H. Griffith (R-VA)
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4626) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4758) to repeal provisions of Public Law 117–169 relating to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification, and for other purposes.
A Republican resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Adopted
The chamber formally agreed to it, and for a resolution that is the finish line: what it says is now officially the chamber's position, rule or tribute.
Nothing more is needed. A resolution is how a chamber speaks for itself or sets its own rules, so adopting it is what puts it into effect. It is not a law, so there is nothing for the President to sign.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Adopted by the House 208–187
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution provides for the consideration of two specific bills in the House. H.R. 4626 seeks to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This amendment would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards if they are not technologically feasible and economically justified. Additionally, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 4758. This second bill aims to repeal provisions of Public Law 117-169 regarding taxpayer subsidies for home electrification.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The repeal of home electrification subsidies reduces federal spending.
- Scored +1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Repealing subsidies can be viewed as a step toward fiscal restraint.
- Scored +1
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Requiring energy standards to be economically justified may prevent high costs for consumers.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -3
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
Repealing home electrification subsidies reduces investment in renewable energy transitions.
- Scored -2
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Repealing electrification subsidies and limiting energy standards may hinder carbon reduction efforts.
- Scored -2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Loss of home electrification subsidies may increase the cost of upgrading homes for low-income residents.
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 adopt the resolution A resolution is one chamber speaking for itself — setting its own rules, taking a position, honouring someone — and it never goes to the President. Agreeing to it is the whole decision. Passed 208 yes · 187 no
02/24/2026 · Roll call 74 · recorded as “On Agreeing to the Resolution”
- The House: a vote to stop debate and move to the decision A House procedural vote that closes off further debate and amendments. It is about the schedule, not the substance, and it usually falls along party lines. Previous question agreed to 208 yes · 189 no
02/24/2026 · Roll call 73 · recorded as “On Ordering the Previous Question”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Energy Standard Protections: Under H.R. 4626, the Secretary of Energy would be prohibited from prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards for a product unless they are technologically feasible and economically justified.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of Subsidies: Under H.R. 4758, the provisions of Public Law 117-169 relating to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification would be repealed.
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? — Repealing home electrification subsidies reduces investment in renewable energy transitions. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Repealing electrification subsidies and limiting energy standards may hinder carbon reduction efforts. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Limiting the scope of energy standards may reduce environmental oversight.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The repeal of home electrification subsidies reduces federal spending. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Requiring energy standards to be economically justified may prevent high costs for consumers. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Repealing subsidies can be viewed as a step toward fiscal restraint.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Stricter requirements for energy standards may benefit businesses by preventing unfeasible regulations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Loss of home electrification subsidies may increase the cost of upgrading homes for low-income residents. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The repeal of subsidies may impact middle-class households looking to electrify their homes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Limiting the Secretary's ability to set standards reduces federal regulatory authority.
- 2/24/2026
- The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-515, by Mr. Griffith.
- Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 62.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 208 - 187 (Roll no. 74). (text: CR H2269)
- On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 208 - 187 (Roll no. 74). (text: CR H2269)
- On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 208 - 189 (Roll no. 73).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2277-2279)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 1075, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote, announced that the ayes prevailed. Mr. McGovern demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1075.
- Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2269-2276)
- 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.
- Bill introduced.
2 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.