Site icon Energy News Beat

Dozen US States Oppose Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling, File Complaints with BOEM: A Look at Their Energy Mix, Policies, and Electricity Prices

A coalition of twelve U.S. states has taken a stand against offshore oil and gas drilling, filing complaints with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to exclude Atlantic and Pacific Ocean planning areas from the upcoming 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, the coalition argues that offshore drilling threatens marine ecosystems, coastal economies, and state-level clean energy goals. This article examines the states involved, their electricity prices, energy mixes, and energy policies to provide context for their opposition.

Is Oil & Gas Right for Your Portfolio?

I find it amusing that the most expensive states for energy are among those that oppose drilling. The fact that offshore wind is even more detrimental to tourism, animals, and higher energy prices is now being more widely acknowledged. It seems that the states are piling on the green energy failures. Washington State has lower electricity prices primarily due to the presence of hydroelectricity in its state’s grid system. Washington has a diverse mix of nuclear, hydro, and gas power sources, but is only 10% renewable, which is key when calculating electricity prices.

The States Opposing Offshore Drilling

The coalition includes California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. These states, primarily along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, cite environmental risks, such as oil spills, and conflicts with clean energy laws as reasons for their opposition. Their comments to BOEM emphasize the economic importance of coastal tourism, fishing, and renewable energy, as well as the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Electricity Prices, Energy Mix, and Energy Policies

To understand the motivations behind these states’ opposition, we analyze their electricity prices (as of 2025, based on available data), energy mixes, and energy policies. Electricity prices reflect a state’s energy sources, infrastructure, and policy priorities, while the energy mix and policies reveal their commitment to renewables versus fossil fuels. Below is a state-by-state breakdown, with electricity prices sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) or recent web data where available, and energy mix/policy details drawn from state government sources and recent analyses.
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Maine
5. Maryland
6. Massachusetts
7. New Hampshire
8. New Jersey
9. New York
10. Oregon
11. Rhode Island
12. Washington
Comparative Analysis

Why Oppose Offshore Drilling?

These states oppose offshore drilling due to:
  1. Environmental Risks: Past oil spills, like Deepwater Horizon, highlight risks to marine life and coastal economies. The coalition’s comments to BOEM cite potential harm to fisheries, tourism, and ecosystems.
  2. Clean Energy Goals: Offshore drilling conflicts with state laws mandating renewable energy and emission reductions. Offshore wind, a growing industry in these states, requires protected coastal areas.
  3. Economic Priorities: Coastal tourism, fishing, and renewable energy jobs are economic drivers. Drilling threatens these sectors while offering minimal local benefits, as most offshore oil is exported or refined elsewhere.
  4. Public Support: Nearly 400 municipalities and 2,300 officials across these states oppose offshore drilling, reflecting bipartisan concern for coastal protection.

Counterarguments and Context

Proponents of offshore drilling, including the Trump administration and oil-producing states like Louisiana, argue it enhances energy security and lowers fuel prices. However, only 14% of U.S. oil production comes from offshore leases, and many existing leases remain idle due to market saturation. Critics also note that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports increase domestic energy costs, undermining claims of consumer benefits. The Trump administration’s push to expand leasing faces legal hurdles, as reversing Biden’s 625-million-acre drilling ban may require congressional action.

Conclusion

The twelve states opposing offshore drilling—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington—are united by environmental, economic, and policy priorities. Their high electricity prices reflect investments in renewables and reliance on natural gas, while their energy mixes emphasize clean energy transitions. By opposing offshore drilling, these states protect coastal ecosystems and advance offshore wind, aligning with ambitious climate goals. However, their stance faces opposition from industry and political actors prioritizing fossil fuel expansion. As BOEM finalizes its leasing program, the debate over offshore energy will shape the nation’s energy future.
Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), state government websites, and web sources cited above. Electricity prices are approximate and based on 2024-2025 data.

Update and note that the California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, has made wrong claims about gas prices:

Governors and attorneys general of a dozen US states are voicing their opposition to offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Attorneys general of Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and, most recently, California filed comment letters with the US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)

The latest letter came from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who joined a coalition of 10 attorneys general in urging the federal government to exclude all planning areas in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans from the upcoming 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

The final program will determine which ocean areas could be opened to lease sales for oil and gas activity during the current five-year planning period, which covers the period 2024-2029.

“President Trump is once again taking action to line the pockets of his Big Oil friends. This time, he’s expanding oil and gas development by attempting to drill in our coastal communities. There is no compelling need to risk our marine and coastal resources for the limited supplies of fossil fuels off our coasts,” Bonta said.

He pointed out that the US already produces more oil and gas than any other country and exports more than it uses, and that gasoline demand has been dropping since 2019, especially on the east and west coasts.

Separately, the governors of North Carolina and South Carolina opposed offshore drilling on their coasts in a letter to BOEM.

The Bureau is evaluating the American coastline for potential sites to drill for natural energy resources, and potential new leases could be given on the Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina coasts, which, by a resolution signed by President Donald Trump in his first term, are supposed to be protected until 2032.

In the bipartisan letter, Democratic governor Josh Stein and Republican governor Henry McMaster asked the administration not to lift the moratorium. The two Carolinas have around 800 km of ocean beaches and over 9,650 km of coastline.

“These decisions to protect the Carolina coast from offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and production were responsive to the significant bipartisan concerns of business leaders, residents, and local and state elected officials about the risks that these activities pose to the economy and environment of our states,” they wrote.

They added that every North Carolina and South Carolina coastal municipality has passed a resolution opposing offshore drilling and seismic testing, reaffirmed by other municipalities and counties, as well as state legislators and members of Congressional delegations from both parties.

This opposition to offshore drilling follows a total of 18 attorneys general filing a lawsuit in federal court in May challenging US president Donald Trump’s order to shut down offshore wind projects, stating that such a move was “unlawful and can jeopardise the continued development of a power source critical to the states’ economic vitality, energy mix, public health, and climate goals.”

The lawsuit names New York, Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington State as the plaintiffs.

Is Oil & Gas Right for Your Portfolio?

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

Exit mobile version