Lower Energy Costs Act: Leasing, NEPA, and IRA Repeals

The Lower Energy Costs Act was H.R. 1 in the 118th Congress, the flagship 2023 energy bill from House Republicans that would have expanded federal oil, gas, and coal leasing, rewritten environmental permitting rules, sped up natural gas exports and pipelines, boosted critical minerals production, and repealed several climate programs enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act. Sponsored by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the bill passed the House on March 30, 2023, by 225 to 204, but the Senate never took it up and President Biden had threatened to veto it.¹² Even so, a meaningful slice of its permitting reforms became law weeks later through the debt ceiling deal.

What the Bill Would Have Done to Federal Leasing

The core of H.R. 1 was a mandate that the Department of the Interior resume and expand federal oil and gas leasing on a fixed schedule. Onshore, Interior would have been required to hold at least four lease sales per year in every state with eligible federal land. If a sale was canceled, delayed, or drew no bids on more than a quarter of the offered acreage, a replacement sale was required. Interior would also have had 30 days after enactment to finalize all pending drilling permit applications.¹

Offshore, the bill mandated at least two region-wide lease sales each year in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It required Interior to finish all outstanding sales from the 2017–2022 leasing program by September 30, 2023, and to issue a new five-year leasing program by July 1, 2023.¹ The bill also lifted the federal moratorium on new coal leasing on public lands.³

Changes to Environmental Review and NEPA

The bill made extensive changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, the federal law that governs environmental review of major projects. Environmental assessments would have been capped at one year and environmental impact statements at two years. If an agency missed those deadlines, it would have owed the project applicant $100 per day. Review scope would have been narrowed to “reasonably foreseeable” effects with a close causal connection to the federal action, and agencies would have been barred from considering downstream or indirect effects of oil and gas consumption.¹

Some activities would have been exempted from NEPA review entirely, including geotechnical investigations, small meteorological tower construction, and minor upgrades to existing transmission and distribution infrastructure. Project sponsors would have been allowed to prepare their own environmental assessments or impact statements, subject to agency approval.¹

On the litigation side, NEPA challenges would have faced a 120-day filing deadline (90 days for highway and transit projects), and challengers would have had to submit detailed comments during the public comment period to preserve their claims. Courts could not have blocked a project unless they found a risk of “imminent and substantial environmental harm” with no other remedy available.¹

Natural Gas Exports, Pipelines, and Cross-Border Infrastructure

Several provisions were aimed at speeding pipelines and export terminals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have been designated the sole lead agency for NEPA review of natural gas pipelines and would have received exclusive authority to approve or deny LNG export and import facilities. The bill also removed the separate Department of Energy authorization for natural gas exports, which supporters called duplicative.⁴

For pipelines and power lines crossing into Canada or Mexico, the bill replaced the existing executive order approval process with a new certificate-of-crossing procedure, shifting review from the State Department to FERC with a 180-day decision deadline after environmental review.³ Rights-of-way for pipelines and electrical infrastructure on federal land could be granted or renewed for up to 50 years.¹

The bill also revoked state authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act to issue water quality certifications for interstate natural gas pipelines and LNG facilities, a tool some states had used to block pipeline construction.³

Critical Minerals

To reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, the bill directed the Department of Energy to assess supply of critical energy resources and develop strategies covering supply chains, substitutes, and recycling. A lead agency would coordinate mine permitting, and critical mineral projects could use expedited NEPA processes.³

Facilities processing critical energy resources would have received interim permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act while their applications were pending. The EPA would have had to create “flexible air permits” under the Clean Air Act letting operators make certain changes without triggering additional review. If the EPA and DOE agreed that processing a mineral was necessary for national security, temporary waivers of Clean Air Act and solid waste requirements could have been issued. The bill separately barred the Chinese Communist Party and entities under its jurisdiction from acquiring interests in federal oil, gas, or mineral leases.¹

Inflation Reduction Act Programs It Would Have Repealed

H.R. 1 targeted several 2022 climate and energy programs. It would have repealed the methane emissions charge on oil and gas facilities, rescinded the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and eliminated the high-efficiency electric home rebate program along with related state-based energy efficiency contractor training grants and building energy code assistance. Any unobligated funds for those programs would have been clawed back.¹ The Biden administration’s Statement of Administration Policy described those repeals as scrapping $1.5 billion in methane-leak investments and rolling back programs meant to help households afford clean energy upgrades.⁵

Who Supported It, Who Opposed It

Scalise said the bill would “cut red tape and increase energy production here at home so we can lower energy costs and stop our dependence on hostile foreign countries for our energy and minerals.” Speaker Kevin McCarthy said it would “grow our economy, strengthen our national security, and ensure clean, affordable, American energy can power the world.”⁶ Industry backing was broad, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Farm Bureau Federation.⁷

The Biden administration’s March 27, 2023 veto threat called the bill “a thinly veiled license to pollute” and said it would “raise costs for American families by repealing household energy rebates and rolling back historic investments to increase access to cost-lowering clean energy technologies.”² A coalition of 123 environmental organizations urged Congress to reject it, warning that its NEPA changes would exempt most federal projects from meaningful public review and allow polluters to draft their own environmental assessments.⁸ The National Parks Conservation Association called the bill “anti-conservation at its core.”⁹ Democratic members on the House floor argued that repealing home energy rebates and clean energy tax credits would actually raise costs for consumers.¹⁰

What Actually Became Law

The bill itself died at the end of the 118th Congress without a Senate committee hearing or floor vote.¹ But a meaningful portion of its permitting reforms made it into the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the bipartisan debt ceiling law signed in June 2023. That law imposed a two-year deadline for environmental impact statements, a one-year deadline for environmental assessments, page limits on review documents, the narrower “reasonably foreseeable” scope for environmental effects, and expanded categorical exclusions across agencies.¹¹

The Fiscal Responsibility Act also directed the expedited completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a stalled natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to Virginia. The law ratified existing permits, set a 21-day deadline for remaining authorizations, and stripped courts of jurisdiction to review those agency actions.¹² The House cleared that package 314 to 117, well beyond the margin H.R. 1 had drawn.¹³

Permitting reform stayed on the House agenda in the 119th Congress. Representative Bruce Westerman, who had co-led the Natural Resources portions of H.R. 1, introduced the SPEED Act (H.R. 4776), which the House passed in December 2025 by a vote of 221 to 196. That bill made further NEPA changes affecting both fossil fuel and renewable energy projects, extending the framework Westerman first advanced in the Lower Energy Costs Act.¹⁴¹⁵

1
Congress.gov. H.R. 1 – Lower Energy Costs Act
2
CNN. Biden Threatens to Veto House Republican Energy Bill
3
Dentons. House Republicans Advance Legislation Providing Their Vision of Energy and Permitting Reform
4
GovInfo. H.R. 1130, Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act
5
The American Presidency Project. Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1 – Lower Energy Costs Act
6
House Majority Leader. Lower Energy Costs Act
7
ClearPath Action. The Lower Energy Costs Act (H.R. 1)
8
Center for Biological Diversity. Letter Opposing H.R. 1, Lower Energy Costs Act
9
National Parks Conservation Association. 5 Reasons the Lower Energy Costs Act Is a Bad Idea
10
GovInfo. Congressional Record, March 28, 2023
11
Bipartisan Policy Center. Fiscal Responsibility Act Permit Reform
12
Virginia Mercury. Mountain Valley Pipeline Approvals OKed as Part of Debt Ceiling Deal
13
Akin Gump. A Look at the Permitting Provisions in the Fiscal Responsibility Act
14
Politico. House Passes GOP Permitting Overhaul
15
R Street Institute. Permitting Reforms Proposed Under the 119th Congress