By Marcelle Dibrell

A Republican-led but technically bipartisan bill called the Energy Choice Act has been introduced in Congress, aiming to settle the country’s growing “gas wars” once and for all.

The legislation seeks to block state and local governments from restricting energy services based on the type or source — namely, from banning natural gas in favor of electric-only systems. It is a direct response to state-level policies pushing for all-electric buildings as part of broader climate initiatives.

The stated purpose of the Energy Choice Act is to protect consumer choice and stop local governments from enacting policies that block access to specific energy sources — chiefly, natural gas.

Introduced on June 4, the bill was filed in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3699 by Representative Nick Langworthy (R–NY) and in the Senate as S. 1945 by Senator Jim Justice (R–WV).

The legislation has attracted support from industry groups such as the Pool and Hot Tub Association, which wants to ensure continued nationwide access to natural gas appliances, including outdoor pool and spa heaters.

In his press release, Langworthy calls the Energy Choice Act both “bipartisan” and “bicameral,” noting it has backing from at least one Democrat and was introduced in both chambers of Congress.

While technically accurate, the bill’s bipartisan label relies on a single Democratic cosponsor — Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D–TX) — whose district has deep ties to the oil and gas industry. The Senate version, introduced by Sen. Jim Justice, currently lacks Democratic sponsorship. For now, broader bipartisan momentum appears limited.

Langworthy has framed the bill as a pushback against what he describes as “extremist crusade[s]” by Democrats at the state level to ban natural gas. He points specifically to his home state of New York, where Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation banning fossil fuel hookups in most new buildings as part of the 2023–‘24 state budget. That law phases in starting January 2026 for buildings seven stories and under, expanding to taller buildings in 2029. The policy mandates electric-powered heating and appliances, such as heat pumps, in an effort to reduce the state’s reliance on fossil fuels.

Langworthy’s rhetoric leaves little room for doubt.

“Governor Hochul and Democrats in Albany have waged an extremist crusade against natural gas that’s sent home energy costs through the roof, crippled our energy supply, and left New York teetering on the edge of an energy crisis — all to satisfy the radical fantasies of the far-left climate cult,” he wrote. “New York has been ground zero for the Green New Deal, where common sense goes to die and working families get stuck with the bill. 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.”

While Langworthy’s message is clearly aimed at New York, the gas wars are being fought from coast to coast, with states and municipalities meeting resistance in their push toward cleaner or renewable energy sources to address climate change — a goal championed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others.

In effect, the Energy Choice Act is a refutation of state-level renewable energy goals and mandates, such as those in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington — all of which have committed to 100-percent clean energy within a specified timeline. Many additional states have adopted aggressive renewable energy targets, and the Energy Choice Act stands in direct conflict with those efforts.

That conflict is baked into the bill’s purpose, which is to prohibit states and cities from banning specific types of energy — exactly what many climate-forward states are trying to do.

The Energy Choice Act has received widespread Republican support, with proponents arguing:

• Protects consumer choice and prevents government overreach.

• Ensures energy reliability and affordability.

• Supports an “all-of-the-above” energy approach.

• Promotes market competition.

• Boosts American energy.

• Counters state and local gas bans. Republican Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke supports the Energy Choice Act and has stated that people should choose the energy source that best meets their needs.

“Montanans know the value of reliable, affordable energy, especially during winters when access to natural gas, coal, and other traditional fuels isn’t just a convenience — it’s a necessity,” he said. “Heavy handed policies from places like Albany and Sacramento don’t reflect the realities of rural America, where energy diversity is vital. The Energy Choice Act is common sense legislation that defends our right to choose the energy sources that work best for our homes and businesses.”

Republican Ohio Congressman Mike Rulli sees the legislation as essential to preserving the American way of life and strengthening the country’s position in the world.

“Energy freedom is essential to both our economy and national security,” Rulli said. “Efforts by state governments to ban natural gas not only hurt working families through higher costs but also jeopardize grid reliability — especially in regions with harsh winters like ours.” Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, the lone Democrat co-sponsoring the bill, has also voiced support. Representing a Texas district with deep oil and gas roots, Gonzalez acknowledges the promise of renewable energy but sees continued access to gas as a necessary part of the energy mix.

Still, it seems unlikely that the Energy Choice Act will gain widespread traction among Democrats, for whom climate action and renewable energy development remain top priorities. Few national Democratic leaders have spoken out directly against the bill, but some state officials have not been silent.

Democrat New York State Senator Liz Krueger criticized the bill in no uncertain terms: “Let’s call this what it is: a ban on state sovereignty, that takes away our right to self-govern and makes us wards of the federal government. I thought Republicans were opposed to that kind of thing.”

She added that the bill would “essentially upend all energy regulations, building codes, zoning, fire codes, health and safety rules — you name it.”

Krueger and others argue that the act would trample states’ rights to regulate energy, building codes, and public safety. But supporters say it’s a necessary check on what they view as ideological overreach.

At the heart of the debate is a familiar question: Who gets to decide how Americans heat their spaces — their local governments, or the federal government?