OPINION:
Public policy works best when it is transparent and grounded in economic reality.
Government fails and breaks trust with the people when it rewrites the rules after the fact and tries to impose new liabilities on industries for conduct that was legal, regulated and often encouraged at the time it occurred.
That debate is now playing out in Congress as we consider legislation designed to prevent states from using litigation and retroactive liability laws to target energy producers.
I have co-sponsored the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026, which blocks lawsuits and “superfund” laws designed to bleed energy companies of billions of dollars to be used for leftist projects.
In June, 10 Democratic governors wrote to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject the bill, arguing that states should retain broad authority to pursue climate-related lawsuits and enact so-called climate superfund laws.
In truth, it would be a disaster for the American economy and national security if the states were allowed to create a patchwork of punitive green laws that varied from state to state. Our national energy policy must be established and maintained by the federal government, with the president and Congress working together.
This matters because the energy industry is unlike most other sectors of the economy. Developing oil and natural gas resources requires investments measured in billions of dollars and planning horizons that stretch decades into the future.
Companies make those commitments based on the legal and regulatory frameworks that exist when projects are approved. Pulling the rug out from under them many years down the road is unfair and un-American.
The practical consequences are also difficult to ignore. Energy is an essential component of manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, construction, healthcare and nearly every other sector of the economy. Policies that substantially increase the cost of producing energy inevitably affect the cost of producing everything else.
Additionally, states ought to be careful not to sue or legislate themselves into rolling blackouts.
Take the case of Colorado, home to the Boulder climate liability case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. As local governments there have sought compensation from energy producers for alleged climate-related costs, state officials have ironically asked an older coal-fired plant near Pueblo to delay its retirement because they fear a shortage of electricity.
The leftist agenda creates tension between their green vision and reality.
California illustrates a similar challenge from a different perspective. State leaders have adopted some of the nation’s most aggressive climate policies and today predictably find themselves butting up against a continually increasing demand for fuel.
Regulators there hammered Valero Energy Corp., fining it more than $82 million over the years for sanctions violations at its Benicia refinery, but then looked on aghast as the company announced the facility’s closure.
Faced with the loss of 9% of its gasoline supply and more than $10 million in local tax revenue, state officials are still looking for someone else to take over the site.
These examples underscore a broader point: Governments cannot depend on an industry to maintain reliable electricity, affordable transportation and economic stability while they demonize and punish anyone who dares operate within that industry.
If lawmakers believe that additional climate policies are necessary, they should debate those policies openly through the legislative process. They can establish new emissions standards, create incentives for emerging technologies, revise permitting requirements or adopt other prospective reforms. Businesses, investors, consumers and workers can then evaluate those rules and adjust accordingly.
Using litigation to achieve policy objectives that legislatures have not enacted is a far less transparent approach. It shifts decisions involving potentially hundreds of billions — or even trillions — of dollars from elected representatives to the courts, creating uncertainty for businesses while providing little guidance on future conduct.
Employing superfund laws to gather cash to spend on discretionary projects is also a way to avoid accountability for poor government. Lawmakers in blue states enact superfund laws, squeeze cash out of energy companies and then use the money as slush funds to help mitigate poor financial management in these places.
The U.S. has benefited for generations from abundant domestic energy resources. These have supported manufacturing, strengthened national security, reduced dependence on foreign suppliers and contributed to a higher standard of living.
President Trump restored American energy dominance, reversing the expensive policies of the Biden era, which intentionally inflated fuel costs.
We cannot allow America to be crippled because we will not stand up to environmental lawyers who act like thugs in an alley. In the United States, we follow the law, not some leftist ideological code.
• Rep. August Pfluger, a Republican, represents Texas’ 11th Congressional District.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.