This bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of New England. Specifically, it adds a geographic ban covering offshore areas off Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, preventing exploration, development, and production of oil or natural gas in those regions.
The change is explicit: the Secretary may not issue leases for any phase of offshore oil or gas activity in the targeted areas, regardless of other laws. The measure is narrowly tailored to a specific regional coast and does not describe exemptions or future modifications within the text.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsection (q) to Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, creating a prohibition on issuing oil or gas leases for exploration, development, or production in offshore areas off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The prohibition applies notwithstanding any other provision of law.
Who It Affects
Federal leasing authorities (Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), energy developers seeking offshore leases, and coastal states and communities along the New England shoreline.
Why It Matters
It establishes a region-specific barrier to offshore drilling, reinforcing environmental and coastal protection goals while signaling a policy stance that regional interests can override national leasing ambitions in defined offshore zones.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The New England Coastal Protection Act would change federal law to stop offshore oil and natural gas leasing off the coast of five northeastern states. By amending the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the bill creates a new prohibition (subsection q) that prevents the Secretary of the Interior from issuing leases for exploration, development, or production in the Outer Continental Shelf areas off Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
The text makes clear that this prohibition stands even if other laws would normally allow leasing, placing a hard geographic boundary on offshore energy activity in these waters.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new subsection (q) to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Leasing is prohibited for exploration, development, or production in offshore areas off five New England states.
The prohibition applies despite any other law or provision in the section.
Geographic scope is limited to the offshore areas adjacent to Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
There are no stated exemptions or carve-outs in the text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This Act may be cited as the New England Coastal Protection Act. The short title signals the bill’s purpose: to establish a regional offshore protection regime along the New England coast.
Prohibition of oil and gas leasing off the New England coast
Section 2 amends Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act by adding subsection (q), which prohibits the Secretary from issuing a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in any area of the Outer Continental Shelf off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or Connecticut. The prohibition is explicit and not subject to other laws that would permit leasing, creating a geographic barrier to offshore drilling in these waters.
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 state and municipal governments in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, which would see reduced exposure to offshore drilling activity and potential spill risks.
- Commercial fishing industries along the New England coast that rely on healthy marine ecosystems and could be disrupted by offshore extraction.
- Tourism and coastal recreation sectors that benefit from preserved coastal landscapes and reduced industrial activity offshore.
- Environmental groups and marine scientists focused on protecting offshore ecosystems and biodiversity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Oil and gas developers and lessees with potential or existing offshore leases in the affected areas, who would lose potential leasing opportunities.
- Federal authorities responsible for leasing oversight (Interior Department and BOEM), which would forego potential leases and associated royalties.
- States or localities that might have sought royalty revenue or economic activity from offshore drilling.
- Service providers and contractors tied to offshore energy projects who could lose downstream business tied to NE offshore leasing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing regional coastal protection and ecosystem preservation against national energy security and revenue considerations, using a strict geographic ban that may limit flexibility to respond to future energy needs or market shifts.
The bill creates a regional, not a nationwide, barrier to offshore leasing, aligning energy policy with coastal protection goals in New England. However, the targeted geographic scope raises questions about consistency with broader energy and environmental policies, and how existing or future leases might be treated if geographic or political conditions change.
The text provides no explicit exemptions, grandfathering provisions, or compensation mechanisms for affected lessees, nor does it specify implementation timelines or enforcement protocols beyond the prohibition language. Practical implications include re-locating potential leasing activity and adjusting federal revenue forecasts tied to OCS leases.
Unresolved questions center on whether existing leases would be allowed to proceed if they were already in active development before enactment, how state-level environmental or economic considerations would interact with the ban, and what transitional arrangements, if any, exist for affected workers and communities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.