HOUSE Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
- Committees
- Veterans' Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 6, 2025
Bottom line
The HOUSE Act of 2025 seeks to reverse and prevent federal mandates for energy efficiency standards in federally-backed housing, aiming to reduce regulatory burdens and shift authority over such standards back to individual states.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture (USDA) to withdraw a final determination establishing energy efficiency standards for new construction of HUD- and USDA-financed housing. It prohibits these agencies, along with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), from implementing or enforcing similar standards. Furthermore, it reverts the energy efficiency standards for covered programs under HUD and USDA to those required before the withdrawn determination and amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to require at least 26 states to adopt an energy efficiency code before a revised federal standard can be considered.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that federal energy efficiency mandates increase the upfront cost of housing, making it less affordable for prospective homeowners, especially those relying on federal assistance programs. They contend that these mandates represent federal overreach into areas best left to state and local governments, which can tailor standards to local climate conditions and economic realities. Removing these standards would reduce regulatory burdens on builders and potentially stimulate housing construction.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that strong energy efficiency standards are crucial for reducing long-term utility costs for homeowners, promoting energy independence, and mitigating climate change. They assert that while initial costs might be slightly higher, the long-term savings on energy bills far outweigh these, making housing more affordable over its lifespan. Furthermore, they believe that federal leadership is necessary to ensure consistent, high standards across the nation and to drive innovation in sustainable building practices.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions within a few minutes.
Section 2(a)(1)
Withdrawal of HUD and USDA Energy Efficiency Standards
This provision requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Agriculture to immediately withdraw the final determination published in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 33112) that established new energy efficiency standards for housing financed by these departments. This action effectively nullifies the new standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that withdrawing these standards will alleviate regulatory burdens on housing developers and reduce the upfront costs associated with new construction, thereby making housing more affordable for consumers who rely on HUD and USDA financing.
Critics contend
Critics contend that withdrawing these standards will lead to less energy-efficient homes, resulting in higher long-term utility costs for homeowners and increased environmental impact. They argue that the initial cost savings are outweighed by the long-term financial and environmental benefits of energy efficiency.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between reducing immediate housing costs and promoting long-term energy savings and environmental sustainability. It prioritizes upfront affordability over potential future benefits.
Section 2(a)(2)
Prohibition on Future HUD and USDA Energy Efficiency Standards
This provision prevents HUD and USDA from taking any action or using federal funds to implement or enforce the withdrawn final determination or any substantially similar energy efficiency standards in the future. This ensures that the withdrawal is not a temporary measure but a permanent policy shift for these agencies.
Section 2(a)(3)
Reversion to Prior Energy Efficiency Standards
This provision mandates that HUD and USDA revert to using the energy efficiency standards that were in place for their covered programs immediately before the now-withdrawn final determination. This ensures that there are still some baseline standards, but they are older and presumably less stringent than the ones being withdrawn.
Section 2(b)(1)
Prohibition on VA Energy Efficiency Standards
This provision extends the prohibition on new energy efficiency standards to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It explicitly states that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not take any action or use federal funds to implement or enforce a final determination substantially similar to the one withdrawn from HUD and USDA.
Section 2(b)(2)
Prohibition on FHFA Energy Efficiency Standards
This provision prohibits the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any determination or rule related to energy efficiency standards for single and multifamily housing, notwithstanding any other provision of law. This broad prohibition applies to the FHFA's oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Section 2(c)
Amendment to Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act Regarding State Standards
This provision amends Section 109(d) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12709(d)). It adds a new condition stating that for a revised energy efficiency code or standard to be considered by federal agencies, not less than 26 states must have already adopted an energy efficiency code or standard that meets or exceeds the requirements of that revised code or standard. This significantly raises the bar for federal adoption of new standards.
This provision adds a new requirement that for federal agencies to consider adopting a revised energy efficiency code or standard, at least 26 states must have already adopted a code or standard that meets or exceeds its requirements.
Section 2(c) amending 42 U.S.C. 12709(d)
Why it matters:While amending existing statutes is standard legislative practice, the specific numerical threshold (26 states) and its significant impact on future federal action could be easily overlooked by a reader not familiar with the referenced U.S. Code section. Its placement at the end of the operative section might also reduce its prominence.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures that federal standards are not imposed prematurely or without sufficient real-world testing and acceptance at the state level. It promotes a bottom-up approach to policy development, ensuring federal action reflects widespread state consensus and practical implementation.
Case against: Critics would argue this provision effectively creates a 'supermajority' requirement for federal energy efficiency standards, allowing a minority of states to block progress. This could significantly delay the adoption of beneficial, updated standards, hindering national efforts to improve energy efficiency and address climate change.
Estimated impact: This provision would significantly slow down or prevent the adoption of new federal energy efficiency standards by requiring a substantial number of states to act first, thereby shifting the locus of policy innovation and implementation to the state level.