H.R. 931 (119th)Bill Overview

To allow certain Federal minerals to be mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification, and for other purposes.

Energy|EnergyEnvironmental assessment, monitoring, research
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Feb 4, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Subcommittee Hearings Held

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Directs that Federal coal reserves under Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988 may be mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification (Amendment 3, approved Nov 18, 2020) and requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve that modification without modification or delay within 30 days, to permit mining on about 800 acres in Musselshell County, Montana.

Why people may split

Liberals focus on climate and environmental process concerns.

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly and specifically authorizes mining on identified federal land and directs a named agency official to approve a particular plan modification within a short timeframe.

Directs that Federal coal reserves under Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988 may be mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification (Amendment 3, approved Nov 18, 2020) and requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve that modification without modification or delay within 30 days, to permit mining on about 800 acres in Musselshell County, Montana.

Passage45/100

Administratively simple and narrow, increasing chances; coal/climate controversy and Senate hurdles reduce overall likelihood.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly and specifically authorizes mining on identified federal land and directs a named agency official to approve a particular plan modification within a short timeframe.

Contention72/100

Liberals focus on climate and environmental process concerns.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governments · Federal agenciesLocal governments · Federal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Local governmentsCreates direct and indirect local mining and support jobs during operations and reclamation.
  • Local governmentsIncreases local economic activity and tax revenue from wages and supporting businesses.
  • Federal agenciesGenerates federal and state royalty and lease revenue from coal production.
Likely burdened
  • Local governmentsExpands surface disturbance and potential impacts to local water, air, and wildlife habitat.
  • Potential burdenIncreases greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal extraction and combustion.
  • Federal agenciesLimits agency discretion and possibly circumvents further environmental review or mitigation.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals focus on climate and environmental process concerns.
Progressive20%

Likely opposes the bill.

Sees it as expanding coal extraction and bypassing administrative discretion and environmental safeguards.

Concerned about climate, air and water impacts, and precedent of congressional override.

Likely resistant
Centrist50%

Mixed view.

Values local economic benefits and honoring leases but worries about due process, environmental review, and legal exposure from compelled approval.

Seeks assurances on studies and mitigation.

Split reaction
Conservative90%

Generally supportive.

Views the bill as correcting regulatory delay, protecting private property/lease rights, and enabling domestic energy development and local jobs.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood45/100

Administratively simple and narrow, increasing chances; coal/climate controversy and Senate hurdles reduce overall likelihood.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether required environmental reviews are complete
  • Potential for litigation by environmental groups
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals focus on climate and environmental process concerns.

Administratively simple and narrow, increasing chances; coal/climate controversy and Senate hurdles reduce overall likelihood.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly and specifically authorizes mining on identified federal land and directs a named agency official to appr…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis