hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Changes federal coal lease bonus payment schedule.
Rep. Hageman (R-WY)
Introduced in House, referred to committee.
This bill would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to require that bonus payments for certain federal coal leases, specifically those issued under a deferred bonus payment system, be paid in 10 equal annual installments. The first installment would be due when the bid for the lease is submitted. Representative Hageman, a Republican from Wyoming, introduced the bill, and it has been sent to the House Committee on Natural Resources for review.
Introduced Mar 9, 2026
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. For the bill to move forward, it must be approved by this committee. If it passes the committee, it would then be eligible for a vote by the full House. After passing the House, it would go to the Senate for their consideration, and finally to the President to be signed into law.
This bill would allow companies leasing federal land for coal mining, specifically under a deferred bonus payment system, to pay their lease bonuses in 10 annual installments instead of potentially a larger upfront sum. This would spread out the financial obligation for companies over a decade. Consequently, the federal government would also receive these bonus payments over the same 10-year period, rather than collecting them all at once. The first of these annual payments would be required when a company submits its bid for the lease.
Supporters Say
Supporters might say it helps coal companies manage their finances and encourages more federal coal leasing.
Critics Say
Critics might argue it defers federal revenue and could be seen as a financial benefit to the coal industry.
Those in favor of this bill would likely highlight that spreading out bonus payments over 10 years could make federal coal leases more financially manageable for mining companies, potentially encouraging investment and job creation in the industry. On the other hand, opponents might express concern that this change would delay federal revenue that could otherwise be used for other government priorities, and could be viewed as a subsidy for fossil fuel industries.