A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 210–199
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
This Act, known as the "Homeowner Energy Freedom Act," aims to repeal several provisions of Public Law 117-169. Specifically, it targets taxpayer subsidies intended for home electrification. The bill seeks to eliminate the high-efficiency electric home rebate program and State-based home energy efficiency contractor training grants. It also repeals assistance related to the adoption of latest and zero building energy codes. Additionally, the Act rescinds any unobligated balances of funds previously made available for the rebate program and the energy code adoption assistance.
Yes
- Scored +3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The act eliminates specific programs and rescinds unobligated funds.
- Scored +2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The rescission of unobligated balances reduces federal spending.
- Scored +1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Reduces spending by repealing existing subsidies.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -5
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Repealing electric home rebates and energy code assistance likely reduces efforts to lower carbon emissions.
- Scored -5
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
The bill removes subsidies intended to incentivize home electrification and renewable energy transitions.
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Eliminating assistance for energy code adoption may reduce energy efficiency standards.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 210 yes · 199 no
02/25/2026 · Roll call 78 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 198 yes · 208 no
02/25/2026 · Roll call 77 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
The provided text does not list any specific positive outcomes or benefits for individuals or groups of people.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Loss of Rebates: The repeal of Section 50122 of Public Law 117-169 would eliminate the high-efficiency electric home rebate program (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Loss of Training Grants: The repeal of Section 50123 of Public Law 117-169 would eliminate State-based home energy efficiency contractor training grants (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Loss of Code Adoption Assistance: The repeal of Section 50131 of Public Law 117-169 would remove assistance for the adoption of latest and zero building energy codes (Section 2(a)(3)).
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.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — The bill removes subsidies intended to incentivize home electrification and renewable energy transitions. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Repealing electric home rebates and energy code assistance likely reduces efforts to lower carbon emissions. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Eliminating assistance for energy code adoption may reduce energy efficiency standards.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The removal of electric home rebates may disproportionately affect low-income households looking to upgrade homes. Would business owners be better off under this? — The repeal of training grants may impact businesses in the energy efficiency service sector. Would union members be better off under this? — Reduction in training grants may impact labor demand in the renewable sector.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Eliminating home electrification rebates may increase the cost of upgrading homes.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The act eliminates specific programs and rescinds unobligated funds. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The rescission of unobligated balances reduces federal spending. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Reduces spending by repealing existing subsidies. Is this likely to create jobs? — The repeal of contractor training grants may reduce job creation opportunities in the green energy sector. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The loss of energy efficiency training grants may negatively affect small energy contractors.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Reducing federal subsidies can be seen as a reduction in federal oversight and spending power.
- 2/25/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 199, 1 Present (Roll no. 78). (text: CR H2301)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 199, 1 Present (Roll no. 78). (text: CR H2301)
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 198 - 208 (Roll no. 77).
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Ms. Castor (FL) moved to recommit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (CR H2305)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 4758.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4626 and H.R. 4758. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4626 and H.R. 4758 under a closed rule with one motion to recommit for each bill. The resolution provides for one hour of general debate on each bill.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1075. (consideration: CR H2301-2306)
- 2/24/2026
- Rule H. Res. 1075 passed House.
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1075 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4626 and H.R. 4758. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4626 and H.R. 4758 under a closed rule with one motion to recommit for each bill. The resolution provides for one hour of general debate on each bill.
- 2/4/2026
- Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-484.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 414.
- 12/3/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 25 - 21.
- 11/19/2025
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 14.
- 7/25/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Dan CrenshawRepublican · Texas
Jake EllzeyRepublican · Texas