Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require that before the first non-emergency drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) after enactment, the Secretary develop and implement a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands (including OCS) leased for oil and gas by the same percentage as the SPR petroleum quantity to be drawn down, subject to a cap that the leased percentage increase cannot exceed 10 percentage points. The plan must be prepared in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture, the Interior, and Defense.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-lands harm; conservatives emphasize energy security and production.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change that establishes a specific statutory linkage between SPR drawdowns and an increase in Federal land leasing for oil and gas, with a numeric cap and limited consultation requirement.
The bill amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require that before the first non-emergency drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) after enactment, the Secretary develop and implement a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands (including OCS) leased for oil and gas by the same percentage as the SPR petroleum quantity to be drawn down, subject to a cap that the leased percentage increase cannot exceed 10 percentage points.
The plan must be prepared in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture, the Interior, and Defense.
The restriction does not apply in the case of a "severe energy supply interruption."
Content is politically polarizing and creates practical implementation/legal questions; passage requires overcoming strong Senate hurdles and executive branch resistance risks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change that establishes a specific statutory linkage between SPR drawdowns and an increase in Federal land leasing for oil and gas, with a numeric cap and limited consultation requirement.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-lands harm; conservatives emphasize energy security and production.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-lands harm; conservatives emphasize energy security and production.
Likely to oppose the bill because it conditions SPR releases on expanding fossil-fuel leasing of federal lands and offshore areas.
They will view it as a statutory incentive to increase oil and gas development, worsening climate and conservation outcomes.
Views the bill with caution: recognizes goals of boosting domestic supply and tying reserves to production, but worries about legal, timing, and environmental tradeoffs.
Wants clearer definitions and cost/implementation analysis before support.
Generally favorable: supports linking SPR drawdowns with increased domestic leasing to boost energy independence and production.
Will view the measure as a pro-production, pro-energy security policy, constrained only by the 10% cap.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is politically polarizing and creates practical implementation/legal questions; passage requires overcoming strong Senate hurdles and executive branch resistance risks.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-lands harm; conservatives emphasize energy security and production.
Content is politically polarizing and creates practical implementation/legal questions; passage requires overcoming strong Senate hurdles a…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change that establishes a specific statutory linkage between SPR drawdowns and an increase in Federal land leasing for oil and gas, with…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.