Southern California Coast and Ocean Protection Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2862
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Energy
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-04-10: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-25T09:06:33Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Southern California Coast and Ocean Protection Act (H.R. 2862) aims to protect the coastal and ocean environments of Southern California by banning new oil and natural gas leasing activities in a specific federal offshore area.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on Leasing: The bill amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), a law that governs federal offshore energy resources, to add a new subsection (q) to Section 8.
- Scope of Ban: The Secretary of the Interior (who oversees federal offshore lands) is prohibited from issuing any leases or authorizations for exploring, developing, or producing oil or natural gas in the "Southern California Planning Area." This area is defined as described in the "2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program" document from September 2023.
- Override Clause: The prohibition applies regardless of other laws or provisions in the OCSLA, ensuring it takes precedence.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The OCSLA currently allows the Secretary of the Interior to lease federal offshore areas for oil and gas activities after environmental reviews and planning. This bill introduces a permanent ban specific to the Southern California Planning Area, closing off future leasing in this region without repealing broader OCSLA authorities elsewhere.
- It shifts from a discretionary leasing process to a categorical prohibition, limiting the federal government's flexibility in this geographic area.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: The Department of the Interior, particularly the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which handles offshore leasing, would be restricted from offering new leases in the area. This could simplify planning by removing this region from future national leasing programs but might require adjustments to ongoing environmental assessments.
- Citizens: Coastal communities in Southern California could benefit from reduced risks of oil spills, marine habitat disruption, and pollution, potentially enhancing tourism, fishing, and recreation. However, it might limit job opportunities in the energy sector for local workers.
- International Relations: No direct impacts are outlined, though it aligns with U.S. commitments to ocean conservation under international agreements like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (which the U.S. follows in practice but has not ratified).
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Likely supporters, as the ban protects sensitive marine ecosystems, including whale migration routes and coastal biodiversity.
- Coastal Residents and Communities: Positive effects for those in Southern California (e.g., San Diego to Santa Barbara regions) through preserved natural resources and reduced environmental risks.
- Oil and Gas Industry: Adversely affected companies, such as those interested in offshore drilling, would lose access to potential reserves, potentially increasing exploration costs elsewhere.
- Federal and State Governments: The U.S. government loses a potential revenue source from leasing royalties; California state officials may gain from aligned environmental goals but face energy policy tensions.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens environmental safeguards under the OCSLA by embedding a site-specific ban, which could influence future litigation over offshore energy decisions. It does not affect existing leases but prevents new ones, potentially reducing legal challenges related to drilling approvals.
- Constitutional: Falls within Congress's authority under the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 3), which allows regulation of federal lands and territories, including the outer continental shelf.
- Political: Reflects a bipartisan push (introduced by a diverse group of House members) toward ocean protection amid debates on climate change and energy independence, but it may spark opposition from pro-energy interests, influencing national energy policy discussions.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (23)
Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47], Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14], Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray [D-CA-31], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Liccardo, Sam T. [D-CA-16], Rep. Tran, Derek [D-CA-45], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30], Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29], Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39]
Recent Actions
- 2025-04-10: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 2025-04-10: Introduced in House
- 2025-04-10: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Southern California Coast and Ocean Protection Act — issued 2025-04-10 — PDF (2 pages)