Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to add a permanent prohibition on issuing leases or any authorizations for exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf planning areas off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The prohibition applies to the Washington/Oregon, Northern California, Central California, and Southern California planning areas as depicted in BOEM’s 2024–2029 Proposed Final Program.
Environmental protection versus energy security and fossil-industry jobs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly focused substantive policy change that uses a direct statutory prohibition to prevent future oil and gas leasing in specified outer Continental Shelf planning areas.
This bill amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to add a permanent prohibition on issuing leases or any authorizations for exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf planning areas off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California.
The prohibition applies to the Washington/Oregon, Northern California, Central California, and Southern California planning areas as depicted in BOEM’s 2024–2029 Proposed Final Program.
The text uses "notwithstanding any other provision" language to make the ban authoritative and permanent for those planning areas.
A permanent, ideologically salient ban with clear industry opposition, modest fiscal impacts, and no compromise features faces notable legislative and procedural resistance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly focused substantive policy change that uses a direct statutory prohibition to prevent future oil and gas leasing in specified outer Continental Shelf planning areas.
Environmental protection versus energy security and fossil-industry jobs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental protection versus energy security and fossil-industry jobs
Strongly supportive: views the bill as a durable legal block to new offshore fossil fuel extraction protecting marine ecosystems, coastal communities, and climate goals.
Would welcome permanence and federal alignment with West Coast state policies.
May press for complementary policies for workers and renewable investment, as the bill itself contains none.
Generally cautiously supportive: appreciates coastal protections and regulatory certainty but concerned about energy security, fiscal effects, and economic impacts.
Would favor accompanying analysis on revenue, energy supply, and transition assistance before full endorsement.
Sees value in a predictable federal stance but wants tradeoffs addressed.
Likely opposed: views the bill as unnecessary federal overreach that limits domestic energy production, reduces economic opportunity, and forfeits federal revenue.
Concerns include job losses in energy supply chains and potential harms to energy affordability and national energy security.
Would prefer market-based or state-driven decisions instead.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A permanent, ideologically salient ban with clear industry opposition, modest fiscal impacts, and no compromise features faces notable legislative and procedural resistance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental protection versus energy security and fossil-industry jobs
A permanent, ideologically salient ban with clear industry opposition, modest fiscal impacts, and no compromise features faces notable legi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly focused substantive policy change that uses a direct statutory prohibition to prevent future oil and gas leasing in specified outer Continenta…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.