Energy Choice Act: What the Bill Does, Who Supports It, and What It Leaves Out

Rep. Langworthy’s Energy Choice Act (H.R. 3699) is framed as protecting consumers’ right to choose their energy source. Introducing the bill, Langworthy stated: “People deserve the freedom to choose energy that is affordable, reliable, and proven — not be forced into rolling blackouts to please eco-activists.” The National Energy & Fuels Institute (NEFI), a fossil fuel trade association, states that it “helped draft” the bill and “has led a national coalition to support” it. Its endorsers include more than 30 natural gas, petroleum, and fossil fuel industry organizations, including the American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. The bill uses federal power to override state and local energy decisions — preventing communities from restricting fossil fuel infrastructure while imposing no parallel protections for clean energy access.

Why This Matters for NY-23

Langworthy presents this bill as his answer to high energy costs in the district. But the bill does not address the dominant cost drivers his own constituents face. The PSC found clean energy policies account for 5–9.5% of the average electric bill. NYSEG’s own spokesperson pointed to natural gas commodity prices — up 100% over five years — as the real cost driver. The NYISO confirmed natural gas is “the most significant driver of wholesale electricity costs.” The Energy Choice Act would deepen dependence on the very fuel source driving price volatility, while doing nothing about the delivery charges and corporate profit extraction that make up the majority of utility bills.

Statement

Source: Press Release, June 2025

“Governor Hochul and Democrats in Albany have waged an extremist crusade against natural gas that’s sent home energy costs through the roof. … That’s why I’ve introduced the Energy Choice Act — to slam the brakes on these reckless, ideological mandates and restore sanity to America’s energy policy.”

What the Bill Actually Does

H.R. 3699 prohibits any state or local government — or any regulatory agency — from adopting, implementing, or enforcing any law, regulation, ordinance, building code, standard, or policy that prohibits or limits the connection, reconnection, modification, installation, transportation, distribution, expansion, or access to an energy service based on the type or source of energy sold in interstate commerce.

The bill’s “energy” definition includes natural gas, propane, hydrogen, biomass-based diesel fuels, renewable fuels, and electricity.

The critical clause: the prohibition covers not just direct bans but anything that “has the effect of directly or indirectly prohibiting or limiting” access to any energy source.

The Legitimate Concern

There is a real policy debate here. New York’s All-Electric Buildings Act (2023) restricts natural gas hookups in most new construction starting in 2026 (small buildings) and 2029 (larger buildings). Some homeowners and builders argue this limits their options and raises upfront construction costs. The National Association of Home Builders, an endorser of this bill, has cited concerns about heat pump performance in cold climates and the cost of electric infrastructure upgrades.

These are reasonable questions. What follows is an examination of whether the Energy Choice Act is a proportionate response — or whether it goes substantially further than addressing those concerns.

Three Ways the Bill Goes Beyond Protecting Consumer Choice

1. It overrides local democratic decisions — the opposite of consumer choice

If a community votes through its elected officials to update building codes or reduce fossil fuel infrastructure — as New York did with the All-Electric Buildings Act — this bill overrides that decision with federal authority. The Public Health Law Center has documented that the “indirectly limit” clause is so broad it could cover everything from automatic safety shutoffs to zoning regulations, since these restrict when and how buildings can connect to energy systems.

In plain language: When a town decides what energy infrastructure it wants, that’s local control. When Congress tells the town it can’t make that decision, that’s federal preemption — regardless of how it’s branded.

2. It protects “choice” in only one direction

The bill prevents communities from moving away from fossil fuels. It does nothing to:

• Prevent HOAs from banning solar panels
• Stop municipalities from blocking wind farm construction
• Ensure consumers can access heat pump rebates or EV charging
• Address barriers to clean energy adoption

If the bill were designed to protect all consumer energy choices, it would address barriers in both directions.

3. It could undermine the rate regulation that protects consumers from utility price hikes

State public utility commissions currently regulate utility rates, approve or deny infrastructure investments, and maintain reduced rates for low-income and elderly customers. Legal analysts, including the Public Health Law Center, have raised concerns that if regulators are forbidden from any action that could “limit access to an energy service,” the bill could constrain state regulators’ ability to deny utility investment proposals that increase customer bills.

In plain language: The same state regulators currently reviewing NYSEG’s $500 million rate hike request could find their authority weakened by this bill.

Who Wrote It, Who Endorses It

NEFI (National Energy & Fuels Institute), a trade association representing fuel dealers and energy distributors, states it “helped draft and has led a national coalition to support” the Energy Choice Act.

The endorser coalition includes:

No consumer advocacy organizations, ratepayer groups, or utility accountability organizations appear among the endorsers.

The States’ Rights Contradiction

Langworthy and the bill’s supporters generally advocate for federalism, local control, and limiting federal overreach into state decisions. The Energy Choice Act does the opposite — it uses federal power to preempt state and local authority — but specifically in cases involving fossil fuel energy access.

The bill passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 3, 2025 by a 24-21 party-line vote — despite being marketed as bipartisan. Of 157 co-sponsors, 154 are Republicans and 3 are Democrats.

Legislative Status

What the Bill Does Not Do

For context on what Langworthy’s flagship energy legislation addresses — and what it doesn’t:

Langworthy’s Companion Bill: State Energy Accountability Act (H.R. 3157)

Introduced May 1, 2025, this bill requires state regulatory authorities to evaluate the effects of clean energy standards on consumer costs and grid reliability. Like the Energy Choice Act, it frames energy cost problems exclusively as state policy problems — not utility company accountability problems. It has 2 co-sponsors.

Together, Langworthy’s two energy bills address state climate policy. Neither addresses utility company conduct or delivery rate increases.

Questions This Raises

1. NEFI states it “helped draft” the bill and leads the support coalition. How did NEFI come to help draft the legislation, and what input did consumer advocacy organizations have?

2. The bill has 154 Republican and 3 Democratic co-sponsors but is marketed as bipartisan. At what ratio does a bill cease to be meaningfully bipartisan?

3. The “indirectly limit” clause has no defined boundary. Could it be used to challenge state rate regulation, building safety codes, or emergency shutoff mechanisms? The Public Health Law Center argues it could.

4. Langworthy’s energy legislative portfolio now includes two bills targeting state climate policy and zero bills addressing utility company accountability. His constituents face a 35% delivery rate increase from NYSEG. Which problem is the Energy Choice Act solving for them?

5. The bill deepens dependence on natural gas at the exact moment gas price volatility is a primary cost driver. Henry Hub spot prices swung from $2.03/MMBtu in 2020 to a $30.72 single-day spike in January 2026 — a 15-fold range in six years. How does locking in gas infrastructure reduce ratepayer exposure to this volatility?

Related Fact-Checks

• NYSEG Sends $450 Million to Spain, Files for 35% Rate Hike. Langworthy Says Nothing. — The rate case Langworthy has never acknowledged
• Langworthy Blames Clean Energy for Costs That Natural Gas and Utility Profits Actually Drive — The misleading cost attribution at Dunkirk

Sources

Bill Text and Status:

• H.R. 3699 — Congress.gov
• H.R. 3699 Full Text — Congress.gov
• H.R. 3157 — Congress.gov
• S. 1945 Senate Companion — Sen. Justice

Langworthy Statements:

• Langworthy Press Release: Energy Choice Act
• Langworthy Press Release: State Energy Accountability Act

Industry Support:

• NEFI: “helped draft and has led a national coalition to support”
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce support letter
• American Gas Association endorsement
• Americans for Prosperity endorsement

Analysis:

• Public Health Law Center: “Bad Choice — H.R. 3699’s Threat to Public Health and Energy Affordability”

Cost Data:

• NY PSC September 2025 report — climate policies account for 5–9.5% of electric bills
• NYISO — natural gas is “the most significant driver of wholesale electricity costs”
• EIA — Henry Hub natural gas pricing data

All information in this entry is drawn from publicly available sources including congressional records, official press releases, bill text, trade association publications, and regulatory filings.

Last updated: February 25, 2026