Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends section 543(f) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act to explicitly classify "mechanical insulation property" as an eligible energy or water efficiency measure for Federal buildings. It defines mechanical insulation property, requires that installed materials meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1 as of enactment, and requires comprehensive energy and water evaluations to identify such installations when applicable.
Ambition vs cost: liberals emphasize climate gains; conservatives emphasize upfront costs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clarifies that mechanical insulation installations qualify as energy or water efficiency measures for Federal building evaluations.
This bill amends section 543(f) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act to explicitly classify "mechanical insulation property" as an eligible energy or water efficiency measure for Federal buildings.
It defines mechanical insulation property, requires that installed materials meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1 as of enactment, and requires comprehensive energy and water evaluations to identify such installations when applicable.
The amendment clarifies that insulation installations reducing energy loss are covered under existing federal efficiency evaluation requirements.
Substantively minor, non-ideological fix that should clear committee and floor if prioritized; calendar and competing priorities are main barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clarifies that mechanical insulation installations qualify as energy or water efficiency measures for Federal building evaluations. It integrates cleanly into the cited statutory provision and provides a clear, objective definition tied to an industry standard.
Ambition vs cost: liberals emphasize climate gains; conservatives emphasize upfront costs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Ambition vs cost: liberals emphasize climate gains; conservatives emphasize upfront costs
Likely supportive because the bill advances energy efficiency and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in federal buildings.
Views it as a straightforward, technical fix that helps federal climate and taxpayer-savings goals.
May press for stronger performance, funding, and labor or domestic procurement safeguards.
Generally favorable as a narrow, technical clarification that could save money for federal agencies.
Sees merit in codifying an accepted standard but wants clear fiscal analysis and implementation timelines.
Will seek cost-benefit transparency and phased rollout to limit budget shocks.
Mixed to somewhat skeptical: recognizes potential operational savings but worries about expanding federal mandates and tying requirements to an external technical standard.
Concerns center on added bureaucracy, unfunded obligations, and federal intrusion into building standards.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively minor, non-ideological fix that should clear committee and floor if prioritized; calendar and competing priorities are main barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Ambition vs cost: liberals emphasize climate gains; conservatives emphasize upfront costs
Substantively minor, non-ideological fix that should clear committee and floor if prioritized; calendar and competing priorities are main b…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clarifies that mechanical insulation installations qualify as energy or water efficiency measures for Federal buildin…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.