Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Requires the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA) to conduct an economic impact study quantifying the financial costs of extreme heat, including dollar valuation of loss of life and property. The study must evaluate health impacts, property damage, medical and insurance costs, labor productivity losses, infrastructure impacts, and agricultural losses, solicit federal and non-federal feedback, and recommend national tracking systems.
Liberals emphasize climate, health, and equity benefits of quantified costs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined study mandate that assigns responsibility, specifies study elements, requires interagency coordination, permits external execution, sets a 4-year deadline, provides an appropriation, and demands public open-access reporting.
Requires the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA) to conduct an economic impact study quantifying the financial costs of extreme heat, including dollar valuation of loss of life and property.
The study must evaluate health impacts, property damage, medical and insurance costs, labor productivity losses, infrastructure impacts, and agricultural losses, solicit federal and non-federal feedback, and recommend national tracking systems.
The Under Secretary may use external organizations, must use existing databases as available, publish findings on HEAT.gov and authorize open-access publication within four years.
Technocratic, low-cost, limited federal intrusion increases chances; possible partisan sensitivity to climate topics and need for appropriations lower probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined study mandate that assigns responsibility, specifies study elements, requires interagency coordination, permits external execution, sets a 4-year deadline, provides an appropriation, and demands public open-access reporting.
Liberals emphasize climate, health, and equity benefits of quantified costs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize climate, health, and equity benefits of quantified costs
Likely supportive because the bill directs federal analysis of climate-driven harms and centers health, labor, and agriculture impacts.
It provides data needed to design equitable adaptation and mitigation policies, though advocates may want faster timelines and larger funding.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: the study is a targeted, evidence-building step to inform policy without imposing regulations.
Will seek clarity on methodology, costs, timeline, and coordination to ensure usable, nonpartisan results.
Cautious or somewhat opposed: while data collection is acceptable in principle, concerns focus on new federal spending, potential regulatory uses of findings, and valuation of life in dollar terms.
Some conservatives may support if scope is tightly constrained and spending justified.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, low-cost, limited federal intrusion increases chances; possible partisan sensitivity to climate topics and need for appropriations lower probability.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize climate, health, and equity benefits of quantified costs
Technocratic, low-cost, limited federal intrusion increases chances; possible partisan sensitivity to climate topics and need for appropria…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined study mandate that assigns responsibility, specifies study elements, requires interagency coordination, permits external execution, sets a 4-year de…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.