By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Judicial protection of the decision of American consumers over many decades to choose the best energy products–and in this case petroleum products for transportation and home heating–is common sense. This law will better protect Americans than court decisions, however favorable, against the anti-energy, anti-consumer extremists with false pretenses.”
The Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026 (S.4340), introduced in the Senate by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and in the House by Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.), proposes to protect energy companies from climate change lawsuits and state-level penalties. This legislation is in response to climate activism in 11 states, two of which (Vermont and New York) have enacted “climate superfund” laws. The other nine states looking seeking judicial payouts are California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
A press release from Rep. Hageman justified the proposed bill “to protect American energy from leftist legal crusades punishing lawful activity.” The press release continued:
The shale revolution unlocked the United States as the world’s leading producer of crude oil and natural gas. U.S. energy dominance has since reinforced America’s diplomatic leverage while driving the domestic economy with the affordable, reliable power that keeps factories, farms, and hospitals operating. States passing so-called “climate superfund” laws, along with climate liability lawsuits, however, threaten to undermine American energy dominance by litigating producers out of business.
State legislatures and environmental extremists are trying to scapegoat the same producers who keep America running with fines and lawsuits over legal production in the past, lawful activity in the present, and imagined transgressions in the future. The Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026 shields America’s energy producers from these relentless attacks, supporting our affordable energy sector, preserving American jobs, and restoring clarity to our nation’s energy policy.
“Energy security is national security, and we will not self-sabotage our critical industries with a cascade of costly lawsuits and extreme penalties that jeopardize American drilling,” said Rep. Harriet Hageman. “America’s energy producers should be protected from the dangerous legal precedent that would be set by the retroactive punishment of lawful activity.”
“We thank Senator Cruz and Rep. Hageman for introducing legislation to stop a growing patchwork of state laws and lawsuits that threaten American energy and risk raising costs for consumers,” said American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Mike Sommers in a joint statement. “These efforts to retroactively penalize companies for lawfully meeting consumer demand are misguided and counterproductive. Congress should act decisively to reaffirm federal authority over national energy policy and end this activist-driven state overreach.”
What is the threat, specifically?
Climate liability lawsuits seek to hold energy companies financially or criminally liable, while superfund laws are designed to inflict multi-billion-dollar penalties for past emissions and other alleged contributions to “climate change.” Vermont and New York have both passed “climate superfund” laws, while legislators in at least 9 other states, including California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia, are considering similar proposals.
The press release emphasizes four aims of the proposed legislation:
- Prohibiting retroactive climate liability lawsuits and other proceedings to implement or enforce an energy penalty law.
- Dismissing pending lawsuits and proceedings on the date of the bill’s enactment.
- Voiding state energy penalty laws.
- Affirming that the Federal government maintains the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and other interstate environmental standards.
Judicial protection of the decision of American consumers over many decades to choose the best energy products–and in this case petroleum products for transportation and home heating–is common sense. This law will better protect Americans than court decisions, however favorable, against the anti-energy, anti-consumer extremists with false pretenses.
