Energy office’s Home Energy Rebates and Speed Council spark divided committee votes

Committee debate Wednesday over the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources’ FY2026 requests highlighted two distinct proposals: administration of a federal Home Energy Rebates program and a governor-backed “Speed Council” to coordinate permitting for large infrastructure projects.

Kellen McGurkin, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, said OEMR requested authority to administer a Home Energy Rebates program created under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The agency requested an ongoing federal appropriation of approximately $24.5 million for administration and direct rebates to Idaho households; staff said $20,000,000 would be direct rebates, about $4,000,220 for third-party implementation and roughly $502,000 for four limited-service positions to manage the program through its duration. McGurkin noted there is no state match required and that federal law reallocates a state’s funds to participating states if a state declines the program.

Separately, Governor’s office–backed Speed Council funding was proposed as $481,000 from the general fund and 1 full-time equivalent position to coordinate permitting and to create a public tracking dashboard for large-scale projects. Senator Woodward moved that Speed Council motion; he said the council would help streamline permitting and keep government “out of the way of industry” to ease development of energy and other infrastructure.

Committee members offered alternate motions. Senator Ward Engelking offered an amended substitute to include the Home Energy Rebates program (roughly $24.58 million federal and four FTPs) in the committee action; proponents argued the majority of funds would flow as rebates to households and that federal law would reallocate unused funds to other states.

Votes on the competing motions were closely divided in committee and complex to resolve on the floor; the amended substitute motion that would have included the rebate program failed to obtain the necessary majority across the committee delegations and was not adopted. Subsequent substitute and original motions were taken, and the committee did not reach a final, chamber-majority outcome on a package during the session; committee leadership indicated the matter would be handled further in the separate chambers.

Members voiced two recurring concerns: whether Idaho should accept and administer the federal rebate funds (proponents said funds otherwise would be reallocated) and whether creating new state roles or councils without long-term funding or clear scope was appropriate. Some senators favored moving forward with the Speed Council using one-time or governor-allocated funds and revisiting ongoing funding next year; others wanted the rebate administration included under OEMR.

Because committee votes on the various substitute motions did not reach a house or senate majority in the committee at the same time, the items were left unresolved in committee and will be considered further by the respective chambers.