Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill (H.R. 615) creates a new Internal Revenue Code section (36D) allowing an individual tax credit up to $350 for qualified electricity and gas costs for a taxpayer’s primary residence. Qualified costs include utility bills paid directly or gas/electric costs included in rent; landlords who bundle these costs must provide yearly receipts.
Left emphasizes household relief; right emphasizes fiscal and market distortions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and focused statutory insertion that defines eligibility, limits, interactions with other tax provisions, and some administrative reporting.
This bill (H.R. 615) creates a new Internal Revenue Code section (36D) allowing an individual tax credit up to $350 for qualified electricity and gas costs for a taxpayer’s primary residence.
Qualified costs include utility bills paid directly or gas/electric costs included in rent; landlords who bundle these costs must provide yearly receipts.
Individuals with modified adjusted gross income above $200,000 (single) or $400,000 (joint) are ineligible.
Simple, popular objective but creates a new refundable outlay; fiscal concerns and need for broader legislative vehicle lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and focused statutory insertion that defines eligibility, limits, interactions with other tax provisions, and some administrative reporting. It integrates cleanly with the Internal Revenue Code via conforming amendments and cross-references.
Left emphasizes household relief; right emphasizes fiscal and market distortions.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes household relief; right emphasizes fiscal and market distortions.
Likely views the bill as a modest, targeted way to reduce household energy burdens, especially for low- and middle-income families.
Supportive of direct assistance, but will see the $350 cap as small and may object to limited scope on climate or equity grounds.
The ambiguous refundability in the text would raise concerns about effectiveness for those with little or no tax liability.
Sees the bill as a small, fiscally modest measure providing targeted, immediate relief for utility costs.
Views are cautiously favorable if administrative costs are manageable and fiscal impact is limited.
Would seek clarification on refundability, cost estimates, and implementation details for landlords and renters.
Likely views the bill skeptically as an unnecessary expansion of tax-code benefits and federal intervention in household expenses.
Opposed to creating additional tax credits without offsets and concerned about new compliance burdens for landlords and taxpayers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple, popular objective but creates a new refundable outlay; fiscal concerns and need for broader legislative vehicle lower odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes household relief; right emphasizes fiscal and market distortions.
Simple, popular objective but creates a new refundable outlay; fiscal concerns and need for broader legislative vehicle lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and focused statutory insertion that defines eligibility, limits, interactions with other tax provisions, and some administrative reporting. It integrates…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.