Energy news

States brace for Trump's push to make oil drilling cheap again

Trump and Republicans in Congress say the rate reset will boost energy production, jobs and affordability. Photo via Getty Images

A Republican push to make drilling cheaper on federal land is creating new fiscal pressure for states that depend on oil and gas revenue, most notably in New Mexico as it expands early childhood education and saves for the future.

The shift stems from the sweeping law President Donald Trump signed in July that rolls back the minimum federal royalty rate to 12.5%. That rate — the share of production value companies must pay to the government — held steady for a century under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act. It was raised to 16.7% under the Biden administration in 2022.

Trump and Republicans in Congress say the rate reset will boost energy production, jobs and affordability as the administration clears the way for expanded drilling and mining on public lands.

States receive nearly half the money collected through federal royalties, depending on where production takes place. The environment and economics research group Resources for the Future estimates a roughly $6 billion drop in collections over the coming decade.

The stakes are highest in New Mexico, the largest recipient of federal mineral lease payments. The state could could forgo $1.7 billion by 2035 and as much as $5.1 billion by 2050, according to calculations by economist Brian Prest at Resources for the Future.

More than one-third of the general fund budget in the Democratically-led state is tied to the oil and gas industry.

“New Mexico’s impact is way bigger than Wyoming or Colorado or North Dakota,” Prest said, “and that’s just because that’s where the action is on new development.”

The effects will unfold gradually, since federal leases allow a 10-year window to begin drilling and production. Still, state officials say they're already prepping for leaner years.

“It all hurts when you’re losing revenues," said Democratic state Sen. George Muñoz of Gallup, who said lawmakers still hope to invest more in mental health care and support Medicaid, even if federal royalty payments decline. “We’ve learned that until the chicken’s got feathers, we’re not even looking at it."

The higher federal royalty rate was in place for roughly three years while leasing activity was muted, Prest said. New Mexico budget forecasters never tallied the additional income.

New Mexico's nest-egg strategy

A nearly five-fold surge in local oil production since 2017 on federal and state land in New Mexico delivered a financial windfall for state government, helping fund higher teacher salaries, tuition-free college, universal free school meals and more.

The state set aside billions of dollars in investment trusts for future spending in case the world’s thirst for oil falters, including a early childhood education fund to help expand preschool, child care subsidies and home wellness visits for pregnancies and infants.

The state's investment nest egg has grown to $64 billion, second only to Alaska's Permanent Fund. Earnings from the trusts are New Mexico's second-biggest source for general fund spending.

That sturdy financial footing shaped a defiant response to this year’s federal government shutdown, when lawmakers voted to subsidize the state’s Affordable Care Act exchange, cover food assistance and backfill cuts to public broadcasting.

But lawmakers reviewing state finances learned that predictable income fell 1.6% — the first contraction since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Muñoz said matters would be worse if the state had not raised its own royalty rates this year to 25%, from 20%, for new leases on prime oil and gas tracts, while ending a sales moratorium, under legislation he co-sponsored this year.

Encouraged in Alaska

After New Mexico, the states receiving the most federal oil and gas royalties are Wyoming, Louisiana, North Dakota and Texas.

Texas, the nation’s top oil producer, shares the bountiful Permian Basin with New Mexico but has far less federal land and therefore less exposure to changes in royalty policy.

In Alaska, state officials say they are encouraged by the royalty cut, seeing potential for increased development in places like the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, where the massive Willow project — approved in 2023 and now under development — is viewed by some as a catalyst for further activity. The reserve is expected to hold its first lease sales since 2019.

“If reduced federal royalty rates stimulate new leasing, exploration and production, that also could increase other kinds of revenue,” said Lorraine Henry, a spokesperson for Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources.

In North Dakota, federal royalties are split evenly between the state and county governments where drilling occurs. State Office of Management and Budget Director Joe Morrissette said the industry’s future remains difficult to forecast.

“There are so many variables, including timing, price, availability of desirable tracts, and federal policies regarding exploration activities,” Morrissette said.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Texas doesn’t have a rule to capture escaping methane emissions from energy infrastructure. Photo via Getty Images

The first year of President Trump’s second term has seen an aggressive rollback of federal environmental protections, which advocacy groups fear will bring more pollution, higher health risks, and less information and power for Texas communities, especially in heavily industrial and urban areas.

Within Trump’s first 100 days in office, his new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced a sweeping slate of 31 deregulatory actions. The list, which Zeldin called the agency’s “greatest day of deregulation,” targeted everything from soot standards and power plant pollution rules to the Endangerment Finding, the legal and scientific foundation that obligates the EPA to regulate climate-changing pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Since then, the agency froze research grants, shrank its workforce, and removed some references to climate change and environmental justice from its website — moves that environmental advocates say send a clear signal: the EPA’s new direction will come at the expense of public health.

Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Texas is one of the states that feels EPA policy changes directly because the state has shown little interest in stepping up its environmental enforcement as the federal government scales back.

“If we were a state that was open to doing our own regulations there’d be less impact from these rollbacks,” Reed said. “But we’re not.”

“Now we have an EPA that isn’t interested in enforcing its own rules,” he added.

Richard Richter, a spokesperson at the state’s environmental agency, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said in a statement that the agency takes protecting public health and natural resources seriously and acts consistently and quickly to enforce federal and state environmental laws when they’re violated.

Methane rules put on pause

A major EPA move centers on methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide over the short term. It accounts for roughly 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is a major driver of climate change. In the U.S., the largest source of methane emissions is the energy sector, especially in Texas, the nation’s top oil and gas producer.

In 2024, the Biden administration finalized long-anticipated rules requiring oil and gas operators to sharply reduce methane emissions from wells, pipelines, and storage facilities. The rule, developed with industry input, targeted leaks, equipment failures, and routine flaring, the burning off of excess natural gas at the wellhead.

Under the rule, operators would have been required to monitor emissions, inspect sites with gas-imaging cameras for leaks, and phase out routine flaring. States are required to come up with a plan to implement the rule, but Texas has yet to do so. Under Trump’s EPA, that deadline has been extended until January 2027 — an 18-month postponement.

Texas doesn’t have a rule to capture escaping methane emissions from energy infrastructure. Richter, the TCEQ spokesperson, said the agency continues to work toward developing the state plan.

Adrian Shelley, Texas director of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said the rule represented a rare moment of alignment between environmentalists and major oil and gas producers.

“I think the fossil fuel industry generally understood that this was the direction the planet and their industry was moving,” he said. Shelley said uniform EPA rules provided regulatory certainty for changes operators saw as inevitable.

Reed, the Sierra Club conservation director, said the delay of methane rules means Texas still has no plan to reduce emissions, while neighboring New Mexico already has imposed its own state methane emission rules that require the industry to detect and repair methane leaks and ban routine venting and flaring.

These regulations have cut methane emissions in the New Mexico portion of the Permian Basin — the oil-rich area that covers West Texas and southeast New Mexico — to half that of Texas, according to a recent data analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund. That’s despite New Mexico doubling production since 2020.

A retreat from soot standards

Fine particulate matter or PM 2.5, one of six pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, has been called by researchers the deadliest form of air pollution.

In 2024, the EPA under President Biden strengthened air rules for particulate matter by lowering the annual limit from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. It was the first update since 2012 and one of the most ambitious pieces of Biden’s environmental agenda, driven by mounting evidence that particulate pollution is linked to premature death, heart disease, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses.

After the rule was issued, 24 Republican-led states, including Kentucky and West Virginia, sued to revert to the weaker standard. Texas filed a separate suit asking to block the rule’s recent expansion.

State agencies are responsible for enforcing the federal standards. The TCEQ is charged with creating a list of counties that exceed the federal standard and submitting those recommendations to Gov. Greg Abbott, who then finalizes the designations and submits them to the EPA.

Under the 9 microgram standard, parts of Texas, including Dallas, Harris (which includes Houston), Tarrant (Fort Worth), and Bowie (Texarkana) counties, were in the process of being designated nonattainment areas — which, when finalized, would trigger a legal requirement for the state to develop a plan to clean up the air.

That process stalled after Trump returned to office. Gov. Greg Abbott submitted his designations to EPA last February, but EPA has not yet acted on his designations, according to Richter, the TCEQ spokesperson.

In a court filing last year, the Trump EPA asked a federal appeals court to vacate the stricter standard, bypassing the traditional notice and comment administrative process.

For now, the rule technically remains in effect, but environmental advocates say the EPA’s retreat undermines enforcement of the rule and signals to polluters that it may be short-lived.

Shelley, with Public Citizen, believes the PM2.5 rule would have delivered the greatest health benefit of any EPA regulation affecting Texas, particularly through reductions in diesel pollution from trucks.

“I still hold out hope that it will come back,” he said.

Unraveling the climate framework

Beyond individual pollutants, the Trump EPA has moved to dismantle the federal architecture for addressing climate change.

Among the proposals is eliminating the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires power plants, refineries, and oil and gas suppliers to report annual emissions. The proposal has drawn opposition from both environmental groups and industry, which relies on the data for planning and compliance.

Colin Leyden, Texas state director and energy lead at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said eliminating the program could hurt Texas industry. If methane emissions are no longer reported, then buyers and investors of natural gas, for example, won’t have an official way to measure how much methane pollution is associated with that gas, according to Leyden. That makes it harder to judge how “clean” or “climate-friendly” the product is, which international buyers are increasingly demanding.

“This isn’t just bad for the planet,” he said. “It makes the Texas industry less competitive.”

The administration also proposed last year rescinding the Endangerment Finding, issued in 2009, which obligates the EPA to regulate climate pollution. Most recently, the EPA said it will stop calculating how much money is saved in health care costs as a result of air pollution regulations that curb particulate matter 2.5 and ozone, a component of smog. Both can cause respiratory and health problems.

Leyden said tallying up the dollar value of lives saved when evaluating pollution rules is a foundational principle of the EPA since its creation.

“That really erodes the basic idea that (the EPA) protects health and safety and the environment,” he said.

___

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Trending News