In causal reasoning, the energy required to explain an effect does not need to come from the cause.
As an example, automatic umbrellas are opened by pressing a button with a finger. The energy required to open the umbrella does not come from the finger pressing the button, but from a spring that was loaded much earlier (when last closing the umbrella). Logically we can say the finger press caused the umbrella to open, but physically the finger press caused only for the spring catch to be released, which in turn made the spring open the umbrella.
In causal reasoning such physical details are often set aside to simplify the logical reasoning, that's where the energy relationship is usually lost.
Similar to the umbrella spring, the energy to contract the muscles to bend the finger comes from chemicals within the muscle (ATP), whereas the trigger to contract the muscle comes from a neuronal signal. So the signal does not need to provide the energy for the muscle contraction.
what is the difference between control and causation?
All control is also causation, but not all causation is control. So control is just a special type of causation, which implies function or purpose. Control is often based on a feedback loop which can increase or decrease an influence over time to satisfy a function, like a simple thermostat keeping an oven at a temperature. It might also imply agency to justify a purpose, like bees adjusting the heat of a hive.
What is it that causes voluntary human actions?
Whether voluntary human action is caused (and how) or not is disputed and part of the mind-body-problem. So there cannot currently be a single objective answer to that question in philosophy. We can only say that the issue of energy is not relevant to it in the way suggested by the question for simple logical cause-effect relationships like the umbrella opening. Energy conservation is a common objection to dualism in the mind-body problem, the wikipedia article above explains in more detail, but that seems to be unrelated to the question.
from the comments:
What do you think about this: Cause determines the effect, control determines the cause.
This seems like simply a form of dualism, more specifically interactionism. Quoting https://iep.utm.edu/dualism-and-mind/#SH7b:
Mind could act upon physical processes by “affecting their course but not breaking in upon them” (1970, p. 54). If this is true, the dualist could maintain the conservation principle but deny a fluctuation in energy because the mind serves to “guide” or control neural events by choosing one set of quantum outcomes rather than another.
However for causal reasoning, such influence would still be a participating cause of neural events, it would just be a physically unique kind of cause that happens totally without energy transformation (Unique in the sense that this has never been observed anywhere else in nature, just as it has never scientifically been measured in the brain). So cause-and-effect would not need to be extended by a new concept "control" for that.
If that's what the question was about, the question should be changed to be specifically about Dualism/Interactionism, such as: "According to Keith Campbell, mind can influence outcomes of quantum events in the brain, would that influence logically still be a cause, or a different type of influence that can be called 'Control' instead?"