HB7831 amends section 35(d) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191(d)) to push back the statutory expiration for the Department of the Interior’s permit-to-drill fee from 2026 to 2037 and to require that, for fiscal years 2027 through 2037, all fees collected for new applications for permits to drill be transferred to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund.
The change is narrowly targeted: it does not alter fee formulas or create new fee types, but it extends the timeframe in which the Interior Secretary must collect the fee and locks fee revenue into a dedicated fund intended to support permit processing. For operators, the BLM, and stakeholders who follow federal leasing and permitting, the bill sustains a funding stream aimed at addressing processing capacity — and raises questions about oversight, sufficiency of funding, and incentives for how permits are processed.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 30 U.S.C. 191(d) to replace the 2026 sunset with 2037 for the Secretary’s authority to collect fees on each new permit-to-drill application and mandates that all fees collected in fiscal years 2027–2037 be transferred into the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund.
Who It Affects
Onshore oil and gas operators that apply for permits on federal public lands administered by the BLM, BLM permitting offices and staff, and contractors or consultants that support permit preparation and review are directly affected. Congress and appropriations staff will also see changes in how fee receipts are routed.
Why It Matters
The bill preserves and dedicates an existing revenue stream meant to boost permitting capacity at the BLM rather than letting the fee authority lapse. That affects timelines and resourcing for federal permitting operations and alters the fiscal relationship between fee payers, the Interior Department, and Congressional oversight of program funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB7831 is a short, surgical change to the Mineral Leasing Act. The statute already authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to collect a fee for each new application for a permit to drill (a P&A-style application fee tied to onshore oil and gas permits).
That authority included date limits; this bill moves those expiration dates from 2026 to 2037, extending the period during which the fee must be collected.
Beyond extending the collection period, the bill rewrites the transfer language for the fee receipts. Instead of the prior, partially discretionary transfer language, HB7831 requires that for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2037 all of the fees collected under this subsection be transferred to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund.
In short: the bill locks the fee revenue into a dedicated BLM fund intended to support permit processing work for the specified years.The bill does not change how much the fee is, who pays it, or the underlying environmental and administrative review responsibilities that accompany a permit-to-drill application (for example, NEPA reviews and tribal consultations remain governed by existing law). It also does not create new spending authorities beyond the targeted transfer; the mechanics of how the Fund is spent remain subject to the rules that govern that Fund and applicable appropriations or internal DOI procedures.Because this is a legislative extension and a routing change rather than an overhaul of permitting law, its immediate practical effect will be financial and administrative: steady, dedicated revenue for permit processing through 2037.
How that revenue is allocated across BLM state offices, how it interacts with hiring and contracting authorities, and whether the amounts will be sufficient to materially reduce permit backlogs are implementation questions left to the Interior and appropriators.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 30 U.S.C. 191(d) (Section 35(d) of the Mineral Leasing Act) to move statutory expiration dates from 2026 to 2037.
For fiscal years 2027 through 2037 the bill requires that all fees collected under the permit-to-drill subsection be transferred to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund.
The change applies only to fees tied to new applications for permits to drill under the Mineral Leasing Act (onshore federal oil and gas permits); it does not extend to offshore leasing authorities.
HB7831 does not alter fee rates or add new categories of fees — it changes the timing and the destination of existing fee receipts.
The bill converts previously phrased partial-transfer language into a mandatory, full transfer of those fees for the covered fiscal years, removing prior discretion over routing those collections.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'License to Drill Act'
This single-line section gives the bill its short name. It has no substantive effect on program operations but is the formal label for the amendment that follows.
Extend fee collection authority from 2026 to 2037
Paragraph (1) of Section 35(d) currently contains a date limiting the Secretary’s requirement to collect the permit-application fee. The amendment simply replaces the year 2026 with 2037, extending the period during which the collection requirement is in force. Practically, that means applicants will continue to pay the existing P&A-style fee on new drilling applications for an additional eleven years unless Congress acts again.
Direct full transfer of fees to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund
This is the operational change: the prior text that began 'Of the fees collected …' is replaced so that, for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2037, all fees collected under the subsection must be transferred to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund. The amendment therefore eliminates partial-transfer wording and makes the transfer mandatory and full for the specified fiscal years; it changes how fee receipts are routed within the federal fiscal architecture.
Update remaining statutory expiration reference
The final edit updates any remaining cross-reference from 2026 to 2037 to make the statutory text internally consistent. It is a housekeeping change that aligns the statute with the new expiration date.
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
- BLM permitting offices and staff — they receive a continued and dedicated revenue stream (the Permit Processing Improvement Fund) that can be used to support staffing, hiring contract reviewers, or other processing capacity improvements tied to permit reviews.
- Onshore oil and gas operators applying for federal permits — sustained funding for permit processing could, in practice, shorten wait times or reduce backlog if the Fund is used to expand capacity; operators also gain predictability about fee treatment through 2037.
- Permitting consultants and contractors — firms that provide environmental analysis, NEPA support, or technical review services to operators or to BLM may see steadier demand if the BLM uses Fund revenues to contract out review work.
- Department of the Interior program managers — the Fund gives program managers a clearer revenue stream to plan multi-year permitting capacity investments without the risk that fee authority lapses in 2026.
Who Bears the Cost
- Permit applicants (oil and gas operators) — they continue to pay the per-application fee; keeping the fee authority in effect through 2037 preserves that cost stream for industry.
- Other DOI programs and general Treasury priorities — routing all fee receipts into a dedicated Fund narrows available discretionary receipts and can create opportunity costs relative to other DOI activities that previously might have received some of that revenue.
- Congressional appropriations and oversight bodies — mandatory transfers reduce year-to-year discretion over those receipts and can complicate Congressional visibility into how fee-funded dollars are prioritized and spent.
- Environmental and tribal stakeholders — if the Fund drives an emphasis on faster throughput, these stakeholders may face compressed timelines for consultation or perceive pressure on the quality or depth of environmental reviews.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between reliably funding faster permit processing (by dedicating applicant fees to a BLM permit fund) and preserving independent, deliberative environmental and tribal review plus Congressional control over spending — securing resources to speed decisions can create incentives or constraints that may reduce review rigor or lessen appropriations oversight.
The bill’s surface effect is straightforward — extend fee authority and lock the receipts into the Permit Processing Improvement Fund — but important implementation questions remain. First, the statute does not change fee levels or specify how Fund dollars must be allocated among BLM state offices, program priorities, or hiring vs. contracting.
If collections fall short of expectations, a dedicated transfer mandate does not solve staffing or recruitment constraints, and if collections exceed planned needs the statute does not direct how surpluses should be handled.
Second, dedicating 'all of the fees' to a permit-processing fund creates potential incentive effects. Agencies that depend on fee revenue can face pressure to increase application throughput; that can be useful for backlog reduction but risks compressing review quality unless clear internal controls and oversight ensure NEPA, tribal consultation, and other statutory obligations are fully observed.
Finally, mandatory transfers for FY2027–2037 limit short-term Congressional discretion over those receipts, which raises questions about transparency and whether existing appropriation and auditing structures will adapt to ensure accountability for how the Fund is spent.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.