Senate Joint Resolution 12 requests that the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) hold public hearings in California on the proposed 2026–2031 National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program, prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) to accompany the plan, and provide the public an opportunity to comment on a draft programmatic EIS for potential offshore leasing affecting California. The resolution also formally and unequivocally opposes any new offshore oil or gas drilling off the Pacific coast and urges the Secretary of the Interior to remove California from the proposed leasing plan.
This is a non‑binding state-level expression of position that assembles a legislative record: it catalogs historical spills and existing state law, cites the potential scale of the federal proposal (34 potential lease sales across 1.27 billion acres, including six in California’s waters), and transmits the resolution to federal and state officials. For regulators, industry, and coastal stakeholders, the resolution signals heightened political opposition and a request for expanded procedural review (hearings and a programmatic EIS) as the federal leasing program moves forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
SJR 12 formally requests BOEM to hold public hearings in California and to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement and draft for public comment for the 2026–2031 OCS leasing program. It also declares the California Legislature’s strong opposition to any new offshore drilling and supports the existing federal prohibition on new Pacific leases.
Who It Affects
The resolution targets federal decisionmakers (BOEM and the Department of the Interior) and signals to oil and gas companies, coastal municipalities, fishing and tourism sectors, and military installations that California opposes expanded Pacific leasing. It also creates an administrative record that environmental groups, tribes, and local governments can reference.
Why It Matters
Although non‑binding, the resolution centralizes California’s legal and political objections into a formal legislative record and asks for specific procedural steps (hearings and a programmatic EIS) that, if taken up by BOEM, would broaden public participation and could lengthen or alter the federal planning process. It clarifies how California’s existing statutes, municipal actions, and past spill history shape state opposition.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SJR 12 is a state joint resolution, not a statute, that expresses the Legislature’s position on the federal government’s proposed 2026–2031 OCS oil and gas leasing program. The resolution compiles findings—historical oil spills, the age and declining viability of offshore platforms, economic data about coastal industries, municipal ordinances, and prior state laws restricting leasing—and uses those findings to justify requests to federal officials.
Its operative requests are procedural: the Legislature asks BOEM to hold hearings in California, prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement to accompany the five‑year plan, and publish a draft programmatic EIS for public comment specific to potential leasing touching California.
Beyond those procedural demands, the resolution states a clear policy position: it “strongly and unequivocally” opposes any new offshore drilling in federal waters off the Pacific coast and declares support for the current federal prohibition on new Pacific drilling. The text also urges the Secretary of the Interior to remove California from the proposed plan and signals that the Legislature will consider “appropriate actions” to maintain the prohibition.
Finally, the resolution instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to specified federal and state officials, creating an explicit record of the Legislature’s position for federal agencies, members of Congress from California, and the executive branch.Practically, SJR 12 does three things for stakeholders: it builds a legislative record documenting California’s objections; it asks for concrete procedural steps that would expand public input (hearings and a programmatic EIS); and it publicly and formally pressures federal decisionmakers to exclude California from the proposed leasing footprint. Because the document is a resolution, it does not itself change federal law or prohibit leasing, but it is intended to shape the administrative environment around BOEM’s plan.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution requests that BOEM hold public hearings in the State of California on the proposed 2026–2031 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
SJR 12 asks BOEM to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) to accompany the 2026–2031 leasing plan and to publish a draft programmatic EIS for public comment specific to California.
The bill cites the federal draft proposal would permit 34 potential lease sales across 1.27 billion acres and identifies six potential lease areas touching northern, central, and southern California.
The Legislature 'strongly and unequivocally' opposes any new offshore drilling off the Pacific coast and declares support for the current federal prohibition on new Pacific OCS leases.
The resolution directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies to the President, the Department of the Interior, BOEM leadership, California’s congressional delegation, and all state legislators, creating a formal interstate and federal notice.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Contextual record: spills, statutes, and local actions
This section compiles factual and policy findings the Legislature relies on: historical offshore spills (1969 Santa Barbara blowout, 2015 Refugio spill, 2021 San Pedro pipeline spill), California laws and moratoria going back to 1921, the 1994 California Coastal Sanctuary Act, 2018 statutes restricting state leasing and infrastructure, and municipal ordinances opposing onshore support facilities. Practically, these findings serve as the Legislature’s justification for opposing expanded leasing and as a factual record stakeholders can cite in administrative comments or litigation.
Asks BOEM to hold public hearings in California
The resolution specifically requests BOEM convene hearings within the State of California on the proposed 2026–2031 leasing program. That request seeks to localize public participation and make California‑specific impacts part of the administrative record, potentially increasing political pressure and the volume of vetted, on‑record public testimony BOEM would receive.
Requests a programmatic environmental impact statement and public comment period
SJR 12 asks BOEM to prepare a programmatic EIS to accompany the five‑year plan and to provide the public an opportunity to comment on a draft programmatic EIS for potential offshore leasing in California. A programmatic EIS would address broad, program‑level impacts (rather than project‑level specifics), and the request signals the Legislature wants a federal NEPA analysis that explicitly addresses regional and statewide environmental, economic, and cultural impacts.
Formal opposition and support for federal prohibition
The resolution contains unambiguous policy language: it 'strongly and unequivocally' opposes new offshore drilling and declares 'unequivocal support' for the existing federal prohibition on new Pacific offshore leases. That language is designed to bind the Legislature’s posture and to communicate clear statutory and political opposition to federal actions that would expand leasing in Pacific waters.
Urges removal of California from the federal plan and transmits the resolution
SJR 12 urges the United States Secretary of the Interior to remove California from the 2026–2031 proposed plan and instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to federal and state officials (President, Vice President, congressional leaders, California’s congressional delegation, DOI, BOEM, and all state legislators). This creates a formal record intended to influence federal administrative decisionmakers and notify relevant political actors.
Connects the opposition to California climate and economic policies
The resolution links the opposition to California’s statutory climate goals and coastal economy: it references statewide greenhouse gas targets, renewable energy mandates, and the economic value of fishing, tourism, and recreation. Including these linkages frames offshore leasing not only as an environmental risk but as inconsistent with existing state policy priorities, which is intended to strengthen the political case against new Pacific leases.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Coastal tourism and recreation businesses: The resolution aims to reduce the regulatory risk of expanded offshore drilling, which the text ties to potential spills that would directly harm beaches, parks, and visitor economies.
- Commercial and recreational fisheries: By opposing new leases and requesting a regional programmatic EIS, the Legislature is trying to preserve fish habitat and reduce the risk of closures or contamination that affect catch and livelihoods.
- Environmental NGOs and tribal groups: The consolidated legislative findings and the call for California‑specific hearings and a programmatic EIS provide these groups with a stronger factual record and procedural openings to influence federal review.
- Local governments that adopted ordinances against onshore support facilities: The resolution reinforces municipal positions and supplies a state legislative record that may support local zoning and public‑comment strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Department of the Interior: Although the resolution cannot compel action, it formalizes a request for hearings and a programmatic EIS—actions that would increase BOEM’s procedural workload and, if heeded, lengthen review timelines and require additional analysis.
- Oil, gas, and service industries proposing Pacific development: The resolution strengthens the political and administrative argument against new Pacific leases, increasing the prospect that companies will face opposition, procedural delay, or exclusion from these areas.
- Federal policymakers and Congress members supportive of leasing: California’s legislative record and transmittal to federal actors increases constituent pressure and administrative costs for those who would advocate for Pacific leasing.
- State agencies if they choose to pursue 'appropriate actions': The resolution states the Legislature will consider actions to maintain the prohibition, which could obligate state agencies or budgets if the Legislature follows through with litigation, policy measures, or advocacy campaigns.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between California’s desire to maximize public participation and prevent new offshore development to protect coastal ecology and economies, and the federal government’s statutory authority and discretion over OCS leasing: pushing for broader procedural review (hearings and a programmatic EIS) can slow or complicate federal planning and potentially block leasing, but those same procedural tools are the state’s main leverage short of legal or legislative preemption—an approach that asserts state priorities while recognizing the limits of a non‑binding resolution.
Several implementation and policy tensions appear when examining SJR 12. First, the resolution mixes procedural requests with strong policy declarations; because it is non‑binding, BOEM is not legally required to comply.
The practical effect depends on whether BOEM voluntarily expands hearings or decides to prepare a programmatic EIS. If BOEM declines, the resolution creates a political record but no procedural change.
If BOEM accepts, stakeholders will face an expanded administrative timeline and potential new avenues for challenge.
Second, the resolution repeatedly asks for a 'programmatic environmental impact statement' and an 'environmental impact statement' for the program, language that could reflect drafting redundancy rather than a clear difference in scope. That ambiguity matters: a well‑scoped programmatic EIS can analyze program‑level impacts across the Pacific planning areas, while a narrowly scoped document might not satisfy California’s intent to address statewide harms.
Moreover, preparing a programmatic EIS raises questions about scope, baseline data, and funding—who sets the scope, which impacts BOEM must analyze in depth, and how state‑specific concerns (military readiness, tribal cultural resources, local economic metrics) will be incorporated into a federal NEPA process.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.