Greetings from Washington! It has been a whirlwind two months as president and CEO of IPAA. From visits in Midland, Houston, Fort Worth and Pennsylvania, and conversations with state oil and gas associations, phone and Teams calls with members and visits to an oilfield, I have had a warm welcome –thank you all. I will continue my listening tour and building relationships with all of you and your companies to reimagine IPAA’s member engagement.
I have been a lifelong defender of commerce and innovation through my roles at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, most recently, at American Gas Association in Washington, D.C. When I first arrived in Washington, I worked at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, so I have worked in the energy sector for some time. And now begins my journey with you, the independent oil and natural gas industry.
In a few short years, IPAA will reach a monumental achievement – 100 years of service to its members. What an honor to be at the helm of IPAA as we approach the century mark in 2029. It is our history of risk-taking and innovation that both got us here and will lead us ahead – it takes guts, grit and perseverance to last this long.
I have had the privilege of getting to know the IPAA staff and appreciated their warm welcome. Their decades of experience representing the independent oil and natural gas producers, their relationships, their political know how and communications expertise will continue to guide our organization forward.
In this issue of IPAA Access, we highlight IPAA’s successes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including tax reform, the mandating of federal lease sales and a 10-year delay on the methane tax. We also focus on opportunities to improve the permitting process that would enable faster construction of energy projects, and we analyze other regulatory areas the Trump administration has taken on, including changes to the Endangerment Finding. Our government relations team also shares an outlook for the midterm 2026 congressional elections.
This issue also recognizes the 2025 IPAA Chief Roughneck Award Winner –Don Sparks, cofounder and chairman of Discovery Operating, Inc. During my visit to Midland, I had the pleasure of meeting the Sparks family, and I quickly saw why Don and his family were worthy of the honor. Congratulations and thank you, Don, on your remarkable contributions to the industry.
It’s an exciting time for independent oil and natural gas producers. I will continue to get to know you all, engage with you all and hear from you as IPAA continues and reinvigorates our work in Washington.
An invite from me! I will be in Houston in November with IPAA’s Membership and Business Development Committee chair Sean Kimiagar of EnergyBasix. Please join me and Sean on Nov. 18 and 19; Tuesday, we will hold our monthly luncheon at the Petroleum Club with the Houston Producers Forum and TIPRO and then on Wednesday, IPAA will host our 8th Annual Texas Hold’em Tournament, a premier fundraising and networking event supporting IPAA and its members’ ongoing efforts to champion America’s oil and natural gas industry. Learn more about these on our website at IPAA.org/events.
I’d love to come see you, host you in Washington or chat on the phone. Let’s connect. I look forward to serving all of you and am ready to promote the interests of the independent oil and natural gas industry.
Let’s go!
Sincerely,
Edith President and CEO, IPAA
Edith Naegele, IPAA president and CEO.
IPAA Pushes for Permitting Reform
By Mallori Miller
IPAA has long advocated for meaningful changes to our nation’s permitting process.
The current permitting system in the U.S. poses a significant obstacle to energy development, particularly for the oil and natural gas industry, which remains critical for national security, the economy and U.S. energy dominance. While federal regulations are necessary to ensure environmental stewardship and public safety, bureaucratic delays, red tape, redundant reviews and legal uncertainty that are embedded in the current process often stall vital projects like pipelines and drilling operations. These inefficiencies not only hinder domestic energy production but also increase costs for consumers and weaken America’s position in the global energy market.
Among the reforms IPAA has advocated for are meaningful changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lengthy NEPA process is often unpredictable and has become weaponized as a tool for obstruction rather than thoughtful oversight. Reforming NEPA to increase certainty by imposing clear timelines and limiting excessive litigation is essential for streamlining approvals.
Litigation has long been a favorite tool of environmental groups to delay or derail energy projects even after they have
stood up to rigorous environmental and regulatory reviews. These opponents often exploit procedural loopholes and vague legal standards to tie up projects for years in courts. Meanwhile, producers are left with uncertainty and increasing costs, wondering if and when their permit will be issued so work can begin.
These legal challenges and the delays caused jeopardy to jobs, energy supply and economic growth. Addressing litigious overreach by limiting frivolous lawsuits and establishing clearer legal thresholds for legal challenges is vital. IPAA has advocated for changes to NEPA that include narrowing the scope of judicial review, implementing firm deadlines for filing lawsuits and rightsizing language to ensure that only parties with a direct stake in a project are allowed to bring legal action.
In the past decade, Congress has made several attempts to address permitting reform. However, every member of Congress has a different idea of what constitutes “permitting reform.”
Progress on this front has been incremental and often met with political gridlock. In 2015, the FAST Act created the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council to streamline reviews for major infrastructure projects. This tool, though only available to large-scale projects, is a major step
forward in terms of oversight and regulatory cooperation and is currently being utilized to its utmost potential under the Trump administration. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 also included some modest reforms to NEPA, including time limits for environmental reviews and streamlined procedures for certain projects. Changes under this law marked the most significant amendments to NEPA since its inception in 1970.
Both Republican and Democrat lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at expediting approvals for energy infrastructure, including oil and natural gas projects. However, many of these proposals have stalled amid partisan disagreement over the role of fossil fuels. In the 118th Congress, Senator Joe Manchin (former chair of the Senate Energy Committee) and Senator John Barrasso (former ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee) introduced the bipartisan Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (S.4753).
Advanced out of Committee by a 15-4 vote, the bill was designed to tackle permitting bottlenecks across oil, natural gas, mining and clean energy sectors. It advocated for a 150-day statute of limitation for judicial challenges, mandated streamlining for leasing and permitting for fossil fuels and renewables and ended the pause on LNG export approvals –an issue that President Trump addressed in one of his first executive orders following his inauguration earlier this year.
In recent months, a new bipartisan initiative emerged on the House side under the banner of the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act (SPEED Act), which was introduced in July 2025 by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Representative Jared Golden (D-ME).
The bill aims to overhaul NEPA by simplifying its procedures to reduce timelines, limit litigation and restore the law to its original intent – a procedural, not prohibitive statute.
The SPEED Act clarifies when NEPA applies by defining “Major Federal Action” more clearly, shortens the window for legal challenges to 150 days, curbs procedural delays and streamlines environmental analyses that have bogged down energy projects.
While these efforts reflect a growing bipartisan recognition of the need for reform, they have so far fallen short of delivering the comprehensive, durable changes needed to modernize the permitting system and support the country’s long-term energy and infrastructure goals.
Being a good steward of our environment doesn’t mean we must tolerate a years-long permitting process that is onerous, overly complex and ripe for litigation abuse.
- Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME)
There is a deep ideological divide in Congress over the role of fossil fuels in America’s energy future. While some bipartisan progress is being made, many Democrats still argue that any changes to permitting laws must also safeguard environmental protections and prioritize clean energy development above traditional fuel sources. This fundamental tension has led to gridlock, particularly when fossil fuel provisions such as expanded drilling or expedited pipeline approvals are viewed as political nonstarters by more progressive lawmakers.
In July, the IPAA government relations team hosted Emily Domenech (middle left), executive director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council), at the IPAA offices to discuss permitting reforms that would improve the ability of independent oil and natural gas producers to operate. The Permitting Council is the federal agency charged with overseeing federal infrastructure projects.
-
The SPEED Act will help launch America into a future where we can effectively innovate and implement to revitalize our infrastructure, meet skyrocketing energy demands, lead the world in the AI race and work in harmony with our natural environment.”
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Nevertheless, the timing is especially favorable right now for passing permitting reform due to a convergence of political, economic and strategic factors. With a growing urgency around domestic energy production, supply chain reliability and infrastructure modernization, both parties agree that the current permitting system is not equipped to meet 21st-century demands. The build-up of clean energy, expansion of oil and natural gas infrastructure and buildout of transmission infrastructure all require a more efficient, predictable approval process.
Furthermore, rising energy costs, international instability and the need to compete with China’s rapid project development have heightened bipartisan support in streamlining federal reviews. As the 119th Congress progresses, several bipartisan bills have already been introduced and are gaining momentum, thus creating a rare window of opportunity for consensus.
Meaningful permitting reform is essential to boost the oil and natural gas industry. Streamlining approvals and other parts
of the permitting process will help unlock investment and ensure the continued development of reliable, affordable American oil and natural gas production.
Now is the moment for Congress to come together to deliver a pragmatic, balanced permitting reform package that strengthens U.S. energy independence and economic competitiveness. This is one of IPAA’s top legislative priorities. We will work to build consensus with Republicans and Democrats alike to move beyond political gridlock and deliver real permitting reform that puts American energy, jobs and economic security first.
About the Author Mallori Miller is the vice president of government relations at IPAA.
In September, IPAA hosted an Industry Insights webinar for members featuring Domenech’s overview of the Permitting Council’s scope and work. Domenech’s view is that America’s track record of leadership on protecting the environment is perhaps the best argument for speeding the permitting of new domestic energy projects. “Building it here in the United States, changing that default answer to ‘yes,’ is not only best for our national security, it’s also best for the environment. And that’s something I think people miss all the time.”
One Big Beautiful Bill: A Big Win for American Energy
Tax Implications of the Budget Reconciliation Bill
By Andrew Vecera and Ryan Ullman
This summer, the Republican majority in Congress passed President Trump’s signature piece of legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). OBBBA contained a significant number of policy and spending priorities, including a tax title aimed at fueling America’s economic growth.
The OBBBA is notable for several changes within the tax code, such as making permanent numerous tax changes first put in place under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). For oil and gas firms, while the OBBBA made some changes specific to the industry, it is just as notable for what it did not change. Following is a summary of what remained the same, what was changed and some of the broad impacts of these policies going forward.
First, Do No Harm
Since the passage of the 2017 TCJA, IPAA made the decision to remain engaged on tax issues, regularly educating members of Congress and staff on the impact of tax policy on America’s energy landscape. IPAA’s message to Congress was clear: first, do no harm. We focused our information campaign on four core tax policies that have the most direct impact on oil and gas firms and their access to working capital:
1. Percentage Depletion Allowance
2. Intangible Drilling Costs (IDC)
3. Passive Loss Exception
4. Carried Interest (only change is the effective date, which is now Jan. 19 of each tax year)
Contrary to rhetoric that these provisions represent a subsidy, the fact remains that these reflect necessary and ordinary business tax treatments found throughout American business sectors. Allowing firms to retain capital generated through business activity is not, nor has it ever been, a “giveaway.”
With respect to these provisions, we advocated before Congress that maintaining the way these treatments have functioned for decades, and over a century in some cases, retains certainty within the code, ensures accurate and timely compliance for tax filers and protects access to capital for firms utilizing these provisions. Through these efforts, we successfully preempted any proposed changes that would have sought to take away these critical industry provisions.
IPAA-supported Changes
While IPAA built our tax advocacy strategy on the foundation of protecting the four priority treatments, we also sought to expand the industry’s access to working capital to pursue President Trump’s energy dominance agenda. As such, the OBBBA contained several impactful changes that will greatly benefit the oil and gas sector:
1. Bonus Depreciation – 100% bonus depreciation was included in the TCJA but was scheduled to be phased out. The OBBBA reinstated and made permanent bonus depreciation. This provision allows oil and gas firms to immediately deduct the full cost of eligible capital investments, including drilling equipment, machinery and infrastructure that otherwise would have been amortized.
2. IDC Fix for Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT) – The CAMT was originally included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The CAMT established a 15% minimum tax on corporations whose Adjusted Financial Statement of Income (AFSI) exceeds $1 billion. IPAA supported language to allow oil and gas companies to include IDC costs against their AFSI, reducing exposure to the CAMT’s 15% minimum tax.
3. 45Q – Adopted in 2008, 45Q grants a tax credit to companies that sequester carbon dioxide in certain ways. The OBBBA increased the value of the credit by $25 per ton for firms that utilize enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for sequestration purposes. By bringing parity to this section of the code, the 45Q credit becomes tech-neutral and makes EOR a more economically viable alternative to simple sequestration.
4. Qualified Business Income (Sec. 199A) –Established under the TCJA and slated to expire in 2025, the OBBBA made the 199A treatment permanent. Section 199A allows eligible pass-through entities, such as S-corps and partnerships, to deduct up to 20% of their qualified business income (QBI). A key distinction within 199A is the difference between “active” and “passive” entities. Income generated via a “working interest” is considered active and therefore qualifies for the QBI deduction. Passive income, from royalty income, for example, would not qualify for the QBI deduction. There are income limitations, thresholds and specified
restrictions. Firms should consult with their respective tax professionals to determine their eligibility for this deduction.
5. Interest Deduction – The OBBBA returns to the original TCJA calculation regarding limitations on business interest expenses. The OBBBA allows the add-back of depletion and amortization to the adjusted taxable income calculation, effectively allowing deductions of up to 30% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. For leveraged companies, including private equity, these changes may significantly improve cash flow and borrowing capacity. Businesses that previously faced constrained interest deductions may now find it easier to finance growth, acquisitions or technology upgrades.
In addition to the countless hours of tax advocacy, IPAA sought other policy changes that are critical to the continued competitiveness of American energy producers. Some of those efforts included and resulted in lowered royalty rates for operations on federal lands and waters, the delayed implementation of the methane tax and streamlined federal permitting.
This is a brief summary of an expansive piece of legislation, and it should be noted that firms should always consult with their tax professionals to determine the best tax strategies for their respective businesses.
IPAA continues to be the leading voice for the American independent oil and natural gas producer and those entities that serve the industry. By focusing efforts on ensuring those policies that have fostered American energy dominance remain unaffected, by fighting for appropriate changes where possible and by adhering to the fundamental principle that access to capital and lowered tax liability stimulate economic growth, we believe IPAA and our industry partners have delivered the most important tax policy package in a generation.
Other IPAA Wins in the OBBBA
A Few Other Victories for Independent Producers in the Reconciliation Bill
• 10-year delay of implementation of the methane tax
• Mandating of federal lease sales
• Royalty rate reductions: Onshore - restored the pre-IRA royalty rate of 12.5%, removing the disincentive to production from the IRA-imposed rate of 16.67%; Offshore - reduced the minimum rate from 16.67% to 12.5%
About the Authors
Andrew Vecera, director of advocacy services for Ryan LLC, is chair of the IPAA Tax Committee. Ryan Ullman is the vice president of Government Relations and Political Affairs at IPAA.
Rescinding the Endangerment Finding: What It Means for the Industry
EPA Publishes Proposed Rule Challenging the Agency’s Authority to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
By Armando F. Benincasa
On Aug. 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule to repeal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The proposed rule represents the first step taken by the Trump administration to undo climate-related GHG emission rules, which will likely see the EPA revisit other GHG regulations, including methane emission rules for the oil and gas industry.
The basis for this action is the agency’s decision to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding, which found that certain GHGs contributed to global warming and met the statutory definition of pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
The Endangerment Finding
“Endangerment Finding” is the commonly used term to reference the findings made previously by the EPA under Section 202(a)of the Act, which requires the EPA to regulate:
“[T]he emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines which contribute to air pollution and which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
This statutory language became the cornerstone of the EPA’s regulatory approach to GHGs.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), had previously held that the term “air pollutant” as defined in the CAA was broad enough to encompass GHGs. Massachusetts v. EPA had as its genesis a 1999 rulemaking petition to the EPA requesting federal regulation of GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under the CAA. The EPA denied the petition on the basis that “the CAA notably does not authorize regulation to address global climate change.” (68 Fed. Reg. 52922, Sept. 8, 2003.)
SCOTUS disagreed, finding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant,’” which includes any physical or chemical substance that is “emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” As a result, the court found that the EPA had statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, provided the administrator makes a “judgment” under CAA Section 202(a)(1) that those emissions endanger the public health and welfare.
In December 2009, under President Obama, the EPA concluded that concentrations of six specific GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – endangered both the public health and welfare of current and future generations via climate change and that the emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles “cause or contribute to” that air pollution.
Subsequent legal challenges to the Endangerment Findings were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Revisiting and Rescinding the Endangerment Finding
Upon taking office in January, the EPA’s new administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced that the agency would take steps to repeal and rescind rules related to climate change, consistent with President Trump’s executive orders aimed at lessening the regulatory burden on industry and better utilizing domestic energy resources.
Trump’s Executive Order No. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” specifically required the EPA to provide recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget on the “legality and continuing applicability” of the EPA’s prior Endangerment Finding and to attempt to further Trump’s campaign promises to reduce the cost of living by “giving Americans the ability to purchase a safe and affordable car ... while decreasing the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver.”
In its filing, the EPA revisits the factual and legal underpinnings that supported the initial issuance of the Endangerment Finding and provides its own reasoning for reversing the prior findings.
1. A New Interpretation of the CAA
The EPA’s primary argument for rescinding the Endangerment Finding was that it does not have the statutory authority under CAA Section 202(a) to regulate emission standards to address global climate change concerns.
In its 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA interpreted statutory silence in CAA Section 202(a) regarding its ability to consider global climate change and its impacts on public health to mean that it had the discretion to consider those impacts on a global scale and impose GHG standards for motor vehicles and engines to address those impacts without having to address whether the pollutants had a specific nexus to a local impact (Id. at 36,299).
In its new filing, the EPA interprets CAA Section 202(a) as only authorizing it to identify and regulate air pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public
At an auto dealership in Indiana in July, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin released the agency’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which has been used to justify over $1 trillion in regulations, including the Biden-Harris administration’s electric vehicle mandate. (photo credit: EPA)
health and welfare “through local and regional exposures.” Id. at 36,300.
The distinction being made by the agency relates to its authority to regulate emissions that have direct versus indirect impacts on human health and general welfare. The EPA distinguishes air pollution that impacts public health and welfare by its presence in the ambient air (i.e., on a localized level) from air pollution that impacts public health and welfare indirectly (i.e., on a global level) and not by its mere presence in the ambient air. Id.
The EPA relied on recent decisions from SCOTUS in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024); West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022); and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), to support this change in interpretation.
The EPA reasons that the major questions doctrine set forth in West Virginia v. EPA and the overturning of the Chevron deference in Loper Bright have led it to interpret the statutory silence in CAA Section 202(a) to address indirect impacts of emissions to a larger global climate concern. The EPA considers the silence as a lack of clear authorization from Congress to address GHG emissions that do not impact
immediate local health concerns, rather than a passive authorization to address larger global impacts beyond the borders of the United States and that the CAA does not provide authority to the agency to regulate air pollutants in this manner. Id. at 36,305-36,306.
2. Implications of Revocation of the Endangerment Finding
Although the 2009 Endangerment Finding led most directly to GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines, it also set off a cascade of broader regulatory activity under the CAA. As the proposed rule states, the EPA applied the Endangerment Finding’s analytical framework to a range of other areas, including stationary source permitting, emission standards for power plants and other stationary sources and oil and gas operations, leading to new regulations meant to address methane and fugitive emissions from the oil and gas industry generally and from certain up and downstream operations specifically.
Specific New Source Performance Standards under Section 111(b) of the CAA have been promulgated for the oil and gas industry under subparts, such as OOOOb and OOOOa, which target emissions from new, modified and reconstructed sources,
Graves & Co. Consulting
Ÿ Reserves Certifications for Regulatory Reporting
Ÿ Unconventional Reserves Assessments
Ÿ Risk Assessment and Portfolio Management
Ÿ Geological and Depositional Studies
Ÿ Expert Witness Testimony and Litigation Support
Ÿ Field Development Studies
Ÿ A&D Analysis and Sales Package Preparation
Ÿ Carbon Sequestration Support
For reliable reserve reporting, financial analyses, and economic evaluations, count on GCC. We provide reservoir engineering and geoscience studies to upstream and midstream energy companies and financial institutions worldwide.
1201 Louisiana, Suite 2720, Houston, TX 77002
and OOOOc, passed during the Biden administration, which requires the states to develop regulations for the control of methane emissions from existing sources such as older conventional assets.
The EPA’s current proposal recognizes that the Endangerment Finding has formed the basis for other agency actions and that the agency has and intends to initiate further rulemakings that will address any “overlapping issues.” Depending on the rationale the EPA adopts in a final rule, the logical or legal ramifications of its action on the Endangerment Finding and vehicle emission standards will likely extend much more broadly to include actions taken related to the regulation of methane emissions in the oil and gas industry, including the potential rollback of some of these rules and regulations.
The agency has already separately proposed repealing all GHG limits for coal- and gas-fired power plants under CAA Section 111, though this is based on reasoning largely distinct from that in the Endangerment Finding proposal.
However, the EPA specifically notes that the existing power sector GHG rules “relied on [the] conclusion in the 2009 Endangerment Finding” regarding the causes and impacts of GHG emissions. See 90 Fed. Reg. 25752, 25767 (June 17, 2025).
It should be anticipated that the EPA will pursue further rulemakings to further step back from GHG emission regulations.
The Future
One can expect that lawsuits will be filed once the EPA issues the final rule. The Obama administration took roughly nine months from publication of the rule to issuance of the Endangerment Finding in 2009. Assuming a similar time frame for consideration and response to comments, a final rule undoing the Endangerment Finding could be completed in early 2026, followed by an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, which has jurisdiction over nationally applicable EPA actions. Delays in the EPA’s process or court proceedings could push this timeline substantially farther into the future.
As mentioned above, it is also very likely that the new administration will take steps to walk back rules related to the regulation of methane, which were promulgated during the Biden administration, including OOOOc. Many states have, in fact, halted the development of state rules required by OOOOc based upon actions taken by EPA to commence this role back.
These steps, though, do not prevent future federal administrations from revisiting the Endangerment Finding or considering other means of controlling emissions from the oil and gas industry. Changes in leadership at EPA have created a whipsaw effect over the previous ten years, resulting in substantial uncertainty for industry as a whole.
It should also be noted that while removal of the Endangerment Finding and OOOOc would have a substantial impact in the way the federal government addresses emissions, it does not eliminate the federal regulatory regime. Other pollutants may form the basis of regulation. For example, in
2020, the Trump administration wished to utilize Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) as the basis for regulation of industry emissions under OOOOa. The regulation of VOCs remains a viable means of regulating emissions from industry sources, including existing sources, by both the federal and state governments. For example, VOCs are a major component of smog and states like New York have already implemented regulations to reduce VOCs from oil and gas facilities. These rules require equipment upgrades and leak detection and repair that effectively capture both VOCs and methane.
States also have broad authority under the Clean Air Act to prevent and control air pollution within their borders. By modifying State Implementation Plans, states can enforce emissions standards for various pollutants, including those from oil and gas operations.
It will be important to maintain vigilance and track both state and federal regulators, regardless of these actions currently being taken by the EPA.
About the Author
Armando Benincasa is a member of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC based in Charleston, West Virginia. He is an IPAA member and works alongside IPAA’s Natural Gas Committee chairman Kurt Krieger at Steptoe & Johnson. Armando Benincasa combines state agency experience, a real-world business perspective and a deep understanding of complex environmental issues in a practice focused on energy and environmental law, environmental litigation, administrative law, government affairs and lobbying. He manages cases involving permitting and regulatory requirements for natural resources, including coal, oil and gas, solid waste, water resources, underground storage tanks, voluntary remediation and the drafting of rules and statutes related to the environment. He has extensive experience in governmental matters, as well as in representing energy companies before state agencies and the West Virginia Legislature.
A Revival of Pipelines Under the Trump Administration
By Mandi Risko
Pipelines are a vital component of ensuring energy reliability across the U.S. energy system. In recent years, a combination of backlogs for permitting, obtuse state policies, misuse of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and increased activism have created significant delays and prevented new pipelines from being built.
It’s a problem with real consequences –from skyrocketing prices to usage curtailments to importing Russian natural gas to meet demand – that will only get worse as energy demand continues to grow.
The solution has always been obvious: build more infrastructure. And now, thanks to the Trump administration’s renewed interest in Northeast pipeline projects that have long been canceled, we may finally see these critical projects go from conceptual to operational, allowing New Englanders to have access to the abundance of natural gas just a hop, skip and jump away in the Marcellus and Utica Shales.
Trump Breathes New Life Into Long-delayed Pipeline Projects
Upon taking office, President Trump reiterated his support for the canceled Keystone XL Pipeline, urging the company to “get it built,” and criticized the state of New York for its role in delaying projects and restricting energy access to the Northeast, in turn causing higher energy prices for American families.
To lower these energy costs, President Trump vowed to open up pipeline access across New York, specifically with the construction of the Constitution Pipeline, a project that had been canceled in 2020 following years of permitting delays in the state.
Speaking on the Constitution, President Trump said, “We are going to get this done … It will bring down the energy prices in New York and in all of New England by 50, 60, 70%.”
The Constitution Pipeline would transport natural gas from the energy-rich Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania to markets in New York and New England, providing a much-needed relief to the region’s energy supply constraints and lessening imports that have been critical for the region’s energy reliability despite being a stone’s throw away from energyrich states.
Similarly, the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) project, a proposed 37-mile underwater pipeline that would carry natural gas from New Jersey to the existing Transcontinental Gas Pipeline, adding a critical link in a pipeline network that spans from Texas to Long Island, has been canceled three times under New York’s hostile regulations.
However, both the Constitution and NESE appear to have new life after what seemed like a compromise with the Trump
administration and Gov. Kathy Hochul to reopen the Empire Wind 1 offshore wind project in exchange for support for the pipelines, though state environmental hurdles remain.
President Trump is also supporting a massive new natural gas pipeline, Alaska LNG, to export LNG to Asian markets. While the state has supported the project, the Trump administration has made it a priority to accelerate its development, viewing it as a strategic national priority.
Speaking about the Department of War, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the DOW is ready to support the project, emphasizing Trump’s whole-of-government approach to energy dominance.
“They’re ready to sign on to take an offtake agreement from this pipeline to get gas to our super strategic, important bases across Alaska,” Burgum said.
Permitting and Regulatory Reform
The Trump administration has also used executive orders and legislative mandates to try to speed up critical infrastructure projects.
From President Trump’s Unleashing American Energy Executive Order:
“…facilitate the permitting and construction of interstate energy transportation and other critical energy infrastructure, including, but not limited to, pipelines, particularly in regions of the
Nation that have lacked such development in recent years…”
At the same time, the administration has attempted to limit the power of states under the Clean Water Act to block pipelines, and has consistently reiterated the need for permitting reform, which may finally get its day in Congress this fall.
Pipelines: Powering America and the World
Pipelines rarely make headlines when they’re doing what they do best: quietly and safely delivering the energy that powers homes, businesses and industries. But when a new project is proposed, that’s when the debate begins, with opponents often fearmongering about risks while overlooking the reality that pipelines are among the safest, most efficient and most essential components of our nation’s energy infrastructure.
From the Permian Basin or the Marcellus Shale, to ports along every American coast, U.S. pipelines move the resources that fuel our economy and strengthen our energy security. Texas alone plays an outsized role: the Lone Star State transports roughly 1.1 billion tons of product each year, holds one-fourth of proven U.S. reserves and supports 31% of the nation’s refining capacity, all while moving oil and natural gas not just across the state, but throughout the country and overseas.
Regional projects across Texas all demonstrate how well-planned infrastructure can connect supply to demand, reduce carbon intensity and advance U.S. trade interests. For example:
• Kinder Morgan’s Permian Highway Pipeline, which helps move natural gas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast to meet domestic and export demand.
• Energy Transfer’s extensive network of intrastate pipelines includes the Lone Star Express, which connects key producing regions to markets across Texas.
• The proposed Blackfin Pipeline is designed specifically to ease supply distribution constraints from the Permian Basin transporting natural gas from Colorado County west of Houston to Jasper County in East Texas.
On the national front, major oil companies like ExxonMobil operate more than 16,000 miles of pipelines, delivering everything from CO2 captured through carbon capture processes to over 3.5 million barrels of oil-derived products to recipients across the country.
Likewise, the Colonial Pipeline system, which spans more than 5,500 miles from Texas to New Jersey, moves gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from the Gulf Coast to communities up and down the East Coast. As reliable energy is essential to a functioning modern society, without these
pipelines, we risk disrupting the flow of a vital and much-needed resource.
Safety Is Built in, Not an Afterthought
Anti-industry groups such as the Sierra Club or Earthjustice often claim that pipelines are sited with little thought to public safety or environmental impact, but that’s far from reality. In fact, pipelines have a 99.99% rate of delivering product without incident. Yet, it’s not only traditional opponents making these claims. Some who support the industry still lead local NIMBY campaigns that mirror, almost word-for-word, the same exaggerated safety fears pushed by anti-oil and anti-gas groups.
Take, for example, the proposed Blackfin Pipeline that will carry 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, which is equivalent to roughly 42.9 million gallons of liquid natural gas (LNG) per day. If unable to move forward, it would require 4,612 tanker trucks per day carrying 9,300 gallons each to replace Blackfin’s capacity. Imagine what an extra 4,612 trucks each day would do to traffic or emissions. Not to mention, transporting natural gas by pipeline is safer than transporting it by truck.
The truth is that routing a pipeline is an extensive process involving environmental studies, engineering analyses and community input. Companies work with landowners to fairly compensate them for the use of their property and to design routes that minimize impact.
That includes facilities like compressor stations, which are extremely necessary components of any pipeline project and are strategically placed with safety buffers, built to meet or exceed rigorous state and federal standards.
Compressor stations are not new to the oil and gas industry and its operations. They are an established and trusted part of the natural-gas delivery system, with roughly 1,200-1,400 stations operating nationwide and about 93 in Texas alone, reflecting decades of reliable service.
Claims of the “catastrophic danger” of pipelines and their associated facilities misrepresent both the technology and the safety measures in place. Equipment is designed with multiple layers of protection, including pressure monitoring, automated shutdown systems and scheduled maintenance to prevent incidents.
Additionally, frequent criticism of vital operations such as “blowdowns” –controlled releases of gas for maintenance –is often taken out of context. These are standard, regulated safety practices that protect both the public and the environment by ensuring pipelines operate within safe limits, reducing the risk of accidents and allowing gas to be safely released in a controlled manner to prevent uncontrolled leaks.
Beyond Transport: Pipelines
Fuel Jobs, the Economy and Emissions Reductions
Pipelines don’t just move energy; they move the economy. Construction and operation create thousands of jobs, from skilled trades to engineering and environmental compliance. The tax revenue they generate supports schools, roads and public services in communities along their routes.
In Texas, pipelines contributed approximately $3.6 billion in state and local revenue in 2022. In Pennsylvania, another key industry player, local pipeline operators, including those in the overall natural gas industry, have paid $2.88 billion since 2012 to the state’s Impact Fees Fund, which directly benefits the community.
Nationally, pipelines keep energy costs more stable by ensuring supply can move where it’s needed most, reducing dependence on foreign sources.
They are also one of the most emissions-efficient ways to transport oil and natural gas. Moving the same volume by truck or rail would not only be more expensive but also result in higher emissions and greater safety risks. By enabling projects like LNG export terminals, pipelines help replace coal-fired generation overseas, ultimately resulting in a net reduction in global emissions.
Bottom Line: Pipelines are not an optional extra in America’s energy mix; they are essential and serve as the backbone of energy security, dominance and economic strength. President Trump’s understanding that these critical pieces of infrastructure are vital links in a larger chain that keeps the lights on, the economy moving and helps our allies is a welcome and needed change to revive old projects and spur new ones.
About
Our team had a wonderful time in Williamsburg this June, getting to catch up with many of our members and learn from experts from across the country on the trends affecting the oil and natural gas industry. Beth Stockner, leader of IPAA’s meetings department, did a fantastic job of working with IPAA’s Program Committee to assemble an agenda that was timely and relevant, and also showcased the local flavor of the Historic Triangle area.
From insightful conversations on data centers and their soaring energy use, largely powered by natural gas, to what’s next with tariffs and international trade, we had it covered. We heard about the geopolitical impact the conflict in Gaza has on energy security in the U.S. and Israel from leaders with the Council for a Secure America. Our team encourages you to visit their website for real-time updates on the Israel-Hamas war. We are all safer and more energy secure today because of the work of American independent producers.
We were honored to recognize one of our longtime members, Don Sparks, co-founder and chairman of Discovery Operating, Inc., as the 2025 Chief Roughneck Award winner. Discovery is an example of a successful family-run independent producer, and the “Telling Our Story” panel added to the family perspective of the industry with Miller Energy CEO and Co-Founder Drew Martin and Miller Investment Company
Partner Kelly Miller sharing lessons learned. We appreciate the support of our sponsors who made our Annual Meeting possible. We look forward to seeing you at one of our future meetings or events, including our 97th Annual Meeting, which will be held at The Broadmoor in Colorado Springs, Colorado, from June 16-18, 2026. Reservations are already open, and we recommend booking your room early. You can find the link to book and the latest information on the meeting at IPAA.org/events.
IPAA’s 96th Annual Meeting kicked off Williamsburg-style with a fife and drum march.
Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) and IPAA COO and EVP Dan Naatz engaged in a fireside chat focused on the politics, policies and other issues he engaged in during his time in office, as well as a brief discussion of his upcoming book “Dead Center – In Defense of Commonsense.”
The networking sessions and receptions at IPAA’s Annual Meeting provided an opportunity to catch up with colleagues and take in local history.
The “Data Centers and Their Energy Needs” panel featured Nathan Ough (VoltaGrid), Michael Sollee, P.E. (Diamondback Energy) and Brett Vassey (Virginia Manufacturers Association) sharing eye-opening insights and brought to light just how much energy data centers use and will require as more come online, and how natural gas is the answer because it’s dispatchable and reliable.
IPAA Board Member Cye Wagner (Cooper Oil & Gas) moderated the “Telling Our Story” panel with Drew Martin (R), co-founder and CEO of Miller Energy Company in Michigan and Kelly Miller (M) with Miller Investment Company, in which they provided a family perspective regarding the future of the American oil and natural gas industry.
Jennifer Sutton, the executive director of the Council for a Secure America, detailed the geopolitical impact the conflict in Gaza has on energy security in America and Israel.
IPAA Recognizes Don Sparks
2025 Chief Roughneck Award Winner
Don Sparks, cofounder and chairman of Discovery Operating, Inc., was honored with the 2025 Chief Roughneck Award, recognizing his lifetime of service to the industry at IPAA’s 96th Annual Meeting.
The Chief Roughneck Award recognizes one individual whose accomplishments and character represent the highest ideals of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry.
Jeff Eshelman, former IPAA president and CEO presented the award, saying “Don has made his mark on Midland, mark
on the industry and mark on the country. We are immensely grateful to have had him and his family active in IPAA and our advocacy for decades. His technical consulting and independent producing background enable him to be especially sensitive to the particular needs of independent producers, along with working interest participants and royalty interest owners. He’s a true patriot and has played a significant role in our country achieving energy dominance.” Sparks co-founded Discovery Operating, Inc. in 1973. Today, the family-owned independent operates approximately 420 wells within a 300-400-mile radius of Midland. Sparks has had a significant influence on the development of the Wolfcamp and Spraberry Shales, and the logging suite and analysis he helped establish has been the basis for picking the landing zones in the horizontal wells drilled and completed in the Midland Basin today.
Sparks has received numerous awards recognizing his accomplishments, including the IPAA Leadership Award, the University of Texas Cockrell School of Engineering Distinguished Graduate Award and the Hearst Lifetime Achievement Energy Award. He previously served as the president of the Permian Basin Chapter of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Director of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association and regional vice president, governor and executive committee member of the IPAA.
Don Sparks with Kurt Abraham, editor-in-chief of World Oil magazine and Jeff Eshelman, former IPAA president and CEO, who presented the award at the IPAA Membership Luncheon at the association’s 96th Annual Meeting.
REAL ENERGY. REAL DEALS.
THE ONLY EXPO WHERE DEALS HAPPEN & REAL MARKET INSIGHTS TAKE SHAPE.
REGISTRATION & HOUSING NOW OPEN!
READY TO REGISTER?
SPECIALIZED NAPE HUBS: WHERE SECTORS CONNECT
OIL & GAS PROSPECT HUB • RENEWABLE ENERGY HUB • BITCOIN MINING HUB • MINERALS & NONOP HUB • NEW! DATA CENTER HUB • NEW! OFFSHORE HUB • NEW! CRITICAL MINERALS HUB
Congressional Election Outlook
What’s Ahead in 2026?
By the IPAA Government Relations Team
The 2026 midterm congressional elections will be pivotal for the American oil and natural gas industry. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be contested, along with 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Although many of the House and Senate races will not be competitive, various political trends, including slim margins for the GOP majority in both chambers, make this election cycle unpredictable. In addition, efforts to redistrict congressional maps in Texas, California, Illinois and elsewhere make this an even harder election to accurately predict.
The elections will take place on Nov. 3, 2026, so there is significant time for issues to change, and candidates’ leads in the polls to dissipate. Historically, the party that holds the presidency tends to lose ground in the subsequent midterm elections. However, predictions based on historical trends for the 2026 midterm elections don’t apply in this case, as President Trump is a polarizing figure and views on him among the electorate are firmly established. Much of the election outcomes will be determined by the state of the economy, energy prices and factors such as candidate recruitment in the few months leading up to the election.
Here is a brief outlook of the current state of play:
House of Representatives
Currently, the Republicans hold a 220-215 majority in the House. This is a historically slim margin for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to defend, and the GOP can only lose two seats before control of the body flips to the Democrats. Although history suggests the Democrats will retake the House, consistent with the historical pattern of the president’s party losing seats in the midterm election, nothing about the 2026 elections is normal. Most House seats are considered “safe” for one party, and only a small number of competitive districts will decide the balance of power. Finally, many sitting members of the House
are retiring, and this could create a narrow opening for an election “surprise” on Nov. 3. Couple this with new redistricting maps approved in Texas and potentially California and some seats could swing in either direction.
Senate
The Republicans currently have the majority in the Senate with 53 seats to the Democrats’ 47 seats, including two independents who caucus with Democrats. Although 33 Senate seats will be contested in 2026, along with special elections for two seats in Florida and Ohio to fill the remainder of the terms of Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance, roughly five to six races will decide the majority. These races include the following states:
• Georgia – Incumbent Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
• Iowa – Open seat
• Maine – Incumbent Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Michigan – Open seat
• New Hampshire – Open seat
• North Carolina – Open seat
IPAA’s extensive advocacy efforts, from supporting political campaigns, hosting informational events and direct lobbying, consistently achieve significant victories on behalf of our members and the industry. Just this year, with the passage of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), IPAA delivered results. The OBBB delayed the implementation of the methane tax for 10 years and removed the possibility of backpay under future administrations. The bill also enacts important reforms for onshore and offshore federal lands and requires predictable lease sales in these areas.
The OBBB also delivered sound tax policy in several areas important to oil and gas producers. The bill left percentage depletion, intangible drilling costs and other mainstays of the energy portion of the tax code unchanged. The legislation also made changes that benefit the American economy as a whole and energy producers in particular. Just a few examples include reducing tax liabilities, which include setting the corporate tax rate at 21%, permanently restoring immediate R&D expensing and bonus depreciation and maintaining full application of 45Q for carbon capture while creating parity for enhanced oil recovery.
IPAA needs to maintain the legislative momentum started this year. We must continue to support members of the House and Senate who understand and support the industry. A strong presence is key to ensuring the voice of America’s independent producers continues to be heard in Washington. To be effective in the 2026 election cycle and beyond, we need the strong support and participation of our members.
For more information regarding the 2026 elections and how you can help support the IPAA’s work, please contact the IPAA Government Relations team at our offices in Washington.
Hart Energy events unite the energy industry. With thousands of attendees, hundreds of speakers and unmatched networking, our conferences spark the conversations and deals shaping the future of oil, gas and energy.
Beyond the stage, Hart Energy’s trusted editorial reach amplifies the industry’s story to a global audience — delivering insights, analysis and visibility found nowhere else.
4K+ annual attendees
Hours of unmatched networking
100s of top industry speakers
And next year, we’re going even bigger. More opportunities. More connections. More impact.
Fill out the form at HartEnergy.com/2026Events to be the first to know about upcoming events.
With over a 25 year track record, Amegy’s Energy Banking Group has been steadfastly committed to serving the financial needs of energy companies. As proof of that service, we currently have $4.1 billion in loan commitments to our energy borrowers. Our goal is to deliver innovative, technological applications and services to support some of the largest energy companies in the U.S. Financing is available from $10 million to $300 million to fund acquisitions, capital expenditures and general working capital secured by the following assets:
• Oil and gas reserves
• Gas gathering and processing systems
• Pipelines
• Refining and storage
• Oil field services, equipment, accounts receivable and inventory
• Capital and operating leases
Scott Collins EVP, Head of Energy Banking 713-232-2022
John Moffitt SVP, Houston Energy Banking 713-232-1074
J.B. Askew SVP, Dallas Energy Banking 214-754-6109
