The Co-Location Energy Act lets the Secretary of the Interior authorize evaluations and issue permits to place solar or wind systems on areas already subject to federal energy leases issued under the Mineral Leasing Act or the Geothermal Steam Act. The authority applies only to leases on Interior-managed land that were issued, granted, or renewed on or before the bill’s enactment, and the Secretary must promulgate a rule to implement the program.
The measure aims to leverage existing leased footprints to accelerate renewable deployment while avoiding new, large-scale lease footprints. It conditions activity on leaseholder consent and directs the Secretary to decide within 180 days whether these co-location activities should be treated as categorical exclusions under NEPA — a decision that could materially shorten environmental review but raises open questions about environmental and operational safeguards.
At a Glance
What It Does
Permits the Secretary to authorize people to evaluate and to issue permits for solar or wind energy evaluation, construction, and operation on specified existing federal energy leases. The authority supplements existing Interior authorities and is limited to leases issued under the Mineral Leasing Act or the Geothermal Steam Act that predate the Act’s enactment.
Who It Affects
Holders of onshore federal oil, gas, coal, and geothermal leases managed by Interior (primarily BLM leases), renewable developers seeking co-location opportunities, the Department of the Interior and its field offices, and stakeholders involved in environmental review and land-use oversight.
Why It Matters
By directing the use of existing disturbed lease footprints, the bill could accelerate renewables deployment and reduce new land disturbance. At the same time, the requirement that the Secretary evaluate categorical exclusions and the leaseholder-consent trigger create friction points that will shape which projects move forward and how environmental review is handled.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines an ‘‘existing Federal energy lease’’ narrowly: it must be a lease, easement, or right-of-way on land managed by the Secretary of the Interior that was issued, granted, or renewed on or before the bill becomes law and that stems from the Mineral Leasing Act or the Geothermal Steam Act. That date-limited definition confines this authority to the existing onshore portfolio of federal mineral leases rather than to new leasing or offshore parcels.
Once a lease meets that test, the Secretary may allow a person to evaluate portions of the leased area for solar or wind development. The statute makes two things clear: the Secretary's new authority is in addition to existing authorities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and FLPMA, and the Secretary cannot greenlight an evaluation or a construction/operation permit without the applicable leaseholder’s consent.
The bill therefore creates a permission-based co-location pathway rather than an override of existing lease rights.For deployment, the Secretary can also issue permits that authorize construction and operation of systems used to produce, transmit, store, or transport energy from solar or wind resources on those leased areas. The permit language is broad — covering production, transportation, storage, and transmission — but the bill leaves detailed permit terms, compensation, and how co-located activities interact with the primary leased use to the forthcoming rule and case-by-case agreements.Two procedural elements stand out.
First, the Secretary must determine within 180 days whether the activities eligible for permits qualify as a category of actions that normally do not significantly affect the human environment under NEPA — i.e., a categorical exclusion. Second, the Secretary must issue a rule to implement the statute.
The combination of a near-term NEPA categorical exclusion decision and an implementing rule means much of the program’s practical scope — from environmental safeguards to how consent and permit terms work — will be set in regulations, not the statute itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute applies only to leases, easements, or rights-of-way on Interior-managed land that were issued, granted, or renewed on or before enactment and that derive from the Mineral Leasing Act or the Geothermal Steam Act.
The Secretary may authorize evaluations and may issue permits for solar or wind production, transportation, storage, or transmission on areas of qualifying existing leases.
Both evaluations and permits require the consent of the applicable leaseholder; the Secretary cannot proceed without that consent.
The Secretary must decide within 180 days after enactment whether these co-location actions should be treated as categorical exclusions under NEPA.
The Secretary is required to issue a rule to implement the authority; the statute delegates key program details to that forthcoming regulation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name, the “Co-Location Energy Act,” and serves only a formal drafting function. It signals the statutory focus on permitting renewable energy activity where federal energy leases already exist.
Definitions — what counts as an existing Federal energy lease
Narrows the authority by defining eligible leases as those on Interior-managed land that were issued, granted, or renewed on or before enactment under the Mineral Leasing Act or the Geothermal Steam Act. Practically, this limits co-location to the current onshore portfolio (oil, gas, coal, and geothermal leases) rather than to future leasing or offshore programs, and it fixes the eligibility cutoff at the statute’s effective date.
Evaluation authorization (with leaseholder consent)
Gives the Secretary explicit authority to authorize a person to evaluate portions of qualifying leases for solar or wind development, but only if the leaseholder consents. This creates a procedural step for siting studies and technical assessments while preserving the leaseholder’s control over whether an evaluation can proceed on their leased acreage.
Permits for construction and operation on leased areas (with consent)
Authorizes the Secretary to issue permits to construct or operate facilities for producing, transporting, storing, or transmitting solar or wind energy on qualifying lease areas. Like evaluations, permits cannot be issued without the leaseholder’s consent. The provision is broad in scope (covering multiple elements of a project) but leaves contract terms, cost recovery, royalties, and operational sequencing to the implementing rule and to agreements between parties.
NEPA categorical exclusion decision and rulemaking requirement
Requires the Secretary, within 180 days, to determine whether permit-eligible actions (and certain similar actions on non-leased areas) qualify as categorical exclusions under NEPA, and separately mandates issuing a rule to implement the Act. These two directives mean the practical reach of the program — environmental review, mitigation standards, consent mechanics, and administrative procedures — will be shaped heavily by the Secretary’s near-term NEPA finding and the subsequent regulatory text.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Renewable developers who secure agreements with leaseholders — gain access to existing disturbed footprints and potentially existing transmission or road infrastructure, lowering siting barriers compared with greenfield federal lands.
- Existing federal leaseholders (oil, gas, coal, geothermal) — can monetize surface use through consenting to co-location, negotiating fees or joint-use arrangements without giving up primary lease rights.
- Grid operators and regional planners — can potentially add generation near existing infrastructure, easing interconnection and transmission constraints compared with distant greenfield projects.
- Interior Department units (e.g., BLM) — gain a statutory pathway to aggregate federal land use for multi-source energy deployments that could streamline planning if the program is implemented efficiently.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Interior field offices and agency budget — must execute the NEPA categorical exclusion review within a 180-day window, draft and finalize a rule, and manage permit and consent processes, creating near-term administrative and legal workload.
- Environmental and cultural-resource stakeholders — could face reduced environmental review if the Secretary adopts categorical exclusions, increasing the risk that cumulative, wildlife, cultural, or landscape impacts are not fully analyzed.
- Local communities and tribes adjacent to lease areas — may bear site-level impacts (visual, ecological, cultural) while facing uncertainty about consultation, mitigation, and compensation because the bill leaves those details to rulemaking or case-by-case agreements.
- Prospective renewable developers lacking leaseholder cooperation — will face negotiation barriers or exclusion from attractive co-location sites because the statute vests a practical veto in the existing leaseholder through the consent requirement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to accelerate renewable deployment by reusing existing leased footprints and potentially narrowing environmental review, or to preserve environmental and operational safeguards that comprehensive NEPA review and explicit statutory protections provide; the bill tries to thread the needle by requiring leaseholder consent but leaves the decision over environmental review and implementation details to the Secretary, creating a trade-off between speed and procedural safeguards.
The bill sets a framework but delegates almost every operational detail to the Secretary’s rule and to negotiated agreements. It does not specify how leaseholder consent will be documented, whether consent can be conditioned, how compensation or revenue sharing should work, or how permits interact with existing lease terms (for example, priority of operations or safety and interference protections).
Those silences mean that much of the program’s real-world effect will depend on the implementing rule and the balance of bargaining power between leaseholders and developers.
The 180-day deadline for a NEPA categorical exclusion determination is consequential and compressed. If the Secretary designates a categorical exclusion, permitting timelines could shorten dramatically, but environmental analyses that typically consider cumulative impacts, cultural resources, and habitat fragmentation may be narrowed or bypassed.
Conversely, if the Secretary declines CE status, projects will face the full NEPA process. Both paths carry litigation risk: CEs are frequently challenged for overbroad application, while robust NEPA requirements could undercut the bill’s stated efficiency gains.
The statute also does not address tribal consultation procedures, liability for decommissioning co-located facilities, or how royalties and federal receipts are to be adjusted — all issues likely to surface during rulemaking and project negotiations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.