A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Subcommittee Hearings Held
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
This bill, known as the "Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act," directs the Secretary of the Interior to perform a specific task regarding coal. The Secretary must identify both existing and potential categorical exclusions related to the production and export of coal. This identification must be submitted to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The goal is to identify exclusions that, if used more by other Federal agencies, could further coal production and export. This process must be completed within 30 days after the Act is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +3
Is this likely to create jobs?
Expanding coal production and export may lead to increased employment opportunities in the mining and logistics sectors.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill directly benefits energy and mining companies by streamlining their operational processes.
- Scored +2
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The bill aims to facilitate coal production and export, which can contribute to economic growth in energy-producing regions.
The opposite· 3 of 8
- Scored -5
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The bill explicitly seeks to facilitate rather than reduce the production of coal.
- Scored -4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The use of categorical exclusions may bypass or reduce the rigor of standard environmental impact assessments.
- Scored -3
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Expanding coal production and export is likely to increase carbon emissions due to reliance on fossil fuels.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Increased coal production and export: The bill aims to identify ways to further the production and export of coal through the use of categorical exclusions (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
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 invest in rural communities? — Increased coal activity may provide economic benefits to rural areas where coal is mined and transported. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The bill explicitly seeks to facilitate rather than reduce the production of coal. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The use of categorical exclusions may bypass or reduce the rigor of standard environmental impact assessments. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Expanding coal production and export is likely to increase carbon emissions due to reliance on fossil fuels. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Streamlining exclusions may impact the quality of oversight for public lands used for coal extraction. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Focusing on coal production may divert political and economic attention away from renewable energy growth.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Expanding coal production and export may lead to increased employment opportunities in the mining and logistics sectors. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill aims to facilitate coal production and export, which can contribute to economic growth in energy-producing regions.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill directly benefits energy and mining companies by streamlining their operational processes. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Mining and export activities often bring economic activity and jobs to rural regions. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased production and export activity may create more jobs for labor unions in the mining sector. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increased coal production and streamlined exclusions may negatively impact tribal lands and environmental health.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — By facilitating coal exports, the bill may support trade activities and international energy markets.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill directs a federal agency to streamline processes, which centralizes decision-making for coal production. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The use of exclusions may reduce the public opportunity to participate in environmental due process. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Using categorical exclusions can reduce the public transparency of environmental review processes.
- 9/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 7/2/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
- 6/23/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
Nicholas BegichRepublican · Alaska