S-2130-117
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 551.
Sponsored by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
What it does
The RISEE Act would redirect a portion of federal revenue from offshore energy leases — including offshore wind, oil, and gas — away from the U.S. Treasury and toward coastal states and communities. It would expand existing revenue-sharing under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act to cover more states and energy types. States receiving funds would be required to spend them on specific purposes, such as coastal restoration, conservation, or infrastructure.
Who benefits
Coastal state governments, which would receive new or increased shares of offshore energy lease revenue. Coastal communities and local governments that depend on shoreline infrastructure and ecosystems. Environmental restoration programs and conservation agencies in eligible states. Offshore wind energy developers, who may find states more receptive to leasing if states share in the revenue. Gulf Coast states already receiving oil and gas revenue shares, who would see those shares increase.
Who is hurt
The federal Treasury, which would receive less revenue from offshore energy leases currently deposited in full. Federal programs funded by general Treasury receipts, which could face reduced available funds. Inland and non-coastal states, which do not share in the redirected revenue but contribute to federal programs funded by that revenue. Taxpayers broadly, to the extent reduced Treasury receipts affect federal spending capacity or deficits.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that coastal states and communities bear the direct environmental and economic burdens of offshore energy development — including risks to fisheries, tourism, and shoreline stability — yet currently receive none of the federal lease revenue that development generates. Redirecting a share of that revenue to these communities would ensure that those most affected by offshore energy activity have resources to address its consequences, such as coastal erosion, habitat loss, and infrastructure strain. Supporters also contend that tying funding to specific uses like coastal restoration and conservation creates accountability and produces measurable public benefits. They point to the existing Gulf of Mexico revenue-sharing program as a proven model that has funded successful restoration projects, and argue this bill simply extends that model to offshore wind and additional states.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that offshore energy leases occur on federal lands and submerged federal territory, meaning the revenue they generate belongs to all Americans — not just those in adjacent coastal states. Diverting these funds away from the U.S. Treasury reduces resources available for national priorities and could increase the federal deficit or require cuts elsewhere. Critics also contend that restricting how states spend the funds — mandating coastal restoration or conservation uses — limits state flexibility and may not align with each state's most pressing needs. Some opponents further argue that expanding revenue sharing to offshore wind, a relatively new and growing industry, could significantly reduce federal receipts over time as that sector scales up, creating a structural long-term cost that has not been fully accounted for.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under Congress's authority over federal property and submerged lands under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act framework. The Commerce Clause underpins federal jurisdiction over offshore energy development. The spending conditions attached to state revenue shares implicate the Spending Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), which permits Congress to attach conditions to federal funds provided they are unambiguous and not coercive (South Dakota v. Dole). The Tenth Amendment is relevant to the extent spending conditions constrain state decision-making, though voluntary receipt of funds generally limits anti-commandeering concerns under Murphy v. NCAA.
Checks and balances
This bill would shift fiscal authority from the executive branch (Treasury discretion over general receipts) to state governments, by earmarking specific revenue streams for state use with congressionally defined spending conditions. Congress retains control by specifying eligible uses, effectively expanding its Spending Clause leverage over coastal state policy. The executive branch's role in lease administration through the Department of the Interior would remain, but its discretion over how lease revenues are allocated would be reduced.
Historical precedent
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA), which established the existing offshore oil and gas revenue-sharing framework for Gulf Coast states that this bill would expand.