Chairman Todd's Tennessee Energy Freedom Act advances after committee debate over liability limits
Loading...
Summary
The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee advanced HB 2070, the "Tennessee Energy Freedom Act," which would bar certain private suits and injunctive relief against coal, oil and natural-gas activities unless a violation of state or federal law is proven; the bill moved to Calendar and Rules on an 11-3 vote after exchanges over climate harms and landowner protections.
Chairman Todd presented HB 2070, described in the bill text as the "Tennessee Energy Freedom Act," saying it would recognize a right to engage in and invest in activities involving coal, oil and natural gas and would limit private liability and injunctive relief for "covered emissions" unless state or federal law was violated. Todd told the committee the measure is intended to prevent out-of-state suits aimed at shutting down permitted in-state energy operations.
The committee moved quickly from presentation to debate. Representative Fritz, who said she had discussed the bill in subcommittee, asked whether the measure would prevent citizens from seeking damages for local harms, citing past contractor misconduct and health effects. Todd replied the bill "does not affect any of those type of claims whatsoever" and said permit-enforcement pathways and direct-nuisance or injury claims remain intact.
Representative Jones pressed a broader concern, saying the measure "goes in the wrong direction" given local climate impacts such as ice storms, drought and tornadoes and asking whether the bill would prevent landowners from suing to protect farmland against pipelines. Todd responded that the bill does not alter the permit process, eminent-domain law or property-contract rights and that retroactivity was not aimed at any specific ongoing action.
Representative Shaw asked a hypothetical: if scientific evidence proved an activity was causing harm, how would the bill operate? Todd and other members clarified in response that permits with specific violations still allow citizen suits, and that direct, demonstrable harms or nuisance claims are not foreclosed by the bill as written.
Representative Trafas called the previous question and the committee voted to move HB 2070 forward. The clerk reported the tally as 11 ayes and 3 nays; the bill was placed on Calendar and Rules.
The committee record shows the bill's sponsor framed HB 2070 as a protective measure for permitted energy activity, while several members pressed for clarity about local remedies, retroactivity and the bill's effect on landowners and climate-related litigation. The next procedural step is consideration by Calendar and Rules.
