The Preventing HEAT Illness and Deaths Act of 2025 would establish the National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS) within NOAA and a cross‑agency interagency committee to coordinate heat risk data, forecasting, and planning across time scales. It would also authorize a National Academies study on extreme heat information and response and create a Community Heat Resilience program to fund projects that reduce heat‑related health risks.
The bill places a priority on environmental justice and equity in distributing resilience funding.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes NIHHIS within NOAA and an Interagency Committee to coordinate federal heat‑health activities; requires a 5‑year strategic plan and public reporting; and enables data sharing and decision support across agencies.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies across health, climate, energy, and emergency management, plus state/local governments, tribal communities, institutions, and communities facing high heat exposure.
Why It Matters
Creates a unified, data‑driven approach to extreme heat, linking forecasting, health surveillance, and resilience investments to protect vulnerable populations and modernize planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act would create a dedicated National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A governing Interagency Committee—with representation from major federal agencies including NOAA, HHS, EPA, DHS, DOD, DOE, DOT, and others—would plan and execute a united federal approach to heat risk across days, weeks, months, and years.
The System’s Director would oversee data sharing, heat health surveillance, and decision support tools, and would coordinate with centers of excellence and researchers to improve resilience. The bill emphasizes openness of data, FAIR data principles, and ethical data management.
It also requires a 5‑year strategic plan, updates every five years, and periodic congressional briefings.
Separately, the bill directs a National Academies study on extreme heat information and response, to identify policy and data gaps and propose actionable recommendations. It also creates a Community Heat Resilience Program to fund projects that reduce heat risks—such as cooling infrastructure, urban forestry, shade, and energy‑system resilience—and supports training and policy development for vulnerable populations.
A strong emphasis is placed on directing at least 40 percent of resilience funding to communities with environmental justice concerns or low incomes, and on equitable geographic distribution. The Act would authorize multi‑year appropriations for NIHHIS, the interagency committee, the study, and resilience funding, establishing a pathway to implement heat planning, preparedness, and response improvements across federal, state, and local levels.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates the National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS) within NOAA.
It establishes a broad Interagency Committee with major federal agencies to coordinate heat‑risk activities.
A 5‑year strategic plan is due within 2 years, with updates every 5 years.
Funding is authorized for NIHHIS, the study by the National Academies, and a Community Heat Resilience Program.
At least 40% of resilience funding must go to environmental justice and low‑income communities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Sets forth the official name of the act as the Preventing Health Emergencies And Temperature-related Illness and Deaths Act of 2025 (HEAT Act). It signals the bill’s purpose: reduce health risks from heat through federal coordination, research, and resilience funding.
Definitions
Provides precise definitions for terms used throughout the bill, including extreme heat, heat events, planning, preparedness, and urban heat island, along with environmental justice constructs and tribal provisions. The definitions are designed to anchor interagency coordination and equity considerations.
Findings
Outlines the health and climate rationales for federal action: heat as a leading cause of weather‑related mortality, projected increases in heat exposure, vulnerable populations, and the need for integrated data and planning to manage cascading impacts across energy, housing, transportation, and health sectors.
NIHHIS Interagency Committee
Establishes a federal interagency committee to coordinate heat‑risk activities across timescales. It lists agency representatives, requires co‑chairs from select agencies, and assigns responsibilities including setting agendas, directing work, and convening meetings at least quarterly.
National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS)
Creates NIHHIS with a Director to lead data, forecasting support, and stakeholder engagement. Responsibilities include building interagency data sharing, establishing relationships with federal and non‑federal partners, and maintaining a network of centers and experts to deliver decision support tools and resilience resources.
Study on Extreme Heat Information and Response
Requires the Under Secretary to contract with the National Academies to study gaps in heat information and response, due within 3 years. The study will identify policy/data gaps, propose improvements for data collection and communication, and assess methods for heat risk reduction and resilience.
Financial Assistance for Resilience
Authorizes a Community Heat Resilience Program to fund projects that reduce heat health risks, support training, and improve risk communication. Eligible recipients include nonprofits, states, tribes, local governments, academic institutions, and designated Centers of Excellence, with priority to disadvantaged communities and a 40% EJ/low‑income funding floor.
Authorization of Appropriations
Sets multi‑year funding for NIHHIS and the Committee ($20M/year from 2026–2030), a $500k annual allocation for the National Academies study (2026–2028), and escalating resilience funding ($10M in 2026, rising to $30M by 2029–2030).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local health departments gain access to integrated data and decision tools for heat preparedness and response.
- Emergency management agencies and first responders improve warning systems and actionable guidance during heat events.
- Urban planners and energy utilities benefit from resilience investments that reduce heat risks and energy demand.
- Communities with environmental justice concerns and low‑income communities receive priority funding to address heat disparities.
- Workers in outdoor or high‑heat environments gain from policies and programs supporting safer working conditions and cooling infrastructure.
Who Bears the Cost
- NOAA and participating agencies incur ongoing coordination and data management costs.
- State and local governments may incur costs to implement resilience projects and participate in interagency initiatives.
- Businesses and institutions may face upfront costs for cooling upgrades and retrofits supported by resilience grants.
- Taxpayers fund federal programs and grants that finance NIHHIS operations and resilience investments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing centralized federal data and coordinated action with local autonomy and resource constraints—can a single national system harmonize diverse agency cultures, data standards, and community needs without becoming a top‑down bottleneck?
The bill creates a sophisticated federal heat health information backbone, but its success hinges on effective interagency collaboration, robust data sharing, and sustained funding. Questions remain about data privacy, governance, and the interoperability of disparate health and climate datasets.
The program’s reliance on grants and competitive funding could lead to uneven local implementation unless distribution rules are tightly managed and monitored. Additionally, while equity is prioritized, translating funding into measurable health outcomes will require clear metrics and accountability across multiple jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.