A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Lowering American Energy Costs Act of 2025" seeks to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This bill aims to ban the export of natural gas produced in the United States to keep domestic energy costs low. Under this act, the President would be required to create a rule prohibiting these exports. However, the President would have the authority to grant specific exemptions. These exemptions could be granted if they align with the national interest without raising residential costs or if they are critical to national security.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +6
Is this likely to lower the price at the pump?
The bill explicitly aims to lower domestic natural gas prices by prohibiting exports.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill targets the reduction of energy costs which disproportionately affects low-income household budgets.
- Scored +4
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Lowering utility costs provides more disposable income to middle-income families.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
The export ban could strain relations with strategic international partners and allies who rely on US natural gas.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Lower Energy Costs for Households: The bill aims to restrict exports to keep domestic energy costs low (Section 3, subsection a). The findings suggest that unconstrained exports are projected to increase costs for United States households by up to $122 per year on average by 2050 (Section 2, subsection 1, subparagraph B, clause iii).
-
Reduced Costs for Industry: By restricting exports, the bill seeks to mitigate projected increases in costs for the industrial sector, which were estimated to reach an additional $125,000,000,000 by 2050 (Section 2, subsection 1, subparagraph B, clause iv).
-
Lower Electricity Prices: The bill notes that natural gas prices are a major driver of wholesale electricity prices (Section 2, subsection 1, subparagraph C). Restricting gas exports may help manage these costs.
-
Health and Environmental Benefits: The findings state that natural gas infrastructure can lead to significant negative health outcomes for communities near pipelines and terminals (Section 2, subsection s). Additionally, the bill notes that natural gas is primarily composed of methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas (Section 2, subsection 5).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Impact of Limited Exemptions: While the President can issue exemptions for national security or the national interest, these exemptions require approval by a joint resolution of Congress (Section 3, subsection a, paragraph b, subparagraph A, clause ii; and subparagraph B).
-
Potential National Security or Strategic Risks: The bill acknowledges that certain natural gas exports could be "critical for the national security" of the United States or its strategic international partners and allies (Section 3, subsection a, paragraph b, subparagraph A, clause ii), which would be impacted by a general prohibition.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill targets the reduction of energy costs which disproportionately affects low-income household budgets. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Lowering utility costs provides more disposable income to middle-income families. Would business owners be better off under this? — Reducing energy costs benefits the domestic industrial sector and business owners. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Lowering energy costs provides relief to communities frequently disproportionately affected by pollution. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Lower energy costs benefit residents in urban areas who face high utility expenses.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — The bill explicitly aims to lower domestic natural gas prices by prohibiting exports. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Restricting exports may slow the expansion of natural gas infrastructure that impacts local environments. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The bill's focus on limiting natural gas exports may reduce the overall promotion of methane-heavy fossil fuels.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — By restricting exports, the bill seeks to lower energy costs for the domestic industrial sector. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — The bill aims to lower domestic natural gas and electricity prices which are key drivers of inflation.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill grants the President significant authority to regulate and prohibit energy exports.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Lowering energy costs may provide indirect economic relief to all citizens including veterans. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — The export ban could strain relations with strategic international partners and allies who rely on US natural gas.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Lowering average household energy bills helps alleviate financial pressure on low-income families.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Reducing natural gas infrastructure may reduce health risks for communities near pipelines and terminals.
- 12/18/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan