Hot issues make upcoming session less predictable

Remarks by legislative leaders shows this upcoming legislative session likely will develop into the most contentious of this term – and not because of Democrats’ agenda.

When Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and the current crop of GOP legislators kicked off their terms in 2024, they largely were on the same page, such was the consensus around the excesses – both in priorities pursued and blocked – of the Democrat former Gov. John Bel Edwards Administration and the factions he empowered in the Legislature. That continued almost unabated in 2025, with perhaps a slight fraying.

However, 2026 looks to expose some significant fractures among Republicans, from the Governor’s Mansion on down to backbenchers. A vast gulf exists between the lot of them and Democrats, of course, with the minority party so enfeebled that it’s unlikely anything a majority of that party wants will make it into law. Yet several issues may divide Republicans, along axes of the leadership vs. Landry and a significant number of GOP legislators (particularly in the House) or the leadership and Landry vs. many in the party.

Carbon capture and sequestration illustrates most prominently the latter cleavage, and with the interesting side effect of carrying a number of Democrats along with it. A number of prefiled bills address the issue, all seeking in some way to limit storage statewide, or even to transport into the state, along with local option measures, banning in discrete parishes, and more stringent standards for transportation but with greater recompense for property owners if denied use of that in some way by the presence of pipelines or storage.

GOP Leaders such as House Speaker Phillip DeVillier and Sen. Pres. Cameron Henry have tried to throw cold water on these kinds of bills, alleging that they would interfere impermissibly constitutionally with interstate commerce, which is left to Congress. But in almost every instance, this view ignores the constitutionally-granted power of states to employ a police power that includes regulating health matters. Perhaps the only bill for which the interstate commerce argument makes sense against is HB 510 by Republican state Rep. Rodney Schamerhorn, the prohibition on importation.

But in terms of pipeline transport, for now jurisprudentially states are considered to have the authority to regulate heavily in this area, even if the potential for danger is very low. And for storage, which is even safer (although the data points to conclude this are much fewer), the economic arguments of recompense for takings is unimpeachable. There is plenty of legal justification for these measures, contrary to the leaders’ allegations.

And, with Democrats’ help, at least some of these may turn into tides that Landry and leaders can’t stop. Given that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a myth, there’s absolutely no imperative for government to subsidize trying to capture carbon and sequester it, but those tax credits are there and given the horrible economics of CCS there wouldn’t be the industry at all without these. Simply, supporters of it back it only because it’s a potemkin ready to collapse with withdrawal of subsidies and they want to stuff as many taxpayer dollars from elsewhere into the state before that happens, in the name of economic development.

Yet many Republican legislators reject that strategy, out of concerns over safety, takings, and maybe just garden variety distaste for any policy that supports the CAGW narrative. And some Democrats on the party’s ever-growing fringe will join them for basically the opposite and an ideologically reason: they see CCS as a way to avoid cutting reliance on fossil fuels. Together, they could push through one or more bills with greater CCS restrictions that would leave Landry in a quandary: veto what likely are to be popular bills to keep the federal taxpayer-fueled economic development train rolling or sign them and avoid fallout among the electorate.

Another flashpoint, but with this having Landry on the side of the people, is over the state’s GATOR education savings accounts. Henry in particular has taken the lead in bringing up cost concerns, in saying that program expansion will call upon more state general fund dollars, although that argument loses some power when considering cost savings also will be realized by having to pay for fewer students in public schools. However, he has gone further by evincing hostility towards major segments of the program.

That’s not going to be popular, according to a recent poll that showed although only just over half of Louisianans knew about the program, well more than a majority think it should be fully funded, a position Landry didn’t even propose when his budget asked only for doubling its reach. Among legislators there seems to be little appetite to revisit the issue they put into law last year (which Henry supported), so it could be that they add a few more bucks (which would demonstrate the nullity of the canard that Henry has repeated, that to allow it to double in size means it necessarily must double every year ad infinitum).

Or, perhaps to allow everybody to look good, leaders have acknowledged more incremental tax cuts are likely in the future, and in exchange for holding the line on GATOR spending the Legislature could pass something like HB 411 by GOP state Rep. John Wyble that would eliminate individual income taxation over the next decade. For any movement for increased GATOR funding or decreased taxes, Landry will have to throw his weight around.

But perhaps the most fractured of all issues is data center location benefits vs. costs, which has supporters and detractors of expansion all over the partisan map. Obviously, these sitings bring clear economic development and government revenue benefits, but at the potential expense of spillover effects that local government would have to handle and possible increases in utility rates from the resource-hungry industry trickling down to ratepayers.

The latter question really is in the purview of the Public Service Commission, insofar as power, and a patchwork of local governments regarding water provision, although the Legislature can affect this debate by passing laws addressing PSC and local government powers. As well, the Legislature can take action to affect the ability of local governments to respond to, or prevent, negative spillover effects. What these measures could be are unpredictable at this time, given the dispersed nature of opinion within the Legislature on the issue.

So, some interesting possible conflicts may spring up this regular session that starts next week, gripping the state’s attention for its unpredictability rather than the more sedate and predictable courses the last couple of sessions have taken.