HB 3699, the Energy Choice Act, would bar states and 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. In short, it seeks to prevent local restrictions that could block certain energy delivery options.
The bill would push toward uniform access to energy services across jurisdictions, which could expand cross-state energy markets but also constrain local environmental and consumer protections. The text focuses on prohibiting prohibitions or limits and does not include detailed penalties or enforcement provisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
A state or local government may not adopt or enforce a law 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 that is sold in interstate commerce to be delivered to an end-user.
Who It Affects
State and local regulatory authorities, energy utilities and competitive energy suppliers operating across multiple states, and end users who rely on energy services delivered from various sources.
Why It Matters
It creates a nationwide floor for energy-service access, reducing local policy discretion and potentially accelerating cross-border energy arrangements while constraining local environmental or consumer-protection initiatives.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Energy Choice Act sets a nationwide rule that blocks local and state restrictions on how energy services are connected to customers. Section 2 prohibits any jurisdiction from enacting or enforcing laws that would prevent or limit the ability to connect, reconnect, modify, install, transport, distribute, expand, or otherwise access an energy service based on the energy type or source.
This applies to energy sold in interstate commerce and delivered to end users, removing a layer of local control over energy delivery choices. While the bill does not spell out penalties or specific enforcement mechanisms, its core effect would be to standardize energy-access rules across jurisdictions and reduce the latitude of local governments to shape energy markets through prohibitions or limitations on energy-service connections.
The act is framed as a name-level directive—the Energy Choice Act—without detailing implementation procedures, which suggests that further regulatory or judicial guidance would be needed to resolve ambiguities in how the preemption interacts with existing local codes and environmental or consumer protections. Compliance implications would flow to state and local agencies, utilities, and developers who plan or operate energy infrastructure across state lines.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits a state or local government from adopting or enforcing a law that restricts energy service connections based on energy type or source.
The prohibition covers connections, reconnections, modifications, installations, transportation, distribution, expansion, and access to energy services.
The restriction applies to energy sold in interstate commerce and delivered to end users.
The Energy Choice Act is the designated short title for the bill.
There are no explicit penalties or enforcement mechanisms described in the text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 designates the act as the Energy Choice Act. This naming clause establishes the label under which the act would be cited in law and subsequent references. It does not, by itself, impose duties or create regulatory processes.
Limitations on regulation of energy choice
Section 2 bars a state or local government, or its instrumentality or regulatory agency, from adopting, implementing, or enforcing any law, regulation, ordinance, building code, standard, or policy that prohibits or limits energy service connections based on the type or source of energy sold in interstate commerce to end users. In effect, it preempts local restrictions and seeks to ensure open access to energy services across jurisdictions. The text does not specify any enforcement mechanism or carve-outs, leaving questions about remedies and scope to future interpretation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Nationwide energy service providers (utilities and competitive energy suppliers) gain a uniform operating environment across states, reducing the risk of local bans disrupting cross-border service.
- Large commercial and industrial end-users that operate in multiple states benefit from predictable access to diverse energy services and fewer regional barriers.
- Energy project developers (solar, wind, gas, and other technologies) enjoy fewer local prohibitions when scaling across markets, supporting capital deployment timelines.
- Residential and small-business customers seeking broader energy options could benefit from greater supplier choice and potential price competition.
Who Bears the Cost
- States and localities that use energy restrictions to pursue environmental, climate, or consumer-protection goals may lose tools to influence energy mix or supplier access.
- Municipal utilities and public power entities that rely on local regulations to shape energy portfolios could experience reduced policy levers.
- Regulators may face additional complexity in aligning cross-jurisdictional requirements and ensuring consistent implementation.
- Energy providers may incur transitional costs as they adapt to a more uniform regulatory landscape and potential shifts in local demand patterns.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a federal interest in open, cross-state energy markets with local governments’ prerogatives to regulate energy sources, protect consumers, and pursue environmental or safety objectives.
The Energy Choice Act introduces a broad preemption of local authority over energy-service access, tethering the prohibition to energy type or source and to energy sold in interstate commerce. While this aims to reduce fragmentation in energy markets, the lack of explicit enforcement provisions or penalties creates questions about how the statute would be implemented, adjudicated, or remedied in practice.
The provision also raises concerns about the potential erosion of local policy tools related to environmental standards, reliability criteria, and consumer protections that may be embedded in building codes or energy planning processes. Clarification would be needed to determine how this preemption interacts with unrelated local ordinances and how disputes would be resolved across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.