Lawmakers Move to Overcome ‘Climate Cult’ Roadblocks in Push for U.S. Energy Dominance
Legislation backed by 37 lawmakers seeks to cut energy costs by preventing states from blocking interstate projects.
Efforts to reshape the landscape of American energy production are gaining momentum in Congress, as a bipartisan initiative seeks to curb the influence of what some lawmakers have labeled a "climate cult" blocking domestic development. If successful, this sweeping legislation would blunt the authority of state and local governments to impede domestic energy projects—a move supporters say is crucial to achieving so-called "American energy dominance," a top policy goal for President Donald Trump.
Leading the Senate charge, West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice—citing his deep ties to an energy-rich state—introduced a bill on Thursday aimed at stripping state governments of the power to block the development, distribution, or expansion of reliable energy sources. Justice emphasized the national implications of energy policy, saying, "Americans ought to have the right to choose what is best for their energy needs."
The legislation, known as the Energy Choice Act, has already garnered 37 co-sponsors across both chambers. In the House, Rep. Nick Langworthy of New York, a state long at the center of energy debates, is spearheading the effort. Langworthy has accused Democrats in his state of conducting an "extremist crusade" against energy development, highlighting the irony of New York’s ban on natural gas development within the Marcellus Shale formation—one of the largest natural gas reservoirs in the country.
The proposed bill would prohibit state and local governments from restricting the connection, distribution, or modification of energy sources involved in interstate commerce. The aim is to ensure that regions with abundant resources, like the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, can continue to develop these assets without interference from neighboring states with stricter regulations, such as New York and Maryland.
Langworthy contends these state-level bans have sent home energy prices soaring and left areas like New York on the "edge of an energy crisis." He argued, "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." For the legislation’s backers, preventing a patchwork of state laws is key to keeping energy affordable and reliable for all Americans.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) also lent her support, insisting that local opposition to traditional energy sources threatens jobs, security, and the country’s economy. "America needs more energy, and our state and local governments shouldn’t discriminate against baseload energy generation," she said, referencing the importance of coal and natural gas for stable power supplies.
Alabama's Black Warrior Basin highlights how individual states have sought to bolster domestic energy output. Governor Kay Ivey’s Powering Growth Act, signed in 2025, streamlined Alabama’s energy permitting process, an approach now championed on the federal level by Senator Tommy Tuberville—a prominent supporter of the Energy Choice Act. Tuberville said succinctly, "Energy security is national security."
Tuberville and others argue that recent federal policies and state-level restrictions have damaged U.S. energy independence, with Tuberville warning, "We need to rein-in blue states who caved to the climate cult and imposed ridiculous regulations that are deeply unpopular with hardworking Americans."
As the debate heats up in Washington, the fate of the Energy Choice Act could reshape not just the rules governing energy infrastructure, but the very future of American power generation. Supporters say the bill is about restoring consumer choice and economic growth, while critics warn it could undermine important environmental protections and states’ rights. The coming weeks are likely to determine whether this landmark effort becomes law—or another flashpoint in the country’s ongoing energy wars.
