Congress proposes absolute ban on fossil fuel power plants and fracking
H.R. 5489 — Future Generations Protection Act · Filed by Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) · 11 cosponsors · Introduced Sep 18, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill would ban new coal and gas power plants from emitting any greenhouse gases, prohibit hydraulic fracturing nationwide starting in 2029, block new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals unless they reduce emissions, and ban exports of crude oil and natural gas (with narrow exceptions for Canada, Mexico, and temporary cross-border transport). It frames these restrictions as climate action and environmental justice.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a series of absolute prohibitions on new fossil fuel infrastructure and extraction, coupled with export bans. It is functionally a rapid decarbonization mandate, not a regulatory standard-setting or incentive-based approach.
- FERC authority over LNG siting/certificates is restricted, substantively unrelated to electric utility emissions standards (Section 3).
- Nationwide fracking prohibition with 2029 effective date is a separate extraction ban, not an emissions standard (Section 4).
- Repeal of crude oil/LNG export authorization and prohibition on natural gas exports is trade/commerce policy, not emissions regulation (Section 5).
What the text implies
- The absolute prohibition on ANY greenhouse gas emission from new units (zero-tolerance language) may be unachievable even for renewable facilities if interpreted literally to include fugitive emissions, creating legal ambiguity and potential litigation.
- The nationwide fracking ban with 2029 effective date creates a 4-year window for accelerated drilling before the ban takes effect, potentially incentivizing a rush to extract reserves before prohibition.
- Export restrictions on crude oil and natural gas may trigger retaliation under trade agreements (USMCA, WTO) and could harm U.S. energy diplomacy and relationships with Canada and Mexico.
- The bill contains no transition assistance, worker retraining, or community economic development provisions despite findings emphasizing 'fair and just transition' — the findings are not operationalized in the operative text.
- Referral to House Committee on Foreign Affairs (not Energy and Commerce) is unusual for Clean Air Act amendments and may signal intent to frame this as geopolitical/trade policy rather than environmental regulation.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill would accelerate decarbonization of the electricity grid and reduce fossil fuel extraction, potentially benefiting public health and climate outcomes. However, the absolute prohibition on new fossil fuel infrastructure with no transition mechanisms, combined with a nationwide fracking ban and export restrictions, creates significant economic disruption, job losses in energy sectors, and higher energy costs for consumers — costs borne disproportionately by lower-income households and rur
Who stands to gain
- renewable energy developers and manufacturers
- wind and solar equipment suppliers
- battery and energy storage companies
- electric vehicle charging infrastructure providers
Named in the bill
AES Corp, WEC Energy Group, Duke Energy, Consolidated Edison, Xcel Energy, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), Clean Air Act, Natural Gas Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016
Where it stands
11 cosponsors: 11 Democrats.
- Sep 18, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Sep 18, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Foreign Affairs and House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. Those filings disclosed $80,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 63 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Jan Schakowsky, the sponsor, reported $88,051 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Sierra Club — $80,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jan 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (4,806 characters) on Aug 21, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jan 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress proposes absolute ban on fossil fuel power plants and fracking” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr5489 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.