A Democratic bill with 19 Democratic cosponsors · See all 19 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Penalties for Polluters Act increases the civil penalties for violations of several laws, including the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to adjust these maximum penalties annually based on the Consumer Price Index. The bill also creates the Penalty Revenue Reinvestment Fund to hold "excess revenue" from these increased penalties. Half of these funds will go to harmed States, Indian Tribes, and local governments. The remaining half will support enforcement and compliance activities within specific government bureaus.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Significantly increases penalties for violations that threaten life, aquatic life, and the coastal environment.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Provides more funding for the Bureau of Land Management for enforcement and compliance activities.
- Scored +6
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Specifically allocates penalty revenue to Indian Tribes harmed by violations.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases financial liabilities for energy and mineral resource company owners.
- Scored -3
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Increases the cost of non-compliance for large-scale industrial operations.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Increases the financial risk for small energy operators through significantly higher civil penalties.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Financial Support for Harmed Communities: Section 2(e)(3)(A) allows 50 percent of excess revenue from penalties to be allocated to States, Indian Tribes, and local governments that the Secretary determines were harmed by a violation.
-
Increased Environmental Protection: Section 2(c)(1)(4) increases penalties up to $360,000 per day if a failure threatens harm or damage to life, including fish and aquatic life, property, mineral deposits, or the human, coastal, or marine environment.
-
Better Enforcement: Section 2(e)(3)(B) allocates 50 percent of excess revenue to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Bureau of Land Management for continued compliance and enforcement activities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Costs for Operators: Various sections, including Section 2(a), Section 2(b), and Section 2(c), significantly increase the maximum civil penalties that persons must pay for failing to comply with laws, regulations, or lease terms.
-
Ongoing Cost Increases: Sections 2(a)(1)(C), 2(b)(2)(C), and 2(c)(2)(B) mandate that the Secretary annually adjust maximum penalties to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index, meaning fines will continue to rise over time.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Significantly increases penalties for violations that threaten life, aquatic life, and the coastal environment. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Provides more funding for the Bureau of Land Management for enforcement and compliance activities. Does this invest in rural communities? — Allocates penalty revenue to harmed local governments and Indian Tribes. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Increased penalties for polluters may discourage environmentally damaging extraction practices. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Higher costs for non-compliance may make some fossil fuel operations less financially viable. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Increased compliance costs for oil and gas operators could potentially be passed on to consumers.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically allocates penalty revenue to Indian Tribes harmed by violations. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides financial remediation to local governments and tribes in areas where extraction occurs. Would children be better off under this? — Protects the environment for future generations by deterring pollution. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income communities are often disproportionately affected by industrial pollution. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Protects the environment for future generations by deterring pollution. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases financial liabilities for energy and mineral resource company owners. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Increases the cost of non-compliance for large-scale industrial operations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Strengthens the federal government's ability to enforce environmental and leasing laws through higher fines. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Directs 50% of excess penalty revenue back to harmed states and local governments.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increases the financial risk for small energy operators through significantly higher civil penalties.
- 9/3/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 19 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Julia BrownleyDemocrat · California
Steve CohenDemocrat · Tennessee
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Jared HuffmanDemocrat · California
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
Mike LevinDemocrat · California
Sam LiccardoDemocrat · California
Betty McCollumDemocrat · Minnesota
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Dave MinDemocrat · California
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Emily RandallDemocrat · Washington
Andrea SalinasDemocrat · Oregon
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Paul TonkoDemocrat · New York
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Juan VargasDemocrat · California