A Democratic bill with 7 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill establishes the National Institutes of Clean Energy as an agency within the Department of Energy by January 1, 2030. The new agency is directed to invest in clean energy science, innovation, research, and development to reduce emissions and build climate resilience. It prioritizes the development of technologies that minimize environmental harms and improve public health in vulnerable communities. The legislation also focuses research on job loss, job creation, and workforce development in heavily unionized sectors and areas impacted by deindustrialization. To fund these efforts, the bill authorizes the appropriation of $400,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2027 through 2036.
Yes· 3 of 37
- Scored +9
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The establishment of the National Institutes of Clean Energy is explicitly dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and advancing renewable technologies.
- Scored +9
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
The legislation pours hundreds of billions of dollars into clean energy science, innovation, and renewable energy research and development.
- Scored +9
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The bill authorizes a massive influx of $400 billion for clean energy and climate science research and development.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes an appropriation of $400,000,000,000 over ten years, increasing federal spending.
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The authorization of $400 billion in federal funds represents a substantial increase in government expenditure.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(c)(1)(A) and Section 2(c)(1)(B)(i) authorize investments in clean energy science, climate science, and demonstration projects like microgrids, energy storage, and electric vehicles. This could lead to technological advancements that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency.
-
Section 2(c)(1)(B)(ii) and Section 2(c)(2)(A) support research projects focusing on the impacts of energy production in frontline communities and prioritize technologies that minimize environmental harms and improve public health in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities. This could benefit populations that have been disproportionately impacted by environmental injustices.
-
Section 2(c)(2)(A)(iii) and Section 2(c)(1)(B)(iii) prioritize the creation of high-quality jobs with strong labor standards and support research on job loss, job creation, and workforce development in heavily unionized workforce sectors. This may provide positive economic outcomes for workers.
-
Section 2(c)(2)(D) and Section 2(c)(2)(E) prioritize research and development conducted at public universities, land-grant colleges, minority-serving institutions, and in geographic areas experiencing severe job losses between 2018 and 2026, such as rural and deindustrialized areas. This could direct educational and economic resources to specific institutions and regions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(d) authorizes the appropriation of $400,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2027 through 2036 to establish and operate the Institutes. This massive expenditure represents a significant financial burden on taxpayers and the federal budget.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The legislation directly targets frontline, vulnerable, and disadvantaged communities, aiming to improve public health and economic opportunities. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill strongly emphasizes high-quality jobs with strong labor standards and research focused on heavily unionized sectors. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill prioritizes vulnerable communities and minority-serving institutions, addressing environmental injustices affecting Black communities. Would business owners be better off under this? — Investments in advanced energy technology and research create new markets and opportunities for businesses in the clean energy sector. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The focus on frontline and disadvantaged communities supports Hispanic and brown populations impacted by pollution. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Indigenous peoples are explicitly recognized among the vulnerable populations prioritized for environmental harm reduction. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The legislation explicitly directs research and development toward depopulated rural areas experiencing severe job losses. Would students be better off under this? — Research and development funding is directed toward public universities, land-grant colleges, and minority-serving institutions. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General improvements in environmental health benefit communities of color broadly. Would children be better off under this? — Long-term emissions reductions and public health improvements benefit younger generations. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural area investments and land-grant university participation benefit agricultural and rural communities. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Migrant communities are specifically noted among the frontline groups whose environmental and public health concerns are prioritized. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Workforce development and job creation initiatives assist workers in transition. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Broad economic growth and high-quality job creation support middle-class households. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with disabilities are recognized among vulnerable groups targeted for public health and environmental protections. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Public health improvements in vulnerable communities particularly help elderly populations residing in affected areas. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban communities suffering from pollution and environmental degradation benefit from targeted technological developments. Would women be better off under this? — The legislation acknowledges the disproportionate impact of environmental injustices on women and targets relief accordingly. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Job creation in the clean energy sector provides new career opportunities for young adults. Would men be better off under this? — Job creation in unionized and technical sectors provides broad employment opportunities. Would retired people be better off under this? — General improvements in environmental health and climate resilience benefit retirees in vulnerable areas. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Deindustrialized and rural white communities experiencing job losses stand to benefit from regional R&D investments.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — The legislation pours hundreds of billions of dollars into clean energy science, innovation, and renewable energy research and development. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The establishment of the National Institutes of Clean Energy is explicitly dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and advancing renewable technologies. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill directs investments toward minimizing environmental harms and building climate resilience. Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill prioritizes research and development in geographic areas experiencing severe job losses, explicitly including depopulated rural areas. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — A strong pivot toward clean and renewable energy technologies naturally supports a transition away from fossil fuels.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill authorizes a massive influx of $400 billion for clean energy and climate science research and development. Does this put more money into public schools? — The legislation prioritizes conducting research and development at public universities, colleges, land-grant institutions, and minority-serving institutions.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill authorizes $400 billion for clean energy science, climate science, and related research and development. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The legislation prioritizes technologies and research aimed at improving public health in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill specifically directs research and technological benefits toward frontline, vulnerable, and disadvantaged communities disproportionately affecting people of color. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By targeting economic support and job creation toward disadvantaged and deindustrialized areas, the bill aids economically struggling populations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill creates a new federal agency within the Department of Energy backed by extensive funding.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill prioritizes research and development that creates high-quality jobs and supports workforce development in heavily unionized sectors and impacted areas. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Substantial investments in clean energy research, innovation, and technology development can stimulate economic activity. Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — The legislation emphasizes strong labor standards and workforce research in heavily unionized sectors. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The authorization of $400 billion in federal funds represents a substantial increase in government expenditure. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes an appropriation of $400,000,000,000 over ten years, increasing federal spending.
- 11/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/1/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
5 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Ed CaseDemocrat · Hawaii
Steve CohenDemocrat · Tennessee
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California