HB408 seeks to nullify two Presidential memoranda issued on January 6, 2025 that withdrew certain areas of the outer continental shelf from oil and natural gas leasing. By striking those withdrawals, the bill would restore the government’s leasing framework to its prior state and keep leasing decisions within the standard statutory and regulatory processes.
The measure would affect energy developers, regulators, and coastal policymakers by reopening areas for potential leasing and development under existing law.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 1 declares that two January 6, 2025 Presidential memoranda withdrawing areas of the OCS from offshore leasing have no force or effect, restoring the status quo prior to those memoranda.
Who It Affects
Interior Department bureaus (notably BOEM), offshore oil and gas producers, drilling contractors, and states with offshore resources on the Gulf, Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea coast.
Why It Matters
It reasserts congressional prerogative over offshore leasing policy and narrows the executive branch’s unilateral authority to withdraw areas from leasing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill contains a single substantive action: it voids two Presidential memoranda that removed parts of the outer continental shelf from oil and gas leasing. Those memoranda, dated January 6, 2025, would otherwise prohibit leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and Pacific regions and in the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area.
By negating these memoranda, HB408 returns offshore leasing decisions to the usual legislative and regulatory framework, relying on existing statutes governing the Outer Continental Shelf and related environmental reviews. The result is a potential return to leasing activity in the affected areas, subject to the normal processes that agencies and courts apply to such decisions.
The bill does not change funding, program design, or environmental policy beyond removing the memoranda’ restrictions. For industry participants, regulators, and coastal states, the measure signals a reset in offshore energy policy and a reversion to the pre-memoranda leasing posture.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill nullifies two January 6, 2025 Presidential memoranda withdrawing OCS areas from offshore leasing.
The memoranda cover areas in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific regions, and the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area.
nullification returns offshore leasing authority to the standard statutory framework under existing law.
The bill does not create new funding or a new leasing program; it only negates the memoranda.
It constrains unilateral executive withdrawals by reaffirming congressional control over offshore leasing policy.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Nullification of Presidential Memoranda on OCS
Section 1 provides that the two January 6, 2025 Presidential memoranda withdrawing areas of the Outer Continental Shelf from oil and natural gas leasing shall have no force or effect. The effect is to restore the leasing framework to its prior state, meaning decisions regarding offshore exploration and production would proceed under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and related environmental and regulatory processes. This is a straight statutory reversal of executive actions rather than a new leasing program or funding allocation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy 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
- Offshore oil and gas producers with current or prospective leases in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea region, who gain clarity to pursue leasing opportunities.
- Drilling contractors and offshore service firms that depend on lease activity for work and capacity utilization.
- The federal government and coastal states that rely on royalties and economic activity, potentially increasing revenue streams when leasing resumes.
- Investors and lenders financing offshore projects who seek regulatory certainty and market predictability.
- Regional economies in Gulf Coast, Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska areas that benefit from new leases and related employment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental groups and wildlife advocates concerned about climate impacts and ecosystems with resumed offshore drilling.
- Fisheries and coastal communities vulnerable to spill risks and industrial activity near offshore zones.
- Taxpayers who could incur cleanup or regulatory costs if environmental incidents occur under renewed leasing.
- Regulators and agencies facing renewed operational and compliance duties in a potentially expanding leasing regime.
- Renewable energy advocates who view expanded offshore leasing as competing priorities for energy policy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between Congress asserting direct control over offshore leasing policy and the executive branch’s ability to pause or limit leasing operations for environmental or climate reasons, raising questions about the most effective and legitimate mechanism to balance energy development with mitigation and protection.
The bill’s negation of presidential memoranda raises questions about the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches in setting energy and environmental policy. While it restores congressional authority over offshore leasing decisions, it leaves intact the broader framework of environmental review and administrative procedure governing leasing, meaning NEPA analyses, fishery protections, and state coastal planning may still influence specific lease outcomes.
The measure also subtly shifts risk allocation: renewed leasing could raise environmental exposure and necessitate more rigorous oversight and funding for mitigation and emergency response. Implementers will need to manage potential conflicts with existing coastal and climate protections and respond to potential challenges that argue the memoranda were valid interpretations of statutory authority.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.