from Federal fossil fuels account 
for approximately 25 percent of CO2 emissions in the 
United States. Clearly, public lands continue to be a 
significant contributor to the climate crisis, which is playing 
out in real time.
    During this past summer, the Earth experienced its hottest 
3 months in recorded history, and many areas of the United 
States, including parts of Colorado, have already exceeded 2 
degrees of warming, and are feeling the effects of that through 
increased wildfire smoke, drought, and other adverse impacts.
    BLM has an intrinsic responsibility to safeguard the public 
welfare in its management of Federal minerals, and it also has 
separate obligations to take a hard look at its programs' 
impacts to the environment, and consider alternatives and 
mitigation measures to protect all environmental values on 
Federal public lands, but explicitly including air and 
atmospheric values.
    BLM is also separately required to manage public lands 
without permanent impairment, and to prevent unnecessary or 
undue degradation of those lands and the resources on them. 
Continuing oil and gas development is fundamentally 
incompatible with a safe climate. The science tells us this. 
BLM's rulemaking represents an important opportunity that the 
agency has not yet taken advantage of to attempt to reconcile 
continued leasing with the beginning of an organized phase-out 
of oil and gas development, which is necessary to meet U.S. 
climate commitments, as well as reduce the risks of the worst 
impacts of climate change.
    Third, BLM's oil and gas rulemaking must be allowed to 
proceed in order for the agency to address health and 
environmental justice concerns. BLM's proposed rule 
acknowledges the potential for disproportionately high adverse 
and cumulative impacts of leasing and drilling on underserved 
communities and environmental justice populations, but it does 
not yet go far enough to address those issues. The agency needs 
the opportunity to do so.
    In sum, I urge the Committee to reject H.R. 6009 and to 
allow BLM's rulemaking to proceed. BLM is currently reviewing 
more than 260,000 public comments that were submitted on this 
rule. The bill under consideration today not only seeks to cut 
short the rulemaking process, but also to negate that public 
input.
    I respectfully request the Subcommittee reject this 
resolution. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hornbein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melissa Hornbein, Senior Attorney at the Western 
                        Environmental Law Center
                              on H.R. 6009

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify. My name is Melissa Hornbein. I am an attorney 
with the Western Environmental Law Center's Climate and Energy program. 
The Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) is a non-profit law firm 
that uses the power of the law to safeguard the public lands, wildlife, 
and communities of the western U.S. in the face of a changing climate. 
Our policy and legal engagement on the federal oil and gas leasing 
program is driven by the need to achieve climate stability, 
environmental justice for frontline communities, and a fair return for 
American taxpayers who share in the ownership of federal public lands 
and shoulder the costs of a federal oil and gas program that 
historically has not required lessees to pay their fair share.
    The bill you are considering would halt a long-awaited effort to 
modernize the federal oil and gas leasing program. H.R. 6009 seeks to 
perpetuate a system that is a half-century out of date and shortchanges 
American taxpayers on royalties and rental payments of publicly owned 
minerals, while continuing to leave taxpayers liable for cleanup of the 
mess oil and gas companies leave behind. The Bureau of Land 
Management's (BLM's) proposed rule attempts to redress this long-
standing imbalance, and my hope is that this Subcommittee will support 
that effort. Current law dictates that the costs associated with 
federal oil and gas development should be squarely borne by federal oil 
and gas lessees--but to date, the federal leasing program has failed to 
require lessees to internalize these costs. Fundamentally, this is an 
issue of fairness to all Americans.
    Of equal importance with these fiscal reforms, this rulemaking 
presents an opportunity for BLM to craft rules that acknowledge and act 
on the climate crisis and the iniquitous impacts the oil and gas 
program has long perpetuated on already overburdened communities. In my 
view, BLM's rule, as proposed, falls short of these additional goals. 
It is my sincere hope that the agency will listen to public comment to 
this effect and seize the opportunity to address these issues in its 
final rule. To do so, however, this rulemaking must be allowed to 
proceed. Regardless of the contents of the final rule, the proposed 
rule represents a substantive and necessary improvement over the system 
H.R. 6009 seeks to leave in place. The oil and gas industry earned a 
record $219 billion in profits in 2022,\1\ and yet federal lands are 
littered with idled and unplugged wells that continue to emit 
greenhouse gases and toxic air pollutants, and which have the potential 
to cost taxpayers upwards of $330 million to reclaim.\2\ The interests 
of the American taxpayer and the health of communities living in 
proximity to these sources, as well as the health of the public lands 
they exist on must for once be prioritized above those of industry 
profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/big-oil-doubles-
profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/.
    \2\ 88 Fed. Reg. 47,562, 47,565 (July 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an urgent need for reform of the federal oil and gas program.
Taxpayer return through bonding reform:

    Bonding plays an important role in ensuring that wells are promptly 
and fully plugged and remediated, and that taxpayers and local 
communities are not burdened with the clean-up costs or the negative 
effects of living, working, or recreating in proximity to unplugged 
wells. Moreover, data shows that inadequate bonding serves as a 
deterrent to proper reclamation, while sufficient bonding amounts lead 
to increased rates of clean up and full reclamation of fossil fuel 
infrastructure.\3\ In the event the operator does not remediate a site 
and obtain bond release, the bond serves to protect the government and 
taxpayers from bearing these costs by providing BLM with adequate 
funding to complete sufficient plugging and reclamation. To achieve 
these purposes, bond amounts must be set at levels equivalent to the 
actual costs of plugging and remediation.\4\ The bond amounts in BLM's 
current rules spectacularly fail to achieve this objective, and this 
bill inexplicably seeks to frustrate the agency's efforts to remedy the 
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Dustin Bleizeffer, Mine clean-up financing may be poised 
for an upgrade, WyoFile (Jan. 12, 2022) https://wyofile.com/mine-clean-
up-financing-may-be-poised-for-an-upgrade/ (recounting the experience 
of the coal industry in Wyoming where coal mine operators replaced 
inadequate self-bonding as a result of improved state regulations as a 
result of regulator and public pressure. After replacing inadequate 
bonds, the industry carried out a record amount of reclamation, 
obtaining the greatest amount of bond release in the history of the 
federal coal program due to the increased financial interest on the 
part of operators and providing a financial incentive to finish 
reclamation and obtain release of bonds).
    \4\ See 30 U.S.C. Sec. 226(g) (Mineral Leasing Act requirement that 
an ``adequate'' bond be established before operators begin preparing 
land for drilling ``to ensure the complete and timely reclamation'' and 
``restoration'' of the leased tract of land) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2019, Congress asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
to review the status of oil and gas bonding for federal lands. The 
resulting report: (1) described the value of bonds for oil and gas 
wells in 2018 compared to 2008, and (2) examined the extent to which 
BLM's bonds ensure complete and timely plugging and remediation.\5\ The 
GAO found that bonds held by BLM have not provided sufficient financial 
assurance to ensure timely plugging and remediation.\6\ For example, 
the vast majority of bonds generally do not reflect actual reclamation 
costs \7\ because most bonds are set at their regulatory minimum 
values, and these minimums have not been adjusted since the 1950s and 
1960s to account for inflation.\8\ Additionally, these minimums do not 
account for variables such as the number of wells they cover or other 
characteristics that affect reclamation costs, such as well depth or 
location.\9\ As a result of its findings, the GAO recommended that BLM 
take steps to adjust bond levels to more closely reflect expected 
reclamation costs.\10\ BLM concurred with this recommendation,\11\ and 
the proposed rule addresses this issue directly. Nonetheless, BLM needs 
to go further, and improve the rule and its protections for American 
taxpayers, by implementing additional fiscal protections, including 
full cost bonding. In comments WELC submitted on the proposed rule on 
behalf of a number of partner organizations, we urged BLM to do just 
this, and it is our hope that if this rulemaking is allowed to proceed, 
BLM will heed this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Land Management 
Should Address Risks from Insufficient Bonds to Reclaim Wells (Sept. 
2019)(``GAO Report''), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-615.pdf.
    \6\ Id. at 14.
    \7\ GAO defines ``reclamation'' to mean ``all of the actions and 
costs to reclaim a well, including well plugging and surface 
reclamation, and to restoring any lands or surface waters adversely 
affected by oil and gas operations.'' GAO Report at 1.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. at 16-17.
    \10\ Id. at 24.
    \11\ Id. at 31 (App'x II, Comments from the Department of the 
Interior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A properly implemented bonding system with bond amounts set at 
levels equivalent to the full cost of plugging and remediating all 
covered wells ensures that abandoned well sites will be cleaned up in a 
timely manner, as required by the MLA, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 226(g). Bonding 
systems that set bonds at appropriate levels achieve this in two ways. 
First, as already noted, they create economic incentives for operators 
to promptly complete plugging and remediation themselves. Second, they 
ensure that regulators have access to adequate resources to complete 
plugging and remediation in the event the operator either cannot or 
will not do the work. It is crucial that BLM update its regulations to 
adopt policies, such as full cost bonding, that encourage prompt 
plugging and remediation of oil and gas wells, because uncapped wells 
are ongoing sources of harmful pollution and a risk to the public. H.R. 
6009 would ensure precisely the opposite result. That is a risk the 
government has no business imposing on hardworking Americans, 
especially those who are already suffering disproportionate impacts of 
living in proximity to such infrastructure.
    While bonding is an important feature of regulatory oversight for 
any industry where a lessee or permittee assumes clean-up obligations, 
it is critically important in settings such as the oil and gas 
industry, which are inherently subject to boom-and-bust cycles. Subject 
to fluctuations in international commodity prices, the oil and gas 
industry is prone to a pattern of drilling many new wells when prices 
are high, and then experiencing bankruptcies, idlings, and abandonments 
when prices drop.\12\ Effective bonding protects against these 
fluctuations by encouraging operators to plug wells promptly in order 
to free up capital dedicated to servicing the bonds, and by ensuring 
that regulators are able to complete clean-up in the event of 
abandonment by operators. Adequate bonding also frees regulators to 
take appropriate enforcement actions against operators without fear 
that such actions will lead to additional well abandonments with 
unfunded clean-up obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ GAO Report at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two provisions of BLM's proposed rule--provisions that would be 
eliminated by passage of this resolution--are particularly critical. 
First, BLM's proposal to raise minimum bond amounts for individual 
leases to $150,000. This increase represents an absolute minimum 
necessary to bring bonding amounts in line with actual reclamation 
costs, which average $77,000 per well.\13\ Indeed, there is a very real 
concern that this per-lease bonding requirement remains too low to 
capture actual clean-up costs on leases with multiple wells, and in 
comments on the proposed rule, we urged BLM to address this risk in its 
final rule. Nonetheless, the rule as written it is a significant and 
necessary first step, and a fiscal backstop to protect the government 
and taxpayers from runaway costs associated with reclamation. Second, 
BLM's proposal to eliminate nationwide bonding and unit operators' 
bonds is long overdue. BLM's currently held nationwide bonds cover 
multiple wells at lower rates and are adequate to cover only about half 
of the existing wells and their associated liability ostensibly covered 
by the bonds. They also consume more agency resources in their 
administration, further ensuring that these bond amounts lag behind 
even those for individual leases. It is past time these resource-
intensive and insufficient bonds were eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2022/
Ohio_Department_of_Natural_Resources_ 22_Performance-
Franklin_FINAL.pdf. BLM's estimates in the proposed rule support these 
numbers: the BLM determined the cost to plug a well and reclaim the 
surface ranges from $35,000 to $200,000, with an average cost of 
$71,000. 88 Fed. Reg. at 47,581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programmatic Reform in Response to the Inflation Reduction Act.

    In addition, the rulemaking represents a necessary opportunity to 
bring the BLM's regulations in-line with the amendments to the Mineral 
Leasing Act (MLA) effected by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). BLM's 
existing rules are outdated in the face of changes implemented by the 
IRA, including the elimination of noncompetitive leasing, changes to 
royalty rates, minimum bids, evaluation of nominated parcels for future 
sales and provisions relating to renewable energy rights of way on 
public lands, among others. BLM is currently using instruction 
memoranda to implement many of these provisions, but this is a stopgap 
measure, and the agency's regulations should be revised for the sake of 
consistency, enforceability, and clarity for lessees and the public. 
BLM has also, in the wake of the IRA, articulated policies surrounding 
reinstatements, land use planning, lease parcel reviews, extensions of 
APDs, and suspensions that are most appropriately and durably expressed 
through the regulatory process.
BLM's Rule Must be Allowed to Address the Climate and Biodiversity 
        Crises.

    Of equal importance, BLM's rulemaking represents an important 
opportunity--as yet unrealized--for the agency to meaningfully 
incorporate the scientific and physical realities of the climate crisis 
into its decision-making surrounding the federal oil and gas program, 
and to incorporate long-neglected measures to address the public health 
and environmental justice impacts of the program on infrastructure-
adjacent, underserved, and overburdened communities.
    The climate crisis is real, and it is here now. Just last month, 
the World Meteorological Organization made official what an 
unprecedented cluster of extreme weather events this summer had already 
presaged: the Earth just experienced its hottest three months in 
recorded history.\14\ Alarmingly, August 2023 (which is second only to 
July 2023 in the competition for hottest month ever), averaged 1.5+C 
warmer than the preindustrial average, bringing the planet a perilous 
step closer to permanently exceeding the Paris Accord's 1.5+C 
temperature threshold, years earlier than anticipated.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Earth had hottest three-month period on record, with 
unprecedented sea surface temperatures and much extreme weather. World 
Meteorological Organization News Release September 6, 2023, https://
public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/earth-had-hottest-three-month-
period-record-unprecedented-sea-surface.
    \15\ Global temperatures set to reach new records in next five 
years, World Meteorological Organization, May 17, 2023, https://
public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-temperatures-set-reach-
new-records-next-five-
years#::text=There%20is%20a%2066%25%20likelihood,be%20 
the%20warmest%20on%20record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional future oil and gas development is fundamentally 
incompatible with a safe climate. This reality exists in tandem with 
the fact that BLM operates under varied and conflicting statutory 
directives and political impediments, as well as a directive, per the 
recently enacted IRA, that federal oil and gas leasing continue for the 
present. As a result, BLM's rulemaking represents a critical 
opportunity to address the interwoven climate, ecological, and 
biodiversity crises and ensure BLM can fulfill its nondiscretionary 
statutory obligations to protect public lands and resources for future 
generations. WELC and partners have encouraged BLM, through its 
comments, to adopt a regulatory approach that maintains consistency 
with the framework of BLM's proposed rule, yet more fully accounts for 
BLM's statutory responsibilities, scientific reality, and concurrent 
rulemaking efforts when implementing its final rule. We have termed 
this approach, which takes into account considerations ranging from 
planning to leasing to permitting, a ``life cycle'' approach to the oil 
and gas program. H.R. 6009's proposal to withdraw the proposed rule 
would prevent BLM from harmonizing its concomitant statutory 
obligations with the United States' international commitments and would 
help ensure BLM's failure to administer federal public lands for 
multiple use and sustained yield and to prevent their unnecessary or 
undue degradation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1702(c), 1732(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM still has an opportunity, through the proposed rule, to address 
this crisis by providing a comprehensive framework to align the federal 
oil and gas program within science-based guardrails. In comments on the 
proposed rule, WELC and partners encouraged BLM to focus this enquiry 
not only on the impacts of GHG emissions from the program but also on 
intensifying stresses on the ecological resilience of the public lands 
system caused by the combined stressors of climate change and the 
existing network of oil and gas infrastructure. H.R. 6009 would remove 
this important opportunity for BLM to align its oil and gas program 
with underlying scientific and legal directives, and would perpetuate 
the legal vulnerabilities that have so plagued BLM's administration of 
the leasing program, to the detriment of the agency, lessees, and the 
public as well as public lands themselves.
    BLM has an intrinsic responsibility to manage fluid minerals to 
``safeguard[] . . . the public welfare,'' as well as related but 
separate obligations to take a hard look at impacts through NEPA, and 
to consider alternatives and mitigation to protect ``air and 
atmospheric'' values and, inter alia, to manage public lands ``without 
permanent impairment'' and to ``prevent unnecessary or undue 
degradation.'' \17\ These mandates require the agency to fulfill these 
interconnecting responsibilities in any rule it adopts to modernize 
oversight of the federal oil and gas program. In tandem with BLM's 
forthcoming Public Lands Rule, the oil and gas rule presents BLM with a 
distinctive opportunity to place climate, conservation, and 
environmental justice values on a truly ``equal footing'' with oil and 
gas extraction to shape and inform action in the public interest. As 
noted, H.R. 6009 would not only eliminate these nascent opportunities 
for BLM to bring its program into long-overdue statutory compliance, 
but would actually increase the legal vulnerability of every lease sale 
the agency offers in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 187; 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701(a)(8), 1702(c), 
1732(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM's own data underscores the need such reform: fossil fuel 
development on BLM-administered lands accounts for 15.3% of total U.S. 
GHG emissions, 1.8% of global emissions, and nearly 21% of all 
emissions in the U.S. from fossil fuel production.\18\ With respect to 
carbon dioxide, emissions from fossil fuels (coal, oil, fossil gas) 
produced on federal lands represent a quarter of all CO2 
emissions in the U.S.\19\ Clearly, public lands continue to be a 
significant contributor to the climate crisis, and will be until BLM 
undertakes a life cycle-based planning effort for federal oil and gas 
development. Oil and gas companies have exploited and continue to 
exploit BLM's highly permissive approach to oil and gas development of 
federal public lands and minerals. These companies have acquired oil 
and gas development rights to 23.7 million acres of federal public 
lands and operate over 89,000 wells now in production. Oil and gas 
companies have also stockpiled over 10,000 additional oil and gas 
drilling permits \20\ and thousands of undeveloped leases totaling at 
least 13.9 million acres.\21\ While the proposed rule attempts to 
address a subset of these issues through fiscal reforms, it can, and 
should, go further. Indeed, the fiscal provisions of the rule are only 
part of the total costs the government and American taxpayers will 
incur if oil and gas leasing continues under a ``business as usual'' 
scenario, as H.R. 6009 contemplates. The climate and public health 
costs that result from each and every BLM lease sale are underreported, 
and are just as often born by the taxpayer as are the costs associated 
with abandoned and unreclaimed wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 2021 BLM Greenhouse Gas Specialist Report at Section 9.1 
(Representative Concentration Pathways), (``Climate change is 
fundamentally a cumulative phenomenon, global in scope, and all GHGs 
contribute incrementally to climate change regardless of scale or 
origin.''); Section 7.1. (BLM Share of 2020 Annual Global and U.S. GHG 
Emissions), Table 7-1. https://www.blm.gov/content/ghg/2021/
#::text=The%20%222021%20BLM%20Specialist%20Report,of%20Land%20 
Management%20(BLM).
    \19\ Merrill, M.D., Sleeter, B.M., Freeman, P.A., et al., Federal 
lands greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the United States--
Estimates for 2005-14: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 
Report 2018-5131, 31 (2018).
    \20\ BLM Fiscal Year 2022 Oil and Gas Statistics, https://
public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/earth-had-hottest-three-month-
period-record-unprecedented-sea-surface.
    \21\ Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program at 4, noting 
that of the more than 26 million onshore acres currently under lease, 
nearly 13.9 million or 53% is non-producing. This number likely does 
not capture the full extent of industry's stockpiling of federal 
leases, hence the use of ``at least.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is wholly undisputed by reputable scientists that fossil fuels 
are a primary driver of the climate crisis, harm the resilience and 
intactness of public lands and communities, and saddle state and local 
governments with an overdependence on a highly volatile source of 
revenue with soaring and unsecured clean-up costs, along with the 
political and economic challenges that flow from reliance on fossil-
fuel based economies.\22\ While BLM has, with the proposed rule, 
suggested long-overdue fiscal reforms that begin to address some of 
these problems and offer American taxpayers some assurance that the 
federal oil and gas program is not being administered solely for the 
benefit of industry, the proposed rule fails to mention climate change, 
let alone attempt to meaningfully address the significant contribution 
of fossil fuel production on public lands to the climate crisis or the 
urgency of winding down fossil fuel production in order to avert its 
worst impacts. It is a scientifically accepted reality that fossil fuel 
production must end within the foreseeable future to avert the most 
catastrophic effects of climate change on ecosystems, and by extension 
on the resilience and intactness of federal public lands, species, 
other public lands values, and communities, in particular underserved 
and overburdened communities already suffering disproportionately from 
a variety of stressors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See, e.g., Albuquerque Journal, New Mexico faces a budget 
abyss if oil and gas goes bust (Jan. 30, 2023), https://news.yahoo.com/
mexico-faces-budget-abyss-oil-045900527.html?guc counter=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM has yet to frankly acknowledge the incompatibility of this 
continued leasing requirement with greenhouse gas reduction goals, and 
to do what it can within the bounds of its ``plenary'' and 
``capacious'' authorities and responsibilities, in particular those 
afforded by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), to 
address climate change in this and every regulatory action it 
takes.\23\ As we communicated to BLM in comments submitted on the 
proposed rule, BLM must not continue to silo the federal oil and gas 
program from the realities of the climate crisis. This will merely 
exacerbate confusion regarding the administration's approach to climate 
action, incite further litigation targeting legally vulnerable fossil 
fuel decisions, fail to set the stage for future action, and propagate 
further harm, particularly to public lands already suffering 
disproportionately from warming that has already occurred and is 
expected to worsen.\24\ BLM instead must lean into action that will 
fulfill the agency's core responsibility to serve as the trustee of the 
public lands system and its ``mandate to manage federal lands for 
multiple use and to provide for the protection of resources on those 
lands.'' \25\ If this bill passes, BLM will be unable to heed this 
advice, and its legal liability will be further increased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Solicitor's Opinion M-37039 at 9, https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/m-37039-the-blms-authority-to-address-impacts-of-its-
land-use-authorizations-through-mitigation.pdf.
    \24\ An example of these type of warming exists on the Western 
Slope, including the North Fork Valley of Colorado, a 2+C ``hotspot.'' 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/climate-
environment/climate-change-colorado-utah-hot-spot/. See also, Basin: 
https://www.colofarmfood.org/groundzero
    \25\ 88 Fed. Reg. 47,562, 47,574 (July 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the interests of protecting public resources, reducing risk to 
public lands, and minimizing costs to taxpayers, WELC and its partners 
will continue to urge BLM to adopt a more holistic ``life cycle'' 
approach to the planning for leasing, development, production, and 
reclamation of federal mineral resources. Such an approach is true to 
the law and science, would better conform the proposed rule and its 
implementation with U.S. and international climate commitments, and 
would connect the rule more seamlessly with parallel rulemakings, 
including the agency's proposed Public Lands Rule and the Council on 
Environmental Quality's proposed Phase II NEPA regulations. The more 
the proposed rule can be tailored to complement these concurrent 
rulemaking efforts the better it will serve to protect non-mineral 
resources on land overlying BLM mineral estate, and the more legally 
defensible it will be. H.R. 6009 seeks to ensure that the oil and gas 
program will continue to run afoul of these concurrent rulemaking 
efforts, existing law, and international commitments for the 
foreseeable future.
BLM's Oil and Gas Rule Must be Allowed to Address Health and 
        Environmental Justice Concerns.

    BLM's proposed rule contains important acknowledgments of the 
potential for disproportionately high, adverse, and cumulative impacts 
of leasing and drilling on ``underserved communities'' and 
environmental justice.\26\ It also recognizes BLM's authority to 
require reasonable measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those 
impacts.\27\ The measures contemplated by BLM include increased minimum 
setback distances and clarification of existing language surrounding 
setbacks and other mitigation measures. These are important first steps 
that BLM has for too long ignored. The bill under consideration today 
would put BLM back at square one with respect to consideration of these 
critical issues. Even as written, the proposed rule goes nowhere near 
far enough to ensure such protections. If the current rulemaking 
process is allowed to proceed, BLM has another opportunity to address 
these important issues before it adopts its final rule. If not, the 
human and financial costs of its failure to do so will continue to 
mount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 47,573.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As with climate, BLM's proposed rule does not go far enough to 
address public health and environmental justice considerations by the 
mere fact that it presumes and enables the indefinite continuation of 
oil and gas leasing and drilling. As already referenced, any additional 
oil and gas extraction perpetuates adverse climate and health risks and 
impacts and is fundamentally incompatible with advancing environmental 
and climate justice--both goals this Administration has professed 
adherence to. As with climate, however, we recognize that interim harm-
reduction measures, such as setback distances, conditions of approval, 
or leasing stipulations are essential to a just transition, and are 
necessary to protect community and ecosystem health and advance 
environmental justice, now and for future generations. Those who are 
breathing polluted air, drinking contaminated water, or living with 
multigenerational legacies of extraction and pollution, need strong 
setback requirements and other ``reasonable measures'' \28\ to 
mitigate, minimize, or, wherever possible, avoid adverse risks and 
impacts, particularly for those in frontline or ``underserved 
communities.'' \29\ But ultimately, any ``reasonable measures'' to 
mitigate or avoid harm must be part of--not a substitute for--a just 
transition away from oil and gas extraction. We have urged BLM to 
consider these important factors in its adoption of a final rule. The 
bill under consideration today seeks to ensure that BLM continues to 
ignore these important factors to the detriment of public health and 
its associated publicly born costs, environmental justice, and the 
legal defensibility of its program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ See 88 Fed. Reg. 47573.
    \29\ BLM cites Executive Order 14035, ``Diversity, Equity, 
Inclusion and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce'' (EO 14035) for 
its definition of ``underserved community:'' ``[t]he term `underserved 
communities' refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, 
as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied 
a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and 
civic life.'' BLM also cites EO 14008 interim CEQ Guidance for its 
definition of ``community'' as ``either a group of individuals living 
in geographic proximity to one another, or a geographically dispersed 
set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where 
either type of group experiences common conditions.'' See Proposed Rule 
at 88 Fed. Reg. 47573.

    An extensive and ever-growing body of peer-reviewed research has 
shown what people living near oil and gas operations already know 
firsthand--that proximity to drilling and fracking operations and other 
oil and gas facilities is linked to adverse health risks and impacts. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These risks and impacts include (but are not limited to):

     Reproductive harms--including birth defects, low birth 
            weight, preterm births, and miscarriages;

     Respiratory health effects--including asthma, lung 
            disease, breathing difficulty, and, most recently, 
            increased vulnerability to COVID-19;

     Eye, skin, and throat irritation and rashes;

     Cardiovascular effects--including higher blood pressure 
            and other indicators of, or precursors to, heart disease;

     Possible disruption of the endocrine system (a system of 
            glands producing hormones that regulate a variety of 
            functions in the body, including metabolism, growth and 
            development, reproduction, sleep, and mood);

     Cancer (lung cancer and other types of cancer);

     Motor vehicle injuries and fatalities, and other health 
            and safety risks associated with increased vehicle traffic 
            (and the air pollutants it emits) from oil and gas 
            development;

     Injuries and fatalities from explosions, fires, spills, 
            and leaks; and

     Trauma and psychological stress.

    BLM has an opportunity with its proposed rule to meaningfully 
address these too-often-overlooked impacts both through the mitigation 
measures ultimately included in the final rule and in the process BLM 
employs to finalize and implement the rule. To this end, we urged BLM 
to take into account and proactively solicit the knowledge, experience, 
and voices of those in frontline and ``underserved'' communities, and 
to ensure that these communities' perspectives are meaningfully 
incorporated into and actively shape planning and decision-making. H.R. 
6009, again, seeks to ensure that these perspectives remain unheard. 
This is yet another reason this Subcommittee should reject the 
Resolution.
BLM's Legal Authority and Responsibility to Adopt New Oil and Gas 
        Regulations.

    Development of oil and gas remains an element of FLPMA's multiple 
use mandate. This remains true in the wake of the IRA. Nonetheless, BLM 
holds competing obligations to, inter alia, protect ``air and 
atmospheric'' values, and has an overarching statutory responsibility 
to manage public lands without ``permanent impairment of the 
productivity of the land and quality of the environment,'' and to 
``take any action necessary, whether by regulation or otherwise, to 
prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.'' \30\ These 
mandates do not lock into place oil and gas leasing and production at 
the expense of other multiple uses or overshadow the role of public 
lands as part of a mosaic of ecological and biological systems critical 
to ecosystem resilience. Instead, FLPMA directs BLM to manage public 
lands and resources to ``meet the present and future needs of the 
American people'' while ``conform[ing] to changing needs and conditions 
. . . tak[ing] into account the long-term needs of future 
generations.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701(a)(8), 1702(c), 1732(b).
    \31\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c).

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) animates BLM's 
imperative, through this rulemaking, to address interwoven climate, 
ecological, and biological crises and to better serve otherwise 
underserved and overburdened people and communities. Section 102 of 
NEPA directs that, ``to the fullest extent possible,'' BLM's statutory 
mandates, whether provided by FLPMA or the MLA (amongst other 
``policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States''), 
``shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with [section 101 
of NEPA].'' \32\ Section 101(a), in turn, provides that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(1).

        [I]t is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in 
        cooperation with State and local governments, and other 
        concerned public and private organizations, to use all 
        practicable means and measures, including financial and 
        technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and 
        promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions 
        under which man [sic] and nature can exist in productive 
        harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 
        requirements of present and future generations of 
        Americans.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(a).

    Section 101(b) further directs BLM to use ``all practicable means'' 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to:

  1.  fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the 
            environment for succeeding generations;

  2.  assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and 
            aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

  3.  attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment 
            without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other 
            undesirable and unintended consequences;

  4.  preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 
            national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an 
            environment which supports diversity and variety of 
            individual choice;

  5.  achieve a balance between population and resource use which will 
            permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of 
            life's amenities; and

  6.  enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the 
            maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(b).

    In other words, NEPA requires that BLM interpret and administer 
FLPMA and the MLA consistent with Section 101's directive that the 
agency, distilled to its essence, serve as a ``trustee'' of the federal 
public lands system for the benefit of future generations. This is 
wholly consistent with the distinctive authority conferred to Congress 
and, by extension through statute, to the agency, by the U.S. 
Constitution's Property Clause.\35\ The Property Clause confers upon 
Congress the ``[p]ower to dispose of and make all needful Rules and 
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the 
United States.'' \36\ As the Supreme Court of the United States 
teaches, ``while the furthest reaches of the power granted by the 
Property Clause have not yet been definitively resolved, we have 
repeatedly observed that `[t]he power over the public land thus 
entrusted to Congress is without limitations.' '' \37\ BLM is required 
to consider this broad authority in its implementation of the federal 
oil and gas program, and its proposed rule represents a critical 
opportunity for it to do so. This opportunity should not be curtailed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ For a summary of the expansive legal authorities delegated to 
Interior under FLPMA, as well as BLM's authority to require mitigation 
of impacts resulting from its land use authorizations, see recently 
reinstated Solicitor's Opinion M-37039, The Bureau of Land Management's 
Authority to Address Impacts of its Land Use Authorizations through 
Mitigation (Dec. 21, 2016), https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/m-
37039-the-blms-authority-to-address-impacts-of-its-land-use-
authorizations-through-mitigation.pdf.
    \36\ U.S. Constitution, Art. IV., Sec. 3, Cl. 2.
    \37\ Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539 (1976) (emphasis 
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    In sum, I urge the committee to reject H.R. 6009 and to allow BLM's 
rulemaking to proceed unhindered. That process has not yet concluded, 
and BLM is currently reviewing more than 260,000 comments submitted on 
the proposed rule. The bill under consideration today not only seeks to 
cut short BLM's rulemaking process but also would negate the efforts of 
the American public who weighed in in such numbers and circumvent BLM's 
opportunity to benefit from those comments. Though BLM's proposed rule 
does not address the fundamental tension of continued oil and gas 
leasing with the climate crisis, it seeks to implement important 
measures to protect American taxpayers from the type of abuse BLM's oil 
and gas system has historically experienced. Just as WELC and its 
partners urged the agency, in the strongest possible terms, to live up 
to its statutory responsibilities in the final rule, I today urge this 
committee to reject H.R. 6009, and its effort to proscribe BLM's 
rulemaking authority and shortchange American taxpayers for decades to 
come.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Melissa Hornbein, Senior 
               Attorney, Western Environmental Law Center

          Questions Submitted by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

    Question 1. The Inflation Reduction Act raised federal royalty 
rates on publicly owned oil and gas resources to 16.67 percent from 
12.5 percent. The Bureau of Land Management's proposed rule, on the 
``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process,'' incorporates this updated 
rate and would allow the Bureau to raise federal royalty rates after 
ten years. However, H.R. 6009 would require the Bureau of Land 
Management to withdraw the proposed oil and gas rule, and prohibit any 
implementation or enforcement of any substantially similar rule. What 
are the consequences for federal taxpayers and state and local 
governments when federal royalty rates are not regularly updated?

    Answer. As an initial matter, and as noted in the question, federal 
law currently dictates a royalty rate of 16.67% and the Proposed Rule 
would make that a minimum rate after ten years, subject to increase, 
consistent with the IRA. If BLM is prevented from instituting any 
rulemaking to impose updated royalty rates, its existing rules will be 
rendered even more vulnerable to legal challenge because they will be--
and will be forced to remain--out of sync with current federal law. BLM 
would be put in the unenviable position of having to enforce--
permanently--federal law through instruction memoranda, with both being 
in direct conflict with BLM's existing and updated rules. This raises 
legal questions and conflicts of law between H.R. 6009 and changes to 
the Mineral Leasing Act instituted through the IRA, as well as raising 
serious legal questions about the validity of a resolution which 
purports, without explication or direct amendment to any existing legal 
authority, to limit Interior's and BLM's considerable discretion to 
oversee the federal mineral leasing program. See, e.g. 30 U.S.C. 
Sec. 226(a).
    Putting this issue aside and assuming for the sake of argument that 
H.R. 6009 creates no conflict of law and is an effective proscription 
on BLM's authority over royalty rates, its practical effect would be to 
continue the status-quo to the detriment of the federal government, 
taxpayers, and federal lands. The former royalty rate of 12.5% was more 
than a century out of date and resulted in decades of losses to 
American taxpayers and the U.S. treasury, as well as state governments 
that were likewise shortchanged by BLM's outdated and woefully 
insufficient royalty rates. H.R. 6009 seeks to perpetuate this practice 
and to, once again, ensure that the federal government will lag further 
and further behind state and private property owners, effectively 
subsidizing the oil and gas industry at the expense of taxpayers.
    This is despite ample documentation of the benefits of fair royalty 
rates at the state level, which demonstrates that higher rates do not 
lead to significantly reduced production. Similar information at the 
federal level indicates that the imposition of higher federal royalty 
rates will only marginally decrease production but will result in 
substantially higher rates of return for the government and taxpayers. 
For example, the Government Accountability Office found that increasing 
federal royalty rates to 22.5% would decrease federal production by 
less than 2% per year while a more modest (but still higher than 
current law) increase to 18.75% would have a ``negligible'' effect on 
production over ten years. Simultaneously, such increases would result 
in a substantial net increase in federal royalty revenue.\1\ Thus, 
royalty rates that bring BLM's program into the twenty-first century 
will not result in any loss of production that is not substantially 
exceeded by gains in federal revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Oil, Gas, and Coal 
Royalties: Raising Federal Rates Could Decrease Production on Federal 
Lands but Increase Federal Revenue. GAO-17-540. June 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This net gain exists apart from the fact that oil and gas companies 
continue to enjoy record profits while leaving the government and 
taxpayers on the hook to the tune of millions for cleanup after they 
have abandoned wells on federal lands. State governments are similarly 
shortchanged by a continuance of the status quo with respect to 
outdated and undervalued federal royalty rates, as states typically 
receive approximately half of the revenue from federal oil and gas 
royalties, rental fees, and bonus bids on federal mineral development 
within their borders. If the costs associated with the impacts of 
climate change on federal lands are considered, the disparity between 
what oil companies are charged to use federal lands and the revenue 
that passes to federal and state governments is even more glaring. 
Thus, in addition to attempting to lock in royalty rates more than a 
century out of date, H.R. 6009 would ensure that federal royalty rates 
continue to result in a lower and lower rate of return for the 
government while providing an ever-larger subsidy to the companies that 
make use of public lands without ever having to pay the costs 
associated with that use.

    Question 2. According to the 2018 United States Geological Survey 
report, ``Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sequestration in 
the United States: Estimates for 2005-2014,'' approximately one quarter 
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels extracted from 
federal lands and waters. Given this, do you believe the Bureau of Land 
Management has the authority to phase down fossil fuel extraction on 
public lands?

    Answer. Yes--BLM clearly possesses the discretion to initiate an 
organized phase-down of fossil-fuel leasing on federal lands under the 
authority granted to it via the Interior Secretary under both the MLA 
and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Indeed, under 
FLPMA, it is clear--in light of the science and the significant portion 
of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions coming from federal lands--that 
BLM has an affirmative responsibility to implement precisely such a 
phase-down in order to meet its dual obligations to manage federal 
resources ``without permanent impairment of the productivity of the 
land and the quality of the environment,'' and to ``take any action 
necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.'' 
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1702(c), 1732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nor does FLPMA's multiple use mandate require--as was suggested 
during the hearing--that federal fossil fuel production continue to 
enjoy primacy over other uses of federal public lands. The multiple use 
mandate neither locks into place oil and gas leasing and production at 
the expense of other multiple uses, nor does it legally preempt the 
role of public lands as part of a mosaic of ecological and biological 
systems critical to ecosystem resilience. Instead, FLPMA directs BLM to 
give consideration to ``the relative values of the resources and not 
necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest 
economic return or the greatest unit output,'' and to manage public 
lands and resources to ``meet the present and future needs of the 
American people'' while ``conform[ing] to changing needs and conditions 
. . . tak[ing] into account the long-term needs of future 
generations.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c).

    It is abundantly clear that climate change is already causing such 
impairment and degradation to federal lands under BLM's management 
oversight,\4\ and BLM is statutorily required to take any action 
necessary to prevent further unnecessary or undue degradation of these 
lands.\5\ Thus, BLM has not only the authority, but also an affirmative 
duty under FLPMA to initiate such a phase-out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ For example, in 2022, 52% of total acreage burned in wildfires 
in the United States was on federal land, which is actually slightly 
lower than the 10-year average of 64%. Congressional Research Service 
Wildfire Statistics, updated June 1, 2023, available at https://
sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10244.pdf. See also, Jay, A.K., A.R. Crimmins, 
C.W. Avery, et al., 2023: Ch. 1. Overview: Understanding risks, 
impacts, and responses. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. 
Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, et al., Eds. U.S. Global 
Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/
NCA5.2023.CH1 (documenting climate change impacts to U.S. lands).
    \5\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The MLA, as the statute directing BLM's implementation of the 
federal oil and gas program, provides BLM with substantial discretion 
over whether, when, and where to offer leases for sale, and, subsequent 
to lease issuance, gives the agency the ability to manage production. 
With respect to leasing, the MLA provides that ``public lands ``may be 
leased'' for oil and gas.\6\ Courts have repeatedly acknowledged that 
this permissive language allows BLM broad discretion as to where, when, 
and, indeed, whether to offer leases.\7\ The qualifier that lands be 
``eligible and available'' was added to the statute with the passage of 
the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. The concept 
was not defined in the FOOGLRA, but legislative history indicates that 
the amendment was in no way intended to cabin the Secretary's existing 
discretion over when, where, and whether to offer leases for sale.\8\ 
BLM has consistently interpreted these terms in accordance with a 1989 
Solicitor's Memo, which reads these terms to require necessary 
environmental review under NEPA as a threshold for availability.\9\ 
That definition has been upheld judicially, underscoring NEPA's 
critical role in determining whether lands are available for 
leasing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 226(a) (emphasis added).
    \7\ See, e.g. Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 4 (1965) (Secretary 
retains ``discretion to refuse to issue any lease at all on a given 
tract''); Haley v. Seaton, 281 F.2d 620, 625 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (use of 
word ``may'' gives Secretary discretion not to lease).
    \8\ The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, 
Pub. L. No. 100-203, tit. V, subtitle B, 101 Stat. 1330, 1330-256 
(1987) was enacted to address concerns over noncompetitive leasing, 
thereby shortchanging the public. There is no indication whatsoever 
that Congress intended to limit the Secretary's existing discretion not 
to lease. Thomas Sansonetti & William Murray, A Primer on the Federal 
Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and its Regulations, 25 Land & 
Water L. Rev. 375, 388 n.112 (1990).
    \9\ Memorandum from Office of the Solicitor to BLM Director re: 
`Eligible' and `Available' Land Under the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas 
Leasing Reform Act of 1987, at 8 (Dec. 15, 1989). The memo defined 
``eligible'' lands as those that are ``not barred from leasing by 
statute or regulation. Lands precluded from leasing, and thus not 
``eligible,'' include national parks and wilderness areas, for example. 
See 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3100.0-3 (1988). The memo defined ``available'' 
lands as those that ``are both ``open to leasing in the applicable 
resource management plan,'' and ``all statutory requirements and 
reviews have been met, including compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).''
    \10\ See Western Energy All. v. Biden, No. 21-cv-13, 2022 WL 
18587039, *9-10 (D. Wyo. Sept. 2, 2022); slip op. at 36-37; North 
Dakota v. U.S. Dep`t of Interior, 21-cv-148 (D. N.D. Mar. 27, 2023); 
see also 42 U.S.C. 4332(1) (NEPA directs that ``to the fullest extent 
possible,'' all of BLM's applicable ``policies, regulations, and public 
laws of the United States . . . shall be interpreted and administered 
in accordance with [section 101 of NEPA].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complementing FLPMA and NEPA's directives, the MLA also authorizes 
BLM to reduce the rate of oil and gas production over a defined period 
of time, limiting the amount of extraction and GHG pollution that would 
result. The MLA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ``alter or 
modify from time to time the rate of prospecting and development and 
the quantity and rate of production under such a plan.'' \11\ Likewise, 
nearly all BLM leases for onshore oil and gas contain a clause which 
states that ``Lessor reserves the right to specify rates of development 
and production in the public interest.'' \12\ Pursuant to these 
authorizations, the BLM clearly is entitled to set a declining rate of 
production over time that provides for an orderly phase-out of onshore 
fossil fuel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 226(m).
    \12\ See U.S. Department of the Interior, Offer to Lease and Lease 
for Oil and Gas, Form 3100-11 (Oct. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the MLA reserves to BLM considerable discretion over how 
leases are developed, first through the use of stipulations at the 
leasing stage and later through BLM's retained discretion over surface 
use rights following lease issuance, which provide the agency with the 
ability to further control production through conditions of approval at 
the drilling stage.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. A witness in a previous oversight hearing on the Bureau 
of Land Management's proposed rule, on the ``Fluid Mineral Leases and 
Leasing Process,'' claimed that there is no problem with bonding or 
orphaned wells at a federal level because the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) has only identified 37 orphaned wells on the lands the agency 
manages, and BLM has only called on bonds 40 times in the past 10 years 
to reclaim wells. Could you please explain why these numbers do not 
capture the scope of the problem with unplugged, non-producing wells? 
How do long-term idled and so-called temporarily abandoned wells affect 
the environment and public health?

    Answer. This argument is a red herring and is, as a factual matter, 
incorrect. The number of wells that BLM had identified as ``orphaned'' 
stood at 219 in 2017, as disclosed by the Government Accountability 
Office in a 2018 report.\13\ This discrepancy between the asserted 
number (37) and the number BLM identified (219) is ultimately of little 
importance, however, compared to the vast scope of underreporting 
represented by BLM's estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Wells: Bureau of 
Land Management Needs to Improve Its Data and Oversight of Its 
Potential Liabilities, GAO-18-250, May 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO's additional findings in the same report demonstrate that even 
the 219 ``orphaned'' wells identified by BLM in 2017 is virtually 
meaningless as a statistic ``because BLM does not systematically track 
needed data.'' Moreover, the GAO found that BLM's process to designate 
a well as ``orphaned'' can take several years, which means that even 
assuming a level of data tracking that BLM does not, in fact, 
implement, there is a several-year lag time in orphaned well 
designation, which likely results in BLM's under-estimate compounding 
over time.\14\ By way of illustration, the same year BLM identified 219 
orphaned wells, GAO found 15,600 inactive wells, of which 1,000 had 
been inactive for 25 years or longer (BLM's own data found only 325 
wells that had been inactive for 25 years or longer).\15\ It is highly 
likely, if not virtually certain, that the majority of these wells 
would qualify as ``orphaned,'' were they to be classified by BLM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id. at 9, fn 20.
    \15\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the same report, the GAO also identified nearly 2,300 idled 
wells ``at increased risk of becoming orphaned because they have not 
produced since June 2008 and have not been reclaimed.'' The bonds for 
``a majority of these at-risk wells'' were ``too low to cover'' their 
anticipated reclamation costs, which, according to the GAO, may exceed 
$330 million.\16\ Even this estimate likely represents only a subset of 
the true scope of the problem, as revealed by a preliminary analysis 
conducted as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's Federal 
Orphaned Well Program. That analysis indicates that there are over 
130,000 documented orphaned wells in the United States--nearly two-and-
a-half times the amount previously estimated.\17\ Thus, the scope of 
the problem is, so far, undefined, and the only thing that is certain 
is that BLM's estimations of the number of ``orphaned'' wells represent 
nowhere near the total liability for the agency, and, by extension, 
American taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 88 Fed. Reg. 47,562, 47,565 (July 24, 2023).
    \17\ https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/
federal-orphaned-well-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is also clear that such idled wells--whether or not they have 
gone through BLM's lengthy process to be declared ``orphaned''--are a 
potent source of GHG gas pollution and a threat to public health. For 
example, in 2019, methane emissions from abandoned wells were estimated 
to be equivalent to 7.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Methane 
is, over the short term (20 years) approximately 81 times as potent as 
carbon dioxide and approximately 27-30 times as potent over 100 years.
    In addition to being a critical source of climate pollution, such 
emissions have negative impacts on human and environmental health 
through drinking water pollution and other hazardous air 
pollutants.\18\ Such impacts have been well documented in communities 
living adjacent to oil and gas infrastructure and include reproductive 
harms, respiratory and cardiovascular impacts, cancers, and other 
negative health impacts. It is clear that idled and abandoned wells 
(not just those wells that have been specifically identified by BLM as 
``orphaned'') pose a considerable liability to the government and 
taxpayers, and considerable risks to the climate, people's health, and 
public lands. Thus, focusing solely on wells that have been identified 
by BLM as ``orphaned'' is a deliberate effort to mischaracterize and 
minimize an environmental and public health problem of staggering 
proportions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ See, for example, Merrill, M.D., Grove, C.A., Gianoutsos, 
N.J., et al., 2023, Analysis of the United States documented unplugged 
orphaned oil and gas well dataset (ver. 1.1, April 2023): U.S. 
Geological Survey Data Report 1167, 10 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/
dr1167.

    Question 2. What steps does BLM's proposed ``Fluid Mineral Leases 
and Leasing Process'' rule take to make the oil and gas industry 
promptly clean up oil and gas wells at the end of their useful life? 
How does this shift the burden of environmental cleanup from taxpayers 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to polluters?

    Answer. BLM's proposed rule would help ensure cleanup of oil and 
gas wells in a number of ways--for specifics, please see the comments 
submitted by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of partner 
groups on BLM's proposed rule.\19\ Most importantly, the proposed rule 
would help shift the cost of idled well clean-up to the entities 
responsible for their existence by updating bond amounts to catch up 
with inflation and actual reclamation costs for the first time in more 
than half a century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Attached for reference to these responses. [This attachment 
can be viewed at on our Committee Repository at: https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20231025/116436/HHRG-118-II06-20231025-
SD013.pdf ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If allowed to proceed with its rule, BLM will implement an 
effective bonding system that achieves cleanup in two ways: First, 
appropriate bond amounts create economic incentives for operators to 
promptly complete plugging and remediation themselves, without BLM 
needing to be involved, as cleanup is required before the operator can 
obtain bond release. Second, adequate bond amounts ensure that 
regulators have access to sufficient resources to complete plugging and 
remediation in the event the operator either cannot or will not do the 
work. BLM's elimination of nationwide bonding also helps ensure that 
bonds are addressed on a lease-by-lease basis, further increasing the 
likelihood that the operator will clean up idled well sites and that 
BLM will have the resources to do so if the operator does not, as 
nationwide binds have historically been even less adequate to cover 
actual cleanup costs than have per-lease bond amounts.
    While bonding is an important feature of regulatory oversight for 
any industry where a lessee or permittee assumes clean-up obligations, 
it is critically important in the oil and gas industry, which is 
inherently subject to boom-and-bust cycles. As a result of fluctuations 
in international commodity prices, the oil and gas industry is prone to 
a pattern of drilling many new wells when prices are high, and then 
experiencing bankruptcies, idlings, and abandonments when prices 
drop.\20\ Sufficient bond amounts protect against these fluctuations by 
encouraging operators to plug wells promptly in order to free up 
capital dedicated to servicing the bonds, and by ensuring that 
regulators are able to complete clean-up in the event of abandonment by 
operators. Adequate bonding also frees regulators to take appropriate 
enforcement actions against operators without fear that such actions 
will lead to additional well abandonments with unfunded clean-up 
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ GAO Report at 1.

    Question 3. How does the draft rule help protect public health, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
especially for overburdened environmental justice communities?

    Answer. One important way the Rule addresses the impacts 
experienced by overburdened and underserved communities living in 
proximity to oil and gas infrastructure is by clarifying language 
around setbacks to establish that 800 meters is a floor, not a ceiling. 
Another way is through BLM's ability to prohibit surface disturbing 
operations for a minimum of 90 days to mitigate or avoid adverse 
impacts. Nonetheless, the rule can and should go much farther to 
protect the public health and safety of these disproportionately 
impacted communities. Some of the ways it should do so are addressed in 
response to the next question.

    Question 4. What are other steps that BLM can take using their 
current authorities to better protect frontline communities and include 
them in federal oil and gas program decision-making that affects them?

    Answer. Again, for a broader discussion of the many ways BLM could 
better address the public safety of frontline communities, please see 
our comments on the proposed rule. Some changes to the proposed rule 
that would help address these critical issues include:

     Further increases to minimum setback distances and 
            provisions for no drilling within one mile of schools and 
            residences.

     Address subsurface impacts, particularly the impacts and 
            risks that could result from drilling laterals up to three 
            miles from the well site. Setbacks should take these 
            subsurface impacts into account. This could be simply 
            addressed by adopting a minimum distance of three miles 
            from critical infrastructure to account for these risks and 
            would help address groundwater impacts that are 
            insufficiently addressed through existing setbacks.

     BLM should also implement a formal consideration of 
            factors affecting public health and safety in different 
            communities, and provide for the adoption of stipulations 
            or conditions of approval to address specific situations as 
            they arise.

     BLM also needs to clarify in the final rule how its use of 
            preference criteria--in particular its exercise of a 
            preference in favor of development in areas with existing 
            infrastructure--will be implemented in a way that does not 
            result in additional impacts to already overburdened 
            frontline communities.

    In terms of public process, BLM could improve the proposed rule in 
a number of ways. BLM should, for example, clarify that it will, 
through the rule, adhere to government standards for what constitutes 
meaningful engagement by federal agencies with those in frontline and 
``environmental justice'' communities, sovereign Tribal nations, and 
the broader public. BLM should explicitly recognize such existing 
minimum standards and explain how it will adhere to those standards in 
the context of the rule.\21\ In addition, BLM should incorporate and 
abide by existing frameworks with respect to meaningful public 
involvement, meaningful tribal consultation, and engagement with those 
in frontline communities. These principles are referenced at pp. 55-57 
of our attached comments. Our concern is that the rule as currently 
drafted risks ignoring and excluding the very people and communities 
who will be most affected by it. BLM can and should do better in its 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1506.6 (``public involvement'' 
provisions of the CEQ implementing regulations for the National 
Environmental Policy Act); 36 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 800.1-800.16 
(regulations governing consultation and other components of Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act (``NHPA''); IM 2022-059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide responses to these 
questions, and to appear before the subcommittee. Please do not 
hesitate to reach out with any additional questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our final witness is Mr. 
Tom Kropatsch, who is the oil and gas supervisor for the 
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in Casper, Wyoming.
    Mr. Kropatsch, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF TOM KROPATSCH, OIL AND GAS SUPERVISOR, WYOMING OIL 
        AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, CASPER, WYOMING

    Mr. Kropatsch. Thank you, Chairman Stauber and members of 
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present to you today. 
My name is Tom Kropatsch. I am the State Oil and Gas Supervisor 
for the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and I 
thank you for inviting the state of Wyoming to this hearing on 
the discussion draft of the Restoring American Energy 
Dominance, and to share how the BLM's proposed Fluid Mineral 
Leasing and Leasing Process Rule will impact the state of 
Wyoming and its citizens.
    To be straightforward, this proposed rule actively 
discourages development and, by BLM's own admission, will force 
oil and gas production off Federal lands.
    Wyoming routinely ranks second in the nation in oil 
production and first in the nation in natural gas production 
from onshore Federal lands. Of the approximately 47,000 wells 
in the state, about 27,000 are Federal; 65 percent of the oil 
production and 79 percent of the natural gas production in 
Wyoming comes from Federal lands. Any regulatory or management 
changes on Federal lands will have a consequential impact on 
Wyoming. Federal, state, and private lands are intermingled 
throughout the state.
    Horizontal wells, paired with a landownership pattern, 
results in wells that are a mix of mineral types, with most 
having Federal minerals mixed with fee or private minerals and 
state, or a mix of all three minerals in a single well. 
Therefore, the impacts from any Federal action are felt by the 
state and private lands.
    When BLM admits that a rule will force production off 
Federal lands, it should be recognized that in Wyoming the 
Federal rule is also forcing production off private and state 
lands. Accordingly, this proposed rule will result in oil and 
gas production being forced out of the state of Wyoming.
    Multiple provisions of this proposed rule contribute to 
forcing production off Federal lands, such as BLM deferring the 
leasing of even more parcels only because they feel it has low 
potential for production, the increased fees and royalties, and 
the impossibly burdensome bonding requirements. BLM states that 
these proposed changes are necessary because the existing 
onshore oil and gas regulatory framework does not adequately 
protect the fiscal interests of the American public. Yet, the 
onshore oil and gas program generated over $8.6 billion for the 
American public last year, according to Natural Resources 
Revenue Data.
    The oil and gas industry also provides significant revenue 
and jobs for the citizens of Wyoming. In 2020, the oil and gas 
industry contributed over $1.2 billion to the state through 
taxes and royalties. The industry also directly employed over 
19,000 people in the state in 2019, with over $1 billion in 
wages paid, and it generates 1.9 additional jobs in related 
industries for every person that is directly employed. The oil 
and gas industry supports between 12 and 19 percent of the 
state's entire workforce. Any production that is forced off 
Federal lands and subsequently out of the state of Wyoming will 
result in reduced fiscal benefits and reduced jobs for the 
American public and the Wyoming citizens.
    BLM's analysis shows that the orphan well program is 
expected to cost the agency between $1.4 million and $3.8 
million per year, and that only 15 Federal orphan wells needed 
plugged in 2021 and only 24 for 2022. Out of the approximately 
96,000 wells managed by BLM, only 0.025 percent were orphaned, 
and the expected cost is only 0.04 percent of the $8.6 billion 
in revenue that the onshore program generated last year.
    To address these very small risks in terms of number of 
orphaned wells and costs, BLM has designed a one-size-fits-all 
bonding approach that will inappropriately be forced on all 
operators and all wells, without regard for the well depth, 
condition, status, or other factors which impact the cost to 
plug. BLM is proposing to increase a minimum lease bond to 
$150,000, and a minimum statewide bond to $500,000. Based on 
Wyoming's own orphan well program for the past 30 years, these 
minimum bond amounts are far greater than the typical cost to 
plug and reclaim a well in Wyoming.
    It should be noted that these are minimum bond amounts. In 
the preamble, BLM indicates they will increase the lease bond 
amount if there are more than two wells on the lease, and they 
will increase the statewide bond amount if there are more than 
seven wells tied to the bond. If BLM were to follow through on 
this bonding plan, a conservative projection for the required 
bonding of the 27,000 Federal wells in Wyoming is over $1.9 
billion. This is to address BLM-stated nationwide costs of $1.4 
million to $3.8 million.
    In our review, we have determined that the minimum bond 
amount would exceed the gross annual revenue of more than 25 
percent of the companies operating on Federal lands in Wyoming. 
Unfortunately, as proposed, the bonding provisions will impact 
hundreds of small businesses, local and state governments, the 
public, and result in lost jobs, royalties, taxes, and other 
revenues.
    I briefly mentioned other provisions of the rule that will 
result in forcing production off Federal lands, and my written 
statement includes a copy of the Commission's public comments 
that were submitted to the BLM during the public comment 
period.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kropatsch follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Tom Kropatsch, State Oil and Gas Supervisor on 
       Behalf of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
    on Discussion Draft of H.R. 6009 (Boebert), ``Restoring American
                           Energy Dominance''

    Good afternoon Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and 
members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, my 
name is Tom Kropatsch and I am the State Oil and Gas Supervisor for the 
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC). Thank you for 
inviting the State of Wyoming to this hearing on the Discussion Draft 
of Restoring American Energy Dominance and to share how the Bureau of 
Land Management's (BLM) proposed Fluid Mineral Leasing and Leasing 
Process rule will impact the oil and gas industry, private and state 
mineral owners, state and local governments, and the citizens of 
Wyoming. To be straightforward, this proposed rule actively discourages 
development and by BLM's own admission, will force oil and gas 
production off federal lands.
    Wyoming routinely ranks 2nd in the nation in oil production and 1st 
in the nation in natural gas production from onshore federal lands. 
There are approximately 47,000 total wells in Wyoming with about 27,000 
of those being federal wells. 65 percent of oil production and 79 
percent of natural gas production in Wyoming is from federal lands.
    As evidenced by these numbers, any regulatory or management changes 
on federal lands will have a consequential impact on Wyoming. It is not 
only the significant amount of federal lands, but also the 
landownership pattern that contributes to impacts from federal 
decisions. Federal, state, and private lands are intermingled 
throughout the state. Horizontal wells paired with the landownership 
pattern results in wells that are a mix of mineral types, with most 
having federal minerals mixed with private and/or state.
    Avoiding federal lands when drilling these horizontal wells is very 
difficult to impossible. Therefore, the impacts from any federal action 
are felt by the state and private mineral owners. When BLM admits that 
a rule will force production off federal lands it should be recognized 
that in Wyoming, the federal rule is also forcing production off state 
and private lands. Accordingly, this proposed rule will result in oil 
and gas production being forced out of Wyoming.
    Multiple provisions of this proposed rule contribute to forcing 
production off federal lands, such as BLM deferring the leasing of even 
more parcels only because they feel it has low potential for 
production, increased fees and royalties, and impossibly burdensome 
bonding requirements. BLM states these proposed changes are necessary 
because the existing onshore oil and gas regulatory framework does not 
adequately protect fiscal interests of the American public. Yet, the 
onshore oil and gas program has generated over $12.6 billion for the 
American public the last two years according to Natural Resources 
Revenue Data.
    The oil and gas industry also provides significant revenue and jobs 
for the citizens of Wyoming. In 2020, the oil and gas industry 
contributed $1.23 billion to Wyoming through taxes and royalties. The 
industry also directly employed over 19,000 people in the state in 2019 
with over $1 billion in wages paid, and it generates 1.9 additional 
jobs in related industries for every person directly employed.
    Any production that is forced off federal lands and subsequently 
out of Wyoming will result in reduced fiscal benefits and reduced jobs 
to the American public and Wyoming citizens.
    BLM states the onshore program historically exposed the Federal 
Government to significant reclamation related liabilities and believes 
increased bond amounts and elimination of nationwide bonding would help 
ensure reclamation responsibilities reside primarily with oil and gas 
lessees and operators and not the American public. Unfortunately, as 
proposed, the bonding provisions will impact hundreds of small 
businesses in Wyoming, resulting in lost royalties, taxes, and other 
revenues to local and state government, and likely will create orphan 
wells, not protect against them.
    BLM's analysis shows the orphan well program is expected to cost 
the agency $1.4 to $3.8 million per year and that only 15 federal 
orphan wells needed plugged in 2021 and only 24 for 2022. Out of the 
approximately 96,000 wells managed by BLM only 0.025% were orphan. 
Similarly, the average expected cost is only 0.068% of the 
approximately $8.6 billion in revenue that the onshore program 
generated last year. The BLM process for dealing with oil and gas wells 
with a non-responsive operator is to hold any previous record title 
owner (RTO) or operating rights holder (ORH) responsible to plug and 
reclaim the wells. Only after determining that no other RTO or ORH can 
be held responsible is a well declared orphan by BLM.
    To address the very small risks in terms of number of orphan wells 
and costs, BLM has designed a one-size fits all bonding approach that 
will be inappropriately forced on all operators and all wells, without 
consideration of the well depth, condition, status, or other factors 
which impact the cost to plug. BLM is proposing to increase the minimum 
lease bond to $150,000 for up to two wells, the minimum statewide bond 
to $500,000 for up to seven wells, and to eliminate nationwide bonding. 
Based on Wyoming's orphan well program for the past 30 years, these 
minimum bond amounts are far greater than the typical cost to plug and 
reclaim a well in Wyoming. As an example, there is a small business 
operator in Wyoming who has five federal leases, each with one coalbed 
methane well. Under the proposed rule, this operator would be required 
to post a minimum statewide bond of $500,000. Based on historical 
plugging costs in the state, these five wells would likely cost only 
$25,000 to $35,000 to plug and reclaim, total for all five wells. The 
proposed minimum bond overburdens this small operator with unnecessary 
bonding and could easily cause them to go out of business which risks 
creating orphan wells.
    It should be noted that these are minimum bond amounts, and in the 
preamble, BLM states they will increase the lease bond amount for 
operators with more than two wells on the lease. They will also 
increase the statewide bond amount for operators with more than seven 
wells tied to the bond. If BLM were to follow this bonding plan, a 
conservative projection for the required bonding for the 27,000 federal 
wells in the state is over $1.9 billion. This is to address BLM's 
stated nationwide costs of $1.4 to $3.8 million.
    BLM also intends to disallow certificates of deposit and letters of 
credit as bond instruments, instead requiring surety bonds. BLM states 
this will only cost operators an annual fee of 1% to 3.5% of the bond 
value. What BLM fails to recognize is most small operators cannot 
obtain a surety bond without significant collateral, typically 100% 
cash collateral. In our review, we have determined that the minimum 
bond amount would exceed the gross annual revenue of more than 25% of 
the companies operating on federal lands in Wyoming.
    I briefly mentioned other provisions of this rule that will result 
in forcing production off federal minerals and out of Wyoming. For 
further details on these issues, attached to this written statement you 
will find a copy of the WOGCC comments that were submitted to BLM 
during the public comment period.
    Thank you for allowing the WOGCC to participate in this hearing and 
provide its perspective on these matters.

                                 *****

                               ATTACHMENT

                           Wyoming Oil & Gas

                               Casper, WY

                                             September 22, 2023    

U.S. Department of the InteriorDirector
Director, Bureau of Land Management
1849 C St. NW, Room 5646
Washington, DC 20240

Attn: 1004-AE80

Re: Fluid Mineral Leasing and Leasing Process

Submitted via Regulations.gov

    Dear Director:

    The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) hereby 
respectfully submits the following comments in response to the Bureau 
of Land Management's (BLM) proposed Fluid Mineral Leasing and Leasing 
Process rule, Docket No. RIN 1004-AE80, published in the Federal 
Register on July 24, 2023.
    Wyoming routinely ranks first in the nation for gas production from 
onshore federal minerals and second in the nation for oil production 
from onshore federal minerals. Wyoming ranks eighth in the nation in 
total oil production and ninth in the nation in total gas production in 
2021 according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 
Production from federal leases and federal minerals comprises a 
significant portion of the total oil and gas production in Wyoming. 
Approximately 65% of the total oil production and 79% of the total gas 
production in Wyoming is produced from federal minerals. BLM's proposed 
changes to the federal leasing and leasing process in this proposed 
rule will result in severe impacts to oil and gas operators, private 
and state mineral owners, local governments, and the state of Wyoming.
    The WOGCC respectfully requests that BLM withdraw this proposed 
rule based on its significant impacts to oil and gas operators who 
produce from federal leases, hundreds in Wyoming who are small 
businesses, and impacts to local and state government. As detailed 
further in the following comments, BLM did not conduct an appropriate 
evaluation of the impacts of this rule on small businesses or local and 
state government. This rule will force many oil and gas operators in 
Wyoming out of business and will force oil and gas operators of all 
sizes off federal leases, will limit the future leasing of federal 
minerals, and will result in loss of revenue to the general public and 
to state and local government. These impacts are ignored by BLM in this 
rule proposal and it should therefore be withdrawn and an appropriate 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) be conducted with any subsequent rule. 
In support of the request to withdraw, the WOGCC offers the following 
comments on the rule.BLM states that the existing onshore oil and gas 
regulatory framework does not adequately protect the fiscal interests 
of the American public. Unfortunately for the American public, this 
rule results in a double whammy to their fiscal interests. As proposed 
by the BLM, this rule will do nothing but reduce the significant fiscal 
benefits that the federal onshore oil and gas program currently 
provides to the American public. These revenues totaled over $4 billion 
in 2019, according to the Congressional Research Service (Congressional 
Research Service, Revenues and Disbursements from Oil and Natural Gas 
Production on Federal Lands, September 22, 2020). As BLM admits, this 
rule will result in production moving off federal minerals onto state 
or private minerals, which will result in less revenue generated from 
federal leases for the American public. In addition, due to the 
landownership pattern in much of Wyoming, it will also eliminate the 
opportunity to develop and produce oil and gas from the state and 
private minerals. This will force operators to leave the state of 
Wyoming, going to states with less federal minerals or to other 
countries. This will reduce the supply of oil and gas and will increase 
energy costs for the American public, once again hitting the American 
public in their pocketbook.
    BLM also states that they are required to avoid permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 
environment with consideration being given to the relative values of 
the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will 
give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output. BLM is 
admitting with this statement that this rule results in a lesser 
economic return, but they are justifying reduced fiscal benefits by 
claiming an avoidance of environmental impacts. However, this proposed 
rule will not only have a detrimental impact to fiscal benefits it will 
also have an overall detrimental impact on the environment.
    In this proposed rule, the American public loses twice. They lose 
fiscally and they lose environmentally. Forcing production off of 
federal leases can only result in two outcomes. Either oil and gas 
prices will increase due to elimination of a portion of the supply or 
the loss in supply will be made up from production in other places. 
Either scenario results in a negative impact for the American public. 
The American public will lose the benefits of lease bonuses, royalties, 
taxes, and jobs when production is forced off of federal leases. The 
American public will lose by incurring increased prices for fueling 
their vehicles, heating their homes, purchasing food or other goods, 
and all other items that they use on a daily basis that increased 
fossil fuel prices impact. The American public loses by paying higher 
costs or it loses because of the detrimental environmental impact of 
shifting production to other areas that do not produced as cleanly and 
efficiently as the U.S. and incurs further environmental impacts in the 
transportation of the foreign oil/gas to the U.S. In fact, the 
Institute for Energy Research (IER) reported on the environmental 
impact of producing oil and gas outside of the U.S. IER (Kreutzer, 
David W. PHd & Lambermont, Paige; The Environmental Quality Index 
Environmental Quality Weighted Oil and Gas Production, Institute for 
Energy Research, February 2023) utilized the Environmental Performance 
Index produced by Yale University to show that as a matter of 
environmental protection, replacing U.S. domestic production with 
foreign supply would be an overwhelmingly negative tradeoff. It is 
likely that at least a portion of any lost production from federal 
lands will be replaced by a foreign supply. According to IER, the 
average barrel of non-U.S. produced oil is produced in a country with 
an environmental score that is 23.6% lower than that of the U.S.
    BLM has stated two main purposes for this rule are to protect the 
fiscal interests of the American public and to protect the productivity 
of the land and quality of the environment when leasing. As shown 
above, based on simple supply and demand it the rule will accomplish 
neither of these purposes. The rule will actually do the exact 
opposite, providing less fiscal benefits of production from federal 
leases and likely increasing energy costs and negative impacts to the 
environment at the same time. For several reasons, this rule will have 
a disproportionate effect on the people of Wyoming. The landownership 
patterns in Wyoming, high percentage of production from federal lands, 
and large number of local Wyoming small business oil and gas operators 
combined with certain requirements in this rule to create a looming 
disaster for Wyoming, its small businesses producing oil and gas from 
federal lands, and local governments.
    BLM admits that this rule will force production off of federal 
lands (pg. 47609) and onto state or private lands. Multiple aspects of 
this rule contribute to this exodus from federal lands such as BLM 
deferring even more parcels if they do not feel that they have high 
potential for production, increased fees and royalties, or the 
impossibly burdensome bonding requirements. In doing so, BLM is 
violating its statutory requirements to prevent waste. This is also a 
violation of Wyoming statutes to prevent waste and to protect 
correlative rights, which will be enforced by the WOGCC. Due to the 
landownership patterns in Wyoming, especially in the Powder River Basin 
and the checkerboard along the southern tier of the state, the 
elimination of the ability to produce from federal lands will also 
eliminate the ability for operators to produce from the adjacent state 
and private lands. The Powder River Basin in northeast Wyoming is the 
focus of most of Wyoming's horizontal play, with 15 of the 24 rigs 
operating in Wyoming (week of 08/21/2023) targeting the Powder River 
Basin. Likewise, horizontal drilling activity is also becoming common 
in the checkerboard area of southern Wyoming.
    Most of the wells drilled in these areas are two mile lateral 
horizontal wells, with some laterals now being three miles long. Most 
of these horizontal wells encounter multiple mineral types in each of 
the laterals--a mix of federal, private, and/or state minerals. By 
forcing production off federal lands, many of these horizontal wells 
will no longer be able to be drilled. If BLM will not lease it will not 
issue an APD, without which the operator cannot drill through the 
federal minerals. If those federal minerals are encountered anywhere 
but the toe of the lateral and the operator cannot drill through the 
federal minerals it becomes physically impossible to drill and produce 
from the private and state minerals. In some cases, an operator could 
drill the well from a different direction and access the private and/or 
state minerals without needing to cross the federal lease, but this 
would be rare. Even if the private and state parcels could be accessed 
it would leave the federal lease stranded, as it would never be drilled 
in the future which creates waste.
    One of the contributing factors to the BLM forcing operators off 
federal lands is the proposal to direct oil and gas leasing to 
appropriate locations (pg. 47565). BLM states, ``even when parcels sell 
at or above the minimum bid, they are rarely developed or generate 
royalties for the Federal Government.'' Yet, the federal onshore oil 
and gas program generated over $4 billion for the Federal Government in 
2019 and an average of over $8 billion the last two years according to 
Natural Resources Revenue Data. BLM also states over 50% of the current 
lands under lease (pg. 47564) are producing oil and/or gas. Oil and gas 
exploration is a risky business and exploratory drilling is just that--
exploratory. There are no guarantees, yet some operators are willing to 
take the risk associated with this type of work in the chance that they 
gain a big reward in finding economical quantities of oil or gas. Many 
areas of Wyoming fall into this exploratory category. Even in areas 
well known for oil and gas production, such as the Powder River Basin, 
there are formations and areas that are step outs from known productive 
areas or formations, which are exploratory. These areas can take time 
to drill and complete and test and learn and revise the process and 
come back again. Limiting these exploratory leases will harm these 
operators, the local governments, and the state of Wyoming.
    In the BLM referenced GAO report (pg. 47565), it was found that out 
of the 87 million acres nominated for leasing between 2009 and 2019, 
BLM only offered 18 million acres for auction, which is only 20 percent 
of what was nominated. The additional burdens that BLM places on these 
lands before operators are allowed to begin development are the largest 
factor in delays to production and a major contributor as to why only 7 
percent of leases produce in their primary term. In addition, in its 
report GAO made 4 recommendations. Not one of the GAO recommendations 
was for BLM to direct oil and gas leasing towards areas that are more 
likely to produce.
    It is unlikely that BLM employs anyone who is an expert in 
understanding which leases may be more likely to produce. Industry 
employs petroleum geologists and engineers whose careers have been 
spent evaluating prospects for their potential to produce. BLM employs 
petroleum engineers and geologists who implement regulations, not staff 
who are experts in evaluating prospects and exploring for oil and gas. 
BLM will only be able to evaluate whether there is any production 
nearby to determine if the lease has any potential for oil and gas 
production. Unfortunately, BLM has also shown that even parcels that 
are surrounded by existing leased federal parcels will be deferred and 
remain unleased even though they would have a high probability of 
producing. There are multiple instances in Wyoming where federal 
parcels with no unique characteristics that would lead to a deferral 
are in fact repeatedly deferred, with no available appeals process for 
review of the deferral decision. These deferrals impact the state and 
private minerals because they hold up or eliminate the potential for 
horizontal wells to be drilled until such time that BLM includes them 
in a lease sale. In addition, horizontal drilling and new completion 
technologies continue to unlock more acreage for production in areas 
where conventional/vertical wells would not have been successful. Using 
proximity to existing production as the only or even the main criteria 
to lease is inappropriate.
    If BLM chooses to evaluate the impact to greenhouse gases (GHG) 
(pg. 47566) as part of the rule or as part of leasing, it should do so 
in a holistic manner. As previously mentioned, not leasing a parcel of 
federal lands will not impact GHG emissions. It can only do two things, 
drive up the cost of oil and gas and/or move the production of oil and 
gas to another area. Not leasing a parcel of federal minerals will do 
nothing to eliminate the demand for oil and gas, which is what would be 
necessary to reduce the GHG emissions. Moving the production of oil and 
gas off of the federal parcel would likely increase the environmental 
impact of the oil and gas production, as previously mentioned related 
to the IER report. If BLM analyzes the GHG impact of the production 
from federal lands it should also analyze the GHG impact of producing 
that same amount of oil and gas from other sources so that a full 
picture of the actual emissions is understood. In fact, since the 
elimination of production from federal leases will do nothing to lessen 
the demand for oil and gas, the GHG emissions either will stay the same 
or will increase due to the elimination of the federal lease.
    BLM is proposing to increase the distance it can require for 
relocation of proposed operations from 200 to 800 meters, saying that 
due to horizontal and directional drilling this distance can be 
accommodated. It should be recognized by BLM that not all drilling is 
horizontal or directional and that consideration should be given for 
vertical wells, where the relocation of up to \1/2\ mile may move the 
well out of the productive area. In general, moving a horizontal or 
direction well surface location up to 800 meters may not cause 
irreparable harm to the operator, but it likely will cause harm to the 
operator of a vertical well and a lesser distance or other methods of 
mitigating an impact must be considered by BLM so that the vertical 
well can still be drilled.
    BLM is proposing to modify the rule related to compliance issues 
and when it determines non-compliance to have occurred. BLM should 
include in any of these changes the opportunity for an appeals process 
to occur. There is the potential for BLM staff to issue an incident of 
noncompliance (INC) for issues that may not arise to the level of an 
INC or may be due to other misunderstandings. To immediately blacklist 
the operator is not appropriate without some option for an appeal.
    BLM is proposing modifying certain aspects of the APD, including 
the term of the permit. BLM is requesting comments on extending the 
term to 3 years and not allowing any extensions or keeping the term at 
2 years but allowing for a 1-year extension. In evaluating these 
alternatives, it would be helpful to know factors contributing to time 
it takes to begin drilling an approved APD. If the factors weight 
heavily towards delays out of an operator's control, such as delays 
with NEPA, leasing, lawsuits, or other BLM caused issues, then 
providing more time for the operator to drill would be warranted. BLM 
also states there is a loophole in the APD process that allows an 
operator to spud a well but not fully complete drilling prior to 
expiration of the APD. This is not a loophole. Once a well is spud, the 
APD is no longer a permit to drill. It is now a drilled permit and will 
never expire because it is now a valid, completed permit existing until 
the well is plugged. If drilling operations pause at a certain point, 
such as after setting conductor or surface casing, there are processes 
in place to handle the pause. Shut in or temporary abandon (TA) notices 
are filed, detailing the operator's plans and seeking authorization to 
pause the process for a given amount of time. This is now a well, even 
if at the time it consists only of conductor or surface casing, and the 
APD associated with the well cannot expire as it is a drilled permit. 
BLM should not attempt to change decades long practices that match how 
states also handle these situations only for the intent of stopping 
drilling activity and yet claiming they are doing so in order to pursue 
diligent development of leased lands.
    BLM proposes adding a diligent development requirement to its 
leases. While the WOGCC applauds the BLM in seeking to ensure the 
lessee drills wells or conducts other work towards producing oil and 
gas from the lease, BLM must consider the significant time certain 
federal process can take. For example, NEPA analysis commonly takes up 
to 10 years to complete, not to mention lawsuits following the NEPA 
process. Consideration of these timeframes must be given by BLM so as 
not to punish an operator who is willing and able to pursue 
development, only to be waiting on BLM for NEPA or an APD, on the court 
system due to lawsuit, or on other delays out of their control.
    BLM is proposing to update the royalty rate to 16.67%. The rate is 
updated based on requirements of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), 
which set the rate for a period of 10 years. Following this timeframe, 
BLM is proposing the 16.67% royalty rate becomes the minimum. Although 
the next 10 years of rates are set by IRA, following the expiration of 
the IRA, BLM should not set this to be the minimum rate. The cost of 
operating on federal lands is significantly higher than operations on 
state or private lands. These higher costs are both direct costs, such 
as significantly higher permit fees and indirect costs, such as 
significantly longer waiting times for securing permits or other 
authorization from BLM. Taken together, the higher royalty rates and 
higher other costs will make it uneconomic to operate on most federal 
lands. BLM should recognize these facts and not overburden the oil and 
gas operators with 16.67% royalty rates as the minimum. Mineral owners 
of private or state lands command higher royalty rates because permit 
fees from the WOGCC are lower (e.g. $500 for an APD versus $10,900 for 
a BLM APD), and APDs and other permits are approved in a much lesser 
amount of time. Adding in these other costs of doing business to the 
increased royalty rate will further act to push operators off of 
federal lands harming small business, local governments, and the state.
    The BLM states that the onshore program, historically, has exposed 
the Federal Government to significant reclamation-related liabilities; 
lacked adequate cost recovery mechanisms; and encouraged wasteful 
development practices. The BLM believes increased bond amounts and 
elimination of nationwide bonding would help ensure that reclamation 
responsibilities reside primarily with oil and gas lessees and 
operators and not the American public. Unfortunately, as proposed, the 
bonding revisions will impact hundreds of small businesses in Wyoming, 
resulting in lost royalties, taxes, and other revenue to local 
government and the state, and create orphan wells, not eliminate them.
    The BLM discusses how the orphan well issue is expected to cost the 
agency $1.4 million to $3.8 million per year but fails to compare that 
to the associated revenue for onshore oil and gas which averaged $8.6 
billion in the last two years according to the DOI's Natural Resources 
Revenue Data. BLM also points to GAO 19-615 stating that bonds were 
insufficient to plug and reclaim wells when they become orphan. The GAO 
report states that in the year previous to the report 89 wells had 
become orphan and also states that BLM managed 96,000 wells at the 
time. This means only 0.01% of the wells were orphaned in a given year. 
The current BLM analysis shows that only 15 orphan wells needed plugged 
in 2021 and there were 24 for 2022 (Economic Analysis, page 34).
    As demonstrated throughout WOGCC's comments and as with most of the 
other aspects of this proposed rule, the fiscal impact to the American 
public from the bonding portion of this rule is vastly negative and 
unnecessary. What amounts to a default rate of less than 0.1% is 
nothing more than an attempt to justify the elimination of small 
business participation in oil and gas production and a foreshadowing of 
a bond every well policy designed to end oil and gas production on 
federal lands. This intention is in strict contradiction with the 
objective of oil and gas onshore operations regulations (43 CFR 3160.4) 
to ``promote the orderly and efficient exploration, development, and 
production of oil and gas.''
    BLM's minimum bond proposal is a one-size fits all approach 
inappropriately forced onto all operators and all wells, no matter the 
well depth, condition, status, or other factors which impact the cost 
to plug the wells. Orphan well plugging costs vary significantly from 
well to well depending on many factors. Under the existing bonding 
requirements an operator with a single well that is 1000 feet deep on a 
single federal lease would post a $10,000 bond. Under the BLM's 
proposed rule, the bond would increase to $150,000. Based on the 
WOGCC's orphan well program over the last 30 years, this proposed bond 
amount is far greater than the costs to plug the well and reclaim the 
location. This is not a hypothetical scenario. As one example, there is 
an operator in Wyoming, a small business, with five federal leases, 
with one coalbed methane well on each lease. Under the proposed rule, 
this operator would be required to increase their bond to a statewide 
minimum bond of $500,000. Based on WOGCCC historical costs, these five 
wells would likely cost $5,000-$7,000 to plug and reclaim for a total 
cost to plug all five wells of $25,000 to $35,000. The BLM proposed 
rule requires a minimum bond of $500,000, overburdening the small 
business operator with unnecessary bonding. There are many of these 
examples in Wyoming. One size fits all bonding, which results in bonds 
significantly in excess of what is necessary to plug and reclaim an 
operator's wells, is unreasonable. BLM could and should design bonding 
requirements that are protective for their actual risk without 
overburdening the operators and that account for the multiple factors 
that contribute to the costs to plug and reclaim a well.
    BLM asserts that orphaned wells could be plugged 240 days sooner if 
the rule were implemented because the BLM would not have to expend 
effort finding responsible parties (ES-2). However, BLM's own guidance 
contradicts this statement. IM-2021-039 defines an orphaned well as ``a 
well with 1) no legally responsible or liable party to perform 
permanent well plugging, abandonment and reclamation, and 2) no 
adequate financial assurance . . .'' Therefore, a well cannot be 
orphaned until after the BLM has determined there is no responsible 
party. This would not change under the proposed rule because there are 
likely differing RTOs and ORHs across a non-responsive operator's 
leases. It is unavoidable that the BLM would need to determine which 
parties may be responsible for which wells and only after that process 
is complete the assessment of whether the bond forfeited would cover 
the wells left to plug and reclaim. BLM would generally not be able to 
plug the wells any faster than the current process and therefore the 
entire discussion about potential benefits from shortened timing is 
irrelevant and should not be included in the final analysis.
    BLM may argue that the proposed bonding rule would provide for 
enough bond to cover all wells and may be able to forgo the search for 
a responsible party in the future. This argument does not hold water 
either, and was not analyzed in the proposed rule. The economic 
analysis is based on companies posting minimum bonds for leases and 
statewide bonds. On page 27 of the Economic Analysis BLM states there 
are an average of four wells per lease in Wyoming. This means that on 
average the lease would not be bonded sufficient to cover the cost. The 
same is true for statewide bonds of that cover approximately five 
wells. According to the Economic analysis the average operator holds 
7.7 leases in Wyoming which translates to approximately 31 wells, far 
more than the five wells the statewide bond allegedly covers.
    BLM failed to consider the capital required by operators to comply 
with the proposed rule. The BLM made the assertion that surety bonds 
are easy to acquire and the only cost is 1%-3.5% of the bond value. The 
WOGCC has significant experience working with operators on bonding. 
Many operators, particularly small operators, must provide significant 
collateral to obtain a surety bond, many times 100% of the bond amount. 
They would then be required to pay the annual fee of 1%-3.5% on top of 
the collateral. Many operators could not post this amount of capital 
for bonding in the timeframe proposed in the rule. This puts these 
operators at risk and would likely result in the wells being 
prematurely plugged or even orphaned. The BLM's lack of understanding 
on the surety bond market is surprising or BLM's omission of the full 
cost of securing a surety bond is intentional in order to understate 
the actual economic impact. Either way, BLM must fully report and 
analyze the economic impact of bonding on operators.
    BLM failed to look at the negative revenue effects of the rule on 
taxpayers, states, and counties. This rule would cause premature 
plugging of wells or orphaning of wells that are currently producing. 
The premature plugging of wells or orphaning of wells will result in 
lost royalties to BLM, the state, the American public and lost taxes to 
states and local governments. BLM failed to even discuss this 
likelihood. WOGCC has determined through publicly available data that 
the amount of bond required in this proposed rule exceeds the gross 
annual revenue (assuming prices used by BLM in the RFA less 12.5% BLM 
royalty and 12.5% severance/ad valorem taxes) for more than 25% of the 
companies operating on federal lands in Wyoming. Based on the WOGCC's 
knowledge of the bonding market, most or all of these operators would 
be required to provide full or nearly full collateral in order to 
obtain a surety bond. These small businesses will either prematurely 
plug the wells or go bankrupt as a direct result of the proposed bond 
amounts exceeding their gross revenue. In any event, they are likely to 
cease operations due to the proposed rule. If additional expenses to 
the operator are considered, such as the direct lease operating 
expenses, then the percent of operators likely to go out of business 
due only to the bonding requirements of this proposed rule reach up to 
50%. This does not even consider other expenses such as labor cost. The 
2022 production from the wells of only the 25% at risk operators on 
federal lands represents over $3 million per year in production related 
taxes and royalties for the state and local governments. The lost 
revenue and cost to BLM due to creation of additional orphan wells is a 
likely outcome that the must be evaluated.
    Any discouraging of leasing on federal land affects adjacent state 
and private lands. The BLM acknowledges the proposed rule will result 
in a reduction of leasing federal lands, but fails to acknowledge the 
effect that has on adjacent lands and subsequently the affects to small 
businesses and local and state government. Most drilling in Wyoming 
consists of 2 mile long horizontal laterals with some laterals now 
being 3 miles long. Most of these laterals will encounter a mix of 
mineral types including federal, private, and/or state. If the federal 
lands are unavailable for leasing, have leases deferred, or have other 
delays, this affects all the lands along the path of the horizontal 
lateral. Unleased, deferred, or federal lands otherwise off-limits to 
drilling will likely eliminate the ability for the operator to drill 
the horizontal well, which eliminates the potential for development of 
the state and private minerals. This reduces or eliminates any value of 
the state and private minerals and reduces the royalties and taxes 
collected by state and local government.
    The bonding provisions in the rule not only disproportionally 
affect small businesses it actually targets them. The significant 
effects of the bonding provisions in the proposed rule nearly 
exclusively impact small businesses. Larger operators are typically 
able to secure surety bonds with little to no collateral or will be 
less impacted by the collateral requirements due to generating more 
revenue. Based on its own experience and bonding regulations, the WOGCC 
is knowledgeable about the surety bond market and knows that smaller 
businesses do not have the ability to access the surety market unless 
they post collateral at or near 100% of the bond amount. Often this 
collateral is required to be in cash, tying up a significant portion of 
a small business's capital. Approximately 36% of Operators bonded with 
the Commission are using a certificate of deposit (CD), letter of 
credit (LOC), or cash. BLM is proposing elimination of CDs or LOCs 
posted to satisfy the bonding requirement, which places another 
significant burden on the operators, especially those who are small 
businesses. BLM's reasons for proposing this is that they are difficult 
to manage or that the banks have a hard time including BLM's 
requirements. The WOGCC accepts both CDs and LOCs to satisfy bond 
requirements. The WOGCC generally has no trouble with state 
requirements being included on the bond instruments, managing these 
bond instruments, or when necessary, calling these bond instruments 
when there is reason to forfeit the bond. The WOGCC manages a bonding 
program for several hundred operators with one staff member, so it is 
not difficult to implement and manage. The Wyoming state office 
managing lease or statewide bonding would not have a significantly 
larger number of operators or bonds than what is managed by the WOGCC. 
With such significant increases in bond amounts proposed by BLM, there 
should be more options to post the bonds and not less.
    BLM should clarify its process for releasing wells from bonding. As 
it stands, the bonding mechanism that BLM has set up requires an 
operator, especially small businesses, to post collateral for the bond, 
and to save enough capital to plug and reclaim a well. If bond is not 
released until BLM field staff sign off on final reclamation of the 
well location, this could tie up all of this capital for several years 
beyond the plugging of the well. In many areas of Wyoming reclamation 
takes years to establish. The rule appears to hold the bond until 
reclamation is considered complete by BLM staff. Therefore, an operator 
may spend the capital to plug a well and reclaim the site, but not be 
able to get the bonds back for years afterward causing the operator to 
carry double the amount of capital required to plug and reclaim even 
where the bond matched the cost of plugging and reclamation.
    The WOGCC is concerned that small operators may not be aware of 
this proposed rule, even though it affects them disproportionately. The 
BLM should have direct mailed the affected small businesses as 
suggested by Section 609(a)(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
because it was definable, reasonable, and likely the only way many 
companies would find out about the rule. The rule would place at least 
25% of operators at risk of going out of business which is a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses. The WOGCC works with over 400 operators across the Wyoming 
and is aware that the smaller operators are not generally members of 
industry associations that might alert them to new rules and are often 
not aware of proposed BLM rule changes. It is clear that this proposed 
rule will have a larger negative affect on smaller operators. It is 
reasonable that BLM should provide direct notice to these small 
businesses to ensure they are provided an opportunity to comment. For 
most of these companies, the first time they will hear about this rule 
change is when BLM sends them a demand to increase their minimum bond 
by a factor of 15. The BLM has all the necessary data to identify how 
many leases each operator holds and has contact information for the 
operators. Since BLM already has all the information, it would be a 
small administrative burden to direct mail each of those operators 
informing them of the proposed rule and how to submit comments.
    The proposed rule disproportionally affects small business and BLM 
did not consider alternatives as required by RFA 603(c). In reality, 
BLM is actually targeting small businesses using these bonding rules. 
The significant effects of the bonding portions of the rule are nearly 
exclusively on small businesses, particularly the very small 
businesses. The BLM must consider alternatives to the increased bonding 
in the proposed rule.
    An example of an alternative to increasing the bonding as proposed 
in this rule is the conservation tax implemented by the WOGCC on wells 
in Wyoming. The WOGCC imposes a small mill levy on oil and gas sales 
from wells in Wyoming, which funds the plugging and reclamation of 
orphan wells for which the costs have exceeded the available bonding. 
The mill levy is set through the rulemaking process and adjusted to 
accommodate funding levels required to complete orphan well work in the 
state. Since this funding is paid on all sales, each operator pays a 
very small amount so it does not unduly impact each operator. Based on 
the projections by BLM in this proposed rule of the cost to operate an 
orphan well program of $1.4 million to $3.8 million annually, a similar 
levy on oil and gas sales from federal lands would so miniscule as to 
be almost unnoticeable by most operators. Yet, this miniscule levy 
would remove any risk of having the American public cover the cost of 
plugging and reclaiming orphan wells. The imposition of a small levy on 
sales would not have a disproportionate impact on small business as 
this proposed rule would. If BLM is interested in a solution to the 
risk of $1.4 million to $3.8 million cost to the agency from orphan 
wells, then it must consider this alternative that protects the BLM, 
the American public, and the small businesses in the industry.
    The rule is not purely administrative in nature and would have 
direct and indirect environmental effects. Due to the BLM's inadequate 
economic analysis, the creation of a large number of additional orphan 
wells was not identified. Given BLM's stated timeline of approximately 
one year to go through the process to get the well to orphan status and 
then added time for BLM to get contracts in place and actually plug the 
well, there is potential for a significant environmental effect that 
must be analyzed.
    The bonding section refers to issues that are not in the proposed 
rule. The bonding section of the Categorical Exclusion states that BLM 
is going to require full plugging and reclamation bond on all wells. 
The proposed rule language, preamble, and economic analysis all 
referred to and analyzed only the increase of bonding to the minimums 
and any increases done in the current bond adequacy review process. The 
current bond adequacy review considers things like idle wells and 
operator compliance history, it does not contemplate increases in 
bonding for simply have less bond than the amount necessary for full 
plugging and reclamation costs of every well on federal lands. If the 
intent of BLM is to require full bonding for every federal well, this 
scenario should be proposed and fully evaluated in this rulemaking 
process.
    Requiring full plugging and reclamation bonding on every federal 
well in Wyoming would effectively eliminate all legacy oil and gas 
operations on federal lands in Wyoming. This would create massive 
amounts waste from premature plugging, untold numbers of orphan wells, 
and devastation of local economies. The cost to the local and state 
government and to the American public would be severe.
    BLM states that the proposed rule would not affect a taking of 
private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive 
Order 12630. BLM claims the proposed rule would have impacts on future 
leases on federal land, but would not impact current leases. This is 
untrue, as the incredibly burdensome bonding requirements of this 
proposed rule intend to be implemented on all federal leases, existing 
and future. Many operators, most of whom are small businesses would be 
forced to prematurely plug their wells or would be forced into 
bankruptcy by the bonding requirements as proposed and as previously 
documented in these comments. BLM must complete a full analysis of the 
takings requirements of Executive Order 12630.
    BLM also asserts that the proposed rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement. BLM claims the proposed rule would not have a 
substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between 
the Federal Government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the levels of government. This again is 
untrue, the proposed rule would have significant direct impacts on the 
states. As detailed in this comment letter, by limiting future leasing 
to lands with high likelihood of production BLM is limiting or 
eliminating the potential for the state to lease its own lands for oil 
and gas production. Horizontal wells almost always encounter a mix a 
federal, private, and/or state minerals in the lateral. BLM choosing 
not to lease lands for no valid reason makes it impossible to drill 
horizontal wells in these areas. If operators are unable to secure 
federal leases and federal APDs they will pay little to nothing for a 
state lease that is rendered undrillable due to BLM decisions. This 
proposed rule most certainly has direct effects on the states.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment and thank you in advance 
for your consideration of revisions to the proposed rule as suggested 
herein. For the reasons stated in these comments, the WOGCC again 
respectfully requests that this proposed rule be withdrawn.

            Sincerely,

                                       Thomas A. Kropatsch,
                                       State Oil and Gas Supervisor

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Tom Kropatsch, State Oil and Gas 
        Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

          Questions Submitted by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

    Question 1. After Wyoming updated its state bonding rules for oil 
and gas wells in 2015, did production of oil and gas in Wyoming 
increase or decrease in the following years? How much did new wells 
drilled after 2015 contribute to Wyoming's overall production?

    Answer. Oil production in 2016 and 2017 decreased from 2015. By 
2018 oil production was substantially similar to 2015. 2019 oil 
production was greater than 2015 and in 2023 is expected to be greater 
than 2015. Based on well production data collected over the last couple 
of years, oil production from newly drilled wells accounts for 
approximately 30% of Wyoming's total annual oil production.
    Gas production has generally declined every year since 2015, with 
the exception of 2018, where gas production was substantially the same 
as 2017. The rate of drilling new gas wells in Wyoming is not high 
enough to replace the natural decline rate of older gas well production 
within the state.
    The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) bonding 
regulations contain key provisions that reduce the impact to oil and 
gas operators while still ensuring the agency has funds to plug orphan 
oil and gas wells, should it become necessary. These provisions are not 
found in BLM's one size fits all bonding approach as proposed in their 
Fluid Mineral Leasing and Leasing Process rule, which will 
unnecessarily burden operators impacting many small businesses in 
Wyoming.
    In Wyoming most operators choose to post a statewide operator 
blanket bond to cover all of their wells in the state in the amount of 
$100,000. The WOGCC also conducts an annual review of each operator's 
wells with a specific focus on idle wells. The review allows the agency 
to understand any plans the operator has to return idle wells to 
production or plug the well. If the operator has plans to produce or 
plug the well within the next year then bonding in any amount 
additional to their operator blanket bond is not required. The operator 
may be required to post idle well bonds for any wells that are idle and 
do not have plans to return to production or plug if the WOGCC 
determines the idle well footage exceeds what is covered by the 
operator blanket bond. During this review the WOGCC determines the 
appropriate bond amounts based on factors that impact the expected cost 
to plug and reclaim the well, such as well type, well status, well 
depth, and well completion and has found that utilizing an average 
plugging cost of dollars per foot of well depth is the most accurate 
method of calculating the appropriate bond amount. The WOGCC bond rate 
set by its current rules is $10/foot of well depth, with the authority 
to modify this rate based on specific well details. In some cases the 
bond rate is reduced based on these specific details.
    BLM has proposed using an average cost to plug and reclaim a well 
of $71,000. This does not account for significant variances in the 
plugging costs based on previously mentioned factors and does not allow 
for modification based on an operator's plans or any other conditions. 
Examples of how this overburdens operators are found in my written 
statement. Summarizing an example in those comments, one operator in 
Wyoming has five federal leases, each with a single coalbed methane 
well located on the lease. Based on BLM's proposed rule, that operator 
would need to post a statewide bond of $500,000. Each of these coalbed 
methane wells are shallow, at approximately 1,000 feet deep. The WOGCC 
expects the cost to plug these wells to be $5,000-$7,000 each for a 
total cost to plug and reclaim all five wells of $25,000-$35,000. The 
WOGCC bond requirement for these five wells, if they were idle and 
required bonding, would be $50,000. The WOGCC bond requirement would 
protect the agency in this scenario without overburdening the operator, 
whereas BLM's required $500,000 bond would be at least 10x the bond 
necessary to complete the plugging and reclamation. In this scenario 
the required BLM bond far exceeds the revenue generated from these five 
wells and it is likely the operator will either prematurely plug all 
the wells or could be forced into bankruptcy, potentially creating 
additional orphan wells.
    The BLM process for declaring wells orphan also greatly reduces any 
risk to the agency or to the American public. As I describe in my 
written statement, BLM holds any previous record title owner (RTO) or 
operating rights holder (ORH) responsible to plug a well if the current 
operator is non-responsive. This process nearly eliminates orphan wells 
on federal lands, as evidenced by the number of orphan wells and the 
expected costs for plugging orphan wells as quoted by BLM in the 
proposed rule. The WOGCC does not have the same ability to hold RTO or 
ORH responsible, yet the WOGCC has successfully plugged over 5,000 
orphan wells since 2014. The WOGCC utilized forfeited bonds to cover 
over 2/3 of the costs of this plugging while setting appropriate bond 
levels, not overburdening the operator as BLM proposes. The remaining 
costs to plug orphan wells comes from a tax paid by industry to the 
WOGCC on the sales of oil and gas.

    Question 2. The Inflation Reduction Act raised the federal royalty 
rate on oil and gas production from 12.5 percent to 16.67 percent. How 
does the federal royalty rate compare with Wyoming's state royalty 
rates?

    Answer. The royalty rate set for oil and gas production on state 
trust land leases is 16 percent. The royalty rate is only one cost of 
doing business for the oil and gas industry and if all other costs were 
similar then setting a similar royalty rate would not be so burdensome. 
Comparing the entire cost of doing business on federal lands to the 
cost to do the same work on state or private lands creates an 
understanding of why the federal royalty rate should remain lower than 
the rate set on state trust lands or on private lands.
    In general, the cost to do business on federal lands is much higher 
than on state or private lands, both in terms of hard costs and in 
terms of time. Companies who operate on federal lands incur additional 
costs for such things as formal lease nominations, expressions of 
interest fees, competitive lease applications, lease reinstatements, 
unit agreement applications, and applications for permit to drill--to 
name a few. Expressions of interest on parcels will cost $5/acre with 
no guarantee that the parcel will be placed into a lease sale and no 
refund if the parcel is deferred. Under the current administration, BLM 
has deferred significant acreage in Wyoming. Many of these same 
processes have no fees or costs on state or private lands. An 
application for permit to drill (APD) fee from the WOGCC is $500 
whereas an APD fee from the BLM is $12,155 (as of 10/1/2023). These are 
just several of the many examples of higher costs to operate on federal 
lands.
    The time and uncertainty of operations on federal lands are also 
significantly higher than state or private lands. For example, the 
average time for BLM to complete their review of an APD between 2011 to 
2020 ranged from 108 days to 307 days (Source: BLM. Table 12 Time to 
Complete an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) Federal and Indian. 
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/docs/2021-3/
Table12_TimetoCompleteAPD_2020.pdf). The WOGCC can issue an APD in as 
little as one day and generally within two weeks if necessary. 
Operating on federal lands requires significant investment of time and 
costs for actions related to leasing, NEPA, APDs, rights of way, and 
various other routine actions. The constant barrage of litigation can 
be just as cumbersome. Environmental groups have filed many lawsuits 
targeting leases and/or APDs. While companies may intervene to defend 
their interests and BLM action, these lawsuits add substantial cost and 
uncertainty. The same threats do not exist when leasing from the state 
or private mineral owners. It is the combination of increased costs, 
time and uncertainty associated with operating on federal lands that 
requires a lower royalty rate to remain competitive with state and 
private lands. The increased cost, time, uncertainty and royalty rates 
puts states with large percentages of federal lands, such as Wyoming, 
at a distinct disadvantage of capitalizing on our abundant natural 
resources, because companies can simply develop in states that do not 
have the density and intermixed federal lands.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. That was right at perfect timing. Thank you 
very much.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and 
for everyone in the room for being with us today.
    We are now going to recognize Members for 5 minutes of 
questioning, and I am going to recognize Representative Fulcher 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the panel, 
thank you for being here.
    And Ms. Jewett, I want to start with you. I have more 
questions than I am going to have time for, but I want to fact 
check my staff because when I was reading through and going 
through the data in presenting this bill, they had pointed out 
that 90 percent of viable geothermal resources estimated on 
Federal lands. That makes sense to me in my home state of 
Idaho, because most of Idaho is Federal lands. But that is not 
the case in other states. Can you share, from your perspective, 
what kind of a geothermal footprint do we have across this 
country?
    How viable is that, as a resource, as you look at the 
landscape of America?
    I mean, it is great in my state, but I really don't know 
about other areas across the country. What does the footprint 
of the geothermal resource look like in America?
    Ms. Jewett. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
    I think one really amazing thing about geothermal energy is 
it draws from the heat from the Earth, and that heat exists 
everywhere. It is just a question of how deep. In the western 
United States, we benefit because that resource that we are 
looking for, 150 to 200 degrees C, is incredibly shallow, 7,000 
to 10,000 feet deep, which we are really good at drilling, as 
Americans, after the shale revolution. So, the resource of just 
accessible geothermal energy from 7,000 to 10,000 feet is 
incredibly vast across the West.
    So, not only your state in Idaho, but huge swaths of 
Nevada, Utah, Colorado, California, Washington, Oregon, New 
Mexico, and Arizona have really, really amazing geothermal 
resource potential.
    Mr. Fulcher. Because your company has done, I assume, 
projects both on Federal land and probably on private or state 
land.
    Ms. Jewett. We are building on whatever land we can lease.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, talk to me briefly, because I know the 
time is short. Compare the project process for your 
organization on, say, a piece of private land, and the process 
there versus public land.
    Ms. Jewett. Sure. If we had a piece of private land where 
we could build a project and interconnect a transmission, we 
can build that project as soon as we get the lease negotiated, 
which can happen today. You and I can go negotiate a lease on 
your farm today, and I can begin building the project.
    For a Federal lease, we are going to have to nominate that 
parcel, and then we are going to have to wait for that state to 
offer a lease sale. And in some states we haven't been able to 
get the states to offer a lease sale at all, and we have had 
nominations pending for the last 3 years.
    Mr. Fulcher. Do you have any idea if the projects you have 
worked on for public land, how long that timeline is, on an 
average, or is it just all over the map?
    Ms. Jewett. It is all over the map. Nevada holds lease 
sales on an annual basis, but they are the only ones.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, and thank you for what you 
do.
    Mr. Grace, I am going to take that subject and I am going 
to move to you. In your testimony, you talked about the 
importance of having defined, timely decision making when it 
comes to right-of-way access.
    I know in my office, across Idaho and the DC office here, 
we have had to get involved and intervene to try to meet some 
of these milestones on behalf of our constituents. NEPA is 
typically one of the biggest hurdles. Do you see that as a 
common issue?
    Do you see similar circumstances, and can you talk to that?
    Mr. Grace. Sure, yes, and thanks for the question. Without 
a doubt, NEPA in particular, and the whole permitting process, 
not having certainty with respect to timelines, it just 
explodes the cost of projects. And it is really hard to finance 
a project if you don't have the certainty that certain 
milestones are going to be met at a particular time.
    So, it is not just the environmental review process, but 
from the whole start to the finish, from when you are applying 
for a permit to the environmental review process, and then 
ultimately getting a decision. And having more milestones and 
having certainty at each spot makes it easier, obviously, to 
finance a project and attracts capital to actually get new 
projects built.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, with that questionable timeline, I assume 
that, and I am going to go back to Ms. Jewett, that puts you at 
risk with your investors, with your sources of revenue. Do you 
have a metric by which you measure?
    I mean, time is money, right? Is there a metric that you 
look at, if it is X number of months we can get this done, or X 
number of years, it is worth it; if it is longer than that, it 
is not? Your comments.
    Ms. Jewett. I think the more consistent the better. We are 
trying to convince the project finance community today that 
they can invest in these projects, and if they are delayed for 
6 months, they will lose interest.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Fulcher. The Chair 
now recognizes Representative Lee for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the 
witnesses for being here.
    It was just a few months ago that BLM proposed the much-
needed updates to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing 
Program. Since then, BLM has received over 260,000 public 
comments on its draft oil and gas rule, with a statistical 
analysis from the non-partisan Center for Western Priorities, 
finding that more than 99 percent of those comments actually 
support the adoption of the rule.
    Yet here we are today, elevating a bill from Representative 
Boebert that effectively proposes to throw out BLM's popular 
proposal, as well as hundreds of thousands of comments from our 
very own constituents, just to throw them in the trash before 
the BLM has had the opportunity to review this feedback and 
refine the rule. This should be a serious dereliction of our 
duty to American taxpayers.
    And Mr. Grace, my state of Nevada led the country last year 
in the development of solar energy jobs per capita, and has 
long been one of the top 10 states for solar energy production 
in the nation. I am just going to ask you a quick yes-or-no 
question. Is it safe to say that at least 0.3 percent of solar 
installations in Nevada have successfully produced energy at 
some point since their placement?
    Mr. Grace. Yes, and I know it was a yes-or-no, but typical 
capacity factors for a solar project are about 25 to over 30 
percent, so it is way above that.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Clearing that incredibly low bar 
already sets solar energy in Nevada apart from the state's 
Federal oil and gas leases, where, wait for this, I feel like I 
keep repeating this, only 72 out of 22,141 such leases issued 
since 1953, or shall I say 0.3 percent, have ever produced 
energy.
    Solar, on the other hand, continues to excel, as you said, 
supplying about 23 percent of Nevada's total electricity in 
2022, and significantly reducing our reliance on out-of-state 
fossil fuels. Nationwide, solar has also added the most 
generating capacity to the grid in each of the last 4 years.
    The numbers on speculative leasing are crystal clear. There 
is simply no serious argument that this practice has been 
anything but a waste of taxpayer dollars in states like Nevada. 
But my Republican colleagues continue to contend, ``What about 
the states where there is real oil and gas to be found, like 
Colorado or Texas? Wouldn't raising the royalty rate as BLM's 
oil and gas rule proposes to do harm American energy 
production?''
    And I want to turn to you, Ms. Hornbein. Am I correct in 
recalling that the current royalty rate for oil and gas 
produced on Federal lands is 12.5 percent?
    Ms. Hornbein. Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Lee. And if I am not mistaken, 12.5 percent is lower 
than the rates for oil and gas produced on state lands in 
Colorado and Texas. Is that correct?
    Ms. Hornbein. And Wyoming, as well.
    Ms. Lee. So, lower may actually be an understatement on my 
part. Texas' typical royalty rate has been double the Federal 
rate, or 25 percent, for more than 30 years. Colorado, too, 
increased its rate to 20 percent 7 years ago. Further still, 
officials in both states went on record during the Trump 
administration to report that these rate increases have not had 
a noticeable impact on production or leasing.
    This is a direct quote from a 2017 GAO study: ``Given these 
well-documented examples, it is fair to expect that BLM's 
modest increase to the Federal royalty rate to just 16.67 
percent through 2032 will be a boon to taxpayers without being 
a bane on production.''
    Rather than restoring American energy dominance, as the 
name suggests, H.R. 6009 would instead maintain a status quo 
that has long failed taxpayers across this country, needlessly 
putting Nevada's public lands in harm's way and costing the 
American taxpayer roughly $13.1 billion in lost royalty revenue 
over the last decade.
    I oppose representative Boebert's legislation, and support 
the BLM oil and gas rule, and encourage my colleagues to do the 
same. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Lee. We will now go 
to Representative Lamborn from Colorado for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this 
important hearing, and thank you for the witnesses for being 
here. I am going to make a brief statement, and then ask a 
couple of questions, and I will start with you, Mr. Kropatsch.
    But first of all, I want to say that the hypocrisy with 
which the Biden administration approaches energy production on 
public lands must be addressed. The cost of energy has 
skyrocketed for consumers across the country, but the current 
Administration wants to continue to increase the price of 
energy by increasing and creating new fees for oil and gas on 
Federal lands. And at the same time, the Administration has 
also decided to lower rental fees for wind and solar on Federal 
lands by a stunning 80 percent. It should be clear that this 
Administration does not believe in a fair and level playing 
field for energy production.
    Myself and my colleagues on this side of the aisle have 
always championed an all-of-the-above approach to energy 
production, meaning consumers will always receive the most cost 
effective form of power. Most renewables do not provide 
baseload energy. And by the way, renewables only make up 
roughly 20 percent of our electrical generation, and 
electricity makes up 38 percent of national energy production. 
Forcing the taxpayer to pay for yet another subsidy for an 
industry that cannot support America's energy needs while the 
cost of energy skyrockets is irresponsible.
    And by the way, reducing American oil and gas production 
only drives demand and profits to countries like Iran and 
Russia. This is insanity.
    So, my question for you, Mr. Kropatsch, more specifically, 
is on the Bureau of Land Management, which has already proposed 
a rule that would allow its lands to be locked up in 
conservation leases. And more recently, BLM has proposed 
another rule titled, ``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing 
Process,'' which introduces preference criteria, whatever that 
is, for how the BLM chooses lands in which to hold lease sales. 
How will these two rules work together if they are both 
implemented?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Thank you. In reality, what the rules both 
will do is eliminate more Federal lands from being able to be 
used for energy.
    The conservation rule isn't just specific to oil and gas; 
it would remove the ability to use those public lands for any 
energy generation. And then, when you combine that with the 
right-of-way issues, you can put a well or any energy project 
on private or state lands in that same area, but you may not be 
able to actually use it because you can't access the Federal 
lands, whether it is for a pipeline or a transmission line or 
anything else. So, they are really just going to remove all 
public lands from use for energy generation.
    Mr. Lamborn. I wish sometimes they would just come out and 
be honest, and instead of saying we are doing this in the name 
of conservation, say we just don't like oil and gas, and we 
want to shut down oil and gas, if they would just be honest 
about that.
    The BLM has also said to Committee staff that any lands 
under a conservation lease will not be available for oil and 
gas production. Additional areas will also be identified as 
intact landscapes in the resource management planning process. 
So, BLM will take another look at any land that isn't locked up 
in this process or in subsequent conservation leases for 
sensitive cultural, wildlife, and recreation resources.
    So, these additional steps, what is that going to do to the 
whole permitting process?
    And does this violate BLM's mandate for multiple use?
    Mr. Kropatsch. I believe it does. What it does is it just 
makes more lands set to the side so that you can evaluate uses 
for those lands.
    In the resource management planning phase, we should be 
able to work with BLM as a cooperating agency and identify what 
those resources are that need to be conserved, and then the 
best way to conserve those. But what it does is it eliminates 
that process for us to be able to provide that input and get 
the best use for the land.
    Mr. Lamborn. And in my remaining time, I have a question 
for you, Ms. Jewett. The oil market is a worldwide market, 
right?
    Ms. Jewett. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Lamborn. So, if American prices or supply is reduced, 
what does that do on a worldwide market?
    Ms. Jewett. Yes, it seems to me you are asking me an 
economics question about an area that is not my area of 
expertise, but I imagine you want me to say that the rest of 
the globe ends up producing more.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. And that is what I was referring to 
earlier. Countries like Iran and Russia are making more money 
than ever.
    Mr. Chairman, back to you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Lamborn. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Magaziner from Rhode Island for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman. I am here to speak in 
opposition to Representative Boebert's bill, H.R. 6009.
    And I have to say, I hear my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, and on my side of the aisle as well, often talking 
about the evils of socialism. This is a socialist bill. This 
bill would require all of us, the American taxpayers, to spend 
our taxpayer money to clean up the messes made by the oil and 
gas companies. It is socialized costs to benefit the big oil 
and gas companies, which, by the way, made record profits last 
year.
    In fact, this bill perpetuates socializing the costs, but 
privatizing the profits for the oil and gas companies who are 
drilling on public lands. The working people who I represent in 
Rhode Island, who are paying record prices at the gas pump last 
year, $5-plus per gallon, are seeing their money go to the big 
oil companies. The big oil companies last year, the six 
largest, made $219 billion of profits. Not revenue, profits. 
That is $600 million a day off of the backs of working people 
who are being gouged at the gas pump or for their home heating 
oil.
    And if that wasn't enough, to add insult to injury, now 
this bill would tell the American people, ``You also have to 
pay more taxes to clean up their mess, too,'' to clean up the 
soil, to clean up the water. We are not going to ask them to 
pay their fair share of their profits to clean up their own 
mess. We are going to ask the American taxpayers, collectively, 
socialistically, to pay for the mess that the big oil and gas 
companies have made while they have pocketed record profits.
    So, here is an idea. I have signed on to a bill that has 
been introduced here in Congress that would require the oil and 
gas companies, if the price of gas gets too high, to return 
some of those profits back to the American people, checks in 
the mail, rebates to consumers. Because if we are going to be 
asked to share in the costs of cleaning up after them, the cost 
of their operation, maybe the American people who are 
struggling to get by should share in the benefits, as well.
    This bill, just to say once again, would reduce the amount 
that these companies would have to set aside for bonding a fund 
to clean up their mess from $150,000 per lease, as proposed in 
the BLM rule, to just $10,000. Who would make up the 
difference? The American taxpayers, the American taxpayers who 
are already paying out the nose for the cost of gas or the cost 
to heat their homes.
    So, I would humbly suggest that rather than having the 
American people pay these costs, we ask the big oil and gas 
companies to set aside just a portion of the $200 billion-plus 
of profits that they are making that is going to inflated 
executive salaries, to hedge funds, to the very top of the 
economic scale in our country, set aside some of that money to 
clean up their own mess.
    Ms. Hornbein, do you agree that this bill would shift the 
costs of environmental cleanup from the oil companies to the 
taxpayers, relative to the BLM rule?
    Ms. Hornbein. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I would reframe 
it as this bill would keep the status quo in place, which 
requires the American people to pick up the bill for these 
cleanup costs. That needs to change.
    Mr. Magaziner. Yes. And since the oil companies are 
expecting the taxpayers to continue to pay for the cleanup 
costs, do you expect that they would also be willing to share 
some of their billions of dollars of profits with the American 
people, as well, especially since these resources belong to the 
American people?
    Ms. Hornbein. I would suggest that that would be 
appropriate.
    Mr. Magaziner. So, is the status quo fair to working people 
in this country?
    Ms. Hornbein. No, the status quo is not fair, and it hasn't 
been for more than 50 years.
    Mr. Magaziner. Yes. Well, I commend the Biden 
administration for trying to change that, for trying to tip the 
scales at least a little bit in the direction of working 
people.
    And I thank you for joining today, and I restate my 
opposition to this reverse working people bill. I don't know 
what to call it. A bill that socializes the costs while 
privatizing the profits for the big oil and gas companies. I 
thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Magaziner.
    Representative Hageman from the great state of Wyoming, you 
are up for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
all of our energy producers for making all of our lives better.
    I just want to correct one thing that has been said 
repeatedly in this room today, and that is talking about 
renewables. They aren't renewables, they are unreliables. And 
it is part of the reason that we have skyrocketing energy costs 
in this country.
    President Biden has been at war with the oil and gas 
industry since Day 1 of his presidency. According to the 
Institute of Energy Research, this Administration had taken 125 
actions by November of last year against oil, gas, and coal. 
That number went up to about 150 by April of this year, and 
reached 175 just last month.
    All of this is being done to appease a radical 
environmental base, and is resulting in increased fuel costs, 
decreased access to reliable energy sources, and more energy 
poverty in America. Inflation has skyrocketed since Biden took 
office as a direct result of his failed energy policies.
    According to a spokesman for the Petroleum Association of 
Wyoming, the active rig count in the state now sits at 25, a 
decrease from 30 active rigs just a few years ago. Many pending 
leases have been stagnant in the state with no promise of 
protection from serial litigation. New leases are practically 
non-existent, and existing frameworks, such as the multiple use 
framework outlined under FLPMA, are being abused through the 
creation of new uses that interfere with activities that 
actually generate revenue.
    On top of this, we are seeing the Federal Government seek 
to eliminate accessibility of small businesses to the surety 
market through this fluid mineral leasing rule, making it 
harder for small oil and gas companies to operate on Federal 
lands.
    Mr. Kropatsch, oil and gas development in Wyoming 
contributes a significant portion of state and county revenue 
to pay for critical government programs and other essential 
services like fire protection, medical services, landfills, 
airports, roads, courthouses, law enforcement, et cetera. Can 
you briefly touch on the long-term impacts this proposed rule 
will have on oil and gas development, and the state's ability 
to generate revenue to provide these services?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Yes, thank you. As you mentioned, the state 
does receive significant revenue in taxes from the oil and gas 
industry and the production in Wyoming both on Federal and 
private lands, used for public education, infrastructure, and 
other services.
    So, as these companies are forced out of business, not only 
will the state and the local governments lose that revenue, 
they are going to lose the jobs that are supported by those 
companies. So, the local communities are going to lose 
citizens, they are going to lose the supporting jobs that go 
along with the oil and gas companies and the work they do, so 
lose revenue through those jobs, in addition to the revenue 
they are losing from the taxes on the oil and gas production.
    Ms. Hageman. It has a cascading ricochet effect through our 
entire economy when you adopt energy policy as the Biden 
administration has done since he was elected to office. Is that 
fair to say?
    Mr. Kropatsch. That is correct.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. The U.S. Department of the Interior's 
Natural Resources Revenue Data reports that Federal lands in 
the state of Wyoming produced $1,656,396,384 in the year 2022; 
$785 million of that went to the state of Wyoming, and 
primarily came from oil and gas production. This was an 
increase in proceeds from previous years, but not because of 
increased production. The increase in proceeds came about 
because of increased oil and gas prices.
    In other words, intentional energy poverty imposed by this 
Administration.
    Production consistently fell between 2019 and 2022, and 
continues to fall, although I am sure that every one of you 
used some form of oil and gas to arrive here today.
    Mr. Kropatsch, again, have the Biden administration's 
policies contributed to the increase of oil and gas prices?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Yes, they have. Reducing and forcing 
production off of Federal lands, for example, as they admit to 
do in this rule, decreases the supply that is available and, 
therefore, increases the price. And also without any of the 
environmental benefit, because we are doing it better than 
anyone else in Wyoming.
    When you force it out of Wyoming, then we are increasing 
the price and decreasing the environmental benefit.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you for that. And my last question is, 
we have heard from the Administration and those on the other 
side of the aisle many times that regulations like this and 
land withdrawals will only impact Federal lands and minerals. 
Can you explain why that is not the case, why there will also 
be an impact on private lands?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Sure, and I touched on it in a previous 
answer. But in Wyoming, the way the landownership pattern works 
paired with horizontal drilling, it almost eliminates the 
ability to drill a private or state well without encountering 
Federal minerals. So, when you can't get a permit or a lease to 
drill those Federal minerals, you also cannot drill the private 
or state lands that are in that general area.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I appreciate the work you do. Again, I 
appreciate the people who work to make our lives better, rather 
than to make them more expensive. Thank you all for being here 
today.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Hageman. I will now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kropatsch, of the oil and gas producers in Wyoming, 
what is the approximate breakdown between small and large 
producers?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe close to 85 
percent of the operators in Wyoming are small oil and gas 
operators, small business.
    Mr. Stauber. And the oil and gas industry is consistently 
one of the largest industries in the state of Wyoming. Can you 
share the impact of this industry for state and local tax 
revenue?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Yes. The number I have goes back to 2019 or 
2020, and they, through taxes and royalties, generated over 
$1.2 billion for the state, and that is shared down to the 
local governments, and also for public education and other 
services they provide.
    Mr. Stauber. Is that industry one of the highest or the 
highest revenue for the state of Wyoming?
    Mr. Kropatsch. The oil and gas industry would probably be 
the highest for the state of Wyoming.
    Mr. Stauber. And what kind of impact would decreased 
production due to the BLM's increased royalty rates, fees, and 
bonding requirements have on schools or central services in 
Wyoming?
    Mr. Kropatsch. It would eliminate some of the funding that 
the state has available to provide those services to the 
citizens.
    Mr. Stauber. And the state funds public safety?
    Mr. Kropatsch. The state funds almost all the services down 
through the local governments----
    Mr. Stauber. Public safety, roads, and bridges, et cetera?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Correct.
    Mr. Stauber. In her testimony, Ms. Hornbein states that 
bond amounts must be set at levels equivalent to the actual 
cost of plugging in remediation. Can you explain why this is 
unnecessary?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Yes. First of all, the BLM's process for 
getting these wells with a non-responsive operator plugged 
isn't to first declare them orphan and forfeit a bond. The BLM 
has the opportunity to go to record title owners or previous 
operating rights holders of a non-responsive operator to get 
the wells plugged, and it is a very successful process, as 
evidenced by the numbers of orphan wells BLM actually has on 
Federal lands.
    There are 15 to 24 orphan wells, so they are able to go 
back to anybody who was previously on the lease or had the 
operating rights, and ask them to plug the well or hold them 
accountable to plug the well. So, the bonding isn't what is 
used in most cases to get these wells plugged.
    Mr. Stauber. How will the BLM's proposal to disallow 
certificates of deposit or letters of credit, impact small 
businesses?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Both of those options that were previously 
available to post bond and the removal of those options will 
directly impact the small businesses. Many of those small 
businesses can't get a surety bond without 100 percent 
collateral being posted. BLM indicated they would pay an annual 
fee of 1 to 3 percent, or 1 to 3.5 percent.
    Mr. Stauber. Would you lose some of the small operators?
    Mr. Kropatsch. You would lose many of the small operators.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Grace, in your written testimony you 
shared how countless members of ACP have projects that are tied 
up because of our completely broken permitting system. Is the 
broken permitting process more difficult on Federal lands?
    Mr. Grace. Yes, it is definitely more difficult on Federal 
lands. Whenever you are going to do a project on Federal lands, 
you are automatically going to trigger various things like 
NEPA. You are going to have a Federal nexus. So, that is just 
going to add time to your project.
    And as I said in my oral testimony, less than 5 percent of 
clean energy projects are on Federal lands, and that is largely 
the reason that they don't locate on Federal lands, because the 
permitting process is so long. And as we said earlier, our time 
is money when it comes to permitting.
    Mr. Stauber. With the permitting, do you think that it 
discourages investment?
    Mr. Grace. It definitely does. And it is not only just the 
time. There are also mitigation measures that are going to be 
entailed in your permit. They are going to add costs.
    And I think it is also just the uncertainty, and that is 
what I think my testimony was getting at. If you can actually 
create certainty, then you can actually finance around it. But 
the uncertainty just discourages investment because you just 
don't know what you are actually financing.
    Mr. Stauber. And I would also add not only in the oil and 
gas industry, but the mining industry if there is not certainty 
in that permitting process.
    Ms. Jewett, several states across this country haven't had 
a geothermal lease sale in several years, even though they are 
prime targets for these investments. Take California, for 
example. They haven't had a single geothermal lease sale since 
2016. Why aren't some of these states with rich geothermal 
reserves holding lease sales?
    Ms. Jewett. We can only report on what we have been told. 
And a lot of that centers around lack of staff competencies, 
lack of staff overall, the need to perform large-scale 
environmental assessments under NEPA. We have sort of received 
every type of excuse for why they cannot be held.
    Mr. Stauber. And how would regularly-held lease sales 
impact investments for geothermal energy?
    Ms. Jewett. If you can count on an annual lease sale as an 
operator, you can know that you can pick up acreage and shortly 
thereafter begin the environmental review process such that you 
can then begin a project shortly after that.
    Mr. Stauber. You mentioned in your testimony that some BLM 
offices like Nevada are doing a good job in holding lease sales 
and issuing permits. How can other offices replicate this 
success?
    Ms. Jewett. I think we need to encourage a way to share 
best practices across states and try, from a policy 
perspective, to put measures in place that force them to be 
more consistent and learn from one another.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Before we wrap this up, I want to enter into the record 
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez's opening statement.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez follows:]

   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking 
          Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
    Thank you, Chair Stauber, and thank you to our witnesses for being 
here today to discuss four bills that cover a range of issues within 
our jurisdiction, including geologic mapping, renewable energy, and 
fossil fuel development on federal land.
    I have said it before, and I will say it again: a quarter of this 
country's carbon pollution comes from fossil fuel development on 
federal lands and waters. It is long past time we change this.
    America's public lands and waters must be part of the climate 
solution rather than part of the problem. Doubling down on fossil fuels 
does not make Americans, nor the world, more secure.
    American oil and gas production has never been higher--we're the 
largest producer in the world, and yet, energy prices for Americans 
have surged while Big Oil's profits have boomed.
    We export oil and gas, and we import price volatility. Big Oil is 
leaving American families to bear the costs of higher energy prices, 
polluted air, water, soil, and climate disasters.
    True energy and economic security will come when we create an 
equitable, clean energy economy that puts communities first and ends 
our reliance on this global extractive industry.
    Two bills on the agenda today, H.R. 1449 and H.R. 6011, would 
nominally promote renewable energy development on federal land, but 
there are significant flaws in both.
    H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, would increase the frequency of 
geothermal lease sales on public lands. Recent technological 
breakthroughs in geothermal drilling make it an increasingly scalable, 
stable, on-demand form of renewable energy, and I fully support efforts 
to safely aid geothermal development.
    But unfortunately, H.R. 1449 also requires that the Bureau of Land 
Management approve geothermal drilling permits within 30 days, an 
arbitrarily tight deadline for an agency that is chronically 
understaffed and underfunded. It leaves no room for flexibility in the 
case of complicated analyses or decision-making.
    This part of a trend of so-called ``streamlining'' and ``permitting 
reform'' that Republicans have been pushing. Rather than fund agencies 
for adequate environmental review, let's undercut our bedrock 
environmental laws and give handouts to private industry.
    H.R. 6011, the Right-of-Way Application Transparency and 
Accountability Act, follows in this trend. It would create a 60-day 
deadline for the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture to notify an applicant requesting a right-of-way to use 
public land as to whether their application is complete or deficient.
    Rights-of-way are authorizations needed before anyone can do an 
activity that disturbs or damages public lands, like constructing a 
pipeline or developing solar or wind energy.
    Wanting speedy confirmation that an application is complete is 
reasonable. But similar to H.R. 1449, this bill does not address the 
root cause of delays at our land management agencies. The bill creates 
new deadlines for the agency without providing the resources necessary 
to meet those timelines.
    Last Congress, Democrats secured one billion dollars in the 
Inflation Reduction Act to fund land management agencies and speed up 
permitting. I encourage the inclusion of additional resources for BLM 
and the Forest Service in these bills to ensure they have the staff 
needed to promptly and thoroughly review applications, conduct 
environmental reviews, and consider community input.
    Also on the agenda is H.R. 2855, Representative Soto's Sinkhole 
Mapping Act of 2023. As we near the end of the first session of this 
Congress, it is a relief to finally consider our first piece of 
Democratic legislation in this Subcommittee.
    The Sinkhole Mapping Act is a straightforward, commonsense move to 
study and map sinkhole risk in the United States. Sinkholes create at 
least $300 million in damages every year, but the U.S. does not 
currently collect data on or map sinkholes, leaving community planners 
and emergency managers without important safety information.
    Despite their flaws, the three bills I've mentioned so far do all 
share one thing: they all share the intention to build towards a safer, 
clean energy future.
    Unfortunately, the last bill on today's list takes us backwards.
    Representative Boebert's so-called ``Restoring American Energy 
Dominance Act'' has only one goal: furthering Big Oil's dominance over 
our public lands.
    H.R. 6009 would force BLM to withdraw its draft oil and gas rule. 
The rule is a long overdue reform of our onshore oil and gas program to 
hold Big Oil accountable for cleaning up after themselves, to provide a 
fair return to the taxpayer when Big Oil uses our public resources, and 
to end speculative leasing of our public lands.
    The idea that if you make a mess, you should be responsible for 
cleaning it up is not something that's hard to understand. The idea 
that private companies should pay American taxpayers for using our 
public lands is not hard to understand. It's for these reasons that 
BLM's rule has broad support across Western voters. In fact, 92% of 
comments provided from all 50 states in response to BLM's proposed 
rulemaking were in favor of the rule.
    For all the talk of the ``people's house'' that we have been 
hearing from the other side of the aisle, this bill is anything but. 
Rep. Boebert's attempt to block this rule is an out-of-touch giveaway 
to the fossil fuel industry. It is a blatant effort by Big Oil and 
corporate lobbyists to game the system in their favor.
    I encourage BLM to listen to the 92% of stakeholders who support 
their rule, and to consider a managed decline of fossil fuel production 
on federal lands that addresses the climate crisis and holds the fossil 
fuel industry accountable. This rule is an essential step in the right 
direction.
    I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, and I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. And also, before we close, I wanted to correct 
for the record a number that was cited in the testimony 
regarding conventional energy production on Federal lands 
contribution to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
    Conventional energy extraction on Federal lands and waters 
accounts for about 0.7 percent of U.S. GHGs. The percentage of 
GHGs from oil and natural gas extraction, the subject of the 
regulation we are discussing today, is actually 0.56 percent.
    And Representative Boebert, you are just in time. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses who are here today. I appreciate you all and your 
time.
    First, to start off, Mr. Kropatsch, would you mind 
elaborating on the impact the fluid mineral leases and leasing 
process proposed rule, if finalized, will have on the oil and 
gas industry and smaller energy producers? So, could you just 
elaborate on that impact?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Sure. At least in Wyoming, it will force 
operators off of Federal lands and off of the private and state 
lands that are adjacent due to the nature of horizontal 
drilling and the location of those lands.
    It will also, due to the bonding requirements, force many 
of the small businesses in Wyoming, the small operators, out of 
business because they can't afford the increased costs and 
bonding in the time frame that is allowed.
    Ms. Boebert. Yes, thank you. And that is exactly right. I 
have heard several concerns from operators in my district on 
the western slope of Colorado that the increases mandated in 
this proposed rule will impact smaller producers who can't 
afford to operate in the market. These additional fees, as you 
know, will ultimately harm returns and reduce revenues to state 
and local governments by disincentivizing development on our 
Federal lands.
    The additional fees required by the proposed rule will 
reduce revenues in state and local governments. This is by 
disincentivizing development on these Federal lands. Can you 
expand on the negative impacts the proposed rule will have on 
Western states?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Yes, I think, similar to Wyoming and the 
landownership patterns, it will force the production off of 
those lands. It will reduce revenue and taxes that the states 
use to fund the local governments. In Wyoming, we use those 
revenues and taxes to fund public education, infrastructure, 
emergency services, and things like that.
    Ms. Boebert. Yes, very important revenues going to those 
areas that will be lost, for sure.
    The BLM and the Interior Department have stated increasing 
these fees will supplement the Orphan Well Program. However, 
there are only 37 orphan wells, the gas wells on BLM-managed 
lands. Do you think that their conclusion is unjustified?
    Mr. Kropatsch. I think the costs associated with that 
program are a very small percentage of the total revenue 
generated by the onshore Federal minerals program. And due to 
the processes BLM has to get those wells plugged by other 
record title owners and the previous operating rights holders, 
there is a very small number of orphan wells as a result of the 
Federal program.
    Ms. Boebert. Yes, I agree. And the BLM has only utilized 
bonds to plug wells on Federal lands 40 times over the last 
decade. These significant increases will tie up capital that 
would otherwise be put back into production. This is clearly 
another tactic from the Biden administration to de-incentivize 
domestic energy production. He would rather beg OPEC, 
Venezuela, and Iran to produce energy for us, instead of 
relying on the American roughneck.
    Mr. Kropatsch, the opposed fluid mineral leasing rule 
introduces the idea of using preference criteria to inform the 
BLM's selection of lands for lease sales. Given the 
Administration's poor track record with respect to issuing 
lease sales and their lack of timeliness on drilling permit 
approvals, do you think that this new criteria could be 
problematic?
    Mr. Kropatsch. I think the new criteria will likely just 
eliminate further leasing and defer more parcels. The only 
criteria they will really be able to use, the only expertise 
that they would have would be to just lease parcels that are in 
proximity to current oil and gas production, and what that does 
is it discourages exploration.
    And every basin that currently produces oil at one time was 
an exploratory basin, so if we discourage that, we are going to 
essentially eliminate any oil and gas production off of those 
lands.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you. And Mr. Kropatsch, final question. 
The BLM Director, tree spiker Tracy Stone-Manning, said in a 
statement that the proposed rule ``aims to ensure fairness to 
the taxpayer and balanced responsible development as we 
continue to transition to a clean energy economy.'' Do you 
think that the proposed fluid mineral leasing rule will do the 
opposite in many instances, and actually prevent responsible 
domestic energy production?
    Mr. Kropatsch. Yes. I think if we are forcing, and as BLM, 
by their own admission in the rule, that they would force 
production off of Federal lands, it is likely to be forced into 
production somewhere else that doesn't do it as cleanly and as 
efficiently as we do in Wyoming or in the United States.
    Ms. Boebert. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Kropatsch, and 
thank you to the rest of the witnesses here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today, 
and I appreciate you all being here. The members of the 
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the 
witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, 
October 30. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.

    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
           on H.R. 1449, H.R. 2855, H.R. 6009, and H.R. 6011
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the 
Record on the Discussion Draft of H.R. 6009, Restoring American Energy 
Dominance Act, H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, H.R. 6011, Right-of-Way 
Application Transparency and Accountability Act, and H.R. 2855, 
Sinkhole Mapping Act.
H.R. 6009, Restoring American Energy Dominance Act

    This bill would require the Director of the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) to withdraw the BLM's proposed Onshore Oil and Gas 
Leasing Rule. H.R. 6009 would unnecessarily interfere with the 
rulemaking process and would prevent the BLM from responsibly managing 
the Federal oil and gas program on behalf of the American people. The 
Department of the Interior's (Department) strongly opposes this 
proposed legislation.
Background/Proposed Rulemaking

    The BLM's current oil and gas regulations, which were last updated 
in 1988 and contain fiscal terms that were set more than 70 years ago, 
have failed to provide a fair return to the American people. These 
outdated regulations also do not support a balanced management approach 
that addresses the climate challenges facing our public lands today. 
Direction from Congress--through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, 
Public Law 117-169)--required the BLM to take steps to modernize its 
oil and gas program through policy and regulation updates. The BLM also 
notes that prior to the enactment of the IRA, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department's Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) reviewed and audited the BLM's Federal onshore oil and 
gas program, and recommend actions to better ensure that the American 
public receives a fair return from oil and gas activities on public 
lands.
    In response to the enactment of the IRA, the BLM issued updated 
guidance to its field professionals to enable consistent implementation 
of the IRA's changes to the agency's oil and gas programs, and in July 
2023, the BLM published its proposed Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Rule. 
These proposed regulations would modernize the program, provide a 
balanced approach to public lands management, and ensure a fair return 
for American taxpayers. The updates codify the oil and gas management 
provisions in the IRA, and will help implement the reform agenda laid 
out by the Department's Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing 
Program. The proposed rule would be the BLM's first comprehensive 
update to the Federal onshore oil and gas leasing framework since 1988, 
and the first update to minimum bonding amounts since 1960. To date, 
the BLM has hosted four of five planned public meetings, and is 
currently accepting comments on the proposed rule through September 22, 
2023.
Fiscal Reform
    As noted, independent studies have consistently demonstrated that 
the BLM's oil and gas leasing framework fails to provide an adequate 
return to the taxpayer for the use of public lands and resources. The 
proposed rule would update outdated fiscal provisions and align the 
BLM's regulations with the fiscal reforms included in the IRA. 
Additionally, the proposed rule would reduce the nonoperational period 
after which a well is considered idled to 4 years (consistent with the 
definition provided in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, P.L. 117-58); 
require operators of nonoperational wells to help the BLM reduce its 
inventory of idled wells through improved identification, tracking, and 
proactive management; and revise the onshore program's cost recovery 
mechanisms to ensure that the program's application fees reflect actual 
processing costs.
Bonding

    The BLM's current bonding requirements have not been updated since 
the 1950s and 1960s. Current lease bond amounts do not meet the actual 
costs of cleanup in the event an operator goes out of business or 
otherwise fails to complete required plugging and reclamation--costs 
that are then borne by the American taxpayer. The proposed Onshore Oil 
and Gas Rule would increase the minimum lease bond amount from $10,000 
to $150,000; increase the minimum statewide bond amount from $25,000 to 
$500,000; eliminate nationwide and unit operator bonds; and include 
additional protections for surface owners. Phase-in periods would be 
provided for existing operations to come into compliance with new 
bonding requirements.
    The GAO has issued several reports recommending the BLM address 
risks from insufficient bonding, including as recently as September 
2019 (GAO-19-615). The GAO found the bonds held by the BLM were 
insufficient to cover the costs of reclaiming orphaned wells, shifting 
reclamation costs onto taxpayers, and that 84 percent of the bonds it 
reviewed were not sufficient to cover reclamation costs. The GAO also 
determined the bond amounts, which were usually set at the regulatory 
minimum, ``[do] not account for variables such as the number of wells 
[the bonds] cover or other characteristics that affect reclamation 
costs, such as well depth.''
Responsible Leasing & Development

    Further, the proposed rule would focus agency resources on areas 
with the highest potential for development and with the fewest 
multiple-use conflicts, allowing the BLM to better manage public lands 
for multiple uses and sustained yield. The proposed rule will 
incorporate preference criteria into oil and gas regulations to provide 
clarity and consistency in the BLM's decision-making process for 
leasing; direct leasing and development towards areas with higher oil 
and gas potential; and avoid leasing in areas with sensitive cultural, 
wildlife, and recreation resources.
    The proposed rule also would ensure oil and gas lessees are 
financially and technically capable of responsible development, as 
required by the Mineral Leasing Act and expressly stated in the BLM's 
oil and gas lease form. This will be realized through incentivizing 
diligent development by responsible and qualified parties, limiting the 
use of lease suspensions and drilling permit extensions, and 
strengthening oversight over lease transfers.
Current Status

    As we transition to a clean energy economy, it is essential that 
the BLM's oil and gas management promotes the highest safety, 
environmental, and public engagement standards, including those related 
to environmental justice and Tribal engagement, while securing a fair 
return for the American taxpayer. For these reasons, as well as based 
on direction from Congress through the IRA, the BLM has taken steps to 
modernize its oil and gas program through policy and regulation 
updates.
    Through the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule, the BLM 
received over 260,000 comments. The BLM is currently reviewing the 
comments and plans to draft a final rule based upon the significant 
input received from the wide range of stakeholders who submitted 
comments. The BLM is committed to its core mission of multiple use and 
sustained yield, which includes managing the fluid mineral program 
responsibly. The Department strongly opposes this proposed legislation 
which is inconsistent with clear statutory direction provided in the 
IRA.
H.R. 1449 Committing Leases for Energy Access Now (``CLEAN'' Act)

    H.R. 1449 would amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (Steam Act) 
to require the BLM to hold competitive geothermal lease sales each year 
in a State that has nominations pending. Further, if a lease sale is 
canceled or delayed, then the BLM must conduct a replacement sale 
during the same year. The bill also would require the BLM to notify 
applicants, within 30 days of receiving an application for a geothermal 
drilling permit (GDP), whether or not their application is complete. 
Finally, H.R. 1449 would require the BLM to issue a final decision on a 
geothermal drilling permit within 30 days of notifying the applicant 
that their application is complete.
Analysis

    The BLM has the authority for leasing geothermal resources on 245 
million acres of public lands and 700 million acres of subsurface 
mineral estate, which makes up nearly a third of the nation's mineral 
estate. This includes 104 million acres of National Forest System lands 
managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Since the Energy Act of 
2020, the BLM has permitted over 9,400 megawatts of wind, solar, and 
geothermal energy. The BLM has prioritized the processing and 
permitting of 30 proposed renewable energy projects on Federal land by 
FY 2025, with a potential cumulative capacity of nearly 20,000 MW. In 
FY 2023, 13 solar, geothermal, and interconnect generation tie projects 
were authorized, and these projects will support a generation capacity 
of 2,676 MW. In the past three years the BLM held six competitive 
geothermal lease sales in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Oregon, and has 
another planned for Nevada in FY 2024. These significant efforts 
underscore the Administration's commitment to expand and modernize our 
energy infrastructure, decarbonize our energy grid, and transition to a 
clean energy future.
    The BLM supports the goal of promoting geothermal development on 
public lands and under this Administration the BLM has held geothermal 
lease sales every year. Additionally, when a lease sale is postponed, 
the BLM works to reschedule it as soon as practicable, but if a sale is 
scheduled late in the year a replacement may not be possible the same 
calendar year. The BLM also notes it often requires additional time to 
prepare for lease sales when the agency is leasing geothermal resources 
underlying lands managed by other Federal agencies. If the bill moves 
forward, the BLM would like to work with the sponsor on technical 
modifications to account for Federal surface managed by agencies other 
than the BLM, on the timing of sales and replacement sales, as well as 
to updates to some terms.
    The BLM also supports the goal of promoting efficient and timely 
processing of GDPs, including notifying applicants as to the 
completeness of their application in a timely manner. However, the 
bill's proposed 30-day requirement to notify applicants of the 
completeness of their application may not be achievable in the case of 
complex applications or for applications submitted to offices with 
limited geothermal staff or vacant positions. As such, the BLM 
recommends increasing the time allotted to provide notification from 30 
to 90 days. Ninety days would provide additional time for the limited 
situations where staffing, project size, or complexity could prevent an 
office from complying with the notification requirement. In addition, 
the 30-day deadline to issue a decision on complete applications would 
be nearly impossible to achieve as written. Further, issuing a decision 
on the complete application in 30 days does not allow adequate time to 
complete the analysis required by the National Environmental Policy 
Act. Additionally, operators may need permits from other agencies like 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, 
etc. or state and Tribal agencies. Tight deadlines may make 
coordination between the BLM and other agencies more difficult, with an 
unintended consequence of uncoordinated or duplicative efforts, and 
resulting in longer overall permitting timelines rather than the 
expedited permitting intended by this bill. Therefore, the BLM cannot 
support these provisions as currently written.
H.R. 6011, Right-of-Way Application Transparency and Accountability Act

    H.R. 6011 would require the BLM to notify right-of-way (ROW) 
applicants whether their application is complete or deficient within 60 
days of receipt. The bill would pertain to applications for rights-of-
way issued or renewed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and under the Mineral Leasing Act.
Analysis

    A ROW authorizes the use of parcels of public land for a specified 
period that is appropriate for the life of the project. A ROW is 
required whenever a project or activity would involve appreciable 
disturbance, alteration, or damage to public lands, and may be granted 
when doing so is in the public interest. The BLM receives ROW 
applications for a wide range of public uses including roads, 
pipelines, transmission lines, communications facilities, aquifer 
recharge, and solar, wind, and hydropower projects. The BLM manages 
approximately 120,000 existing ROWs and receives nearly 3,500 
applications for new ROWs, renewals, or modifications annually.
    Following receipt of a ROW application, the BLM notifies the 
applicant of the cost recovery category determined for processing the 
action, associated fees, and requests any additional information needed 
to process the application. Currently, there is no time frame within 
which the BLM is required to notify applicants whether their 
application is complete or deficient.
    However, it is the BLM's practice to review the completeness of new 
applications as quickly as possible, relative to other workload and 
priorities.
    The BLM supports the goal of the bill to notify applicants as to 
the completeness of their application in a timely manner. However, the 
bill's proposed 60-day requirement may not be achievable in the case of 
complex applications or for applications submitted to offices with 
limited realty staff or vacant positions. As such, the BLM recommends 
increasing the time allotted to provide notification from 60 to 90 
days. Ninety days would provide additional time for the limited 
situations where staffing, project size, or complexity could prevent an 
office from complying with the notification requirement. Additionally, 
applicants may need permits from other agencies like the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, etc. or state and 
Tribal agencies. Tight deadlines may make coordination between the BLM 
and other agencies more difficult, with an unintended consequence of 
uncoordinated or duplicative efforts, and resulting in longer overall 
processing timelines rather than the expedited decisions intended by 
this bill.
H.R. 2855, Sinkhole Mapping Act of 2023

    H.R. 2855 directs the USGS to study the short- and long-term 
mechanisms of sinkholes and develop maps of sinkhole risk. These maps 
would be published online and updated at least once every five years.
Analysis

    The USGS is undertaking limited research and mapping activities on 
sinkhole processes and hazards, but the requirements of the bill are 
much more expansive. Development of reliable and routinely updated 
sinkhole hazard maps and assessments at the scales required in the 
legislation to inform hazard avoidance and risk reduction would require 
the USGS to undertake a more expanded and sustained effort and would 
need to be achieved using existing resources that are currently 
committed for other purposes.
    The USGS has the expertise required to conduct analyses related to 
sinkhole processes and hazards. For instance, the USGS is establishing 
Integrated Water Availability Assessments in select basins, which could 
contribute to improved understanding of sinkhole formation. However, 
the ability to develop maps, especially on five-year schedules and at 
the scales required to inform hazard avoidance and risk reduction, 
would require a substantially expanded and sustained effort. 
Furthermore, unlike the national-scale karst topography map produced in 
2020, an operational program assessing sinkhole hazards across the 
country would require many local-scale efforts. Sinkholes are highly 
localized geologic processes, meaning that while they can happen in 
many places, the triggers and dynamics in a particular area depend very 
much on aspects of the local geology. State geologists provide this 
local expertise. Some of this local-scale work is already undertaken by 
state geologists, but the maps contemplated by H.R. 2855 would require 
substantial additional work.
    The USGS appreciates the intent of the bill and recognizes the need 
to address sinkhole hazards. The program as envisioned in H.R. 2855 
would, however, impact other priorities, including those authorized by 
the Energy of Act of 2020 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act of 2021.
    The USGS would like to work with the bill's sponsors to address 
sinkhole issues without impacting other critical USGS work.
Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a statement for the 
record on these bills.

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

                        Statement for the Record
                         Nick Powell, Chairman
                   National Stripper Well Association
                              on H.R. 6009

    Good afternoon, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and 
members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
    On behalf of the National Stripper Well Association (NSWA), thank 
you for the opportunity to testify in support of the discussion draft 
bill that would require the BLM director to withdraw the proposed Fluid 
Mineral Leasing and Leasing Process Rule which would adversely impact 
small oil and gas operators who do business on BLM land.
    In a nutshell, the rule reflects the clearest and most direct 
effort by the Biden Administration to discourage--indeed, eliminate if 
they can--energy development on federal lands. The proposed rule, if 
finalized, will very likely have the practical effect of, over time, 
forcing oil and gas production off federal land.
    We are most grateful for the Subcommittee's leadership in 
highlighting the rule's role in undermining sound domestic energy 
production in the US.
Who is NSWA and Our Positive Impact

    Founded in 1934, the NSWA is the only national association 
responsible for representing the interests of the nation's smallest, 
and yet most efficient and effective, oil and natural gas wells before 
Congress and the federal agencies.
    Our mission is to ensure the critical needs and concerns of 
producers, owners, and operators of marginally-producing oil and gas 
wells are addressed regarding federal legislation and regulation.
    With members in 30 states, NSWA is a viable and powerful voice for 
the American stripper well producer. This proposed rule has the 
potential for devastating impacts on small producers in areas with BLM 
leases, particularly in the areas of Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
    Our members are the small independent business men and women who 
own stripper wells producing 15 barrels of oil (equal to 90 Mcf of 
natural gas) or less per day. No large integrated oil and gas company 
is a member of NSWA.
    We are the ``family farmers'' of the U.S. energy sector--with an 
average of 11 employees--who recognize the importance of regulations on 
small businesses, often in rural areas of the country.
    Of the roughly one million active oil and natural gas wells in the 
United States, about 750,000 are low production wells.
    Every day, our members--as others across the industry--demonstrate 
our commitment to successfully running small businesses and creating 
jobs to supporting a robust national economy. Our members and their 
families live in the communities in which they work, and we recognize 
the need for continued vigilance, responsibility, and accountability in 
our production activities.
    Indeed, the nation has seen considerable progress over the past two 
decades due to the widespread adoption of safe, reliable, and 
environmentally conscious exploration and production practices which 
has resulted in a significant boost in U.S. production. This all while 
also reducing America's dependency on foreign sources of energy, and 
displaced higher emission fuel sources, in America's electrical and 
industrial sectors.
    The benefits to society are clear. Not just the fuels that heat and 
cool our homes and workplaces and power our vehicles (electric and 
otherwise), but also products and materials we take for granted: truck 
tires and parts that allow vital products--such as fruits and 
vegetables, vaccines and building materials--to travel to market as 
well as critical electric vehicle parts and materials; umbrellas and 
raincoats that keep us dry; carpet that covers our offices and homes; 
packaging that ensures foodstuffs arrive at grocery stores unspoiled 
and safe to eat; and lifesaving medical equipment, including MRIs and 
pacemakers.
    The list goes on. By at least one credible estimate, as many as 
6,000 everyday items contain a key element of petroleum.
GENERAL COMMENTS

    In furthering support for the legislation that is the subject of 
today's hearing, below we first outline general concerns--followed by 
specific ones--regarding the inappropriate authorities that the 
proposed rule would provide to BLM and other federal agencies regarding 
the curtailing or eliminating energy production on public lands. Our 
major general concerns include but are not limited to:

     We do not believe the existing regulations fail to promote 
            leasing practices that are consistent with appropriate 
            development requirements and multiple-use and sustained-
            yield principles. It's clear that regional planning, 
            National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') reviews, and 
            other processes already conduct the requisite balancing in 
            identifying suitable areas for leasing.

     BLM cannot adopt new leasing procedures that sidestep or 
            dilute its statutory obligation to conduct quarterly lease 
            sales in each state.

     BLM cannot adopt regulatory changes that unduly constrain 
            opportunities for development and operations on already-
            issued leases or that breach or otherwise unduly impair 
            rights conferred under those leases.

     BLM cannot confer undue authority on other Department of 
            the Interior (``DOI'') bureaus, and other surface managing 
            agencies, to constrain leasing and development of oil and 
            natural gas leases on federally managed lands.

     BLM should not impose undue additional bonding and other 
            financial burdens on the oil and natural gas industry 
            beyond new statutory requirements under the IRA.

     BLM should not ``streamline'' disqualification of entities 
            from existing or new leases, akin to suspension and 
            debarment but without corresponding due process.

    The cumulative likely impacts of the proposed rule will exacerbate 
challenges created by other anti-oil and gas proposals and efforts by 
BLM and other federal agencies, thereby decreasing domestic energy 
supplies and energy security.
    In addition, while claiming to principally implement statutory 
changes enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act, the proposed rule 
represents BLM's and the administration's latest attempt to 
dramatically and inappropriately curtail oil and natural gas leasing 
and corresponding production.
    Several proposed provisions in the rule introduce new uncertainty 
into BLM's leasing process. In doing so, contrary to its preamble's 
assertions, this contradicts directives to BLM for ``improvements in 
the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce 
uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome 
tools for achieving regulatory ends.'' 88 Fed. Reg. at 47,608 (citing 
Executive Order 13563).
    Perhaps of greatest concern is the proposed rule's creation and 
implementation of new ``preference criteria'' that are opaque and 
subjective. Emblematic of the Proposed Rule's flawed approach is its 
assertion that ``this approach would provide stakeholders with greater 
certainty, as it would be understood at the outset of the leasing 
process that the preference criteria would guide the BLM's decision-
making'' Id. at 47,566-67. But the only such added certainty appears to 
be substantially less oil and natural gas leasing, as BLM's non-
``preference'' of certain areas would likely amount to their indefinite 
exclusion from leasing.
    That is, the proposed rule would repeatedly defer the leasing of 
promising oil and natural gas prospects, instead ``directing leasing 
toward areas that do not have'' what BLM perceives to be ``any 
sensitive cultural, wildlife.'' It is disconcerting that BLM would 
attempt to shift toward subjective judgments rather than rely on 
already-existing intensive planning efforts, NEPA reviews, and other 
environmental safeguards--making such onshore areas suitable for oil 
and natural gas leasing.

    If implemented as written, the proposed rule could essentially 
eliminate the opportunity for exploration or the expansion of newly 
discovered producing areas, constrain future natural oil and gas 
development to areas where it already exists, and shrink such areas 
even further, thereby discouraging further innovation, new discoveries, 
and ultimately domestic production.

    Even after accepting nominations and holding lease sales, BLM would 
reserve the ability to impose new conditions and ultimately deny 
leases. Additionally, despite not truly offering acreage for leasing or 
itself nominating tracts in which industry clearly has no interest, BLM 
could unduly count such acreage against its IRA minimums for onshore 
oil and natural gas leasing to enable onshore wind leasing.
Areas of Specific Concern
Bonding Levels

    First, the option for nationwide and unit operator bonds needs to 
be maintained. BLM explains in the preamble of the rule that nationwide 
bonds are ``administratively inefficient'' because they call upon BLM 
to manage risks nationwide. It further states that the proposed 
increases in the minimum lease and statewide bond ``would allow the 
agency to ensure improved bonding.'' These vague justifications that 
BLM proffers do not outweigh producers' need for a continued nationwide 
bond to achieve efficiencies and continue providing affordable energy 
to the U.S. public.
    That said, we recognize that bonding minimums need to be increased. 
However, the proposed rule increases the minimum so aggressively (15x 
and 20x) that it would impose considerable new financial burdens on 
smaller operators--especially those with operations across multiple 
states, leaving many leases and wells unmarketable and uneconomic to 
new and current operators. This will only increase the number of idle 
and eventual orphan wells to the burden of the taxpayers. This rule 
alone will make nearly all (100%) Federal leases with stripper wells 
uneconomic. This will lead to bankruptcies, job losses, and potential 
environmental hazards and loss of royalty to the Federal Government and 
other Owners.
    Leases in current, good standing should be grandfathered and not 
have their bonds increased. If the operator has shown they are capable 
of taking care of the assets and leases, they should not see a bond 
increase. It is easier for Companies with a new lease to build these 
new costs into their budget and move forward with their project. It is 
a completely different and unlikely scenario for an established 
Operator that owns producing leases to be able to produce funds to 
cover this extra bonding increase. In many cases the increased bonding 
is more than the value of the stripper well itself. This will lead to 
the same results already mentioned.
    To the extent bond levels need to be altered, rather than 
increasing the minimum lease bond amount from $10,000 to $150,000, we 
would suggest a minimum amount of $25,000 for new bonds. We would 
further suggest an increase in the statewide bond from $25,000 to 
$100,000 rather than the proposed amount of $500,000 for new statewide 
bonds.
Bond Obligations

    BLM is proposing to remove certificates of deposit (CDs) and 
letters of credit (LOCs) as forms of security for personal bonds. We 
oppose this action. The proposed rule's stated rationale for removing 
these options is that CDs are difficult to manage, and it is difficult 
for banks to include BLM's requirements in a LOC. However, BLM provides 
no information on how often this occurs, what type of operators (small 
or large) use CDs and LOC, and other similar details on the issue. At a 
minimum, BLM should provide an analysis of this issue for review and 
comment before removing such options.
    As a general matter, BLM should afford greater--rather than less--
flexibility to operators regarding forms of security, particularly 
given the proposed rule's drastically higher minimum and additional 
bond amounts.
New Terms For Well Abandonment

    NSWA strongly opposes the proposed rule's imposition of a maximum 
four-year period ``except in extraordinary circumstances'' to 
permanently abandon wells. Circumstances the proposed rule defines as 
temporarily abandoned.
    In some fields, an operator may not know within four years whether 
it will need that well, including for secondary recovery operations, 
water injections, or other purposes. NSWA is concerned that BLM may not 
consider such circumstances as ``extraordinary'' to extend the proposed 
four-year maximum period. It would be wasteful and more environmentally 
impactful to inflexibly require an operator to permanently abandon a 
well and then later have to drill a replacement well. Rather, the 
maximum period to permanently abandon temporarily abandoned wells 
should be the same as for shut-in wells in subsection (d), allowing for 
additional one-year delays where warranted.
    BLM also should delete proposed language regarding shut-in wells 
that require separate notices to the BLM within 90 days of shutting in 
a well.
    Wells are required to be reported to BLM beginning with the last 
month of drilling and continuing until the well is abandoned. Thus, 
shut-in wells already are reported. This reporting requirement should 
suffice, and BLM can track these wells through monthly reports. If it 
is BLM's intention to track wells that are shut in for extended 
periods, i.e., up to the 3 years noted in the rule, then the rule 
should make it clear that it does not apply to wells that are shut in 
only for short periods of time. In particular, this would include wells 
that are shut in periodically but have actual production each month.
Insufficient Time To Comment

    A major concern is the brief period allowed for comments on the 
proposed rule. The deadline did not give enough time for all owners to 
be informed of the proposed rule change and to fully understand the 
effect it could have on their interest.
    One example: a major operator member of NSWA reports that requests 
made to the BLM for updated lease files and lease ownership data for 
Federal Leases necessary to respond to the changes proposed by the rule 
have not been answered. Therefore, this and other similar operators are 
unable to inform any new working interest owners and royalty owners so 
they can submit comments regarding these proposed rules.
    It is important that all types of stripper well owners have an 
opportunity to provide feedback to the BLM in this matter. Anything 
short of this is denying these owners of their right to have a voice. 
If these proposed rules are adopted and the wells are plugged and 
abandoned, the federal government is effectively revoking the ownership 
right to the livelihood from these wells.
    The result: many wells will be plugged and abandoned due to the 
proposed bond amount increases and these wells and leases will be lost 
for the operator, working interest and royalty owners.
    This will have an extremely detrimental effect on rural areas and 
beyond across the U.S. and, given the current fragile state of the 
economy, additional economic pressure and hardship would be deeply 
felt. Especially given that the operators of federal wells provide good 
paying jobs, which return tax dollars and economic activity to many of 
those communities.
    Mr. Chairman, our members believe strongly in a commitment to clean 
air and clean water by reducing emissions here and abroad. However, 
NSWA believes the implementation of this rule, as proposed, will result 
in significant adverse impacts, and reductions in domestic energy 
production on public lands--a statutory mission of BLM--and elsewhere, 
thus increasing foreign dependence on energy at a time of worldwide 
uncertainty, as well as substantial economic hardships on small and 
rural communities--the lifeblood of this country.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

                                 ______
                                 
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez
                        Statement for the Record
                   Natasha Leger, Executive Director
                    Citizens for a Healthy Community
               on local warming and local climate impacts

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide this written testimony.

    My name is Natasha Leger. I am the Executive Director of Citizens 
for a Healthy Community (CHC). CHC is a grassroots nonprofit 
organization based in Paonia, Colorado, with more than 500 members 
formed in 2010, that is dedicated to protecting the air, water, and 
foodsheds of the North Fork Valley region from the impacts of oil and 
gas development. CHC's members and supporters include organic farmers, 
ranchers, vineyard and winery owners, sportsmen, realtors, and other 
concerned citizens impacted by oil and gas development. We are a 
frontline community. We are on the frontlines of climate change, having 
warmed disproportionately compared to the state, the nation, and the 
world. We are also on the frontlines of current and proposed oil and 
gas development in our watershed, on public lands. CHC members have 
been actively involved in commenting on oil and gas activities on 
public lands for over a decade.

    The bill you are considering, H.R. 6009 the ``Restoring American 
Energy Dominance Act'', should be considered within the context of 
administrative and legislative action necessary to arrest the local 
impacts of climate change and community impacts from oil and gas 
development.

    The purpose of this testimony is to provide the committee with 
information that is often overlooked or ignored on local warming and 
local climate impacts.

    The ecological, economic, and public health impacts of climate are 
already being felt in Colorado, often to a disproportionate degree. 
Western Colorado has been disproportionately impacted by climate change 
and is the nation's climate hotspot, having warmed more than 2 degrees 
Celsius (nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit), double the global average. See 
Map 1 below. Rio Blanco County has warmed the most at 2.4+C, along with 
Montrose County.\1\ The Western Slope has seen some of the most extreme 
warming in State and the country, and is the source of the majority of 
the State's water, with 60% of the Front Range's water coming from 
headwaters located on the Western Slope.

    \1\ Eilperin, Juliet, ``2+C Beyond the Limit: This giant climate 
hot spot is robbing the West of its water,'' The Washington Post, 
August 7, 2020 available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/
2020/national/climate-environment/climate-change-colorado-utah-hot-
spot/

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The North Fork Valley in western Colorado, which is surrounded 
by National Forest and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, is home 
to the largest concentration of organic farms in the State, prime 
recreational landscapes offering unparalleled hunting, camping, 
fishing, hiking, and Nordic skiing, and are the headwaters to the 
Gunnison River and Colorado River Basin. Our economy--in particular, 
agriculture, recreation, tourism, and health and wellness--
unequivocally depends on water and a thriving and resilient ecological 
ecosystem. All of which are at risk due to disproportionate warming 
caused by climate change and fossil fuel emissions.
    We are ground zero for climate change impacts on the Western Slope. 
The Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, and the BLM 
Uncompahgre Field Office are experiencing disproportionate warming, 
having already warmed 1.9 degrees Celsius, nearly double the national 
and global average as can be seen in the map 2 below.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    In February 2023, the Colorado Farm and Food Alliance published 
Gunnison River Basin: Ground Zero In The Climate Emergency.\2\ The 
report describes the signs of climate change in the Gunnison River 
Basin, including temperature changes and rising atmospheric carbon 
dioxide. It also highlights the impacts on the region of climate change 
including, loss in water quantity and quality, extreme weather, 
wildfire, flooding, human health and impacts to plant, animal and land 
health. The report finds that the indicators for the Gunnison River 
Basin are all flashing red, and are ground-zero for climate change 
impacts on the Western Slope of Colorado.

    \2\ The Gunnison River Basin: Ground-Zero In The Climate Emergency, 
Lauren Traylor and Pete Kolbenschlag, The Colorado Farm and Food 
Alliance, (February 2023), available at: https://www.colofarmfood.org/
groundzero

    Greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to Colorado's 
increasing temperatures.\3\ Seventy-six percent of oil and gas 
producing counties in Colorado (19 of 24 counties) have warmed 1.5+C or 
more. See Table 1 below. Half of the oil and gas producing counties in 
western Colorado have warmed more than 2+C, and the remaining half has 
already warmed more than 1.5+C.\4\ Four of the eight counties that make 
up the Colorado River Basin have warmed more than 1.5+C. The Colorado 
River Basin is a climate hotspot in the Western United States, having 
warmed an average of 2.1 degrees Celsius, faster than the global 
average, resulting in extreme drought, threatening water supplies for 
seven states. The viability of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, which provide 
the water necessary to power the Glen Canyon and Hoover hydroelectric 
dams all depend on the Colorado River. For every degree of Celsius 
warming, the Colorado River declines nearly 10%.\5\ The Colorado River 
has lost 32 million acre-feet--a 19 percent decline--in the last 22 
years, as a result of climate change.\6\ Globally, warming greater than 
1.5+C will result in irreparable harm to ecosystems around the 
world.\7\ Warming of 2+C or more is considered a point of no return. 
From a micro-climate perspective, the North Fork Valley and Western 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope already exceed these thresholds.

    \3\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information/State 
Climate Summaries 2022, available at: HTTPS://STATESUMMARIES.NCICS.ORG/
CHAPTER/CO/

    \4\ Colorado Warming and Gas Production Map available at: 
tinyurl.com/COWarming

    \5\ Udall, B. and J. Overpeck. The twenty-first century Colorado 
River hot drought and implications for the future, Water Resour. Res., 
53, 2404-2418, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019638

    \6\ Brad Udall presentation, October 1, 2021 at the Colorado River 
District 2021 Annual Seminar. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=JAqFegDhXs4&t=2899s/

    \7\ IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: 
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, et al. (eds.)]. 
Cambridge University Press. In Press.

    The Gunnison River Basin, which is the largest tributary to the 
Colorado River has warmed an average of 2.1+C. Six of the seven 
counties that make up the Gunnison River Basin have warmed over 1.6+C. 
With the region's snowpack shrinking and melting earlier, the ground 
absorbs more heat. In addition, early snowmelt results in more water 
evaporation and less water availability for agriculture and wildlife 
later in the season. The impacts of these changes are widespread across 
forests, wildlife, and human communities, threatening the area's 
resilience in the face of continued warming. These impacts also have 
significant impact to local economies that are reliant on consistent 
snowfall, not only for recreational pursuits, but also for agricultural 
and residential water supplies. Forty million people downstream of the 
Colorado River's headwaters rely on the River's water. The Draft 2023 
Colorado Water Plan clearly and unequivocally states Colorado's dire 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
water situation due to climate change.\8\

    \8\ 2023 Draft Colorado Water Plan, available at: https://
engagecwcb.org/colorado-water-plan

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    A recent peer-reviewed study in the journal Nature Climate 
Change found that 42% of the 22-year megadrought we are experiencing in 
the West is attributed to human-caused climate change.\9\ Without 
human-caused climate change, the megadrought would have ended early on 
because 2005 and 2006 would have been wet enough to break it, according 
to the study's authors.\10\ Human-caused climate change is changing the 
baseline conditions. The current drought is the worst in 1200 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Williams, A.P., Cook, B.I. & Smerdon, J.E. Rapid 
intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought 
in 2020-2021. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-
022-01290-z
    \10\ Borenstein, Seth, ``West megadrought worsens to driest in at 
least 1,200 years'', AP News, February 14, 2022, available at: https://
apnews.com/article/climate-science-west-megadrought-
f02449c2db4f0ebeb1557bb39504c62d
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only are baseline conditions changing, but Western Colorado is 
warming faster than Colorado's hazard mitigation modeling assumptions. 
Colorado's Hazard Mitigation Plan modeled the impact of climate change 
on key hazards including flood, wildfire, drought, heat exhaustion. 
Climate change impacts were modelled by location, extent/intensity, 
frequency, and duration.\11\ Colorado's model is based on 30-year 
warming of 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius), and 50-year 
warming of 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4+ Celsius).\12\ While, on average 
the State has warmed 1.4+C over a 125-year period, the Western Slope 
has warmed disproportionately, as mentioned above.\13\ Colorado has 
developed the Future Avoided Cost Explorer: Colorado Hazards, which is 
an interactive model of projected economic damage by sector due to 
climate change. The climate scenarios, are current (1.4+C), average 
state warming of 2.1+C (Moderate) and 2.3+C (More Severe). Hazards 
modeled are drought, wildfire and flood, and sectors include 
agriculture, infrastructure, recreation. The model time period is 2050, 
and estimated annual damage costs for counties that have warmed 1.4+C 
or more are between $228.6 million and $555.1 million. See Table 2 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 2018-2023 Colorado Hazard Mitigation Plan, at 160.
    \12\ Id. at 48
    \13\ 2+C: Beyond the Limit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recent example of infrastructure vulnerability is two road 
collapses in the Spring of 2023 in the North Fork Valley. A 10-foot-
wide section of Highway 133 collapsed at Bear Creek Road, between 
Paonia and Somerset, on May 3, 2023 when high water pushed a failed 
culvert down the hillside.\14\ While the rusty culvert was identified 
as needing repair in 2020, it was the rapid runoff resulting from 
climate change, including abnormally high snowfall and rapid melt from 
early high temperatures that forced rushing water to destroy the 
roadway. The main access road into the North Fork Valley was closed for 
6 weeks, devastating local businesses at the beginning of the tourist 
season. Sometime in the spring an oil and gas access road collapsed on 
US Forest land preventing access to remote wellpads for inspection and 
maintenance.\15\ Neither federal land management agency, state 
regulatory agency for oil and gas, nor the operator were aware of the 
road collapse until CHC notified them after conducting field work in 
the area. In addition, according to a Delta County official, a 
landslide occurred in late April on Hubbard Creek Road, covering the 
road and closing it indefinitely. According to the US Geological 
Survey, with climate change and speed of the spring runoff, like we 
just experienced in 2023, landslide activity will increase.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Dave Marston, Rushing water closes a highway in Western 
Colorado, Writers on the Range, (June 5, 2023), available at: https://
writersontherange.org/rushing-water-closes-a-highway-in-western-
colorado/; Exhibit 1: photos of Highway 133 collapse.
    \15\ Exhibit 2: photos of oil and gas access road collapse
    \16\ Dennis Webb, ``Speed of spring runoff can affect risk of 
seasonal landslides,'' Grand Junction Sentinel, June 1, 2023, available 
at: https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/speed-of-spring-runoff-can-affect-
risk-of-seasonal-landslides/article_7c42e7f4-ff2a-11ed-a662-
b3ea2ab9db78.html

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The highway closure resulted in a significant drop in patronage 
of local, small businesses in the North Fork Valley at a critical time 
for tourism to stimulate the local economy. The road closure had a 
devastating effect on small, family-owned businesses including 
ranchers, agricultural and retail businesses at the start of the 
tourism and agricultural season.\17\ For example, the trip between 
Paonia and Somerset and points between went from a 10-mile drive to a 
nearly 200-mile drive--detour through Grand Junction.\18\ Estimated 
travel time for the detour through Grand Junction was approximately 
three hours, more than double the distance of a normal passage along 
Highway 133. Retailers saw business from tourism drop 50%. Cattle 
ranchers were forced to choose between moving cow-calf operations on 
foot, which takes days, and impact the weight of the cattle, or incur 
the significant cost of hauling them by truck via a 200-mile 
detour.\19\ Normally, the trip costs $350 to $450 per load, but if the 
haulers have to drive to Grand Junction, Carbondale, over the pass and 
down to ranches, it could cost $1,500. In addition to the economic 
impacts, added emissions impacts result from these types of climate 
change-induced road closures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ North Fork Valley Creative Coalition, Action Alert, May 26, 
2023.
    \18\ Katharhynn Heidelberg, Temp fix slated for sinkhole on CO133 
as North Fork ag, business worry, (May 5, 2023), available at: https://
www.montrosepress.com/news/temp-fix-slated-for-sinkhole-on-co133-as-
north-fork-ag-business-worry/article_347af7c2-eb93-11ed-aa89-4b706880 
e794.html
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, in 2022, Western Slope warming has dangerously exceeded the 
State's moderate, and more severe climate models, to the point that the 
cost estimates, let alone the human toll, are now likely severely 
under-estimated. Eleven of the top 20 largest wildfires in Colorado 
have occurred in the last 7 years (since 2016).\20\ Over the last 
decade, Colorado has experienced billions of dollars in damages due to 
wildfire, flood and drought.\21\ Between 2012 and 2022, Colorado was 
affected by a number of billion-dollar disaster events totaling $18.6 
billion.\22\ See Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ https://dfpc.colorado.gov/wildfire-information-center/
historical-wildfire-information
    \21\ Hazards, Colorado Water Conservation Board, available at: 
https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/hazards accessed July 22, 2022. 
Roberts, Michael, Marshall Fire Update by the Awful Numbers, Westword, 
January 7, 2022, https://www.westword.com/news/marshall-fire-damage-
and-cost-boulder-update-13177208
    \22\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) 
U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2022). https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/, DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Local warming has already surpassed the modeling assumptions 
behind the mitigation plans, and the mitigation plans do not include 
climate change prevention. Cumulative emissions from oil and gas 
operations, especially in areas that have already exceeded warming 
thresholds would further stress Colorado's resources and ability to 
respond to climate change impacts.
    Based on the Delta County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for 
the baseline year 2019,\23\ the total social cost of greenhouse gases 
is $436,298,617. The social cost of GHG emissions for natural gas 
production is $42,486,716, or 10% of the total social cost of GHG 
emissions for the county. The social cost was calculated based on 
Colorado's social cost of carbon dioxide and methane at $68 and $1756, 
respectively, and the federal cost of nitrous oxide at $27,000, and on 
Colorado's discount rate of 2.5%.\24\ Importantly, these social costs 
are not outweighed by oil and gas revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for Delta County, Colorado 
2019, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Jill Hepp, September 2021-
Revised, available at: https://www.chc4you.org/delta-ghg-inventory
    \24\ Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide is $68 per short ton as stated 
in C.R.S. 10-3.2-106(4). 1 metric ton = 1.10231131 short tons. The 
metric tons for CO2 and CH4 are adjusted to short tons in the social 
cost calculations. Social Cost of Methane is $1756 per short ton as 
stated in C.R.S. 40-3.2-107(2)(a). 1 metric ton = 1.10231131 short 
tons. The metric tons for CO2 and CH4 are adjusted to short tons in the 
social cost calculations. Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide is $27,000 per 
metric ton based on the Interagency Working Group On Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990. 
Colorado has not established a social cost of nitrous oxide. Available 
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/
TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A new report by the Colorado Fiscal Institute challenges the long-
standing industry and policy narrative that the oil and gas sector has 
a significant impact on the Colorado economy.\25\ The report finds that 
the oil and gas extraction industry, along with the pipeline 
construction and transportation industries and support industries for 
oil and gas make up less than 1% of total State employment, 3.3% of 
State GDP, 1.7% of Colorado State Revenue (from severance tax) and 5.2% 
of overall property taxes from property taxes on oil and gas property. 
Specifically, county property tax revenue in 2021 for Delta and 
Gunnison County in the North Fork Valley from oil and gas were $91,768 
and $617,696, respectively.\26\ That's less than 1% of Delta County 
property tax revenue, more specifically, .4%, and 1.2% of Gunnison 
County property tax revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Clearing the Air: The Real Costs and Benefits of Oil and Gas 
for Colorado, Colorado Fiscal Institute, Chris Stiffler and Pegah 
Jalali, (January 2023), available at: https://www.coloradofiscal.org/
costs-benefits-oil-and-gas-colorado/library/reports/
    \26\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    Frontline communities like ours are suffering from the impacts of 
local warming. The science is clear that climate change is a cumulative 
problem resulting from fossil fuel emissions. One quarter of US 
emissions comes from oil and gas development on public lands and the 
economic benefits do not outweigh the climate and community impacts. We 
urge this committee to seriously consider local warming and local 
community impacts in considering this bill that would strip the Bureau 
of Land Management of its rulemaking authority that can be used to 
respond to local community impacts and prevent the permanent 
impairment, and undue and unnecessary degradation of lands from oil and 
gas leasing and development.

                                 ______
                                 
                           Elisabeth Winslow
                     CO-03 Grand Valley Constituent

    I write to you as a concerned constituent from Colorado's Third 
Congressional District, specifically the Grand Valley region, to 
express my profound opposition to Representative Lauren Boebert's draft 
bill and any potential appropriations riders aimed at repealing the 
essential leasing and bonding reforms initiated by the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM).
    The proposed BLM Onshore Oil & Gas Leasing Rule, released in July, 
addresses long-standing issues within our region. It establishes higher 
minimum bond amounts for operators, a critical step forward given the 
woefully inadequate bond amounts of the current rules. Under the 
existing regulations, reclamation bonds can be as low as $10,000 for 
all wells on a single lease and a mere $150,000 to cover all wells 
nationwide. Such outdated amounts fail to ensure that the costs of 
cleanup are adequately met when operators cease operations.
    BLM's proposed rule increases the minimum lease bond amount to 
$150,000, aligning with modern environmental responsibility and 
fairness to taxpayers. It rightly acknowledges that the costs of 
reclamation should be an integral part of doing business for oil and 
gas companies profiting from our public resources. Additionally, BLM's 
draft rule includes Surface Owner Protection Bonds, which address the 
concerns of landowners above federal minerals. Nevertheless, raising 
the minimum bond amount to $10,000 would provide even better protection 
for these private lands against potential damages resulting from oil 
and gas development.
    This reform not only sets a vital precedent but also mitigates 
future liabilities for taxpayers as we transition to renewable energy 
sources. The International Energy Agency's prediction of peak fossil 
fuel production by 2030 underscores the urgency of addressing financial 
assurance for reclamation. Without adequate bonds in place, taxpayers 
may bear the full brunt of cleanup costs when companies abandon wells 
as demand diminishes.
    Dr. Barbara Vasquez testified in front of you all less than two 
months ago with the following, accurate, illustration: Would a landlord 
rent a house without a cleaning and damage deposit? Would that deposit 
remain the same as it was in 1960? Certainly not. Similarly, bonding 
levels must evolve with the times to ensure that taxpayers are not left 
shouldering the financial burden of reclamation.
    Representative Boebert's draft bill and potential appropriations 
riders, aimed at repealing these essential leasing and bonding reforms, 
present a misguided path for Colorado and our nation. While the promise 
of slightly lower energy prices may seem appealing, the hidden costs of 
these measures far outweigh any marginal savings. They risk shifting 
the financial burden of environmental damage from the oil and gas 
industry to taxpayers. In a time when addressing climate change is 
indisputably urgent, we cannot afford to take steps backward. We must 
prioritize responsible reforms and safeguard our environment and the 
well-being of our communities for generations to come.
    In Western Colorado, encompassed by Representative Boebert's 
district, we pride ourselves on some of the best oil and gas practices 
in the nation. However, there is still a buildup of orphaned and 
abandoned wells spewing toxic chemicals into the air. These issues are 
addressed with operator cleanup or taxpayer funding, which places a 
massive strain on our financial resources.
    It is disheartening to witness Representative Boebert prioritize 
special interest groups' influence, particularly the Western Slope, 
Colorado Oil and Gas Association (WSCOGA), and others who hold their 
cultural identity and personal values as oilfield workers above the 
interests of our broader community. As someone whose family has relied 
on the energy industry to make ends meet and provide for others, I 
deeply resent her lack of foresight.
    The paycheck gains are unlikely to outweigh the burdens of marginal 
energy savings on our monthly bills, not to mention the burden of 
medical expenses when air pollution contributes to declining lung 
health and places a perpetual taxpayer burden on cleaning up after oil 
and gas operators.
    If Representative Boebert believes that this commonsense reform 
will disproportionately affect job opportunities in her district, she 
should seek alternative solutions that genuinely make a meaningful and 
lasting difference. Our community, our nation, deserves thoughtful 
leadership that prioritizes the health, well-being, and economic 
stability of its constituents over narrow interests.
    Thank you for considering my perspective and for your commitment to 
responsible governance.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Laura Bloom Neilsen
                     CO-03 Grand Valley Constituent

    I write you today as a concerned constituent from Colorado's Third 
Congressional District, the Grand Valley region, represented by 
Representative Lauren Boebert. I feel compelled to express my deep 
reservations about the proposed legislation that seeks to repeal vital 
bonding reform within our nation's oil and gas industry.
    While the motivations behind this bill may be shrouded in 
uncertainty as I write this, it is imperative that we examine its 
potential consequences for the people of Western Colorado and the 
broader United States. As citizens and residents, we must ponder the 
heavy costs and ramifications of wiping out essential bonding reform, 
which has long been a safeguard for our environment, public health, and 
the financial well-being of our communities.
    It is crucial to question the true motives behind this repeal 
effort. Is it truly in the best interests of the constituents in 
Western Colorado? (Public comments would suggest otherwise.\1\) Or does 
it serve the interests of special funders whose priorities may not 
align with the well-being of our region? The proposed legislation 
leaves us with many unanswered questions and concerns about the 
potential consequences of dismantling an essential safeguard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://westernpriorities.org/2023/09/analysis-public-comments-
overwhelmingly-support-blm-oil-and-gas-rule/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill's implications extend beyond our local communities; they 
reach the very core of our national interests. The notion of blocking 
all future efforts at reform raises significant alarms. By repealing 
bonding reform, are we essentially resigning ourselves to a future 
where the financial hemorrhaging to cover bonding and cleanup costs 
continues unabated, while the resources we so desperately need for more 
pressing projects are diverted away? We must think about the long-term 
consequences of such a decision, not just for the people of Western 
Colorado but for the entire nation.
    The argument in favor of maintaining lower oil and gas prices is 
certainly enticing. However, we must weigh the allure of lower prices 
against the cumulative impacts and the ever-mounting burden of 
abandoned well cleanup. Are we willing to sacrifice the health and 
safety of our communities and the financial stability of our nation for 
the promise of slightly cheaper energy? This is a question that should 
give us all pause.
    Moreover, it is disheartening to witness the potential exploitation 
of international conflicts, such as the recent tragic events in Gaza, 
to advance the agenda of ``energy security.'' Playing on the suffering 
of children and families to further a policy that may not even truly 
serve our nation's best interests is deeply troubling. We must remain 
vigilant against any attempts to manipulate the narrative for political 
gain.
    Importantly, it is crucial to clarify that embracing bonding reform 
does not equate to losing the opportunity to develop our oil and gas 
resources. Rather, it signifies a move toward ensuring that the 
companies profiting from our public resources pay market rates for the 
bonds they hold. The savings realized through bonding reform can far 
outweigh any nominal cost increase on oil and gas products.
    It is essential to scrutinize the financial incentives that 
underlie the legislation in question and potential future appropriation 
riders proposed by Representative Boebert. While these proposals may be 
presented as measures to bolster the economic well-being of regions 
deeply entrenched in the oil and gas industry, we must delve deeper to 
understand their true implications.
    In areas where approximately 25% of the GDP is closely tied to oil 
and gas, it is undeniable that the industry plays a substantial role in 
local economies. However, it is crucial to distinguish between the 
interests of oil and gas companies and the interests of the communities 
they operate within. While the industry may wield significant influence 
and tout the benefits of deregulation, we must question whether these 
supposed gains truly translate to the betterment of our communities.
    Economic analyses conducted by local experts and the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) provide valuable insights.\2\,\3\ These 
analyses suggest that the rule currently under attack, the rule aimed 
at ensuring responsible land and resource management, would have a 
relatively small impact on these industry-dependent areas. Moreover, 
the potential impacts could be effectively mitigated through prudent 
planning and a thoughtful transition strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.coloradomesa.edu/business/economic-
newsletter.html?utm_source=newsletter 
&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Mesa2018Q4&utm_campaign=EconomicNewsletter

    \3\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2023-0005-0002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is worth noting that responsible reform and forward-thinking 
policies have the potential to create new economic opportunities and 
diversify our local economies. However, we must ask why Representative 
Boebert has not championed such efforts or put forth legislation that 
supports a smooth transition.
    We, the residents of Western Colorado and the nation at large, 
deserve policies that prioritize our long-term well-being over short-
term financial gains for a select few. While economic incentives are 
undoubtedly important, they must not come at the expense of our 
environment, public health, and the stability of our communities.
    In conclusion, I implore the members of this committee to consider 
the true cost of repealing bonding reform. Let us reflect on the 
consequences for the people of Western Colorado, our environment, and 
our nation as a whole. Let us scrutinize the motivations behind this 
repeal effort and question whether it genuinely serves our 
constituents' best interests.
    I urge you to prioritize responsible policy-making that safeguards 
our environment, protects public health, and ensures the financial 
stability of our communities. It is our collective responsibility to 
make informed decisions that will resonate for generations to come.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

                                 [all]