S-1743-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
What it does
This bill would direct the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (the head of NOAA) to conduct a comprehensive economic impact study on the financial costs of extreme heat. The study would quantify costs across health care, property damage, labor productivity, energy, agriculture, and critical infrastructure. Within four years of enactment, NOAA would be required to publish findings publicly on HEAT.gov and authorize their release in an open-access peer-reviewed journal. The bill authorizes $3.5 million to fund the study.
Who benefits
Policymakers and legislators who would gain data to inform future heat-related policy decisions. State and local governments seeking cost-benefit frameworks for heat mitigation programs. Public health agencies that would benefit from improved heat death reporting metrics. Researchers and academics who would gain access to a comprehensive, publicly available federal dataset. Insurance and agricultural industries that could use standardized data for risk modeling. Workers in outdoor or high-heat occupations who may benefit indirectly if the data spurs protective policy. Communities in heat-vulnerable regions, particularly in the Southwest and Southeast U.S.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers would bear the $3.5 million cost of the study. Industries whose economic activities contribute to heat-related conditions — such as fossil fuel producers or high-emission manufacturers — could face increased regulatory or litigation pressure if the study's findings are used to justify future policy action. Federal agencies listed in the bill would bear administrative burdens from participating in the study's feedback process. NOAA staff would face increased workload demands.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. currently lacks a comprehensive, standardized accounting of extreme heat's economic toll, making it difficult to justify or design cost-effective interventions. They contend that extreme heat is already the leading weather-related cause of death in the United States, according to NOAA data, and that quantifying its full economic burden — across health care, labor, agriculture, and infrastructure — is a necessary precondition for evidence-based policy. They further argue the $3.5 million authorization is modest relative to the potential value of data that could guide billions in future spending decisions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill duplicates research already conducted or underway by existing federal agencies, academic institutions, and private organizations, making the $3.5 million authorization an inefficient use of federal funds. They contend that the study's mandate to quantify the "dollar value of loss of life" using standard health economics methodologies is inherently subjective and that its findings could be selectively used to justify costly regulatory mandates without additional congressional authorization or public input. They may also argue the four-year timeline and broad interagency coordination requirements create bureaucratic overhead disproportionate to the study's scope.