ENERGY: Urges and requests the state and its agencies to repudiate the Louisiana Climate Action Plan of 2022
House Resolution 216 urges and requests the state of Louisiana and its agencies to repudiate the Louisiana Climate Action Plan of 2022, including the Priority Climate Action Plan developed by the Climate Initiatives Task Force. The resolution states that the plan should be treated as non-binding for current or future state legislation, policies, programs, and agency actions.
The resolution frames the climate plan as inconsistent with Louisiana’s economic interests, state sovereignty, private property rights, and a limited-government approach. It argues that the plan promotes net-zero emissions goals, alternative energy mandates, and federal partnerships that would increase regulation, taxpayer costs, and dependence on Washington, D.C., while disadvantaging Louisiana’s energy, petrochemical, manufacturing, agriculture, and transportation sectors. It also calls for future climate or environmental initiatives to include industry, local community, and public input, and for the Legislature to assert greater oversight over executive-branch policy development.
Because HR216 is a resolution rather than a statute, it does not directly amend the Louisiana Revised Statutes or create enforceable legal requirements. Its practical effect would be political and advisory: it would signal that the House wants state agencies to disregard the Louisiana Climate Action Plan and any related Priority Climate Action Plan as binding policy guidance. It also encourages future climate policy to be developed with legislative oversight and stakeholder input, and it reinforces a policy preference for energy independence, free markets, and property rights over climate-mitigation initiatives.
The bill’s tone is strongly oppositional to the Louisiana Climate Action Plan and broadly supportive of fossil-fuel-centered, pro-business, and anti-regulatory policy. The resolution reflects a favorable sentiment toward Louisiana’s traditional energy economy and toward newly elected state and federal administrations that emphasize limited government and domestic energy production. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded bipartisan debate or formal vote sentiment in the available materials.
The main points of contention are the plan’s climate goals, its reliance on federal funding and coordination, and its potential regulatory effects on industry and land use. Supporters of the resolution view the climate plan as an overreach that threatens state sovereignty, property rights, and economic competitiveness, while likely opponents would see the plan as a necessary framework for emissions reduction, environmental protection, and long-term climate resilience. The resolution also criticizes the absence of formal legislative review of the original plan, making legislative oversight itself another point of dispute.