Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Creates a new refundable personal tax credit equal to 50% of eligible disaster-mitigation expenditures for a taxpayer’s principal residence. The credit is generally capped at $25,000 per taxpayer (subject to prior-year credits and inflation adjustments), phases out for higher incomes, and applies only to residences in areas with certain recent federal disaster declarations or FEMA mitigation assistance.
Refundable nature: liberals view as necessary; conservatives see it as new federal spending.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill constructs a clearly defined substantive tax benefit with precise eligibility and calculation rules, but provides limited fiscal and oversight scaffolding.
Creates a new refundable personal tax credit equal to 50% of eligible disaster-mitigation expenditures for a taxpayer’s principal residence.
The credit is generally capped at $25,000 per taxpayer (subject to prior-year credits and inflation adjustments), phases out for higher incomes, and applies only to residences in areas with certain recent federal disaster declarations or FEMA mitigation assistance.
The bill enumerates eligible mitigation measures (wind, flood, wildfire, seismic, drought, storm shelters, generators, vegetation management, water capture, FORTIFIED standards, etc.), requires documentation, disallows double benefits, and is effective for taxable years beginning after Dec 31, 2024.
Policy is administratively detailed and non-ideological but creates sizable refundable costs; passage would require bipartisan deal-making or offsetting fiscal adjustments.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill constructs a clearly defined substantive tax benefit with precise eligibility and calculation rules, but provides limited fiscal and oversight scaffolding.
Refundable nature: liberals view as necessary; conservatives see it as new federal spending.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Refundable nature: liberals view as necessary; conservatives see it as new federal spending.
Likely generally supportive because the refundable credit helps low- and moderate-income homeowners invest in resilience and reduces disaster harms.
Sees the enumerated mitigation measures and FEMA-aligned eligibility as evidence-based climate and equity policy.
May press for broader inclusion of renters, multifamily housing, and greater support for disadvantaged communities.
Cautiously favorable to the goal of reducing disaster vulnerability, but concerned about fiscal cost, verification, and program administration.
Appreciates phaseout and documentation requirements, but wants estimated budget impact and fraud controls.
Prefers targeted rollout or evaluation metrics.
Skeptical of a large, refundable federal tax credit that funnels government resources into private property retrofits.
Concerns center on federal overreach, fiscal cost, moral hazard, and preferential treatment of certain technologies or areas.
Might favor state-level or insurance-market solutions instead.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Policy is administratively detailed and non-ideological but creates sizable refundable costs; passage would require bipartisan deal-making or offsetting fiscal adjustments.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Refundable nature: liberals view as necessary; conservatives see it as new federal spending.
Policy is administratively detailed and non-ideological but creates sizable refundable costs; passage would require bipartisan deal-making…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill constructs a clearly defined substantive tax benefit with precise eligibility and calculation rules, but provides limited fiscal and oversight scaffolding.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.