Recent Projects – BOEM

In April, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) began a process to replace the current five-year offshore oil-and-gas leasing plan, which runs until 2029, by publishing a request for information. We submitted comments in response urging BOEM to continue to consider the full climate impacts of the offshore leasing program, explaining that failing to consider those impacts would violate BOEM’s organic statute and run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

The plaintiff environmental groups in the case (Healthy Gulf v. Haaland, D.D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00604) frequently cited and quoted from Policy Integrity’s work on substitution analysis to argue that BOEM’s analysis was flawed because it assumed near-constant reliance on fossil fuels over the coming decades. Accordingly, the plaintiffs argued that BOEM severely understated the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from offshore leasing above the no-leasing scenario.

In December 2024, BOEM published a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its Gulf of Mexico Regional OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales. The EIS analyzes the potential impacts of a representative oil and gas lease sale in applicable areas of the Gulf of Mexico. In the document, BOEM uses values for the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG) as part of its analysis of the impacts of lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a single representative Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale. Policy Integrity offered comments on BOEM’s use of these values

Policy Integrity submitted an amicus brief in support of the Department of the Interior and BOEM's 2024-2029 five-year leasing plan for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) resources, raising three main points. First, we review how the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's (OCSLA) legislative history supports Interior's consideration of downstream effects when valuing OCS oil and gas resources. Second, Policy Integrity explained how Interior's decades-long regulatory practice in creating five-year leasing plans included consideration of downstream environmental effects in various ways, like assessing the relative environmental impacts of using different energy sources. Third, Policy Integrity explained why standard valuation practices support Interior's consideration of downstream public costs from OCS resource consumption alongside downstream private benefits from that same consumption.

Earlier this year, a group of environmental organizations successfully challenged an offshore oil-and-gas lease sale held by the Bureau Ocean Energy Management on the basis that BOEM inadequately assessed the impacts on climate change from the combustion of the fossil fuels that the lease sale would facilitate. In its appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the American Petroleum Institute countered that any analytical limitations were harmless because the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act bars BOEM from considering climate-change impacts when administering leasing policy. Our amicus brief rebuts this argument and defends BOEM’s authority to consider downstream climate impacts in its administration of the offshore leasing program. Our brief explains that the consideration of downstream emissions is consistent with OCSLA’s text, legislative history, regulatory history, and caselaw.

In July, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) released its proposed five-year offshore leasing plan, which contemplates scheduling anywhere from zero to eleven lease sales over the coming half-decade. As part of that proposal, BOEM conducts a cost-benefit analysis in which it finds net benefits from offshore leasing, but recognizes uncertainty and specifically calls for comment on this analysis.

In response to this call for comments, Policy Integrity submitted two original reports offering extensive feedback on BOEM’s cost-benefit analysis. As detailed in those reports, BOEM’s analysis severely understates the costs of OCS leasing—particularly the climate costs. Our reports offer original analysis and modeling finding that, properly considered, the climate costs of offshore leasing alone may exceed the total benefits from that leasing.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) recently released an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for its proposal to lease more than one million acres of submerged land on the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas development. BOEM proposes to take this action despite estimating that it could lead to more than $1.3 billion in climate damages, and despite presenting no estimate of the economic benefits, against which these climate costs might be compared.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for leasing offshore areas for energy development, including areas for wind energy. The agency has so far awarded 13 commercial offshore wind leases, totaling about 17 GW of capacity. In response to its request for feedback on the future of its offshore wind program for the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, our comments to BOEM suggest steps toward developing a robust offshore wind program that will deliver benefits to the public for decades to come.

The Department of the Interior’s offshore leasing program must analyze and account for the potential for environmental damage, the potential for the discovery of oil and gas, and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone. In addition, offshore oil and gas leases must provide fair market value for private use and development of these publicly-owned oil and gas resources. Our comments to the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) explain why its Draft Proposed Program for 2019-2024, which would replace BOEM’s existing Program for 2017-2022, fails to meet its statutory mandates under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).

We submitted comments on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s environmental impact statement for potential offshore oil drilling and an undersea oil pipeline off Alaska’s northern coast. While expanded drilling in the Arctic presents many climate and public health concerns, BOEM did use the Social Cost of Carbon in assessing environmental impacts of the Liberty Development and Production Plan. Our comments encourage BOEM to continue using the best available methods for the Social Cost of Carbon in future environmental impacts statements, and we also recommended that BOEM use the Interagency Working Group’s Social Cost of Methane to quantify methane damages.