H. Rpt. 119-482 accompanies legislation on energy or environmental policy titled "Energy Choice Act". Bills in this area affect emissions, pollution control, energy production, federal lands, wildlife protection, climate change, or utility regulation. The Energy and Commerce Committee's report describes the environmental or energy challenge being addressed, the proposed solution, and the expected effects on industry, consumers, and the environment. These reports often include scientific analysis, economic impact studies, and stakeholder views.
Official report text. Use Ctrl+F / Cmd+F to search within the document.
House Report 119-482 - ENERGY CHOICE ACT
[House Report 119-482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-482
=======================================================================
ENERGY CHOICE ACT
----------------
February 4, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Guthrie, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3699]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3699) to prohibit States or local governments
from prohibiting or limiting the connection, reconnection,
modification, installation, transportation, distribution, or
expansion of an energy service based on the type or source of
energy to be delivered, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Action................................................. 3
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Oversight Findings and Recommendations........................... 7
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 7
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 7
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings...................... 7
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 8
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits....... 9
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 9
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 9
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Minority, Additional, or Dissenting Views........................ 10
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Choice Act''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON REGULATION OF ENERGY CHOICE.
A State or local government, or instrumentality or regulatory agency
thereof, may not adopt, implement, or enforce a law, regulation,
ordinance, building code, standard, or policy that prohibits or limits,
or has the effect of directly or indirectly prohibiting or limiting the
connection, reconnection, modification, installation, transportation,
distribution, expansion, or access to an energy service based on the
type or source of energy that is sold in interstate commerce to be
delivered to an end-user of such energy service.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 3699, the Energy Choice Act, was introduced by
Representative Langworthy (R-NY) on June 4, 2025, and referred
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 4, 2025. H.R.
3699 prohibits state or local governments from implementing,
adopting, or enforcing any law, regulation, or policy that
directly or indirectly prohibits or limits access to an energy
service based on the type or energy or fuel source that is
sold.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
On May 3, 2023, the state of New York signed into law
legislation to ban the use of fossil fuel equipment and
building systems for new construction starting in 2026.\1\
While New York was the first state to institute a ban on
natural gas in new buildings, several other states and
localities have followed suit, including those in Washington,
California, and the District of Columbia.\2\ The result of
these natural gas bans are families and consumers not having
choices regarding what energy source best fits their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\S.B. S4006C, 2023-2024 Leg. Sess. (NY. 2023).
\2\Tom DiChristopher and Anna Duquiatan, States that outlaw gas
bans account for 31% of US residential/commercial gas use, S&P Global
(Jun. 9, 2022), https://www.spglobal.com/
market-intelligence/en/news-insights/articles/2022/6/states-that-
outlaw-gas-bans-account-for-31-of-us-residential-commercial-gas-use-
70749584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural gas is used by tens of millions of American
families across the United States. As recent as 2020, data from
the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that 61
percent of American households use natural gas for at least one
energy end use, most commonly stoves, furnaces for space
heating, and water heaters.\3\ In states like California, which
has implemented a ban on natural gas, penetration of end use
reaches at least 80 percent of households.\4\ Two thirds of the
American population uses natural gas over other fuel sources
because it is affordable, reliable, and plentiful. This
significant portion of the U.S. population using natural gas as
a fuel source underscores the impactful and far-reaching nature
of natural gas bans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (EIA), The majority of U.S. households
used natural gas in 2020, (Mar. 23, 2023), https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55940.
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural gas is one of the most affordable forms of energy.
Price data has shown that in the vast majority of states, using
natural gas for space heating is cheaper than electric
alternatives, and geographic location is an important component
of price differences.\5\ In states such as New York, the price
difference can be staggering. Certain natural gas furnaces had
an average annual energy cost of $548, while the cost for
certain electric heat pumps was $1,138, more than double the
price of an identically rated natural gas furnace.\6\ This
trend is similar for most other states, with colder regions
generally showing greater price differences as seen in New
York. These bans force consumers to pay higher prices for their
home energy needs, while using energy in a less efficient
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\American Gas Association, Natural Gas or a Heat Pump? Where you
Live Matters, (Jan. 26, 2024), https://www.aga.org/natural-gas-or-a-
heat-pump-where-you-live-matters/.
\6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, natural gas use bolsters the resilience of
our nation's grid and the consumers which rely upon it. Homes
that rely on electric stoves, electric heat pumps for space
heating, electric water heaters, and other electric appliances
use significantly more kilowatt hours of electricity than homes
using natural gas. Meanwhile, the United States is facing a
grid reliability crisis as demand grows without generation
growth to match it. A significant portion of this load increase
is a result of all-electric agendas. Natural gas helps
alleviate this trend by providing energy for imperative
functions of a household without increasing the demand on the
grid. Furthermore, natural gas bolsters home resiliency as many
natural gas appliances can continue critical functions if power
service is interrupted.
When gas bans are enacted, American families, the economy,
and consumers pay the price. This prejudice towards natural gas
not only limits consumer choice but also increases costs for
everyday Americans to heat their homes in the winter. H.R. 3699
addresses this critical issue by prohibiting any state or local
authority from establishing any law or regulation that
prohibits or limits access to an energy service based on the
type or source of energy. The Committee intends for this
legislation to apply only to bans on an energy service based
upon the fuel source. It is not intended to impact state or
local energy projects, safety measures, or zoning decisions.
This legislation is fuel neutral, leaving the choice up to
consumers, not the heavy hand of the federal government.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On September 16, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 3699. The Subcommittee received
testimony from:
Jeff Novak, Acting General Counsel and
Principal Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Energy;
George Lowe, Vice President of Governmental
Affairs and Public Policy, American Gas Association;
Jennifer Cleary, Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs, Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers;
Brian Tebbenkamp, President and Owner,
Patriot Homes Inc; and,
Andrew deLaski, Executive Director,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
On November 19, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy met in
open markup session and forwarded H.R. 3699, as amended to the
full Committee by a voice vote. On December 3, 2025, the full
Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 3699, without amendment, favorably reported to the
House by a record vote of 24 yeas and 21 nays.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during
the Committee consideration:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII, the Committee held hearings and made findings that
are reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX
EXPENDITURES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee
finds that H.R. 3699 would result in no new or increased budget
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this
report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to
prohibit state or local governments from implementing,
adopting, or enforcing any law, regulation or policy that
directly or indirectly prohibits or limits access to an energy
service based on the type or source of energy that is sold.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of
H.R. 3699 is known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, including any program that was included in a report to
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
RELATED COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII, the following
related hearings were used to develop or consider H.R. 3699:
On February 5, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing on H.R. 3699. The title of the hearing was ``Powering
America's Future: Unleashing American Energy.'' The
Subcommittee received testimony from:
Amanda Eversole, Executive Vice President
and Chief Advocacy Officer, American Petroleum
Institute;
Brigham McCown, Senior Fellow and Director,
Initiative on American Energy Security, The Hudson
Institute;
Gary Arnold, Business Manager, Denver
Pipefitters Local 208; and,
Tyler O'Conner, Partner, Crowell & Moring
LLP.
On February 26, 2025, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on H.R. 3699. The title of the
hearing was ``Examining the Biden Administration's Energy and
Environment Spending Push.'' The Subcommittee received
testimony from:
Johnathan Black, Chief Advisor for Strategic
Planning and Program Oversight, Office of Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Energy;
J. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment team, U.S. Government
Accountability Office;
Nicole Murley, Acting Inspector General,
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and,
Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment team, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
On March 5, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
on H.R. 3699. The title of the hearing was ``Scaling for
Growth: Meeting the Demand for Reliable, Affordable
Electricity.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
Todd Brickhouse, CEO and General Manager,
Basin Electric Power Cooperative;
Asim Z. Haque, Senior Vice President for
Governmental and Member Servies, PJM;
Noel W. Black, Senior Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs, Southern Company; and
Tyler H. Norris, James B. Duke Fellow, Duke
University.
On September 9, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing on H.R. 3699. The title of the hearing was ``Building
the American Dream: Examining Affordability, Choice, and
Security in Appliance and Buildings Policies.'' The
Subcommittee received testimony from:
Buddy Hughes, Chairman, National Association
of Home Builders;
Ben Lieberman, Senior Fellow, Competitive
Enterprise Institute;
Jim Steffes, Senior Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs, Washington Gas; and,
Kara Saul-Rinaldi, Chief Policy Officer,
Building Performance Association.
On September 16, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 3699. The title of the hearing was
``Appliance and Buildings Policies: Restoring the American
Dream of Home Ownership and Consumer Choice.'' The Subcommittee
received testimony from:
Jeff Novak, Acting General Counsel and
Principal Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Energy;
George Lowe, Vice President of Governmental
Affairs and Public Policy, American Gas Association;
Jennifer Cleary, Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs, Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers;
Brian Tebbenkamp, President and Owner,
Patriot Homes Inc.; and,
Andrew deLaski, Executive Director,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. At the time this report was
filed, the estimate was not available.
EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS
Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the
Committee finds that H.R. 3699 contains no earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1: Short title
Section 1 provides a short title of the ``Energy Choice
Act.''
Section 2: Limitations on regulation of energy choice
Section 2 prohibits State or local governments from
adopting any law, regulation, ordinance, buildings code,
standard or policy that prohibits or limits, or indirectly
prohibits or limits, the connection, reconnection,
modification, installation, transportation, distribution,
expansion or access to an energy service based on the type or
source of the energy sold.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
This legislation does not amend any existing Federal
statute.
MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 3699 restricts state and local governments from
issuing any rule or taking any action that would even
indirectly limit an energy source in any way. Aside from the
obvious federal overreach, the bill is overly broad and would
have potentially disastrous consequences for state and local
economic and safety regulations. The federal government has no
business interfering in state and local efforts to keep
communities safe.
The majority's report largely focuses on preventing so-
called ``gas bans,'' or restrictions by state and local
governments on the usage of natural gas in new residential and
commercial construction by developers. However, as written,
H.R. 3699 restricts states and local governments from far more
than just implementing gas bans. The bill covers laws, rules,
building codes and standards, or any other policies adopted by
state and local governments--and targets not only those actions
that would directly impact energy, but those that would
indirectly impact energy as well. The result of the restriction
on indirect limitations is that the bill could prohibit state
and local governments from enforcing electrical safety codes,
ordering the shutoff of gas during natural disasters, or
regulating the prices that data centers pay for electricity.
Stakeholders raised similar concerns as the bill moved
through the committee process. The Public Health Law Center
noted that the bill eliminates ``large swathes of commonsense
health and safety protections'' and threatens long-standing
regulations on the price of energy utilities.\1\ A letter sent
to Chairman Guthrie ahead of the Committee's markup of the bill
noted that the bill could have the presumably unintended
consequence of limiting Americans' ability to access community
choice aggregation programs, which allow greater access to
different sources of energy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Public Health Law Center, Bad Choice: H.R. 3699's Threat to
Public Health and Energy Affordability (Sept. 19, 2025) (https://
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/commentary/250919/9/19/25-bad-choice-hr-
3699s-threat-public-health-and-energy-affordability).
\2\Letter from Local Energy Aggregation Network to Rep. Brett
Guthrie, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Frank
Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
(Dec. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to these concerns, Subcommittee on Energy
Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL) offered an amendment that
would have restricted the bill's prohibition to only direct
prohibitions on energy technologies. Her amendment also would
have added a savings clause to the bill, ensuring that the bill
did not inadvertently restrict the ability of states or local
governments to regulate utility rates or energy infrastructure
safety. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Full Committee, Markup of 15 Bills, 119th Cong. (Dec. 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, one amendment was adopted that enhanced
concerns about the scope and applicability of the bill. As
introduced, the bill included a definition of ``energy'' that
the restriction on state and local government policies applied
to. However, in the Energy Subcommittee's markup of the bill,
an amendment was adopted stripping the bill of the definition--
leaving the ultimate scope and applicability of the bill even
more unclear than before.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Subcommittee on Energy, Markup of 8 Bills, 119th Cong. (Nov. 19,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Republicans are truly focused on combating prohibitions
on energy sources, they should turn their attention to the
Administration's war on clean energy. As one of the nation's
grid operators recently stated in a court filing, killing just
a single offshore wind project ``will cause irreparable harm to
the 67 million Americans served by PJM [the grid operator]
given this region's . . . critical need for new generation
resources . . .''\5\ That was the damage done by one
cancellation--and 324 energy projects have been canceled or
delayed since President Trump took office.\6\ Republicans
should focus on stopping the President's attack on clean, cheap
energy instead of limiting state and local officials' ability
to enforce safety codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Proposed Amicus Curiae PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s Motion for
Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Jan. 9, 2026) Dominion Energy
Virginia v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, (No. 2:25 CV 830).
\6\Climate Power, SNAPSHOT: Trump's Unfolding Energy Crisis (Dec.
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated above, I dissent from the views
contained in the Committee's report and oppose H.R. 3699.
Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Ranking Member.
[all]