PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 11, 2025
Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act of 2025
This bill removes certain requirements, including measuring methane emissions, for grants to states under the State Orphaned Wells Program.
Under the program, the Department of the Interior provides grants to states for the following purposes: (1) plugging, remediating, and reclaiming orphaned wells located on federal land; (2) identifying and characterizing undocumented orphaned wells; (3) measuring and tracking emissions of gases (e.g., methane) or contamination of water associated with orphaned wells; or (4) conducting certain other related activities. Generally, orphaned wells are oil and gas wells without solvent owners or operators responsible for cleaning up leaks from the wells.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In 2024, Interior issued guidance for the grant program that requires states to conduct certain measuring and tracking activities related to the orphaned wells before and after receiving grants. However, the bill specifies that states are not required to provide such information in order to receive a grant. Instead, the bill makes measuring and tracking optional.
The bill also directs Interior to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to study the effect of the plugging and remediation activity on economic development, housing trends, and other potential benefits in areas where the plugging and remediation activity reclaimed a high number of well sites.
People & committees
Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 30, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1217 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1217 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1217 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1217 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-11 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would allow states to qualify for grants under the orphaned well program without measuring methane emissions or performing certain other activities specified in existing law. It would also require the Interior Department to seek an agreement with the National Academies to study how plugging and cleaning up well sites affects nearby communities. The study would examine economic development, housing trends, and possible benefits such as improved water quality.
Nothing in this section requires a State to measure methane emissions or conduct other activities described in subparagraph (A), which are activities a State may conduct but is not required to conduct, as a condition of eligibility for a grant under this subsection.
seek to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under which the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall carry out a study on the effect of the plugging and remediation activity conducted under section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15907) on economic development, housing trends, and other potential benefits (such as improvements in water quality)
The proposed grant-eligibility rule would make methane measurement and the other activities referenced in subsection (c)(2)(A) optional for states seeking grants under that subsection. The bill does not reproduce the referenced list of activities.
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: (C) Activities not required Nothing in this section requires a State to measure methane emissions or conduct other activities described in subparagraph (A), which are activities a State may conduct but is not required to conduct, as a condition of eligibility for a grant under this subsection.
The bill would allow the estimate referenced in subsection (f)(2) to include estimates derived from monitoring before or after a well is plugged. States could use program grants to collect those monitoring data, but would not be required to do so. The surrounding estimate requirement is not reproduced.
(2) in subsection (f)(2), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting , which may include estimates derived from pre-plugging or post-plugging monitoring data that States may, but are not required to, collect using funding from grants awarded under this section, after estimate.
Within 180 days after enactment, the Interior Secretary would have to seek a study agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and provide necessary information as far as practicable. This deadline would apply to those steps, rather than completion of the study.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall— (1) seek to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, provide the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine with information necessary to carry out the study described in paragraph (1).
The proposed study would examine economic development, housing trends, and potential benefits in areas where the program reclaimed many well sites. The National Academies would determine which areas meet that description. These are subjects to investigate, not established benefits.
a study on the effect of the plugging and remediation activity conducted under section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15907) on economic development, housing trends, and other potential benefits (such as improvements in water quality) in areas where the plugging and remediation activity conducted under that section reclaimed a high number of sites, as determined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
The study would have to include input from at least one state in each of five regions: the Northeast, Southwest, West, Southeast, and Midwest.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall ensure that at least 1 State from each region of the United States (Northeast, Southwest, West, Southeast, and Midwest) shall be key inputs to the study carried out under subsection (a).
The National Academies would have to consult the Department of Housing and Urban Development about economic and housing effects and the usefulness of Interior's data on priority cleanup locations. It would also consult the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for study data and other federal agencies selected by the Interior Secretary in consultation with the National Academies.
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall consult with— (1) the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with respect to— (A) how the plugging and remediation activity conducted under section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15907) has affected economic development and housing trends; and (B) how data on locations of plugging and remediation priorities from the Department of the Interior may be valuable to the Department of Housing and Urban Development; (2) the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, to provide data required to carry out the study under subsection (a); and (3) other Federal agencies, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The National Academies would have to report its findings to Congress within 18 months after the last grant is awarded under section 349. The reporting deadline therefore depends on that grant award, rather than a fixed calendar date.
Not later than 18 months after the date on which the last grant is awarded under section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15907), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall submit to Congress a report detailing the findings of the study carried out under subsection (a).
The study section would be carried out using funds otherwise available to the Interior Secretary.
(e) Use of existing funds This section shall be carried out using amounts otherwise made available to the Secretary of the Interior.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated March 30, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 11, 2025. It does not establish any later legislative outcome.
Source snapshot updated 2026-03-30T14:11:32Z. 2025-02-11: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-02-11: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-11. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No directed spending earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status cannot be fully assessed without accompanying disclosure and legislative materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit beyond the program's general eligibility policy and study administration was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Mar 30, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI