PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 21, 2015
Planning for American Energy Act of 2015
Amends the Mineral Leasing Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) and the Secretary of Agriculture to publish every four years a Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy to direct federal land energy development and department resource allocation in order to promote the energy and national security of the United States in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management mission to promote the multiple use of federal lands.
Instructs the Secretary to consult with the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration on the projected energy demands of the United States for the next 30 years and on how energy derived from federal onshore lands can put the United States on a trajectory that meets such demand during the next four years, with a goal for increasing energy independence and production.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to determine a domestic strategic production objective for the development of energy resources from such lands.
Expresses the sense of Congress that federally recognized Indian tribes may elect to set their own production objectives as part of the Strategy.
Grants the relevant Secretary all necessary authority to make determinations regarding which additional federal lands available for leasing at the time the lease sale occurs will be available to meet the production objectives established by the strategies. Directs the Secretary also to take all necessary actions to achieve such objectives unless the President determines that it is not in U.S. national security and economic interests to increase federal domestic energy production and to further decrease dependence upon foreign energy sources.
Requires the Secretary, within 12 months of this Act's enactment, to complete a programmatic environmental impact statement in accordance with certain requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Deems such statement sufficient to be in compliance with NEPA requirements for all necessary resource management and land use plans associated with implementation of the Strategy.
Requires the Secretary to submit to: (1) the President and Congress, each proposed strategy, together with comments received from the affected states, federally recognized tribes, and local governments prior to publishing it; and (2) Congress the first Strategy within 18 months of enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Tipton, Scott R. [R-CO-3] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. 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.459 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.459 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.459 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.459 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.