Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Industry and BLM urge reauthorization of APD fees to sustain permit processing
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses from the Bureau of Land Management and industry groups told the subcommittee that reauthorizing application-for-permit-to-drill (APD) fees through HR 7831 is critical to maintain staffing and reduce APD processing times; opponents questioned transparency on how funds are used.
Members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources heard testimony supporting HR 7831, which would reauthorize fees charged for applications for permits to drill (APDs) and continue the permit processing improvement fund (PPIF).
Mitchell Everett, Eastern States director for the Bureau of Land Management, said the APD fees finance staff and permit‑processing improvements that BLM uses to expedite reviews. He told the panel that, in fiscal year 2025, the BLM processed about 6,000 APDs and collected roughly $49,000,000 in fees while paying out about $40,000,000 to process them. “If we did not have the APD fee, we would have to get those funds from appropriated funds, and there’s no guarantee that we would get those funds,” Everett said.
Dan Nats, executive vice president and chief policy officer of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, urged Congress to pass HR 7831 quickly so industry‑funded processing can continue. Nats said the PPIF supports roughly 220 full‑time equivalent positions and yields about $50–$55 million annually for permit processing.
Supporters framed reauthorization as a practical, industry‑funded mechanism to reduce backlogs and provide certainty; questions from Democrats focused on whether fee reliance narrows BLM discretion on broader environmental reviews and whether the fees disproportionately benefit industry interests. Everett acknowledged he did not have every figure on the number of renewable permits processed this year and offered to provide those counts for the record.
No formal action was taken; members asked for follow‑up information and entered letters from industry groups into the record.
