    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    WASTED ENERGY: DOE'S INACTION ON EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND ITS IMPACT ON
                           CONSUMERS AND THE CLIMATE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 7, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-14

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    37-103 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                     Chairman
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
        Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
    JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
        Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    DARREN SOTO, Florida
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                       JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                    TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                    MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
                             Subcommittee on Energy

                            BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                     Chairman
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
        Chair                            PETE OLSON, Texas
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               BILL FLORES, Texas
        Massachusetts                    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Daniel R. Simmons, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy
      Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy..........    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Answers to submitted questions \1\...........................   174
    Andrew deLaski, Executive Director, Appliance Standards Awareness
      Project........................................................    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   188
    Katherine Kennedy, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy
      Program, Natural Resources Defense Council.....................    73
        Prepared statement \2\
    Joseph M. McGuire, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers....................    74
        Prepared statement...........................................    76
    Charles Harak, Staff Attorney and Manager, Energy Unit, National
      Consumer Law Center............................................    87
        Prepared statement...........................................    89
    Stephen R. Yurek, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air-
      Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.............    93
        Prepared statement...........................................    95
    David J. Friedman, Vice President, Advocacy, Consumer Reports....   107
        Prepared statement...........................................   109

    ----------
    \1\ Mr. Simmons did not answer submitted questions for the record
      by the time of printing.

    \2\ Ms. Kennedy's statement has been retained in committee files
      and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
      IF03/20190307/109029/HHRG-116-IF03-Wstate-KennedyK-
      20190307.pdf.

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of March 6, 2019, from Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant
      Secretary for Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency, 2006-2008,
      Elemental, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Rush.......   138
    Letter of March 4, 2019, from Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow, and Mel
      Hall-Crawford, Director of Energy Programs, Consumer Federation
      of America to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush \3\
    Letter of March 5, 2019, from Gary Shapiro, President and Chief
      Executive Officer, and Douglas K. Johnson, Vice President,
      Technology Policy, Consumer Technology Association, to Mr.
      Rush, and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush.....................   142
    Letter of March 5, 2019, from Brian F. Mannix, George Washington
      University, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush...   147
    Letter of March 6, 2019, from Kevin J. Cosgriff, President and
      Chief Executive Officer, National Electrical Manufacturers
      Association, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush..   159
    Letter of March 7, 2019, from Mark Krebs, Energy Policies and
      Standards Specialist, Spire Inc., to Mr. Upton, submitted by
      Mr. Upton......................................................   165
    Letter of March 7, 2019, from the American Gas Association, to
      Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Upton.................   170

    ----------
    \3\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
      is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
      20190307/109029/HHRG-116-IF03-20190307-SD002.pdf.

    WASTED ENERGY: DOE'S INACTION ON EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND ITS IMPACT ON
                           CONSUMERS AND THE CLIMATE

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, McNerney,
    Tonko, Loebsack, Butterfield, Welch, Schrader, Kennedy, Veasey,
    Kuster, Kelly, Barragan, McEachin, O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester,
    Pallone (ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member),
    Latta, Rodgers, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson,
    Bucshon, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, Duncan, and Walden (ex
    officio).
        Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Waverly
    Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Rick Kessler, Staff Director,
    Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator;
    John Marshall, Policy Coordinator; Lisa Olson, FERC Detailee;
    Teresa Williams, Energy Fellow; Tuley Wright, Energy and
    Environment Policy Advisor; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff
    Director; Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Margaret
    Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kielty,
    Minority General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff
    Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy, and
    Environment and Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy
    Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Staff Assistant;
    Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member,
    Environment and Climate Change; and Nate Wilkins, Minority
    Fellow.
        Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to
    order.
        The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        I want to thank all of our invited guests for being here
    today to testify at today's hearing entitled, ``Wasted Energy:
    DOE's Inaction on Efficiency Standards and Its Impact on
    Consumers and the Climate.''
        As we are all well aware, Federal efficiency standards
    conserve energy, create jobs, encourage American ingenuity and
    innovation, all while helping domestic manufacturers stay
    competitive in a global economy. The efficiency sector
    currently employs 2.25 million Americans, more jobs than all
    fossil fuel sectors combined, and there are currently over
    315,000 manufacturing workers employed in this sector now,
    which is an increase of nearly 10 percent in 2017.
    Additionally, studies have shown that energy efficiency jobs
    are the fastest-growing in the entire energy sector with an
    additional 133,000 new jobs created in the year 2017 alone.
        However, under the Trump administration, DOE has not only
    failed to publish its legally-mandated efficiency standards,
    but has instead proposed to take the country backwards by
    recently announcing two proposals that would negatively impact
    consumers, the public health, employment, and the environment.
        Full Committee Chairman Pallone, Oversight Subcommittee
    Chairwoman DeGette, and I wrote letters to DOE on two
    occasions, the first being on November 1st of last year and
    again last month, on February 5th, requesting information on
    these delayed standards and a timeline for when the agency
    expects to take action on these standards. Instead of providing
    us with direct answers to our straightforward requests, the
    agency has once again shown what I consider to be contempt for
    the role of Congress by directing us to hyperlinks that could
    be found on the Google search engine.
        Let me be crystal clear. DOE's failure to update the 16
    appliance and equipment standards that were adopted and
    finalized during the Obama administration violates its
    statutory obligations under the Energy Policy and Conservation
    Act.
        What's more, this failure to publish new standards will
    disproportionately harm low-income Americans who are more
    likely to be renters, and therefore, would save money on
    monthly utility bills when outdated appliances are replaced
    with more efficient ones.
        This failure to follow the law, which was enacted on a
    bipartisan basis under President George W. Bush, could
    potentially cost consumers billions of dollars in energy bills,
    while also creating uncertainty for domestic manufacturers.
        Yet, instead of working on its legally-mandated
    responsibilities, just last month DOE announced a new proposal
    to narrow the scope of energy efficiency standards for light
    bulbs, which would set higher efficiency levels for 3 billion
    sockets in American homes.
        DOE's failure to follow its congressional mandate, along
    with its shortsighted proposals, will slow down progress and
    compromise the highly successful standards program that has
    helped save the average family over $500 annually off their
    energy bills.
        So I look forward to today's hearing. I look forward to
    hearing from DOE and I look forward to hearing from the rest of
    our witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

        Good morning, I would like to thank all of our invited
    guests for being here today to testify at today's hearing
    entitled: ``Wasted Energy: DOE's Inaction on Efficiency
    Standards & Its Impact on Consumers and the Climate''
        As we are all aware, Federal efficiency standards conserve
    energy, create jobs, encourage American ingenuity and
    innovation, all while helping domestic manufacturers stay
    competitive in a global market.
        The efficiency sector currently employs 2.25 million
    Americans, more jobs than all fossil fuel sectors combined, and
    there are currently over 315,000 manufacturing workers employed
    in this sector, an increase of nearly 10 percent in 2017.
        Additionally, studies have shown that energy efficiency
    jobs are the fastest growing in the entire energy sector, with
    an additional 133,000 new jobs created in 2017 alone.
        However, under the Trump administration, DOE has not only
    failed to publish its legally-mandated efficiency standards but
    has instead proposed to take the country backwards by recently
    announcing two proposals that would negatively impact
    consumers, the public health, employment, and the environment.
        Full Committee Chairman Pallone, Oversight Subcommittee
    Chairwoman DeGette, and I wrote letters to DOE on two
    occasions, November 1st of last year and again last month on
    February 5th, requesting information on these delayed standards
    and a timeline for when the agency expects to take action on
    them.
        Instead of providing us with direct answers to our
    straight-forward requests, the agency has once again shown what
    I consider to be contempt for the role of Congress by directing
    us to hyperlinks that could be found on Google search.
        Let me be crystal clear, DOE's failure to update the 16
    appliance and equipment standards that were adopted and
    finalized during the Obama administration, violates its
    statutory obligations under Energy Policy and Conservation Act
    (EPCA).
        What's more, this failure to publish new standards will
    disproportionately harm low-income Americans, who are more
    likely to be renters, and therefore, would save money on
    monthly utility bills when outdated appliances are replaced
    with more efficient ones.
        This failure to follow the law, which was enacted on a
    bipartisan basis under George W. Bush, could potentially cost
    consumers billions of dollars in higher energy bills, while
    also creating uncertainty for domestic manufacturers.
        Yet instead of working on its legally-mandated
    responsibilities, just last month, DOE announced a new proposal
    to narrow the scope of energy efficiency standards for light
    bulbs, which would set higher efficiency levels for nearly
    three billion sockets in American homes.
        These Obama-era standards were projected to save consumers
    approximately $665 billion through 2050.
        This reversal makes absolutely no sense when you consider
    the fact that these efficiency standards are responsible for
    sparking innovative designs that have decreased costs, created
    jobs, and helped domestic manufacturers be more competitive in
    the global market.
        In addition to rolling back light bulb standards, the
    agency also issued a separate proposal to change its ``process
    rule,'' making it more difficult for DOE to update new energy
    efficiency standards for any product in the future, including
    refrigerators, hot water heaters, or air conditioners.
        DOE's failure to follow its Congressional mandate, along
    with its shortsighted proposals, will slow down progress and
    compromise the highly successful standards program that has
    helped save the average family over $500, annually, off their
    energy bills.
        So I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on
    these important issues, and now I would like to recognize my
    good friend and the ranking member from the State of Michigan,
    Mr. Upton for his opening statement.

        Mr. Rush. With that, I want to yield now to my good friend,
    the ranking member from the great State of Michigan, Mr. Upton,
    for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing to continue our oversight of DOE's successful
    appliance and equipment standards program. I look forward to
    hearing from Assistant Secretary Simmons, who leads the Office
    of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which carries out
    this important program.
        In addition to energy efficiency standards, EERE has an
    important responsibility to manage and invest billions of
    dollars in cutting-edge research and development, to encourage
    innovation and to drive the transition to a clean energy
    economy. While this is not a budget hearing--that is going to
    take place in May, as I understand--there have been leaked
    reports about EERE's FY20 budget proposal, which I am not going
    to comment on. But I do want to state for the record that we
    expect EERE to carry out the law as Congress intended and
    utilize the resources that Congress provides.
        Since the mid-80s, DOE has established successive rounds of
    efficiency standards for a wide variety of household and
    industrial products, such as air conditioners, refrigerators,
    washing machines, clothes dryers, furnaces, ovens, dishwashers,
    water heaters, and light bulbs. I believe DOE's efficiency
    standards have served as one of the nation's most effective
    policies for reducing energy use. Efficiency standards have
    also contributed greatly toward reducing our carbon emissions
    and environmental impacts, strengthening our energy security
    for sure, and providing consumers with significant cost
    savings.
        If we are going to have a serious solution-oriented
    discussion about how to address climate change risks, as I
    believe that we should, then we must acknowledge the historical
    progress that we have made with DOE's efficiency program. We
    also must recognize the challenges and opportunities that lay
    ahead and remove regulatory barriers to new technological
    innovations and efficiency gains.
        The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of '75, known as
    EPCA, established the first energy efficiency program,
    consisting of consumer product testing procedures, labeling,
    and energy efficiency targets. Over the last number of years,
    Congress amended EPCA and passed new laws setting prescriptive
    standards for certain products and directing DOE to establish
    new standards via rulemaking for other categories of products.
        For home appliances, Congress requires DOE to conduct a
    six-year look-back where DOE must publish a new standard or
    publish a determination that one is not necessary. Congress
    also requires DOE to maintain a multiyear schedule to regularly
    review and update all standards and test procedures.
        It is long past time that Congress--reexamine EPCA to see
    if there are ways to modernize the 40-year-old statute to
    improve DOE's appliance standards program. So, while DOE seems
    to be doing what it can administratively, with the long-awaited
    update to its Process Rule, for standard settings, it is up to
    Congress to review the law and make changes when appropriate.
        With that, I look forward to the hearing today, and I yield
    the remaining balance of my time to Mr. Latta.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to
    continue our oversight of the Department of Energy's successful
    Appliance and Equipment Standards Program. I look forward to
    hearing from Assistant Secretary Daniel Simmons, who leads the
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which carries
    out this program.
        In addition to energy efficiency standards, EERE has an
    important responsibility to manage and invest billions of
    dollars in cutting-edge research and development, to encourage
    innovation to drive the transition to a clean energy economy.
    While this isn't a budget hearing, there have been leaked
    reports about EERE's FY 20 budget proposal. I am not going to
    comment on the leak, but I want to state for the record that we
    expect EERE to carry out the law as Congress intended, and
    utilize the resources that Congress provides.
        Since the mid-1980's DOE has established successive rounds
    of efficiency standards for a wide variety of household and
    industrial products, such as air conditioners, refrigerators,
    washing machines, clothes dryers, furnaces, ovens, dishwashers,
    water heaters, and lightbulbs.
        I believe DOE's efficiency standards have served as one of
    the nation's most effective policies for reducing energy use.
    Efficiency standards have also contributed greatly toward
    reducing our carbon emissions and environmental impacts,
    strengthening our energy security, and providing consumers with
    significant cost-savings.
        If we are going to have serious, solutions-oriented
    discussions about how to address climate change risks, as I
    believe we should, then we must acknowledge the historical
    progress we've made with DOE's efficiency program. We must also
    recognize the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead and
    remove regulatory barriers to new technological innovations and
    efficiency gains.
        The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, known as
    EPCA, established the first Federal Energy Efficiency Program,
    consisting of consumer product testing procedures, labeling,
    and energy efficiency targets.
        Over the years, Congress amended EPCA and passed new laws,
    setting prescriptive standards for certain products and
    directing DOE to establish new standards via rulemaking for
    other categories of products.
        For home appliances, Congress requires DOE to conduct a
    ``six-year lookback'' where DOE must publish a new standard, or
    publish a determination that one isn't necessary. Congress also
    requires DOE to maintain a multi-year schedule to regularly
    review and update all standards and test procedures.
        It's long past time that Congress re-examine EPCA to see if
    there are ways to modernize the 40-year-old statute to improve
    DOE's Appliance Standards Program.
        While DOE seems to be doing what it can administratively,
    with the long-awaited update to its ``process rule'' for
    standard setting, it is up to Congress to review the law and
    make changes when appropriate.
        With that, I look forward to the hearing today and I yield
    the remainder of my time to Mr. Latta, who has taken a lead
    role over the last several years on bi-partisan EPCA
    modernization.

        Mr. Latta. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        And I also want to thank our witnesses for being with us
    today.
        My district in northwest-west central Ohio has over 60,000
    manufacturing jobs where many of the products covered by the
    program were made. I hear consistently that manufacturers are
    not against regulations, but they want and need common-sense
    regulations that provide certainty to help them plan for their
    businesses.
        Last Congress, I worked on draft legislation regarding
    updating and modernizing EPCA, and I am pleased to see the work
    the Department of Energy has undertaken with the process
    improvement rule. And I believe we need to explore these
    changes and see what needs to be done in statute.
        I believe that energy efficiency is a bipartisan issue, and
    we should be able to work together in this committee to ensure
    that DOE is able to put its resources toward the products and
    categories that will lead to the largest energy savings. This
    is what consumers expect from us. And giving DOE the tools to
    meet deadlines, provide more certainty to manufacturers, and
    therefore, increase innovation and competition to benefit
    consumers should be our goal.
        I recently toured a new, state-of-the-art innovation center
    in my district. Additionally, we have seen produce line
    expansions in other facilities across my district. These
    companies have seen that investing in Ohio was a win for their
    companies and the communities. Certainly, for businesses like
    this one, I want to encourage more investment and innovation,
    and that is why I want to work with my colleagues on this
    program.
        I will look forward to hearing from DOE and our second
    panel today about what DOE is doing and what Congress needs to
    do to continue to strengthen energy efficiency programs.
        And I yield back to the gentleman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, who is the
    chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes
    of an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today, we are here to find out why the Department of Energy
    is dragging its feet in implementing energy efficiency
    standards that will save consumers money and help combat
    climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
        For years, promoting energy efficiency was a bipartisan
    issue. During the Obama administration, DOE finalized 50 new
    product efficiency standards. Many of these new standards stem
    from energy bills that this committee passed on a bipartisan
    basis and were then signed into law by President Bush in 2005
    and 2007. In fact, our ranking member, Mr. Upton, played a
    leading role in that 2007 effort, and we are all benefitting as
    a result of that bipartisan work.
        Sadly, the progress on this important program came to a
    grinding halt when President Trump was inaugurated. Since then,
    DOE has made a conscious choice to ignore the law by refusing
    to finalize or update efficiency standards for 16 products,
    including refrigerators, washing machines, and room air
    conditioners. Even more egregious, the Trump administration
    refuses to publish in The Federal Register four efficiency
    standards finalized in December 2016. These standards were
    complete and awaiting official publication, but DOE refused to
    follow the law and follow through.
        And then, last month, DOE announced that it was completely
    discarding a significant update to light bulb efficiency
    standards finalized in January 2017. Those standards expanded
    existing light bulb efficiency guidelines to include a broader
    range of light bulb sizes such as candelabra and cone-shaped
    bulbs. Trashing this significant standard will allow
    inefficient products to remain on the market and increase
    consumers' electricity bills.
        DOE also released a revised process rule which guides how
    DOE sets appliance efficiency standards. The new rule makes it
    harder to update efficiency standards. It does this by cooking
    the economic analysis for new standards so that costs are taken
    into greater account while narrowing the scope of benefits that
    DOE will consider. It also allows manufacturers to use their
    own test procedures to verify a product's energy usage. That is
    a terrible idea. We should have learned something from the
    Volkswagen emission test cheating scandal.
        Even worse, it is clear from publicly-available documents
    that political staff at the Office of Management and Budget
    intervened to make it nearly impossible for DOE to deviate from
    this new process, even when sticking to the process would
    conflict with legal mandates. But most egregious is the fact
    that this administration spent the last two years writing
    proposals that weaken efficiency standards while completely
    disregarding the law's mandate to update or finalize efficiency
    standards for 16 products.
        While I may have issues with this new process rule, I don't
    have a problem with trying to make the process more efficient.
    But when the law says you need to take a specific action, the
    Department's job is to carry out the law, and not go off and do
    whatever it wants. And I hope that is something all the members
    of this committee can agree on.
        Today, all of us who care about the issue of climate change
    have a chance to condemn DOE's delays. National energy
    efficiency standards for appliances are one of the most cost-
    effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the
    program has resulted in 3 billion tons of avoided emissions
    since its inception.
         Every day the administration delays updating efficiency
    standards for these common household products, consumers'
    electricity bills remain higher than necessary and more
    electricity is unnecessarily generated to power these less
    efficient appliances. And these delays must come to an end.
        So Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I know that a lot of
    times, when we have these hearings on or we talk about energy
    efficiency, people say, well, how important is that? I can't
    think of anything really right now that is more important and
    has the potential of getting bipartisan support, or really has
    had bipartisan support for a long time, that would actually
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
        So when we talk about climate change, this is one of the
    most important things that we can address. And there is no
    reason really why the Trump administration should be turning
    the clock on this, even if they don't believe in climate
    change. What is the downside, if you will, of having more
    efficiency, saving money, reducing costs, and reducing
    greenhouse emissions?
        Thank you. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Today we are here to find out why the Department of Energy
    (DOE) is dragging its feet in implementing energy efficiency
    standards that will save consumers money and help combat
    climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
        For years, promoting energy efficiency was a bipartisan
    issue. During the Obama administration, DOE finalized 50 new
    product efficiency standards. Many of these new standards
    stemmed from energy bills this Committee passed on a bipartisan
    basis and were then signed into law by President Bush in 2005
    and 2007. In fact, Ranking Member Upton played a leading role
    in that 2007 effort and we are all benefiting as a result of
    that bipartisan work.
        Sadly, the progress on this important program came to a
    grinding halt when President Trump was inaugurated. Since then,
    DOE has made a conscious choice to ignore the law by refusing
    to finalize or update efficiency standards for 16 products,
    including refrigerators, washing machines and room air
    conditioners. Even more egregious--the Trump administration
    refuses to publish in the Federal Register four efficiency
    standards finalized in December 2016. These standards were
    complete and awaiting official publication, but DOE refused to
    follow the law and follow through.
        And then, last month, DOE announced that it was completely
    discarding a significant update to light bulb efficiency
    standards finalized in January 2017. Those standards expanded
    existing light bulb efficiency guidelines to include a broader
    range of light bulb sizes, such as candelabra and cone-shaped
    bulbs. Trashing this significant standard will allow
    inefficient products to remain on the market and increase
    consumers' electricity bills.
        DOE also released a revised process rule, which guides how
    DOE sets appliance efficiency standards. The new rule makes it
    harder to update efficiency standards. It does this by cooking
    the economic analysis for new standards so that costs are taken
    into greater account while narrowing the scope of benefits that
    DOE will consider. It also allows manufacturers to use their
    own test procedures to verify a product's energy usage. That's
    a terrible idea. Haven't we learned anything from the
    Volkswagen emissions test cheating scandal?
        Even worse, it's clear from publicly-available documents
    that political staff at the Office of Management and Budget
    intervened to make it nearly impossible for DOE to deviate from
    this new process--even when sticking to the process would
    conflict with legal mandates.
        But, most egregious is the fact that this administration
    spent the last two years writing proposals that weaken
    efficiency standards, while completely disregarding the law's
    mandate to update or finalize efficiency standards for 16
    products. While I may have issues with this new process rule, I
    don't have a problem with trying to make the process more
    efficient. But when the law says you need to take a specific
    action, the Department's job is to carry out the law, not go
    off and do whatever it wants. I hope that's something all
    members of this Committee can agree on.
        Today all of us who care about the issue of climate change
    have a chance to condemn DOE's delays. National energy
    efficiency standards for appliances are one of the most cost-
    effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the
    program has resulted in three billion tons of avoided emissions
    since its inception.
        Every day the administration delays updating efficiency
    standards for these common household products, consumers
    electricity bills remain higher than necessary, and more
    electricity is unnecessarily generated to power these less
    efficient appliances. These delays must come to an end.

        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking member of the full
    committee, for the purposes of an opening statement. Mr. Walden
    has 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    holding this hearing to continue our oversight over the
    Department of Energy's appliance and equipment standards
    program.
        I want to extend a warm welcome to Assistant Secretary Dan
    Simmons, who leads DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy. Dan, we are glad to have you here and glad to
    know you are finally in place. I guess that all took effect
    officially in January, sworn in. So we appreciate your
    leadership at EERE.
        Republicans are focused on solutions that save energy, help
    the environment, and save consumers money. So, we, too, welcome
    the opportunity to explore ways to strengthen and improve this
    important Department of Energy program.
        Since the early 1980s, the Department of Energy has issued
    minimum energy efficiency standards for a wide variety of
    residential and commercial products, including air
    conditioners, refrigerators, washers and dryers, ovens,
    dishwashers, lighting, and other products that Americans use
    every day.
        The Department's authority to regulate energy efficiency
    and commercial equipment in residential appliances is derived
    from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, also known
    was EPCA. While Congress has passed a few updates to this 44-
    year-old statute, we learned through our oversight hearings in
    the last few Congresses that more could be done to modernize
    the law and to improve the process to formulate national energy
    efficiency standards.
        Under the Obama administration and under the Trump
    administration, the Department of Energy has missed statutory
    deadlines for efficiency rulemakings. Both administrations
    have. These delays create uncertainty and they have led to
    unnecessary litigation, which makes matters even worse.
        DOE is doing what it can to fix the process
    administratively. Under the Trump administration, DOE has
    completed more than a dozen rulemakings addressing conservation
    standards and test procedures for products such as external
    power supplies, light bulbs, ceiling fans, walk-in coolers and
    freezers, air conditioners, and pool pumps.
        Just last month, DOE announced two new proposals. The first
    would revise the definitions of general service lamps to align
    with the definitions established by Congress in 2007. DOE was
    forced to take this action in response to a lawsuit and
    subsequent Department of Justice settlement agreement reached
    in 2017.
        While some have described this action as a rollback, that
    is a mischaracterization. DOE has appropriately committed to
    undertake a separate rulemaking, as Congress intended, for
    certain specialty light bulbs such as those used in heavy
    machine and marine applications.
        The second proposal, announced in February, would take long
    overdue steps to reform the regulatory process that DOE relies
    upon to develop efficiency standards. The Department of
    Energy's new proposal, an update to the process rule, would
    substantially improve the process for setting efficiency
    standards and test procedures.
        The proposed rule to the process rule would enhance
    transparency, accountability, and regulatory certainty for
    manufacturers and for consumers alike. While it is hard to
    believe this is the first update to the process rule in more
    than 20 years, one of the most important things the process
    rule would do is to define what qualifies as significant energy
    savings. That seems pretty important to do. This will enable
    the Department to better prioritize rulemaking, save energy,
    and put more money back in consumers' pockets.
        Under EPCA, there is not a lot of flexibility, which too
    often has led to unnecessary deadlines and rushed-through
    Federal regulations that fall short of providing customers the
    better--quality products that use less energy. We know that
    unless we amend EPCA, the regulatory backlog will continue, as
    it has under multiple presidential administrations. So it is up
    to us, the Congress, to fix this mess. We are ready to work
    with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do so.
        Over the last couple of years, Republican members of this
    subcommittee have been working across the aisle and engaging in
    a wide range of stakeholders' meetings to identify bipartisan
    solutions to modernize EPCA. We have made some progress, but
    there is still plenty to do. So if the Democrats are willing to
    work with us, we are willing to work with you. And we welcome
    the opportunity to work with you to continue this effort this
    Congress.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing, it is
    really important.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing to
    continue our oversight of the Department of Energy's appliance
    and equipment standards program.
        I would like to extend a warm welcome to Assistant
    Secretary Dan Simmons, who leads DOE's Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I understand that Assistant
    Secretary Simmons was officially sworn in in January, so we're
    glad that he's finally in place to provide much needed
    leadership to EERE.
        Republicans are focused on solutions that save energy, help
    the environment, and save consumers money, so we welcome the
    opportunity to explore ways to strengthen and improve this
    important DOE program.
        Since the early 1980's, DOE has issued minimum energy
    efficiency standards for a wide variety of residential and
    commercial products, including air conditioners, refrigerators,
    washers and dryers, ovens, dishwashers, lighting, and other
    products that Americans use every day.
        DOE's authority to regulate energy efficiency in commercial
    equipment and residential appliances is derived from the Energy
    Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, also known as EPCA. While
    Congress has passed a few updates to this 44-year-old statute,
    we learned through our oversight hearings in the last few
    Congresses that more could be done to modernize the law and
    improve the process to formulate national energy efficiency
    standards.
        Under the Obama administration and the current
    administration, DOE has missed statutory deadlines for
    efficiency rulemakings. These delays create uncertainty and
    have led to unnecessary litigation, which makes matters even
    worse. DOE is doing what it can to fix the process
    administratively. Under this administration, DOE has completed
    over a dozen rulemakings addressing conservation standards and
    test procedures for products such as external power supplies,
    light bulbs, ceiling fans, walkin coolers and freezers, air
    conditioners, and pool pumps.
        Just last month, DOE announced two new proposals. The first
    would revise the definitions of general service lamps to align
    with the definitions established by Congress in 2007. DOE was
    forced to take this action in response to a lawsuit and
    subsequent Department of Justice settlement agreement reached
    in 2017.
        While some have described this action as a ``rollback,''
    that is a mischaracterization. DOE has appropriately committed
    to undertake a separate rulemaking, as Congress intended, for
    certain specialty light bulbs, such as those used in heavy
    machinery and marine applications.
        The second proposal announced in February would take long-
    overdue steps to reform the regulatory process that DOE relies
    on to develop efficiency standards. DOE's new proposal, an
    update to the ``process rule'' would substantially improve the
    process for setting efficiency standards and test procedures.
        The proposed update to the process rule would enhance
    transparency, accountability, and regulatory certainty for
    manufacturers and consumers alike. While it's hard to believe,
    this is the first update to the process rule in more than 20
    years.
        One of the most important things the process rule would do,
    is define what qualifies as a ``significant'' energy savings.
    This will enable the Department to better prioritize
    rulemakings to save energy and put more money back in
    consumer's pockets. Under EPCA, there is not a lot of
    flexibility, which too often leads to unnecessary deadlines and
    rushed sue-and-settle regulations that fall short of providing
    consumers with better quality products that use less energy.
        We know that unless we amend EPCA, the regulatory backlog
    will continue, as it has under multiple Presidential
    administrations. It's up to Congress to fix this mess and we
    are ready to work with our colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle to do so. Over the last couple of years, as Mr. Latta
    just mentioned, Republican members on this subcommittee have
    been working across the aisle and engaging a wide-range of
    stakeholders to identify bipartisan solutions to modernize
    EPCA.
        We've made some progress, but there is still plenty of work
    to do. If the Democrats are willing to work with us, we welcome
    the opportunity to work with you and to continue this effort
    this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
    this hearing. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
    be made part of the record.
        And I would like now to introduce our witness for the first
    panel of today's hearing, Mr. Daniel Simmons, Assistant
    Secretary Simmons, who is the Assistant Secretary for the
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the
    Department of Energy.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome to this subcommittee hearing. You
    have 5 minutes for an opening statement.
        And before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
    system to you. You might be familiar with it, but it is written
    in here to my script. In front of you is a series of lights.
    The light will initially be green at the start of your opening
    statement. The light will turn yellow when you have1 minute
    remaining. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that
    point. The light will turn red when your time has expired.
        We want to thank you again for joining us today, and we all
    look forward to your testimony. You are now recognized for 5
    minutes for your opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. SIMMONS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
      ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
    Upton, Ranking Member Walden, as well as Chairman Pallone.
    Thank you for the opportunity for the Department of Energy to
    appear before the committee today and to discuss the appliance
    standards program and ways in which the Department is working
    to improve the process for developing energy conservation
    standards.
        The program within DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy implements minimum energy conservation
    standards for more than 70 categories of labor-saving
    appliances and equipment and has far-reaching impacts on
    American consumers and businesses.
        As EERE Assistant Secretary, I am responsible for
    overseeing a broad portfolio of energy efficiency and renewable
    energy programs, and one of my top priorities is energy
    affordablility.
        Affordable, reliable energy is critical to human well-
    being. When energy is more affordable, it frees up more of our
    budget and time, so we can spend these precious resources on
    the things we care about most. Affordable energy is one of the
    things that makes the EERE portfolio so important. We have seen
    multiple successes through EERE technologies over the past 10
    years, including dramatic reductions in the price of
    photovoltaic solar, onshore wind, electric vehicle battery
    packs, and LED lights. Technological innovation is the driving
    force behind these successes.
        In addition to its significant research and development
    responsibilities, EERE is also responsible for a large
    regulatory portfolio which implements State energy conservation
    standards for appliances and equipment.
        Since January 2017, DOE has issued seven final rules
    pertaining to energy conservation standards, two final rules
    pertaining to test procedures under the appliance standards
    program. As reported in the fall 2018 Unified Agenda of
    Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, EERE plans to take action
    on 24 test procedures and 17 energy conservation standards in
    the coming months. There was a proposed test procedure that we
    announced yesterday. There will be another one, if not
    tomorrow, early next week. So we are making progress.
        Since the passage of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
    of 1975, DOE has used a process for considering new and amended
    energy conservation standards to ensure that they meet our
    statutory requirements. That process, which was first
    formalized in 1996 in DOE's so-called process rule, typically
    takes a minimum of three years to complete and consists of four
    phases, each with an opportunity for the public to provide
    input.
        First, DOE publishes a framework document presenting the
    analytical, procedural, and legal principles that will guide
    the rulemaking. In the second phase, DOE conducts and publishes
    a preliminary assessment of available technical, economic, and
    market data about the product. During the third phase, DOE
    publishes a proposed rule in which DOE proposes an efficiency
    level that it has determined will result in the maximum
    improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically
    feasible, and economically justified and would save a
    significant amount of energy. The fourth phase is the final
    rule, in which DOE considers public input in response to the
    proposed rule, further revises the analysis, if appropriate,
    and issues the final rule.
        We have had great success administering the program, and we
    believe that DOE can further improve the process by which it
    develops standards to make the program even more effective.
    This is why we recently proposed to amend the process to
    enhance early engagement opportunities for stakeholders and
    increase certainty throughout our rulemaking process.
        These improvements will reduce the burden of the process by
    which standards are developed, preserve product choice for
    consumers, and prioritize those standards that are expected to
    save consumers and businesses the greatest amount of energy. In
    addition, and importantly, these process measures can improve
    DOE's ability to comply with statutory deadlines that the
    program has had difficulty meeting throughout its history by
    focusing 100 percent of our efforts on the rules that have
    accounted for nearly 100 percent of the historical energy
    savings.
        In addition to the process rule, DOE has also published a
    proposed rule to maintain the existing statutory definition for
    general service lamps and withdraw the definitions established
    in January 2017. Through this proposal, DOE is showing that it
    will follow the text of the law. Maintaining the statutory
    definitions provides manufacturers with regulatory certainty
    that they will not be prohibited from selling hundreds of
    millions of light bulbs. At the same time, DOE will continue to
    advance cutting-edge research and development of next-
    generation lighting technology to further drive improvements in
    efficiency and affordability.
        As Ranking Member Upton mentioned, there was an article
    this morning about EERE's budget. Obviously, I cannot comment
    on the budget before it has been released. However, I am more
    than happy to talk about how we are executing the monies that
    have been appropriated for FY 2019. In the last week, we have
    announced two funding opportunity announcements, one on
    hydrogen and the exciting technologies there, and another on
    efficiency improvements on medium- and heavy-duty trucks. So
    there is a lot going on, and you will see more in the coming
    weeks. But I, obviously, can't comment on a budget that has not
    been released.
        DOE is committed to working with Congress as it considers
    these and other important issues of DOE's appliance standards
    program. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
    subcommittee today to discuss these important energy efficiency
    issues. And I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the Assistant Secretary.
        We have now concluded the opening statement. We will now
    move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
    ask questions of our witnesses, and I will start by recognizing
    myself for 5 minutes.
        Assistant Secretary Simmons, it is very, very disturbing to
    me that DOE, under the current administration, has invested so
    much valuable time in working on two new proposals that are
    both unnecessary and would actually harm consumers. Yet, at the
    same time, it has spent little to no time in publishing the
    legally-mandated efficiency standards that it should have been
    working on.
        Mr. Assistant Secretary, is it your interpretation that DOE
    has the discretion to choose when or if it must follow
    congressionally-mandated laws and obligations?
        Mr. Simmons. No, we must follow the text of the law.
        Mr. Rush. Well, what is the reasoning for these delays in
    publishing these mandates that are congressionally-directed to
    the Department?
        Mr. Simmons. So the law requires, the law sets out certain
    deadlines. The law also requires, for setting standards, what
    we need to determine is the maximum improvement in energy
    efficiency that is both technologically feasible and
    economically justified. And there are seven different factors
    that go into deciding whether something is economically
    justified.
        That process can take a decent amount of time to consider
    what is a maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
    possible, what is technologically feasible. That process can
    take literally years to consider, especially because we are not
    allowed to reduce the performance characteristics of products.
    So the process can take a long time to go through, and it is
    important that we do a good job following the process to make
    sure the substance of the rules----
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, was this process that you are
    currently discussing, wasn't this analyzed during the last
    administration? And all that remains of you and the Department
    today is to publish these standards?
        Mr. Simmons. If you are talking about the four rules that
    are currently in litigation that were not finalized by the
    Department by sending them to The Federal Register, those are
    currently in litigation, and because they are in litigation, I
    can't discuss those rules.
        Mr. Rush. Well, what about the other 12 rules that are not
    in litigation?
        Mr. Simmons. Those rules are currently moving forward. As
    you said, we have a statutory obligation, we have a legal
    obligation to complete those rules, and we are working on those
    rules. If those rules were ready to go, we would be sending
    them to The Federal Register, but there are no rules that----
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, we know that a typical household
    saves about $500 per year because of the current standards,
    making energy conservation standards the most efficient tool
    DOE has for making anything more affordable for the average
    American. Additionally, the cost of LED lights has decreased
    significantly over the past 10 years. You have even stated
    publicly that these bulbs have dropped over 90 percent in price
    over the past decade. According to the Appliance Standards
    Awareness Project, this proposed light bulb rollback will cost
    the average American household an extra $100 a year, and
    overall, consumers will be forced to pay an additional $12
    million between now and 2025 on electric bills.
        So my question to you is, why are you rolling back the
    light bulb standards? What is the reason or justification for
    this action on your part? And who exactly are you trying to
    help by this proposed rollback?
        Mr. Simmons. To clarify, we are not rolling back a
    standard. We are defining what is a general service lamp by
    using the text of the statute. We are following the law about
    what is a general service lamp. That is a change in definition
    from what was previously put in place, but it is critical for
    us to follow the law, including for things that may result in
    energy savings.
        One of the things that I will note is that I am very
    skeptical of large amounts of harm to the American people
    because they have greater selection of light bulbs available to
    them. This definition does not take any light bulbs off the
    table, and if you go to Home Depot today, you will see, for
    example, you will see where the lighting industry is headed and
    that that future is LED lights.
        Just the other day, I bought some of the lights that are
    not required, would not be required to be LEDs. I bought them
    as LEDs when I was at Home Depot. The future is LED. The future
    is greater energy conservation in lighting.
        Mr. Rush. My time is up. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
    Upton for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Upton. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, again.
        I have long been a supporter of DOE's work on appliance
    standards, but I realize we have to be realistic about the
    challenges. And I know that you have got a good number of
    delayed rulemakings that has built up over a number of
    different administrations.
        And I just want to go back to a comment that I made in my
    opening statement about the process rule. This is the look-
    back. Why is it so important to update that process rule, and
    how will some of the changes, such as defining significant
    energy savings, help prioritize in that effort?
        Mr. Simmons. I think the most important thing for DOE to do
    is to follow the process rule. When the Clinton administration
    in 1996 put the process rule in place, it was overall a good
    rule. And what is critical is that we follow all the steps, as
    in that we have a test procedure and that test procedure is
    finalized to know how we are measuring energy before we discuss
    how much energy an appliance can use, because you can't--that
    just can result in disconnects. And that has not always
    happened.
        So what we really wanted to stress, first and foremost, is
    to follow the process that was outlined in 1996. Second, the
    best way that we achieve substantive good rules, good rules
    substantively, is to make sure that there is robust stakeholder
    engagement, robust public engagement. And the best way we do
    that is by going through the process. That can take time, as we
    have seen.
        Mr. Upton. And how has the look-back requirement hampered
    your ability to comply with the statutory deadlines, the six-
    year look-back?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, one of the challenges is that there are
    some circumstances where a rule, a compliance date--we have a
    compliance date, and then, we have to start looking at a new
    rule just after that. One example is with clothes dryers. There
    was a compliance date of January 2015, but, then, the program
    started to look, in March of that same year, at regulating the
    product again. And that sort of thing has also happened with
    commercial clothes washers, where work started on a new rule
    even before the previous rule was finalized, even before the
    compliance date.
        Mr. Upton. So would it be better, as we try to address this
    or think about the future, would it be better to have it maybe
    six years after the rule is finalized and, actually, the
    product in use at that point?
        Mr. Simmons. There is definitely an argument to be made
    that, after the compliance, it could be after the compliance
    date. Because the challenge is that we have to look at what is
    out on the market. We have to look at the art of the possible.
    And that is difficult to do when you have a compliance date and
    then, we start a couple of months later looking at revising the
    standard.
        Mr. Upton. The last question I have--and we are going to
    talk a little bit about this on the second panel--DOE has been
    sued, we know, by efficiency advocates and product
    manufacturers over missed deadlines. What are you doing to
    improve the transparency in the rulemaking process, so that
    consumers can be confident that the new products that they are
    purchasing meet that expectation for quality, convenience, and,
    obviously, for energy efficiency?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, the biggest thing we are doing is
    following the process and moving stepwise through the process,
    making sure that we are conducting a process that is overall
    open and transparent, and that there is stakeholder engagement,
    and there is plenty of time for public comment. Because the
    public comment is critical to making sure that we get rules
    that are, in the end, substantively beneficial.
        Mr. Upton. Is there fairly universal agreement that, when
    you go to an appliance store, whether it be Best Buy or
    someplace else, that, in fact, the labels on those appliances,
    whether they be air conditioners or freezers, or whatever it
    is, are sufficient for the consumer in terms of what that
    energy savings is going to be?
        Mr. Simmons. I don't know, I don't know the answer to that
    question.
        Mr. Upton. Have you heard any complaints? I mean, it seems
    like the labeling is pretty apparent.
        Mr. Simmons. The labeling is very apparent with the
    EnergyGuide standard that the Federal Trade Commission puts on
    them, using our data. Is that sufficient? I don't know. That is
    a really good question.
        Mr. Upton. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Peters of California
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the Assistant Secretary for coming before the
    committee.
        Many of the policies under your portfolio are debated here
    in DC. I think there is a widespread recognition that energy
    efficiency is something that can be a bipartisan issue. In
    California, with the buying power of nearly 40 million people,
    our energy efficiency goals support the notion that we could do
    much more at a Federal level.
        In these meetings, we sometimes get caught up in the law
    that exists and how to administer it. I just want to take a
    minute to ask you if there are ways you think that the Congress
    could help support more energy efficiency, either by enacting
    new legislation or by fixing legislation that you are having to
    deal with. Are there things that you are seeing that we could
    be doing better to promote energy efficiency?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, when it would come to legislative
    changes, that would need to go through the appropriate process,
    which, unfortunately, wouldn't just be me today. But one of the
    things that I would like to stress is Congress provides robust
    funding to the Building Technology Office, which does research
    and development on looking at new building technologies, such
    as solid-State heating and cooling for next-generation
    appliances. We will be announcing the funding opportunity from
    the Building Technology Office for a number of different topics
    in the next few weeks.
        And so there is the regulatory angle, but, then, there is
    also the R&D angle. And I think that we consider both. Off the
    top of my head, I don't have any statutory changes, but I would
    be happy to go back to the Department and to work on some
    ideas.
        Mr. Peters. Well, the reason I am asking you is that this
    is the process for finding out if we need to make legislative
    changes. You are in a position to observe kind of how the
    administrative rules that have been set up by prior Congresses
    and rulemaking are working. So I just want to give you the
    opportunity, if you see anything that you think needs to be
    improved or any way in which you are restricted from doing what
    would best serve energy efficiency, I want to give you that
    chance. If you don't have that today, that is fine, but I think
    this is the right place to do it, if you have those suggestions
    for us.
        Mr. Simmons. And I will be happy to try to provide some
    comments in the questions for the record on that.
        Mr. Peters. OK. I appreciate it. I mean, it is sort of a
    left-field question maybe, but any thoughts on that would be
    helpful to us.
        Mr. Simmons. Sure thing.
        Mr. Peters. I also want to reiterate what Mr. Upton said,
    that the integrity of the labeling and the measurements for
    appliances is going to be very important. There are some
    discussion of whether we should have market incentives that
    would encourage consumers on their own to make purchases with
    energy savings in mind, if a carbon tax would be an appropriate
    price signal through the economy. But if they don't have the
    right information about those appliances, it is not going to be
    as efficient as, theoretically, people think it would be. So
    again, I appreciate working with you to make sure that those
    labels are correct and that your information is relied on. It
    is by the FTC, I guess, is that right?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes, yes. And I use those labels when I look
    at new products and I am figuring out what to put in our house.
    I hope they are accurate. I haven't heard that they are not.
    But it is definitely an area where there could be research.
        Another part is with the ENERGY STAR labeling program to
    label the products that are the most energy-efficient. We work
    on that with the EPA.
        Mr. Peters. Right.
        Mr. Simmons. And that labeling has very high adoption and
    is very much appreciated by consumers.
        Mr. Peters. Since you brought it up, I mean, you don't
    directly administrate it, but do you have comments on the
    ENERGY STAR program?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, we jointly administer it with EPA. I
    don't have any comments on ENERGY STAR today.
        Mr. Peters. All right. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
    Walden, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And again to our witness, thank you, Mr. Simmons, for being
    here.
        I want to follow up on what our colleague from southern
    California was talking about because I think it is important
    for both sides of the aisle. Congress bears some responsibility
    here. We write the laws that you get to administer, and
    sometimes we don't always get it right.
        Over the last few years, the committee has conducted some
    pretty rigorous oversight and we have received testimony that
    highlights the importance of EPCA modernization. So I would
    just pose it this way: I understand you can't take positions on
    legislation initially sitting there right today. But will you
    commit to working with the committee by providing your comments
    and technical assistance as we work to modernize this law?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes, definitely.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, because I think that would be really
    helpful. You have got the technical people, and we are going to
    write the law, and we both want to get it right for consumers.
        I have got a couple of questions. Like you, when I buy new
    appliances for my home, I look at those ratings. They are
    helpful. I think the more we can empower consumers to make the
    right choices to save energy, reduce emissions, and cut costs
    is a good thing for the country and for the world. I just have
    a couple of questions, since I have you here, about how all
    that works.
        When you are doing this analysis on various appliances,
    whether it is a water heater or a washer or dryer or an air
    conditioner, is that based on more than one sort of temperate
    zone? I mean, is it all based out of savings in Arizona or
    savings in Michigan? How does that work? I know it is an
    average. I get that. But our power costs in the Northwest,
    thankfully, are a little lower than some parts of the country,
    but our climate is different, too. So as a consumer, what
    should I know about that labeling?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, with the labeling, I think it can be
    kind of difficult because on like the EnergyGuide label, I
    believe it is the average electricity rates in the entire
    country. Since you are from Oregon, Oregon has a lot of hydro
    and has some of the lowest electricity rates in the country. So
    those numbers are kind of high for----
        Mr. Walden. And lower emission rates, too, just to stick it
    into the record.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simmons. Correct. And so that is a challenge with those
    kind of labels in a place like Oregon.
        Mr. Walden. Yes.
        Mr. Simmons. They are going to overrepresent the amount of
    electricity, for example, that people would save because that
    is a national average. For various products such as furnaces,
    we do look at performance in different zones of the country
    because a furnace that is for the Northeast doesn't necessarily
    need to be as efficient because--well, it needs to be more
    efficient, I should say, than a furnace that is in Atlanta, for
    example.
        Mr. Walden. Right, where it wouldn't be used as much.
        Mr. Simmons. Where you might not have to use it very many
    hours out of the year.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Simmons. And so the payback is different. So we do
    consider different climate zones. I believe some of the
    analyses that we do have seven different climate zones, if I am
    not mistaken.
        Mr. Walden. OK. And is that reflected on the labels then?
        Mr. Simmons. That is not reflected on like the EnergyGuide
    label, I do not believe.
        Mr. Walden. So as a consumer, how would I know, then, the
    differences that may occur in these seven zones, if it is
    seven?
        Mr. Simmons. Some products may not be available in your
    area, for example, but I am not sure of how a consumer would
    know which zone they are in, as well as what the energy prices
    are in that part of the country.
        Mr. Walden. Yes. You would think, with today's Information
    Age technology, you could have a code that you could scan, and
    it would link to a database or something and give you more
    realistic data.
        I will probably get myself in real trouble here, but when I
    shop for a car and look at the miles per gallon that EPA says
    that car is going to get, I have yet to have had that actually
    work out that way. And so I think, as a consumer, I want labels
    I can trust and data that I know I can factor into my
    equations. And so that would be something I would love to work
    with you on.
        Mr. Simmons. OK.
        Mr. Walden. We want it to be practical, too. I get that.
    But the cost of energy is really important, and I know the
    Green New Deal was just evaluated to drive up electricity costs
    by 22 percent. So if they are going to march forward with that
    proposal, it is going to become even more important that we
    look for ways to save energy everywhere we can, if they are
    going to drive up energy costs 22 percent for American
    consumers. That seems like a pretty big hike in energy costs.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hearing.
        And, Mr. Simmons, thanks for being willing to take on this
    task, and we look forward to working with you in a bipartisan
    way on technical assistance, as we work to improve this
    program. It is really important to consumers.
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the ranking member. The Chair now
    recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
        In the last two years, the Department has blown through 16
    legally-mandated deadlines to finalize changes for appliances.
    Instead of updating these standards, DOE has spent this time
    crafting a draft rule to get rid of efficiency standards for
    light bulbs that are projected to save the average household
    $100 per year on its electricity bill in 2025.
        Now I sent a thorough letter to Secretary Perry in November
    of last year asking for, among other items, documents related
    to the Department's schedule for action on appliance standards
    rulemakings that are overdue. And what I received in response--
    and I actually have a copy of it here, Mr. Chairman; I'll ask
    unanimous consent to put it in the record--this was the
    response.
        Mr. Pallone. It was a three-line letter that said, quote,
    ``Attached is a list of hyperlinks,'' and that was followed by
    five pages of links to different portions of the DOE website. I
    think, honestly, sir, this ranks up there as one of the most
    disrespectful and uncooperative letters I have ever received
    from a Federal agency.
        I, then, resent the letter last month. And while the
    response this time around was more accommodating, it still left
    many questions unanswered. One of the items that DOE provided
    was the December 2018 Report to Congress. That is this document
    that contains, in my opinion, no useful information about what
    actions DOE has taken on these 16 products. It simply states,
    and I quote, ``in development'' for many of them. Frankly,
    unless I am shown otherwise, I am going to assume that ``in
    development'' means that the Department hasn't done anything.
        So my question is, Mr. Secretary Simmons, will you commit
    to finishing these standards that the DOE is legally mandated
    to update? And I am just looking for a yes or no. Will you
    commit to finishing these standards----
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone [continuing]. That are legally mandated?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Will you finish them in six months?
        Mr. Simmons. Probably not.
        Mr. Pallone. How about by the end of the year?
        Mr. Simmons. Some will be, some are possible, but it is
    important that we meet our legal deadlines, but it is also
    important that we meet these substantive requirements of EPCA.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, look, I want to say----
        Mr. Simmons. And there are many substantive requirements.
        Mr. Pallone. I know; I understand, but, it just seems to me
    you are not going to follow the law. The law says that you have
    deadlines. If you had said six months, I would have said OK.
    And then, I say the end of the year; you say, ``I don't know,
    maybe.'' To me, that is a clear indication that there is not a
    serious effort here. I think that we really need to see some
    action now to update and finalize these critical efficiency
    standards because they save consumers money and reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions.
        I have one more question, Mr. Simmons. I am going to shift
    gears to quote from a letter for the record we received for
    today's hearing, which I would ask to be included in the
    record. I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.
        This is from Alexander Karsner, who was the Assistant
    Secretary for Renewable Energy under President Bush.
        Mr. Rush. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pallone. Let me just quote from this, and then, I am
    going to ask you a question, Mr. Simmons. This is a quote from
    that letter. ``I want to affirm to all the members of this
    subcommittee today that there is no basis in science,
    technology, policy, or economics for these new proposals for
    the administration to roll back progress or to undermine
    bipartisan lighting standards. The administration's proposals
    are measurably harmful to consumers, to markets, and to the
    environment. Further, there is no reason for the Department to
    continue missing statutory deadlines to promulgate new
    efficiency standards and remain in compliance with the will of
    Congress. These hurdles have been overcome already, and the
    failure to continue progress simply reflects a lack of acumen,
    denying the benefits of innovation for the many, in favor of
    the profits of a few.''
        As I said, this is not from a national environmental group
    or a major consumer nonprofit. It is a letter from Alexander
    Karsner, who was Assistant Secretary from 2006 to 2008 during
    the George Bush administration. Basically, Mr. Karsner held
    your job under President Bush, and he finds it hard to
    understand why DOE has missed so many standards.
        Do you have any response to that comment by Mr. Karsner,
    Mr. Simmons?
        Mr. Simmons. Sure. I don't know that he has read the law.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Well----
        Mr. Simmons. As in, we took this action----
        Mr. Pallone. That is pretty sorry.
        Mr. Simmons [continuing]. Because it most closely conforms
    with the statute. It most closely conforms with the text of
    EPCA. That is the reason that we did it. You can make all the
    other arguments, but we need to do this because it is the most
    legally supportable.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, I think it is pretty sad. Quite frankly,
    the record of the appliance and equipment standards program
    under the Trump administration is dismal, and I think it is
    time for the Department to step up to the plate and begin
    acting on these standards. It doesn't seem like you will, but,
    hopefully, you will.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank the full committee
    chairman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta of Ohio for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Assistant Secretary, thanks very much for being
    with us today.
        My first question is, why is it important to establish a
    threshold for significant energy savings?
        Mr. Simmons. Sure. We did an analysis and we looked at the
    rules that we have done in the past and how much energy savings
    there has been for those rules. What it turns out is that 60
    percent of the rules that we did resulted in 96 percent of the
    overall energy savings. What that means, if you look at it on
    the flip side is that we spent 40 percent of our time on rules
    where we only saved 4 percent of energy savings overall. So
    that is an issue.
        What the difference is, is that on rules where you save
    over .5 quads over 30 years, that is rules where you save over
    .5 quads over 30 years, those are the 60 percent of rules that
    resulted in 96 percent of the savings. So what we want to do is
    to make sure that we are saving over .5 quads in a rule,
    because those are the rules where there is the most bang for
    our buck, the most energy savings for the time that we spend on
    it. And so it is critical to focus our efforts there because I
    believe it will help us meet our regulatory deadlines as well
    as making sure that we have rules that are substantively
    defensible.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        One of our witnesses in the next panel specifically
    mentioned the example of DOE's proposed standard for
    dishwashers and how the standard was such that dishwashers
    could no longer get the job done. It is a good example of
    something I would like to make sure DOE was taking into
    consideration. How will DOE ensure that a proposed standard
    does not and will not negatively impact a product's
    performance?
        Mr. Simmons. So this is a very important issue because we
    are forbidden by statute to impose a standard that would
    decrease performance or reduce product features. However, there
    are some examples where reasonable people could disagree. One
    of the things, for example, where we have found it is a feature
    is on an oven, whether or not there is a window. We have found
    that that is a feature, but people can and have disagreed over
    things such as whether the venting for a water heater, is that
    venting a performance feature or not? So this is an important
    area for us to look at. It is important for us to ask questions
    of the public, of stakeholders, to make sure that we have rules
    to make sure that products are doing a good job of saving
    people's time, because people's time is an important----
        Mr. Latta. I think it is important because, again, this is
    from a dishwasher or a washing machine, or something else, or a
    dryer, that someone finds that you have to keep pressing the
    button to get something done. So actually, in the end run, you
    are losing more energy because you have to keep using that
    product, the appliance over and over and over. So I think it is
    really important that DOE takes that into consideration.
        Let me move on. In your proposed update to the process
    rule, one of the new changes, it would make the process rule
    binding on DOE. My understanding is that this will mean that
    DOE will be required to follow the process and requirements
    established in the process rule when proposing future energy
    efficiency standards. Is that correct?
        Mr. Simmons. That is correct, yes.
        Mr. Latta. OK. And could you please explain why the
    Department believes that this is a necessary change in the
    process rule then?
        Mr. Simmons. Sure. So when the process rule was started in
    1996, one of the key features is that you have test procedures
    before you have--you finalize a test procedure. You know how
    you are going to measure energy before you set the standard for
    the energy or before you have a proposal for setting the
    standard for energy consumption. That wasn't always followed.
    And as a result, it becomes difficult to understand where the
    standards should be if you don't know what the test is. Because
    that had been messed up in a number of rules or there had been
    a lack of following that procedure, we wanted to emphasize that
    that procedure is very important, so that we get the substance
    of the rule correct.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from
    California assumes the microphone.
        Thank you for your testimony this morning, Mr. Simmons. And
    I appreciate your point about focusing on standards that have
    the most impact in terms of energy savings. However, by not
    regulating appliances with less than half a quad of energy, you
    are, in effect, causing consumers to pay increasing electricity
    costs, wouldn't that be true?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, not necessarily. Let me be clear about
    what it is. It is half a quad of savings or, then, 10 percent.
    So even if it doesn't meet the half-a-quad savings, if there is
    a product that we could still achieve a 10 percent increase, we
    would also increase, could increase the standard for that
    product as well.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. That may be true, but, still, you are
    leaving a lot of products without standards, and that is going
    to cause consumers to pay more for their electricity. And this
    would, in fact, impact the lowest-income Americans, given the
    elasticity of electric spending. So we are doing consumers a
    disservice here.
        Also, my understanding of the Energy Policy Conservation
    Act of 1975 is that it identifies products that DOE should set
    standards for energy efficiency and update them every seven
    years. But you are now saying that the DOE will not update any
    standards unless they meet your process rule. This violates the
    Congress' intent of constantly updating standards. What is your
    response?
        Mr. Simmons. No matter what--I mean, I think that is a
    misinterpretation of what we are saying in the process rule.
    Because we have to meet the statutory requirements, regardless
    of the process rule. Because we understand that the process
    rule is not allowable us some kind of loophole to not follow
    EPCA.
        Mr. McNerney. So does the process rule state that it will
    not update any standards unless they meet the process rule? I
    mean, isn't there some sort of a block here?
        Mr. Simmons. No, the process rule is saying that we will
    review the standards and we need to make sure that it meets the
    requirements in EPCA.
        Mr. McNerney. So by reviewing standards, it doesn't mean
    updating standards and upgrading standards?
        Mr. Simmons. And EPCA does require us to update standards.
    For example, at the end of the previous administration--and we
    have the Acting Assistant Secretary at the time here--the Obama
    administration did not update the standard for dishwashers. And
    I am sure Mr. Friedman can talk to you about that.
        Mr. McNerney. OK.
        Mr. Simmons. Update? Did not increase the standard for
    dishwashers, I should say.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Should we be expanding the amount of
    covered products, moving away from dishwashers and
    refrigerators to routers and telecommunications products?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, it is not the position of the
    administration to expand the scope of covered products.
        Mr. McNerney. And these products are often called vampires
    because they sit there and they consume power 24 hours a day,
    whether they are being used or not. So I think there is a need
    to be looking at those kinds of products as well.
        Mr. Simmons. One note on that is that the industry for
    dealing with set-top boxes did a voluntary program, so that
    your DVR, your set-top boxes for TVs, to voluntarily set a
    standard for set-top boxes, so that they improve the energy
    efficiency. And they have dramatically increased the energy
    efficiency of those products through a voluntary program.
        Mr. McNerney. I am a little skeptical of voluntary programs
    with these industries.
        But I don't have any more questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentle lady from Washington State, Mrs. McMorris
    Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, congratulations on your appointment----
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
        Mrs. Rodgers [continuing]. And confirmation to serve as
    Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
        The Obama administration published new efficiency
    regulations at a record pace. The current administration
    appears to be taking a more deliberative and focused approach
    to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
    also technologically feasible and economically justified.
        I wanted to ask you to speak to the vision, your vision,
    for DOE's appliance standards program in general.
        Mr. Simmons. Overall, the most important thing to me is
    that we are meeting our legal requirements. That is what
    matters. And those legal requirements are the deadlines, but
    they are also the substantive requirements in the statute. The
    way that I think that we do the best job of meeting those
    substantive requirements is to follow the process laid out in
    the 1996 process rule, and I think it is, hopefully, improved
    with our proposed updates to the process rule. It is important
    to follow the law. I am a member of the Executive Branch; my
    job is to execute the law, and that is our number one priority.
        Mrs. Rodgers. I certainly appreciate hearing that from
    anyone in the Executive Branch.
        Another question. The appliance standards program has been
    around for decades. Is it true that many home appliances have
    already been subjected to three, or even more, rounds of
    successively tighter standards?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Does the law require DOE to continue
    tightening these standards with no end in sight, even if you
    are seeing substantially diminishing returns?
        Mr. Simmons. So what the law requires, a maximum
    improvement in energy efficiency that is technically feasible
    and economically justified. That is what we are required to
    look at. That doesn't mean that the standard has to be
    increased, particularly where a product has been regulated
    multiple times and there just isn't as much energy efficiency
    to squeeze out. Now, that said, we are working on research and
    development, so that there could be more headroom for
    opportunities for the future, as in things such as solid-State
    lighting. That is a good example of R&D creating more efficient
    products over time.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentle lady. Now the Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Assistant Secretary, welcome, and thank you for your
    testimony.
        I want to echo my colleagues' concerns over DOE's
    implementation of the standards program since 2017. DOE
    investments and policies have resulted in once unfathomable
    cost reductions in LED lighting, somewhat an American
    technology success story, with the United States now leading
    the world in LED technology. These bulbs are available in the
    same shapes as the incandescent and halogen bulbs they replace
    and produce the same quality of light much more efficiently.
    This is the energy innovation all Members claim they want.
        So, Mr. Secretary, do you have a sense of those cost
    reductions over the last decade?
        Mr. Simmons. Over the last decade, I believe it is greater
    than 90 percent for LED lighting.
        Mr. Tonko. Which is a great bit of success. Certainly,
    Federal R&D investments have played a role, but is it fair to
    say that at least some of this cost reduction can attributed to
    market conditions created by energy conservation standards?
        Mr. Simmons. It could be.
        Mr. Tonko. I would say that it is probably more than some,
    and that these kinds of savings are achievable precisely
    because we have had a robust energy conservation standards
    program. So, Mr. Secretary, is it accurate that LED replacement
    bulbs are widely available, use less than one-quarter of the
    amount of energy to produce the same amount of light, and can
    last as long as 10 years?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Tonko. So I would like to unpack two issues from the
    February Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In 2007, in a law
    signed by President Bush, Congress included a backstop light
    bulb standard to ensure a minimum level of savings starting in
    2020. Since DOE did not act by the 2017 deadline, can you
    explain why some officials have suggested that the statutory
    backstop hasn't been triggered?
        Mr. Simmons. Sure. So on the backstop there, it requires us
    to first make an assessment. We were forbidden from doing that
    through an appropriations rider for years. We were not allowed
    to expend funds to do the work necessary to make that finding.
    And without making the finding, then the backstop doesn't
    happen or----
        Mr. Tonko. So what happens, then, in January of 2020?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, currently----
        Mr. Tonko. What does this mean in that regard?
        Mr. Simmons. Currently, the backstop would not kick in
    because we haven't done the condition precedent.
        Mr. Tonko. Isn't that against the law, the letter and
    spirit of the law?
        Mr. Simmons. We were forbidden from doing the work
    necessary to make the finding by the law by appropriations law.
        Mr. Tonko. So I think the concerns for affordability and
    energy efficiency enhancement are then lost because of that.
        The second issue is that the proposal would change the
    definition of general service lamps to exclude certain shapes
    of bulbs that go into almost half of America's light sockets
    from the 2020 standard. You have spoken about energy
    affordability, and I share that goal, but can you explain how
    this proposal promotes energy affordability?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, first and foremost, the proposal
    complies with the law, and that is the most important thing, as
    in it could save all the money in the world, but if it is
    illegal and we get sued, we would lose. And so first and
    foremost, our definitions are the statutory definitions of what
    is a general service lamp.
        Second of all, as I noted earlier, I truly believe that the
    future is solid-State lighting, LEDs and other lights in the
    future, other types of lighting such as OLEDs. And many of
    these lights are available today, and I believe--well, I
    believe--I know that there is massive uptake of consumers
    purchasing even the lights that are not defined as general
    service lamps.
        Mr. Tonko. But if the letter and spirit of the law is to
    address affordability and energy efficiency growth, why
    wouldn't we just embrace that opportunity to have that much
    more available for consumers and consumers' savings?
        Mr. Simmons. We can only do what we are legally allowed to
    do, and this is an area----
        Mr. Tonko. Well, but the law also says there cannot be any
    rollback in progress.
        Mr. Simmons. Which there has not been. What there has been
    is a change in definition.
        Mr. Tonko. But it is a rollback if you have all of this
    opportunity now with this additional amount of sockets. These
    are huge savings for the consumer, for households, and an
    improvement in energy efficiency.
        Mr. Simmons. Well, and I believe that the vast majority of
    consumers are going to achieve those savings because many of
    those products are currently on the market and people will
    purchase LEDs. I mean, that is the trend in the market today.
        Mr. Tonko. Could some people conclude that that was a
    backsliding, that you denied those opportunities that were
    enhanced in 2017?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, the Department does not think so.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, do you think so?
        Mr. Simmons. Now NRDC is on the next panel. They might have
    a different opinion on that probably.
        Mr. Tonko. But do you think so?
        Mr. Simmons. No.
        Mr. Tonko. Do you think that is a backsliding?
        Mr. Simmons. I and the Department do not.
        Mr. Tonko. Do you see it as a denial of a great amount of
    efficiency improvement?
        Mr. Simmons. There could be efficiency improvement, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. Could be?
        Mr. Simmons. There would be efficiency improvement.
        Mr. Tonko. So you would deny that?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, I am a little bit lost in terms of what
    I would be affirming or denying. But I am not sure about the
    exact question, sir. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Tonko. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes my good friend from the
    State of West Virginia, the one and only Mr. McKinley.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Simmons, for appearing before us.
        Yes, I look down the dias and I look at some of the folks
    that I have worked with in the last seven or eight years on
    energy efficiency, with Peter Welch and Tonko. We have put
    several things together, and I think we have been successful.
    And I like working on energy efficiency. As one of just two
    engineers in Congress, it makes a lot of sense for an engineer
    to be involved in this.
        But one of the issues that I don't understand, from the
    previous administration we couldn't get any traction. I am
    curious to see whether or not in the efficiency--we make our
    buildings more and more, particularly homes, they are probably
    the most demonstrative way that we can see that they are
    improving on energy efficiency. But, in so doing, the previous
    administration, they turned their back. The previous groups
    have turned their back on the indoor air quality. Because the
    more efficient, the more tighter we make our buildings, the
    less we are having fresh air and air turnovers.
        So I am curious to see how you are going to reconcile
    energy efficiency and a healthy environment on the inside of
    our buildings. Because we know that if we do the two to five
    air turnovers in any one given room, it is going to increase
    the utility cost to the consumer at that point. And what they
    do in schools, they just turn that off; they don't use that. So
    we are putting our children and our homeowners in unhealthy
    situations. Yes, we are efficient from a cost standpoint, but
    from a health standpoint we are cutting corners.
        Is this administration, are you all going to be
    addressing--I don't know whether this comes up under your
    purview, your jurisdiction, or is this someone else within DOE
    that we would be talking to?
        Mr. Simmons. It is my purview, and it is an issue that we
    take seriously, to make sure that we are looking at ways, both
    indoor air quality issues such as mold, when you have much
    tighter homes than we have had in the past. But we need to look
    at the health of the environment to make sure that, as we are
    increasing the energy efficiency of our homes, that we are not
    leading to unintended negative consequences.
        Mr. McKinley. I don't think you are denying that it is
    causing some consequences.
        Mr. Simmons. Oh, sure, sure, sure.
        Mr. McKinley. But we could not get the previous
    administration to address this. We know that you spend 90
    percent of your time indoors. And without the air turnover, you
    are breathing fumes, you are breathing diseases. They say, even
    with measles, the molecules are in the air for what, three days
    after a person has left the room. I just wonder what we are
    doing, how we are going to reconcile the combination of the
    two.
        Do you think you are going to come out with something that
    might pass on recommendations or thoughts to ASHRAE to change
    or modify their standards? Or what are we going to do for our
    school systems about getting, as high efficient as they are,
    but, yet, they are putting our children in unhealthy
    environments? How do you think you are going to come out
    through this?
        Mr. Simmons. I don't know. However, I know that our
    Building Technology Office is thinking about this issue, and I
    will be more than happy to have them discuss the issues, where
    we currently are, what we are currently doing, with you as well
    as any of your staff, or whomever else, to make sure that we
    are really considering the health of the environment indoors.
        Mr. McKinley. I would appreciate if you would get back to
    me.
        Mr. Simmons. OK.
        Mr. McKinley. Putting aside for now, even though that is
    something I want to focus on, indoor air quality, what do you
    think is the most underutilized efficiency project that a
    homeowner could undertake? What would be the one you think that
    would help the most?
        Mr. Simmons. The answer is going to be somewhere around
    heating and cooling, whether it is the HVAC system. Because
    lighting, as efficient as lighting is now, it is now consuming
    a smaller and smaller part of people's overall electricity
    bill. So something around probably HVAC systems, if not water
    heating.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to Mr. Simmons for appearing before us. We
    appreciate it.
        Today's topic touches on every single American household
    and business. Energy efficiency standards for home appliances
    have helped American families save billions of dollars in
    energy costs over the past 30 years. And that is why I am so
    disappointed that the Department of Energy has failed to
    publish new energy efficiency standards, thereby violating the
    Department's statutory obligations under the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act.
        According to DOE's own analysis, efficiency standards have
    helped American families save $63 billion on their utility
    bills in 2015. The Department's failure to update efficiency
    standards is costly and will come at the expense of American
    families' pocketbooks, public health, and the environment.
        Mr. Simmons, I want to ask a series of just basic questions
    to understand the theory behind the delay. Would you agree that
    improved efficiency standards for home appliances have
    dramatically reduced carbon pollution in the United States?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Ms. Kuster. And would you agree that improved efficiency
    standards for home appliances have dramatically reduced
    aggregate home energy costs for families?
        Mr. Simmons. They have helped.
        Ms. Kuster. And would you agree that reduced carbon
    pollution is beneficial to public health and reducing rates of
    asthma and cardiovascular disease?
        Mr. Simmons. I might disagree on that one, as in carbon
    dioxide----
        Ms. Kuster. Do you not believe that lowering carbon
    pollution is helpful to the public health?
        Mr. Simmons. What I wanted to----
        Ms. Kuster. I am an asthma survivor. So I am just
    wondering----
        Mr. Simmons. I am saying that carbon dioxide does not cause
    asthma.
        Ms. Kuster. But don't you believe that pollution in our
    air, including carbon, increased carbon--or lowering carbon
    would improve upon the quality of air that we breathe and lower
    asthma rates?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes, for things such as particulate matter, I
    think that could help reduce asthma. But we have seen increases
    in asthma rates as our air quality has improved over time. So I
    am not sure what is generating this increase of asthma rates
    over time. That is what I am trying to say.
        Ms. Kuster. OK. And why would your Department fail to issue
    energy efficiency standards that could help us improve the
    quality of health, improve the quality of life, and save our
    planet?
        Mr. Simmons. So one of the things that is very important
    for the President is for there not to be unnecessary regulatory
    burdens.
        Ms. Kuster. Well, let me ask you this.
        Mr. Simmons. And so where we are not required----
        Ms. Kuster. Do you agree that it would improve the quality
    of our life if we save--you have said--let me go back--you have
    said that improved energy efficiency standards dramatically
    reduced aggregate home energy costs? On that, we have agreed.
    And you have said that you agree that reduced carbon pollution
    is beneficial to public health. You had a debate about the
    asthma. I do understand that. But would you agree or not--maybe
    you don't agree--do you agree that better energy efficiency is
    better for quality of life for American families?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes, on that, I will definitely agree. The
    better energy efficiency, it is one of the reasons that we
    spend millions of dollars a year doing research and development
    in the Building Technology Office to improve energy efficiency
    overall.
        Ms. Kuster. So if we can agree on that--well, let me start
    with this. Is it correct that the Department of Energy has
    missed 16 legal deadlines for new energy efficiency standards
    for products?
         Mr. Simmons. I believe so.
        Ms. Kuster. And does the Department of Energy believe it no
    longer has to comply with statutory obligations under the
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act?
        Mr. Simmons. No.
        Ms. Kuster. So if you agree that the Department of Energy
    should comply, then why is your Department engaging in the
    delay? That is what I am trying to get to.
        Mr. Simmons. We are not engaging in the delay. We are
    working through the process that is required for each and every
    one of the products that we are required to regulate. That is a
    process----
        Ms. Kuster. But despite missing 16 legal deadlines?
        Mr. Simmons. Despite missing deadlines, we are working
    through that process. The process is ongoing, but I
    definitely----
        Ms. Kuster. What is it that we can do to help you and your
    Department comply with these legal deadlines? Is it a question
    of lack of resources? What is it that you need from Congress?
        Mr. Simmons. It is not a----
        Ms. Kuster. Because we want to improve the quality of life
    for our constituents. We want them to save money, not just low-
    income people, but all people. My husband and I spend quite a
    bit of time when we are choosing an appliance for our family,
    to get the most energy-efficient, cost-effective--I live in New
    Hampshire. It is cold. Energy costs are high. I try to get the
    best deal for my family. What can we do to help you, so that we
    can help all Americans get that best outcome?
        Mr. Simmons. So I don't have a--we have sufficient
    resources. I have not heard from the program that we need more
    resources. What we do need to do is to work through the
    process.
        Ms. Kuster. Do you think there is a lack of will in this
    administration?
        Mr. Simmons. There is a----
        Ms. Kuster. Because you keep falling back on the process.
        Mr. Simmons. The process takes----
        Ms. Kuster. I am wondering if there is a lack of will.
        Mr. Simmons. The process takes a lot of time, and it is
    not--like I have not heard from the----
        Ms. Kuster. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentle lady. And I also want
    to extend my apologies to her for misidentifying her state. She
    is from New Hampshire.
        Ms. Kuster. And I apologize for not keeping a better eye on
    the clock.
        Mr. Rush. Yes, ma'am.
        All right. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the
    great State of Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    yielding.
        Sir, thank you for being here. Congratulations.
        It kind of feels reminiscent. When we had a prior
    administration, we were talking about deadlines a lot. It is
    just the process. Sometimes it takes some time, and we
    appreciate you and your staff diligently working through these.
        I think it is safe to say that every member of this
    committee shares some common energy goals, including cleaner
    emissions and cost savings for our constituents. Of course,
    like most issues in DC, the devil is in the details, and it may
    seem to those watching or listening back home that the two
    parties stand against one another on the issue of energy
    efficiency and the environment. So I would just like to state
    for the record that, as we begin debate in earnest on these
    important issues, I am willing to work in a bipartisan fashion
    to address these issues. Most people, if not everybody, is.
    Provided that we can stick to facts, we can avoid some of the
    unnecessary partisanship and engage in logical conversations.
        This hearing is focused on energy efficiency standards, for
    which I have a longstanding record in support. But we are
    currently grappling with a set of laws that, through subsequent
    regulation and court proceedings, have become unclear, to the
    detriment of consumers and industry alike.
        When the industries that manufacture energy-efficient
    consumer products are uncertain about the application of laws
    and regulations, it leads to less confidence. The lack of
    confidence can lead to higher production costs. Higher
    production costs are passed along to consumers. And, of course,
    if the consumer is uncertain about the energy saving and cost
    savings benefit of these products, they could either pay more
    for less efficiency or, if they are not so sure, they could
    altogether choose not to buy these energy-efficient products.
    In sum, each of these issues should be thoughtfully addressed
    for the betterment of consumers, the environment, and yes, even
    industry.
        So I would like to give you an opportunity to correct the
    record on some of the claims that are being made here. I
    understand there are about 50 active regulations that DOE plans
    to take action on in the coming year. Is DOE committed to
    following the law and carrying out its responsibilities under
    the appliance standards program?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. We are going to hear testimony on the second
    panel that references a high percentage of consumers who
    experience a net cost for newer proposed product standards. In
    other words, the life-cycle cost of the product will be greater
    than the savings from efficiency. Do you believe that
    increasing net cost for consumers fits the goals of the Energy
    Policy and Conservation Act?
        Mr. Simmons. No.
        Mr. Kinzinger. How can DOE do a better job to ensure
    efficiency standards actually lead to consumer savings?
        Mr. Simmons. One of the most important things I think that
    we can do is to have a robust, open, transparent process of
    setting the standards, so that we are making sure to take
    sufficient comment to understand all of the issues around a new
    standard. So that we don't get in situations, or that they are
    as minimized to the greatest extent possible, where we are
    imposing negative impacts on certain classes of consumers.
        Mr. Kinzinger. I think it is important to remember, you can
    impose rules. We are Congress; we can do whatever we want
    imposing rules. What we can't impose is human behavior. So
    human behavior has a reaction to any set of rules. Just like if
    something becomes convoluted, people can choose to go buy
    something else, maybe less energy-efficient and totally
    violates any goals that we have here in the House.
        I have got one other question. When considering the net
    costs, are there other features or performance attributes that
    consumers might lose?
        Mr. Simmons. That can happen. And one of the challenges is
    what gets defined as a feature. That is not always clear. One
    thing that is a perennial issue is venting for furnaces or
    venting for water heaters. Is that a feature? Is that a
    performance feature? And reasonable people can disagree.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And I do have another question. The stated
    mission of EERE is ``to create and sustain American leadership
    in the transition to a global clean energy economy''. The
    vision is a ``strong and prosperous America, powered by clean,
    affordable, and secure energy''. Are you committed to following
    the laws that Congress passes as Congress intends?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Has Congress provided EERE with sufficient
    resources to carry out its responsibilities?
        Mr. Simmons. Currently, yes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. How are you positioning EERE to create and
    sustain American leadership in the years ahead?
        Mr. Simmons. Three things overall for our office to focus
    on generally. The first is energy affordability. We need to
    drive down the cost of all types of energy, as well as the
    things that use energy.
        Number two we need to figure out how to do a good job to
    bring together all of the energy and all of the users of energy
    together into an energy system. We need flexibility in the
    electric grid of the future. I think that that is very
    important. It is the one key thing that the office is focused
    on.
        And then, the third overall priority for my office is
    energy storage, ways to look to have energy storage, especially
    because it can improve that flexibility, so you can have more
    things like more wind or more solar on the electric grid of the
    future.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Thank you for your service.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. McEachin, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    calling this hearing today.
        And to the Secretary, thank you for being here today as
    well.
        Increasing efficiency really means reducing waste, doing
    more with the resources we are already using. And reducing
    waste is an idea that I would think everyone should be able to
    support. Greater energy efficiency offers one of the paths of
    least resistance economically, technologically, and
    logistically for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So
    strengthening efficiency standards carries significant benefits
    for public health and for our environment.
        Mr. Simmons, in your testimony you speak of DOE's, quote,
    ``statutory mandate to establish energy conservation standards
    that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
    is technologically feasible and economically justified, and
    that saves a significant amount of energy''. What I would like
    to do with you today is to unpack the meaning of ``economically
    justified''. Because what looks reasonable in one light may
    look unreasonable in another.
        I have introduced legislation to ensure that long-term
    climate impacts are properly weighted in the regulator's
    dollar-and-cents benefit/analysis, and I want to apply that
    same line of thinking here. In determining whether efficiency
    standards for many consumer products are justified, DOE is
    supposed to look at, among other considerations, the need for
    national energy and water conservation and other factors the
    Secretary considers relevant. Energy efficiency, as I have
    said, offers one of the paths of least resistance for reducing
    greenhouse gases. So it seems clear to me that the need for
    national conservation is urgent and great, and that it reflects
    our need to minimize climate change and to mitigate its
    potentially devastating effects. And it seems equally clear,
    given the urgency of the challenges we face, that the current
    and projected state of our climate should be factors the
    Secretary deems highly relevant to the setting of energy
    conservation standards.
        Question: so to what extent does the reality of climate
    change and the climate consequences which we are already having
    to live with influence standard-setting decisions?
        Mr. Simmons. So when we do the economic analysis, one of
    the things that is considered is climate. It was in the
    standards rule set by the Obama administration. That
    consideration is also in the standards rule set by this
    administration.
        Mr. McEachin. So is it fair to say that DOE is grappling
    with the fact that, absence significant increases in energy
    efficiency, our society could face existential threats within
    the lifetime of the folks in this room?
        Mr. Simmons. What we are considering is the impact of
    greenhouse emissions on the climate from the particular rules,
    given that is what our mandate is.
        Mr. McEachin. If I hear you correctly, then, DOE
    acknowledges that climate considerations can and should play a
    role in shaping regulations. Can you speak to why that role is
    not greater? If nothing else, surely the urgency of our climate
    needs is a compelling argument for moving forward on some of
    the standards the DOE has finalized but neglected to publish.
        Mr. Simmons. You mentioned the seven factors that go into
    considering what is economically relevant. The first one is
    economic impact on consumers and manufacturers, lifetime
    operating cost compared to increased cost. Talking about
    consumers is mentioned numerous times in EPCA. Climate is not
    mentioned in EPCA. So while it gets included in the overall
    economic analysis, first and foremost, EPCA is designed to
    focus on consumers currently. Obviously, Congress can change
    that.
        Mr. McEachin. All right. Thank you. Mr. Simmons.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        I am going to head in the same direction of sorts that my
    colleague from Virginia, Mr. McEachin, just touched on, but in
    a slightly different vein, and that is the economically-
    justified aspect. Mr. Latta of Ohio previously brought some of
    this up. That is, are the consumers getting the same product,
    even if it is more energy-efficient?
        We had some folks testifying a couple of years ago about
    hot water heaters and they were going to lower the size of a
    hot water heater in an attempt to save energy. And I raised the
    point that if somebody has the money to buy a 100-gallon hot
    water heater, they probably have the money to buy two 50-gallon
    hot water heaters, and are you really making any gain, if you
    just lower the size of the hot water heater?
        Likewise, I have a constituent who has been very upset,
    although this was an EPA rule, about her washing machine
    because they don't work as well now that they have changed the
    rules some time ago. And so accordingly, she either double does
    the wash, in other words, she has two loads where she would
    have had one, or on occasion, when she has time to babysit her
    machine, she adds additional water to her machine because it
    doesn't currently--part of the way they got their efficiency
    was they didn't put as much water in it; therefore, they didn't
    have as much water to heat. Well, she adds extra water to it to
    get around that, so that she can get her clothes clean. And
    there were other problems, mold and other issues, that came up.
        Is that part of what you look at for economically justified
    as well? Is the consumer going to get what they want and are
    they likely to be running their washing machines or their hot
    water heaters or their dishwashers twice as much to accomplish
    the same thing, which actually adds to our energy demand, as
    opposed to reducing it?
        Mr. Simmons. That is, it can be included in whether or not
    something is economically justified. Also, there is another
    statutory provision in EPCA that forbids us from reducing the
    performance or the features of a product. So it is in EPCA. The
    question is, sometimes people can disagree about what that
    means.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, and I heard you mention earlier windows
    in ovens. Tell me what the fight there is.
        Mr. Simmons. There hasn't necessarily been a fight, but
    that is an example of something that is--like is this, deciding
    if that is a feature. And I think that everyone can agree that
    that, nearly everyone can--like we could have more efficient
    ovens if we didn't have a window on them. However----
        Mr. Griffith. Most of your cooks like to look.
        Mr. Simmons. What is that?
        Mr. Griffith. Most of your cooks like to look.
        Mr. Simmons. Exactly, and that is the overall point, is
    that it could be more efficient, but we need to have that
    feature because it is important to the function of the product
    to be able to look and to see if your pie is done.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, and along those lines, if you don't
    have the window, aren't you going to open that door more?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith. And couldn't that potentially lead to using
    more electricity?
        Mr. Simmons. It could. Or with dishwashers, if people are
    spending more time washing their dishes by hand and running
    water, that may overall lead to more energy consumption than
    just putting a slightly dirty dish in the dishwasher.
        Mr. Griffith. Got you.
        Well, I appreciate your being here today. I look forward to
    working with you on these issues.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentle lady from Delaware, Ms. Blunt Rochester,
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Assistant Secretary Simmons, for being here.
        Your agency is one that oversees some very important
    functions as part of the Federal Government. And I want to
    start by emphasizing the importance of issues to my State of
    Delaware, where we are the lowest mean elevation of any State
    in the country. And consequently, we are on the front lines of
    climate change. And while I know there has been some skepticism
    in the administration about the legitimacy of climate change
    and the sense of urgency that we must have, I can tell you that
    my constituents see it firsthand. From constant beach erosion
    in Sussex County to the changing growing seasons in Kent
    County, to chronic flooding in New Castle County, climate
    change is a top priority for Delawareans.
        As we have mentioned here, your work, energy efficiency,
    focuses on our health. It also focuses on our economy and, as I
    mentioned, the environment. One of the things that we want to
    do here is to be able to attack climate change as quickly as
    possible. And so energy efficiency plays a big role.
        My colleagues have already shared some of their concerns
    about the number of deadlines that have been missed by the
    administration, even though they are mandated by law. But I
    want to shift and ask some different questions.
        Mr. Simmons, in your testimony you submitted to the
    committee you say that one of your top priorities is energy
    affordability. With that priority in mind, do you support fully
    funding and utilizing programs such as LIHEAP, the Low-Income
    Home Energy Assistance Program?
        Mr. Simmons. I don't have anything to do with----
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Correct.
        Mr. Simmons. I don't have anything to do with LIHEAP.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. I know it is not under your----
        Mr. Simmons. From the perspective of an administration
    witness, I don't know enough to have a comment on that one. I'm
    sorry.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. It is an energy efficiency, low-income
    program. How about the weather assistance program? Maybe you
    could talk a little bit about that?
        Mr. Simmons. So you saw in the previous budget that the
    Weatherization Assistance Program was zeroed out in the
    President's proposed budget. The new budget is coming out soon,
    and we will see what is there.
        One of the things that I really wanted to emphasize is
    that, even though the Weatherization Assistance Program was
    zeroed out, that my office worked diligently as soon as funds
    were provided to carry out the mission of that office. And that
    is something that I think is critical. We are executing on the
    monies provided by Congress.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Simmons, in Title X, Chapter 2,
    Part 430, of the Federal Code, there is a specific reference
    made to low-income families and the consideration the
    Department must make when determining standard levels. Like the
    rest of the country, Delaware has seen an increase in the
    number of residents who are now renting, rather than owning
    their own homes. And so obviously, that means that those
    individuals are unable to make decisions to upgrade to more
    energy-efficient appliances but are still often saddled with
    the energy costs of more inefficient appliances. Can you talk
    about what your Department has done with rental properties in
    relation to energy efficiency?
        Mr. Simmons. So overall, the Building Technology Office, I
    don't know if there has been any specific focus on rental
    property as opposed to all property, as, then, trying to
    increase energy efficiency of windows, energy efficiency of
    insulation. As one of the Representatives pointed out
    previously, Mr. McKinley, talking about increasing insulation
    that makes the area, the housing tighter, which can lead to air
    quality issues, but we could put those aside for a minute. We
    are doing a lot of things on research and development. I don't
    know if there has been any specific focus on rental properties.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. One of the reasons why I ask is
    because, when we don't deal with the standards that impact all
    of us, some of us don't get the same level of support they need
    to be able to be energy-efficient.
        But I want to shift, one last question. Are there strategic
    investments that can be made in an infrastructure policy
    package to accelerate energy efficiency strategies in buildings
    or industrial processes? And if so what are they?
        Mr. Simmons. That is a----
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. I have about 28 seconds.
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. So you could probably submit that in
    writing because I am sure you won't get it all out.
        Mr. Simmons. Exactly.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. But you can start. You have got 20
    seconds.
        Mr. Simmons. That is just what I was going to say, is that
    one I would have to get back to you in writing.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Welch [presiding]. The Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson
    from Ohio.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And, Assistant Secretary Simmons, I would like to start off
    by saying right upfront that DOE's work on efficiency standards
    is important. There is a benefit to these programs, but it is
    crucial that the process is fair and transparent. I think your
    work on the appliance standards program and bringing
    stakeholders into the fold early is equally important and can
    result in a more workable and achievable set of standards.
        Now one important aspect of setting efficiency standards
    should be understanding the upfront cost to consumers of a
    product associated with any efficiency gains. I represent a
    very rural part of Ohio, eastern and southeastern Ohio. Many of
    my constituent's live paycheck to paycheck. And I worry that
    these standards could have a disproportionally adverse impact
    on low-income households as the costs of appliances go up.
        So to what extent does DOE consider the impact of cost to
    the consumer in consideration for efficiency standards,
    especially as it relates to low-income households?
        Mr. Simmons. So our statutory mandate is to look at the
    maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
    technologically feasible and economically justified. And so in
    the consideration of what is economically justified, that is
    where we do the analysis to try, to the maximum extent
    possible, to make sure that we are not increasing the cost of
    products and making things more difficult. Because if you
    cannot afford a new product, if you cannot afford a new HVAC
    system, for example, then you are not going to receive any
    benefits from it, and you may, then, put in window units that
    are less efficient. So the cost considerations are of paramount
    importance.
        Mr. Johnson. Can you just briefly indicate any specific
    cost factors that you consider in that type of analysis?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, there are seven. The economic impact for
    consumers and manufacturers, and to do that, we have to
    consider various types of consumers, whether it is higher
    income or lower income; the lifetime operating cost compared to
    increased cost, and that is a big issue. If you can't afford it
    upfront, you are not going to get those lifetime benefits.
    Projected energy savings, impact on utility or performance. So
    there is a number of factors that we consider that directly
    look at making sure that, as we are increasing a standard, that
    it does not result in consumer disutility or consumer harm.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Along similar lines, we have seen DOE
    propose efficiency standards that raise the upfront cost of an
    appliance with the promise that we will achieve those savings
    over time. In some cases, like dishwashers, the payback period
    could exceed 10 years. I can tell you, I got a dishwasher and I
    am already having to do major repairs, and I haven't had it for
    10 years. So I would never achieve that efficiency payback.
        So does DOE have any criteria for what it considers a fair
    payback period for appliances?
        Mr. Simmons. I would have to get back to you. I don't think
    so. We don't have an exact level. But it is one of the
    considerations that is looked at, is what is the payback
    period. Because if it gets very long, if it is 10 years, in my
    opinion, that is far too long because of all of the possible
    intervening events that can happen in that 10 years, that
    paybacks need to be quicker.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, I am certainly not trying to be funny,
    but back to that paycheck-to-paycheck analysis, if it doesn't
    have a return on investment within the next month, people in
    rural America are going to be hard-pressed to purchase
    efficiency systems.
        Can you provide some examples where the payback period
    exceeded the life of the product? Have you run across any of
    those examples?
        Mr. Simmons. I believe they exist. I don't have any at my
    fingertips currently. I would be happy to provide that in
    writing.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. If you could get back to me, I would
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I yield back a whole 26 seconds.
        Mr. Welch. You are very generous today. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. O'Halleran.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member,
    for having this meeting today.
        Cutting-edge energy efficiency technologies of tomorrow are
    available today. And it is this committee's responsibility to
    ensure that the Department of Energy continues to deploy energy
    efficiency standards as they are described in the Energy Policy
    and Conservation Act to not only benefit Americans, but also
    the environment we live in.
        The effects of climate change are impacting rural America
    the hardest, especially in my State of Arizona, where droughts
    are impacting our farmers, crop yields. Wildfires are
    devastating our National Forests and Parks. Following the
    United States' fourth hottest summer on record, according to
    NOAA, these energy efficiency standards that we are discussing
    today have never been more important.
        The benefits of energy efficiencies technologies are very
    clear. But protecting the environment should not be a partisan
    issue, but, rather, a call to action in which members of both
    sides of the aisle may find common-sense solutions.
        As a member of this committee, I am new. And so I guess
    where I come from is you are the head of a fairly large group
    of people. When you put these projects together, as you stated,
    your most important issue to meet the statute requirements. And
    so what does that work plan that you put together look like in
    order to meet those? What are your timelines? What are your
    milestones? Do you put that together for each plan, so that you
    can make those guidelines become available to the public?
        Mr. Simmons. So that is, at the highest level, that is
    available to the public. That is what is called the Unified
    Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. That describes
    the 50 active regulatory actions that are currently occurring
    in the Department of Energy. And the most recent update to that
    was in the fall. In that, there were 24 test procedures that
    were on the active agenda. There were 17 energy conservation
    standards that we are actively working on. We have just sent
    updates to that to OMB, to OIRA, for the spring Unified Agenda
    that will lay out what regulations we are going to be actively
    working on. And I expect that when we are done with that
    process, there will be more--that we will be adding new active
    regulatory actions to that agenda.
        Mr. O'Halleran. As you miss milestones and other deadlines,
    do you try to identify do you have a lack of personnel or are
    there change orders that are coming in, similar to a
    construction project, that require, whether it is political or
    otherwise, require changes that would move that end date of
    accomplishment of meeting statutory requirements?
        Mr. Simmons. There is some internal work that I definitely
    can engage in to make sure that we are doing a better job of
    meeting our deadlines and interacting with staff. I have not
    spent as much time as maybe I would like to talk with the
    program about looking for how they believe that we can do a
    better job of meeting our standards, and I will do that.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Has there been any request for additional
    funding in order to be able to meet standards on a timely
    basis?
        Mr. Simmons. Not internally, no.
        Mr. O'Halleran. OK. I guess when I am late getting my taxes
    in, if I am, I either file an extension and let everybody know
    in the IRS or I get penalized. If I am late with a payment to
    the bank, after a while they say, ``You owe your money.'' And
    when we are late with getting a statutory requirement into
    Congress, I would think that our agency would say we need to
    find a way to get it there on time. And I am trying to figure
    out why that is not being accomplished.
        Mr. Simmons. One reason is that this process takes a long
    time, and it takes a long time to do right.
        Mr. O'Halleran. But, you know that at the beginning anyway.
    It has taken a long time, time after time after time. So the
    idea is, the American people are waiting to be able to save
    money, to save energy, and to be more efficient with the use of
    that energy. And the more that there are delays in the system,
    it is apparent, some of the billions of dollars of savings that
    are accomplished over time, that we are costing the American
    taxpayers money. And it would be efficient for us to be able to
    get these statutory requirements that you identified as the
    most important process, to get it finished.
        Mr. Welch. And the gentleman's time----
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you.
        Mr. Simmons. May I respond to just say that that's a good
    and valid point.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
        Mr. Welch. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bucshon from Indiana.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
        And thank you, Assistant Secretary, for being here.
        I was a doctor before. I just want to clarify that carbon
    dioxide is a byproduct of normal human respiration, and in and
    of itself has no effect on cardiovascular disease or asthma.
    That has been implied over and over in the climate discussion.
    I believe that the climate is changing, but to imply that that
    byproduct of respiration has a direct effect on those diseases
    is hyperbole and meant to scare the American people.
        Why are four rules under litigation?
        Mr. Simmons. Four rules are under litigation because we did
    not send them to the--we did not finalize them by sending them
    to The Federal Register.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. Are these rules from the previous
    administration or----
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. So the litigation doesn't have anything to
    do with the rule itself; it has to do with the timing of
    submitting them to The Register? Or are there flaws that you
    can comment on in the rule that was----
        Mr. Simmons. The litigation is about whether or not it was
    legally permissible for us not to send them to The Federal
    Register.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.
        Did the Obama administration that you are aware of meet all
    its statutory deadlines? Has this been a chronic problem?
        Mr. Simmons. It has been a problem for multiple
    administrations, including----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, probably for decades, right?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes. So that is on us, on Congress really, to
    help you with that, I would say.
        So the proposed energy efficiency standards must be
    developed and tested using sound science, transparent data, and
    clear metrics for determining the economic justification. You
    have talked about this some. Can you describe how your office
    plans to adhere to these most basic requirements in formulating
    new energy efficiency standards?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, many of the issues have been highlighted
    today----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
        Mr. Simmons [continuing]. Of the need that we have to make
    sure that we are doing a good job, whether it is to be making
    sure that these products have good performance, that the cost
    increases, the possible cost increases are not unduly
    burdensome. And that process can take time to make sure that we
    are talking to, that we are hearing from all stakeholders, from
    the general public, to make sure that--you know, these are
    things that people interact with every single day. People
    interact with their dishwashers, with their microwaves, with
    their refrigerators, with their water heaters, with their HVAC
    systems. So it is critical that we get it right, and that can
    take time.
        Mr. Bucshon. Understood. Well, I think we can all agree
    energy efficiency is something every consumer and manufacturer
    should strive to adapt. However, I am concerned that tightening
    energy efficiency standards to unrealistic levels could have an
    unintended impact of costing American manufacturing jobs.
        And I am from Indiana and I think we know the Carrier case
    in Indiana. When I met with the parent company, United
    Technologies, they said that the 50 standards that were put in
    place over at the Obama administration made it essentially
    impossible for them to continue to manufacture in my state, as
    one of the main factors, because regulations were piled on them
    very quickly, probably for the most part for ideological
    reasons.
        And this can affect small manufacturers particularly, that
    can't absorb this type of hit. So our State is a big
    manufacturing State, home to a lot of small manufacturers in
    the Eighth District.
        So to what extent does the DOE take employment impacts into
    account when they set efficiency standards?
        Mr. Simmons. So one thing that we are legally required to
    do, so it is very important that we do do it, is that when we
    are considering the factors that make up whether or not a rule
    is economically justified, one of those factors is impact of
    lessening of competition. And I think that can be read in a
    number of ways. It doesn't explicitly talk about employment,
    but employment I believe should be included there----
        Mr. Bucshon. Sure.
        Mr. Simmons [continuing]. To make sure that the United
    States is as economically competitive as possible, and that we
    are not reducing needlessly----
        Mr. Bucshon. So you would probably agree, then, that
    putting standards in place are difficult to meet from an
    economic standpoint, that results in jobs being transferred to
    other countries than the United States, probably need to be
    looked at pretty closely, and that should be a substantial
    factor in applying these efficiency standards to the United
    States?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes. I mean, it is very much contrary to the
    administration's position to be shifting jobs outside the
    United States. We want to grow----
        Mr. Bucshon. And I would agree with that.
        Mr. Simmons [continuing]. To grow U.S. manufacturing.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Bucshon. The Chair recognizes
    himself.
        This question on efficiency standards, it's interesting. I
    want to say a couple of things. Number one there is a lot of
    bipartisan support for aggressive energy efficiency. That is
    number one. In fact, when we passed in the House the Waxman-
    Markey bill that had as its goal 80 percent carbon reduction by
    2050, 40 percent of the carbon reduction was through
    efficiency.
        Secondly, there has been a lot of leadership on the
    Republican side of the aisle when they were in the majority,
    and now in the minority. So there is a real potential here for
    common ground.
        Third, efficiency standards play a major role. And some of
    my colleagues have been rightly raising some questions about
    what the impact is which you are trying to assess. What does it
    do to small manufacturers? What does it do to consumer cost?
    And those are difficult questions. They have to be addressed.
    Because if it is unaffordable, you are not going to buy it and
    you are not going to get the benefit.
        But a lot of manufacturers acknowledge that having
    standards that all of them have to compete to meet, and then,
    have that out in the marketplace actually helps them, because
    it is not a race to the bottom, where competition is on the
    basis of the lowest-quality product. So I have sympathy for the
    challenge of these competing interests. Mr. Johnson raised some
    questions. Dr. Bucshon just did, and others. But it does
    require that you get the standards out, and that hasn't been
    happening. And I don't want to go into the delays in the Obama
    or this administration. It doesn't matter. The bottom line, how
    are we going to get these standards out?
        As I understand it, there is a huge delay. We are very late
    in getting the energy efficiency improvements associated with
    the latest model of code. So I am kind of following up on what
    Mr. O'Halleran said. What have we got to do to get these
    standards out from you? That is number one.
        Mr. Simmons. Well, it is one of the reasons that we have
    the proposed process rule, because we think that that will
    streamline the process by having an early-look procedure where
    we have an assessment early in the process, and that if it
    isn't possible to meet our statutory requirements, then we can
    more easily move to the rules where there is the greatest
    opportunity for energy efficiency.
        So that is why it is also important to define what is a
    significant savings of energy, because the law requires, EPCA
    requires us for rules to save a certain amount----
        Mr. Welch. Yes. Well, you know, you have got a hard job
    because of all of these competing considerations you have got
    to take into account, but we really need you to get that done.
    And then, we can have an argument about what the impact is.
        Another issue is about the DOE loan program, and I
    understand that is a different office than yours, but it
    overlaps a bit with your focus area. Currently, as I understand
    it, there is $5 billion in unused loan authority for renewables
    that are available. That was a program authorized under the
    Bush administration. And can you tell us what is up and what we
    need to do to get that thing going?
        Mr. Simmons. I know that the loan program is actively
    looking for projects. I know that they have talked to the Wind
    Office, for example, about potential. And one area could be
    offshore wind projects.
        Mr. Welch. So what have we got to do to----
        Mr. Simmons. They are working on it.
        Mr. Welch. What have we got to do to get those loans
    authorized?
        Mr. Simmons. That I don't know. I can say that, as the head
    of the Loan Program Office said, that LPO is open for business
    and that they have been actively looking for opportunities.
        Mr. Welch. And so you don't know, basically?
        Mr. Simmons. I don't know more than what I just said.
        Mr. Welch. Well, yes, I mean, that is frustrating, probably
    is frustrating for you as well. I mean, you have got that loan
    authority. You have got a lot of entrepreneurs out there. It is
    not a red State/blue State deal. A lot of folks who see an
    opportunity to make some money would be able to do it, if they
    could get access to the loans and move ahead. So I just urge
    you to do all you can to implement that program or encourage it
    to be implemented.
        And finally, I want to take a step back and briefly ask
    about a few other efforts at DOE. What steps is DOE taking to
    ensure energy efficiency R&D is being conducted at all levels,
    the early stage, the mid stage, and long-term focus?
        Mr. Simmons. So we know that the key there is that, as
    Secretary Perry has said, we are following congressional
    direction. And so where we have congressional direction to be
    at early, mid, and late stage, we are trying our best to meet
    that congressional direction. And you will see that in the next
    few weeks when the Building Technology Office releases their
    latest funding opportunity announcement.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you. We will look forward to seeing that.
        Mr. Rush [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, it has been a long
    morning and I know you have other important work that you have
    to get done. I want to thank you so very much for your
    participation here during this first panel, and we want to see
    you again soon.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simmons. Likewise. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. All right. And that concludes panel one.
        Now I would like to invite panel two to now take seats at
    the desk.
        Now that we are in set order or sit order, let me introduce
    the panelists, beginning at my left.
        Mr. Andrew deLaski is the executive director of the
    Appliance Standards Awareness Project of the American Council
    for an Energy Efficient Economy.
        Ms. Katherine Kennedy is the senior director of the Climate
    and Clean Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense
    Council.
        Mr. Joseph M. McGuire is the president and CEO of the
    Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, AHAM.
        Mr. Charles Harak is the senior attorney for energy and
    utility issues of the National Consumer Law Center.
        Mr. Stephen Yurek is president and CEO of the Air-
    Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, AHRI.
        And Mr. David Friedman is the Vice President of Advocacy
    for Consumer Reports.
        And at this time, the Chair will now recognize each witness
    of the second panel for 5 minutes to provide an opening
    statement.
        Before we begin, I have the task of explaining the lighting
    system. In front of you is a series of lights. The light will
    initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The
    light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. And
    please begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. And the
    light will turn red when your time has expired.
        With that, I will now recognize Mr. deLaski for 5 minutes
    for an opening statement.

      STATEMENTS OF ANDREW deLASKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APPLIANCE
      STANDARDS AWARENESS PROJECT, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY
    EFFICIENT ECONOMY; KATHERINE KENNEDY, SENIOR DIRECTOR, CLIMATE
     AND CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL;
      JOSEPH M. McGUIRE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ,
      ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS; CHARLES HARAK,
    STAFF ATTORNEY AND MANAGER, ENERGY UNIT, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW
        CENTER; STEPHEN R. YUREK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
         OFFICER, AIR-CONDITIONING, HEATING, AND REFRIGERATION
     INSTITUTE; AND DAVID J. FRIEDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF ADVOCACY,
                            CONSUMER REPORTS

                      STATEMENT OF ANDREW deLASKI

        Mr. deLaski. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and
    distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Andrew deLaski. I am the executive director of
    the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. ASAP is a coalition
    project that is lead by a steering committee consisting of
    efficiency advocacy organizations, State Government
    representatives, consumer and environmental organizations, and
    utility companies.
        I would like to do two things in my remarks today. First, I
    want to highlight how the existing National Standards Program
    benefits the nation. Second, I will describe for you how the
    current administration has badly mishandled the program.
        Appliance, equipment, and lighting efficiency standards are
    one of the foundations of U.S. energy policy. According to the
    American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, they are the
    number two Federal policy for saving energy. The energy and
    water savings from appliance standards translate into
    pocketbook savings for consumers and businesses, create jobs,
    make our energy systems more resilient and reliable, foster
    technological innovation, and reduce emissions that harm public
    health and the environment.
        Some data for your consideration. The typical household
    spends about $500 less per year on their utility bills than if
    there had never been any standards. That is equal to a 16
    percent utility bill cut. It is hard to think of another policy
    out there that has done as much to improve the affordability of
    energy bills. All told, consumers' savings from existing
    standards for both consumers and for businesses totals $2
    trillion by 2030. It is a Department of Energy number.
        Jobs. When consumers and businesses spend their bill
    savings on other goods and services, research shows that that
    boosts employment. Standards boosted the number of domestic
    jobs by about 300,000 jobs in 2016.
        Next, saving energy with improved efficiency standards
    helps make our energy systems more resilient, reliable, and
    affordable.
        Climate change. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2020 will
    be about 345 million metric tons lower, or about 7 percent
    lower, because of existing energy efficiency standards.
        Unfortunately, over the past two years, the National
    Appliance Standards Program has been seriously mishandled by
    DOE. I will summarize five ways.
        First, DOE has missed 16 statutory deadlines for
    determining if current standards should be revised and is on
    track to miss 12 more, another dozen, by January 2021. Updated
    standards could add hundreds of billions of dollars in savings
    for consumers.
        Second, the Department has proposed to eliminate light bulb
    standards slated to take effect next year. Members serving on
    this committee today from both parties worked hard on that 2007
    law that created light bulb standards. You did a good thing.
    You set initial standards, starting in 2012, that are now
    saving enormous amounts of energy and money. Despite claims by
    some, the sky hasn't fallen.
        You also required a second stage to take effect in 2020 and
    created a minimum level for that 2020 standard, 45 lumens per
    watt. In providing 13 years of advance notice, you sent a clear
    signal to the market. You helped unleash a torrent of
    innovation, LED light bulbs use just a smidgen of energy
    compared to the light bulbs they replace and last 10 to 15
    years.
        But now, DOE has proposed to eliminate the 2020 light bulb
    standards by rescinding the 2017 rule that expands the
    standards to most everyday light bulb and asserting--you heard
    it today--that the backstop standard does not apply. This
    action would cost a typical U.S. household about $115 in lost
    energy savings by 2025 on an annual basis. Carbon dioxide
    emissions in 2025 will be about 1 percent higher on a
    nationwide basis because of this rollback action. Where else
    can you get a policy that will save the average household over
    $100 and also trim U.S. CO2 emissions by 1 percent? It makes
    zero sense to eliminate light bulb standards.
        Third, DOE has proposed an unnecessary rewrite of its
    standards development process rule that won't make it just
    harder to catch up on missed deadlines; it will put the
    National Standards Program into a deep freeze.
        Fourth, DOE has abused its enforcement discretion to issue
    broad policies that negate duly-promulgated standards. DOE
    reversed course on one of these when the requesting industry
    group changed its mind, but the message has been sent. DOE is
    open to simply not enforcing the law.
        Fifth, DOE now contemplates a petition from the gas
    industry that would, if acted on, eliminate consideration of
    the single most important technology for saving natural gas,
    condensing technology. We are very concerned that DOE will do
    as the gas industry has requested.
        These harmful policies represent a sharp break from how
    this program has been handled across prior administrations,
    both Republican and Democratic. Instead of building on the
    foundational energy policy of National Appliance Standards,
    this administration has taken a wrecking ball to it. The
    consequences will be higher utility bills for consumers,
    increased strain on our energy systems, more uncertainty for
    business, and needlessly higher levels of climate change and
    other pollution.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. deLaski follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. I thank the gentleman.
        The staff is trying to get you some refreshments. We will
    give them a moment to make sure that they replace the water for
    you.
        Now the Chair recognizes Ms. Kennedy for 5 minutes for the
    purposes of an opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF KATHERINE KENNEDY

        Ms. Kennedy. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify at this important hearing.
        My name is Katherine Kennedy, and I am a senior director of
    the climate and clean energy program at NRDC.
        Climate change is the existential threat of our time. 2018
    was the fourth warmest year on record. The human tool of
    climate change is immense, and the economic costs are reaching
    hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Indeed, nearly 20
    percent of the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2018 was in
    response to devastating wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and
    other natural disasters around the country.
        The impacts of climate change are felt most acutely by low-
    income communities and communities of color and by the most
    vulnerable Americans, especially children and the elderly. But,
    together, we can still avoid the worst impacts of climate
    change using tools and technologies that are already available,
    first and foremost, energy efficiency. We know how to solve
    this problem. The biggest risks are inaction and delay.
        As NRDC explained in our recent report ``America's Clean
    Energy Frontier: The Pathway to a Safer Climate Future,'' using
    energy more efficiently is crucial to America's efforts to
    fight climate change. It is our best weapon. Energy efficiency
    lowers carbon pollution and consumer energy bills, strengthens
    the electricity grid, and avoids the air and water pollution
    that threatens our health and that of our communities. Energy
    efficiency is the most equitable and affordable climate
    solution because, as it lowers carbon pollution, it also lowers
    the energy burden on low-income Americans.
        DOE's Appliance Standards Program has a strong bipartisan
    track record. It was created in 1987 under a Republican
    President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House. For
    four decades, it has enjoyed support, not only from groups like
    NRDC, but from consumer and low-income advocates, utilities,
    State officials, and many manufacturers.
        Our National Standards Program has already produced
    enormous carbon energy and dollar savings, but the best is
    still to come. As we energy wonks like to say, energy
    efficiency is the low-hanging fruit that keeps growing back.
    Opportunities for further energy efficiency keep growing as
    technology and innovation continue to advance.
        Now is the time to dramatically scale up our energy
    efficiency program. Appliances and equipment have long
    lifetimes. Each inefficient piece of equipment installed today
    in our homes, businesses, and factories helps to lock in a
    higher level of global warming. The more we delay, the harder
    it will be to reverse course.
        We should continue the tradition of bipartisan support for
    energy efficiency standards, but the current administration has
    brought the DOE efficiency standards program to a grinding halt
    and is trying to put it in reverse. The agency has not issued
    one new or updated energy efficiency standard, or even proposed
    any standards, under this administration other than those
    issued by the Obama administration or put in place by Congress.
        There is no room for excuses. DOE has clear legal deadlines
    to meet, and time and time again, this administration has
    failed to meet them. Instead, DOE is focused on unnecessary
    changes that will undermine the program and its impact. DOE is
    even attempting to gut lighting standards signed into law by
    President George W. Bush.
        Congress should be gravely concerned that DOE's illegal
    delays will have consequences stretching far beyond this
    administration. Fighting climate change without a robust energy
    efficiency standards program is like trying to finish a puzzle
    with missing pieces. It is harder, it takes longer, and in the
    end, it is impossible. That is not a risk we can afford to
    take.
        Instead of irresponsible and illegal delays and rollbacks,
    DOE should update energy efficiency standards on time and
    should act to expand the program's energy and carbon savings.
    This will benefit all Americans, our economy, and our
    environment, and will protect our children's future.
        Thank you, and I will be happy to respond to any
    questions.\1\

        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kennedy has been retained in
    committee files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/IF/IF03/20190307/109029/HHRG-116-IF03-Wstate-KennedyK-
    20190307.pdf.

        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. McGuire for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. McGUIRE

        Mr. McGuire. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify this morning on behalf of the home appliance industry.
        Our industry is a strong supporter of, and participant in,
    the appliance standards program since its creation. We strongly
    support a system of Federal standards and State preemption, and
    we do not support a rollback of any standards.
        The energy efficiency gains across major appliance
    categories are dramatic and undeniable. Modern refrigerators
    use the same amount of electricity as a 50-watt light bulb. A
    new clothes washer uses 73 percent less energy than it did in
    1990 but can hold 20 percent more laundry. Today's average
    dishwasher uses 50 percent less water than in 2001.
        While the appliance program is successful, it is in need of
    modernization. Over the years, regardless of the
    administration, concerns have arisen when DOE has failed to
    move in an efficacious manner, too slowly, too quickly, and
    with no real prioritization.
        In 2005, DOE was directed by Congress to issue a standard
    for battery chargers by 2008. That did not happen. In 2007, a
    new law compelled DOE to act no later than July 1st, 2011. DOE
    did not issue the final rule until 2016.
        And DOE has moved too quickly to publish a standard. The
    most alarming example of this was the 2015 proposed dishwasher
    rule. Manufacturer tests show that dishwashers could not clean
    dishes with such a small amount of water allowed by the
    standard. The economic analysis to support the proposed rule
    also showed the economic payback to the consumer was longer
    than the useful life of the product. To its credit, DOE did not
    dispute the test results provided by our Members and pulled the
    proposed standard back.
        The overarching historical problem is that DOE's work and
    resources are based on arbitrary timelines set forth under
    EPCA. DOE's resources should be used efficiently to manage
    energy savings, not maximize rulemakings.
        In the last two Congresses, AHAM has advocated amendments
    to achieve these modernizations. We would welcome action on
    such legislation by this committee and the 116th Congress in a
    bipartisan manner.
        Short of achieving such legislative reforms, we have urged
    DOE to adopt some of these reforms administratively. We are
    pleased that DOE has proposed important, but modest reforms in
    the past few weeks, and we look forward to studying them
    further and hope that the Department will implement them.
        To be clear, much of the current process rule stays intact
    under the latest reforms proposed by DOE. We support a few
    common-sense principles in the proposal. The first is that the
    agency should be required to follow the process it establishes
    to govern the regulatory program. Second, requirements in how
    to test a product should be final before a standard is
    proposed. Third, provide DOE the ability to better prioritize
    its regulatory work and to focus its resources on those
    products that offer the greatest opportunity for energy
    savings.
        And let me add a word about test procedures for home
    appliances. Virtually all Federal appliance efficiency test
    procedures were initially built on industry-developed test
    standards. The new process rule requires DOE to rely on these
    voluntary accredited standards consistent with OMB directives,
    where appropriate. DOE always had, and will continue to have,
    the ultimate says on Federal test procedure construction.
        Our objective is to improve the regulatory environment in
    measurable ways that foster a fair, more predictable, more
    open, and more efficient regulatory landscape. We will continue
    to live up to our responsibility to provide consumers with
    life-enhancing products that deliver superior performance and
    energy and environmental benefits.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, in summary,
    we call on Congress to modernize EPCA, so that DOE can better
    prioritize its work based on potential energy savings, improved
    transparency, and stakeholder engagement, and a logical
    sequence to proposing test procedures and standards.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be
    happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Harak for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF CHARLES HARAK

        Mr. Harak. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton,
    and members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity
    for allowing the National Consumer Law Center to offer
    testimony. It is truly a privilege to have the opportunity to
    provide NCLC's perspective on why regularly updated appliance
    standards are so important for low-income consumers.
        Appliance standards make home energy more affordable. For
    low-income consumers, this means fewer terminations of utility
    service and homes that are more comfortable and healthier to
    live in. Even from a narrow Federal budget perspective,
    appliance standards help stretch Federal fuel assistance
    dollars, the program referenced by the Congresswoman from
    Delaware, by lowering the household's heating and cooling
    bills.
        To provide some context for my comments, I will share some
    calls I had with a low-income consumer recently. The woman--I
    will call her Susan--had been living without heat for three
    weeks because her landlady had done nothing to fix her heating
    system after it had stopped working. Susan is a working single
    mom with a school-age child. While her heat was out, Boston had
    temperatures below 10 degrees, at the same time that the
    Midwest was experiencing record cold temperatures. Her
    apartment was so cold that her son had a hard time getting up
    and going to school, as he was anxious and lethargic. While the
    local board of health eventually cited the owner for serious
    sanitary code infractions, Susan had to tell the owner she
    would be going to court in order to get the heating system
    working again.
        For those of us who work with low-income households,
    experience teaches that, when owners replace failed equipment
    like the heating systems in Susan's home, they often go out and
    buy the lowest-cost and least-efficient unit that will replace
    the failed appliance. This leaves the tenants with higher
    energy bills.
        This is why imposing minimum appliance efficiency standards
    is so important for low-income people, in particular. They are
    disproportionately renters. While the homeownership rate for
    the country as a whole is around 64 percent, homeownership
    rates among low-income households are around 30 percent.
        The major appliances which contribute most to energy bills,
    heating systems, air conditioners, water heaters, are almost
    always purchased by the owner. In the absence of good
    standards, low-income renters will become saddled with
    inefficient equipment and needlessly high bills for years.
        While some critics voice concerns about the cost of
    adopting efficiency standards, the Department of Energy
    operates under statutory mandates that require it to ensure
    that standards adopted provide net benefits to consumers. The
    statutory language which the Assistant Secretary referenced, I
    will quote it. ``Any new or amended energy conservation
    standard shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
    in efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically
    feasible and economically justified.''
        Historically, the Department has taken quite seriously
    those last five words, ``technologically feasible and
    economically justified''. My office, the National Consumer Law
    Center, has been in several Department standards dockets. They
    do take years to complete, involve extensive analysis of the
    economic impacts on consumers, on manufacturers, and on the
    economy, and allow for all stakeholders to be heard.
        The Department's own web page says, ``DOE regulations
    governing covered appliances...are established through a
    rulemaking process that provides opportunities for public
    review and comment. Manufacturers, distributors, energy
    suppliers, efficiency and environmental advocates, and other
    members of the public are encouraged to participate in
    rulemakings.'' And, in fact, they do.
        If NCLC would make any criticism of the Department's
    process, we would note that it has consistently erred on the
    side of overestimating the cost of manufacturers complying with
    the standards. Products sold after the standards go into effect
    often cost less than estimated, and consumer benefits have,
    therefore, been even greater than predicted.
        The net benefits to consumers of appliance standards are
    impressive. The Department estimates--again, I am quoting their
    website--``standards saved American consumers $63 billion on
    their utility bills in 2015''. Energy efficiency groups agree
    that standards have saved consumers billions of dollars in the
    near term and much more in the long term.
        Consumers, thus, face significant harm when the Department
    unreasonably misses deadlines for updating appliance standards.
    The failure to promptly revise standards leaves consumers worse
    off, as the sale of less efficient products leads to higher
    energy for the life of the product purchased. For major
    residential products, heating systems, air conditioners, water
    heaters, the aggregate loss to consumers can easily reach
    hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on how the late the
    Department is in finally revising that standard. Moreover,
    because the more efficient products will result in lower energy
    bills, failure to revise standards can affect consumer health
    as well, since higher energy bills lead directly to
    terminations.
        In conclusion, we applaud the committee for holding this
    important hearing and hope the committee will succeed in
    getting the Department to meet all deadlines.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Harak follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the witness.
        And now, the Chair recognizes Mr. Yurek for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF STEPHEN R. YUREK

        Mr. Yurek. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Upton, and members
    of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to testify
    this morning on the topic, or this afternoon.
        Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton.
        AHRI has 320 member companies that manufacture air
    conditioning, space heating, water heating, and commercial
    refrigeration equipment that supports over 100,000 U.S.
    manufacturing jobs and more than 1.3 million American jobs
    throughout its supply and distribution chain. And I want to
    make it very clear that our industry has a long and proven
    record of leadership when it comes to innovation and energy
    efficiency.
        I am here today to discuss three main points.
        First, we agree that the Department of Energy should do all
    it can to promulgate regulations in a timely manner while
    adhering to the requirements that energy standards be
    technically feasible and economically justified. Our industry
    is unequivocally opposed to delays in rulemakings, as we always
    have been. In fact, in 2005, we joined a lawsuit against DOE to
    require them to issue rules in a timely manner.
        However, the amendments enacted in EPACT 2007 actually
    increases the burden on DOE by mandating a six-year review of
    all efficiency standards and a seven-year review of all test
    procedures. AHRI and its members' companies are best served
    when the proper amount of time is devoted to each rulemaking,
    rather than cut short because of the need to catch up to meet a
    standard.
        The history of feast-or-famine rulemaking by DOE negatively
    impacts consumers and manufacturers. For consumers, it
    increases the cost of products they rely on for their comfort,
    health, and safety. For manufacturers, it increases uncertainty
    and hampers planning for future research, development, testing,
    and production of the next generation of equipment. Therefore,
    we join the subcommittee in its call for DOE to do everything
    it can to complete rulemakings in a timely manner.
        Second, we applaud DOE for recently issuing a proposed rule
    updating the process rule. While we will submit comments with
    suggestions on ways that the proposed rule might be improved,
    we are pleased that DOE intends for the rule to be binding on
    the Department, rather than mere guidance, as claimed by DOE in
    the past. When all parties are aware of the process,
    rulemakings are more transparent, economical, and predictable.
        Finally, we believe that the above two points make the case
    for a bipartisan congressional action to reauthorize and reform
    the nearly 45-year-old EPCA to bring it into the 21st century.
    While EPCA was a bipartisan response to the energy crisis of
    the mid-1970s, and it has been extremely successful, the fact
    remains, it is nearly 45 years old, and a tremendous amount has
    changed since then.
        EPCA reform should stress flexibility, enhance technical
    and economic justification. Given short shrift to such analysis
    in order to meet arbitrary statutory deadlines results in
    poorly-constructed rules that place undue burdens on small
    businesses with wide-ranging ramifications for our industry and
    the 1.3 million employees who depend on it.
        Under current law, before a standard is even in effect, DOE
    must announce the commencement of its work on the next version
    of that standard, all to comply with the six-year mandated
    rulemaking cycle. We are not suggesting no additional
    rulemakings, nor would we ever suggest rolling back efficiency
    standards for any product category. Manufacturers in the market
    are simply not given enough time to adjust to new regulatory
    requirements. Our equipment is designed to remain in service
    for more than a decade. So the market for new products must be
    viewed in the long term, not in six-year increments.
        A reformed EPCA would require the new rulemakings to
    include a look-back to determine the effectiveness of the
    previous rule as it pertains to actual energy savings and
    associated costs. Every time DOE issues a new rule, it issues a
    press release that extols its estimates of the rule's benefits
    and cost savings for consumers and energy savings for the
    nation. But DOE has never looked back to see what the energy
    savings were or if consumers ever recovered the additional
    money it costs them upfront for the more efficient equipment.
    This needs to change.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, many people
    believe that a divided Government such as we have today makes
    it less likely for progress to be achieved on important issues.
    We do not see it that way. Rather, we see this as an
    opportunity for people of good will to meet in a spirit of
    cooperation and compromise to bring about necessary change.
    Therefore, the opportune time for updating EPCA is now.
        AHRI and our Members are committed to openness and
    cooperation with Congress, allied trade associations,
    efficiency advocates, and the DOE on ways we can all work
    together to improve this nearly 45-year-old law. We invite all
    stakeholders to join us and work together to craft an updated
    regulatory scheme that meets the needs of the current and
    future market while achieving the nation's energy goals.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Yurek follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. That concludes the opening statements.
        Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Friedman, please accept my apology. You
    are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF DAVID J. FRIEDMAN

        Mr. Friedman. I apologize. Dealing with technical
    difficulties.
        Mr. Upton. You just feel like the President; you get three
    mikes, right?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Friedman. There you go. There you go. I just want to be
    closer to the middle, I guess.
        Well, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and members of
    the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of Consumer Reports, our more than 6 million members,
    and Americans, who together spend nearly $325 billion a year on
    their household energy bills.
        Now, as a nation, we have known for more than 240 years
    that some truths are self-evident. So with tongue partly in
    cheek, I would point to the self-evident truth that the
    cheapest energy is the energy you never use, and it is energy
    efficiency standards that deliver just that. Or, to use the
    Assistant Secretary's frame, the most affordable energy is the
    energy you never use.
        Now I saw that self-evident truth firsthand when I sat in
    the same chair as the Assistant Secretary a few years ago. When
    the Department of Energy is active on energy efficiency
    standards, the benefits truly add up. In fact, they have
    delivered a 5-to-1 return on investment for every American that
    should be the envy of Wall Street.
        And here, investment is truly a keyword. These standards
    are an investment in American ingenuity. Our top companies look
    to these standards both for market certainty and to continue
    driving innovations into the market. They create a series of
    good, better, and best models of a product and count on DOE
    staff to survey that progress as they set the next standard.
    These companies see their R&D dollars pay off and create new
    jobs as the market changes while consumers save a lot of money
    from this virtuous cycle.
        The only other option, frankly, is a race to the bottom,
    which is what will happen if we buy into those here who seem to
    think that American ingenuity is nearly tapped out. Plenty of
    company's overseas are happy to keep the bar low, dumping their
    barely compliant products on our markets while other countries
    get the latest technology.
        Now, in contrast, as I think you have already heard today,
    lighting shows what happens when you invest in innovation. You
    can walk through any hardware store now and you can choose LEDs
    that have daylight, soft white, dimmable bulbs, programmable
    bulbs, floodlights, candelabra lights, bulb lights, Christmas
    lights. I even saw some menorah lights. You can get anything
    you need, and all those amazing choices are thanks to a mix of
    efficiency standards set by Congress in this case and other
    investments in innovation.
        Now, building on this success story, near the end of my
    time at DOE, staff put forward a well-reasoned plan to expand
    the definition of general service lamps, so more choices and
    savings could be available for more Americans. This
    administration's rollback will reduce consumer choice and make
    utility bills less affordable.
        Now, from reading the proposal, the decision was clearly
    not about consumers or affordable energy. Instead, they
    appeared to rely on legal gymnastics to argue that what was
    perfectly legal in 2016 was no longer allowed just a few years
    later. Of course, the law didn't change.
        Adding insult to injury, the Department's process rule
    update is filled with red tape. And frankly, I find it shocking
    that, when Congress puts down deadlines or creates process, it
    is called arbitrary; it is called optional. And yet, when we
    have new administration process, it is called necessary and
    must be binding. I don't think that is the way the Constitution
    works.
        DOE should be focused on helping Americans, not adding new
    red tape that further slows down the process and appears
    designed to help companies tie up these standards in courts.
    Making matters worse, the proposal sets an arbitrary threshold
    for whether or not some household products can ever get a new
    or stronger standard.
        This retrospective-based threshold is completely out of
    step with modern life, where we rely on consumer electronics
    and other gadgets that don't use a ton of energy individually,
    but together account for nearly 40 percent of home electricity
    use. That shouldn't be off limits.
        Now, sadly, administration decisions that leave American
    consumers footing the bill are all too common these days. From
    rollbacks on fuel economy standards that will cost consumers
    more than $400 billion to rollbacks on predatory loan
    protections and net neutrality, the scales are being tipped
    further and further away from everyday Americans. The solution
    is for all of us, consumers, Government, and leading
    businesses, to ensure that innovation and technological
    progress serve the interests of the American people again. And
    that means being guided by self-evident truths.
        In closing, developing standards that allow the talented
    Federal staff to get back to work on timely, transparent, data-
    driven standards that will save consumers money and help put
    the marketplace back in balance. And I hope that is what we can
    deliver together.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the witnesses, all the witnesses.
        We have now concluded the opening statements, and will move
    toward member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask
    questions of our witnesses. And I will begin by recognizing
    myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harak, when did the National Consumer Law Center first
    become involved with DOE appliance standard dockets and why?
    And initially, how does the delay of rulemaking of efficiency
    standards impact low-income consumers?
        Mr. Harak. I jointed the National Consumer Law Center in
    2000. And it may be no surprise, this is not our primary work,
    appliance standards. We are mostly trying to make sure people
    don't freeze in the winter of cold and die of the heat in
    summer, have the lights on and the appliances they need.
        But some of my colleagues here brought to my attention that
    there were standards proceedings. And at the time, the furnace
    standards proceedings were moving. And it became apparent that
    that is a really important issue for low-income consumers.
        I live in Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, you are in Illinois.
    These are cold States where people's heating bills are just
    about the largest bill they face. And if they lose their
    heating, that is one of the gravest threats they can face.
        So we became involved in this from the perspective that it
    is very important for there to be standards that keep bills
    down on those major appliances for low-income people, and as I
    mentioned in my testimony, particularly because they are so
    disproportionately tenants. No tenant buys a heating system.
    Tenants don't buy a lot of the major appliances, and they
    really can be saddled with bills.
        And so when you ask about what is the impact of delay, you
    heard a little bit from the Assistant Secretary there is a
    pretty complicated scheme of what DOE looks at. And one of the
    things they look at is the percentage of consumers who are
    better off if the standard passes and the percentage who are
    not. There is always some shakedown between that. But when DOE
    issues the rules, because the vast majority of people would
    benefit by that standard getting out the door, well, the
    logical converse of that is, if you don't get it out of the
    door, the majority of consumers are going to be harmed because
    those less efficient appliances are in the market.
        And it is perhaps why I started with the story about that
    client with their heating system down. That is the reality of
    appliance standards. It is important when a Susan of the world
    has her heating system down, that the landlord cannot buy
    something that is extremely inefficient.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Friedman, as a former Principal Deputy
    Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy's
    Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, can you
    briefly discuss the important role that negotiated rulemakings
    have played in building consensus? From your understanding, how
    would this new process rule impact negotiated rulemaking?
        Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
        The vast majority of the times DOE staff is able to dive
    in, look at the data, and produce standards that work for all
    Americans and work for industry. At times, some of the
    standards are more controversial. And so staff rely on a
    negotiated rulemaking process, which it is pretty
    straightforward. You get everyone around the table, and you
    talk about what works, and you try to find a consensus that
    helps everyone. It has been incredibly successful at breaking
    through logjams.
        One of the things I fear that is going to happen with this
    new process rule is, if it is binding, it is going to allow
    companies to tie up every single step in the courts, so you
    will never even get to negotiated rulemaking. And you would
    strangle the opportunity for industry and consumers to work
    together with Government to make things better for all.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. deLaski, do you have any input that you would
    like to offer on the same question?
        Mr. deLaski. Yes. I served as the chair of the Federal
    advisory committee that worked on negotiating rulemakings from
    2012 until 2018.
        I am concerned that the process rule as proposed would make
    successful negotiation far less likely, for the reasons that
    Mr. Friedman has described. That is probably first and
    foremost, is that it is going to freeze up the process
    altogether. So why negotiation if there is no risk that the
    Department is going to act at all, right? So the incentive to
    come to the table to negotiate has been massively reduced.
        The second thing I thought--I think all of us actually
    would agree on this--is that it takes away the ability to do
    creative things in negotiation that enable success, like
    looking at flexible compliance dates, such as looking at
    different standards for different equipment types. So some of
    that flexibility that they have taken away by the process rule
    will really reduce the ability for--when you take away options
    off the table, that makes agreement harder to achieve. And that
    is what the process rule as proposed would do.
        Mr. Rush. That concludes Mr. Pallone's time. The Chair now
    recognizes the ranking member for 5 minutes for purposes of
    questioning the witnesses.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, I appreciate all of your testimony. I think that it
    is pretty apparent that all of us want appliance standards,
    energy efficiency standards for appliances.
        Mr. Friedman, you made a very good point that the industry
    does want these, particularly the domestic industry here,
    because we can beat anyone else in the rest of the world. We
    also know that there is a direct payback to all the Americans
    that are able to use that.
        I know, Mr. McGuire, you share that. As AHAM, you know that
    your member companies share those same views.
        I have a couple of comments. Mr. McGuire, you indicated in
    your testimony--you didn't read it all, which is good because
    you summarized it--but you said, on page 9, ``Home appliances
    are now in an endless cycle of regulation, where as soon as one
    compliance effort ends or is near completion, another round of
    regulation to change the standard again begins. . . . no time
    for manufacturers to catch their breath. Just as importantly,
    there is no time for DOE, manufacturers, or efficiency
    advocates to assess the success of standards or review their
    impacts on consumers and manufacturers.''
        What should the timing be? Should it come at a certain
    period after the regulations are finalized? What should that
    look-back period be? What would you suggest?
        Mr. McGuire. First of all, the six-year look-back, that
    clock starts running as soon as the rulemaking is completed for
    the standard. So before the companies have the ability to sell
    through product to the existing standard, DOE is already in the
    process of a rulemaking to change it. So the manufacturers have
    to be involved in that.
        The other fundamental problem is that there is a six-year
    look-back for standards; there is a seven-year look-back for
    test procedures. They are out of sequence. You have to have a
    completed test procedure before you can test a product to see
    how much energy it uses and if it can meet the standard. So we
    think that sequence needs to be changed, needs to be looked at.
        And secondly, DOE is really hamstrung between the statutory
    look-back requirement and the statutory balancing test of
    maximum technological feasibility, significant energy savings,
    and economic justification. They are hamstrung. They are never
    going to have the resources. They never have had the resources
    to do a good job on all these rulemakings at the same time. We
    have seen the perils of when they try to do that.
        So a new process, an amendment to EPCA could be that, for
    some products that have been through three and four different
    standards, the diminishing returns of the energy savings are
    there. Those products ought to be in a separate class where
    they don't have to go through a serial look-back every time,
    unless, as Assistant Secretary Simmons said, through R&D that
    DOE does or that companies do, a technological breakthrough is
    determined, and then, a quick look can happen.
        So there needs to be prioritization. Vast energy savings
    have been achieved for many products and we are at a
    diminishing return for others. So DOE should not be spending a
    lot of the time on the products that only delivered 4 percent
    of all the energy savings. And the Congress and I think just
    about every group at this table could work together on trying
    to find a solution to this law, which has had success.
        Mr. Upton. I want Mr. Friedman to respond to that. But
    also, the actual testing of the appliances, it is not like here
    in DC at DOE, right? At Consumer Reports, you have your own
    labs where you test them? Or do you take the data from the
    companies themselves?
        You have got to use the three mikes again.
        Mr. Friedman. At Consumer Reports, yes, we have our own
    testing labs up in Yonkers, New York, as well as an auto test
    track out in Connecticut. So we rely on our own data. We take
    no advertising dollars. We take no samples. We ensure that all
    of our results are independent. And similarly, the Federal
    Government----
        Mr. Upton. And do they usually match up with what the
    ENERGY STAR labels indicate?
        Mr. Friedman. We don't do compliance testing. We do
    comparative testing. So it would be unfair to necessarily
    compare their data to our data. We try to make sure that
    consumers can make the best choices when they walk into the
    marketplace; whereas, the Department of Energy's role is to
    ensure that a rising tide lifts all boats. Whereas, we help
    people find the very best of the best that are out there.
        I would also just add, I personally think the staff did an
    amazing job during the Obama administration of producing a lot
    of rules, and they were in a tough spot, right? They were
    trying to catch up after years of neglect of the program. They
    worked quite well under existing processes and helped many,
    many, many Americans save quite a lot of resources.
        I would also just add that it is surprising to me, the lack
    of faith that folks have in American innovation and the ability
    to keep pushing the boundaries of technology. If anything, the
    pace of innovation is changing so fast that, six years from
    now, you know, this is probably going to be obsolete. So the
    ability of the Department to not just keep up with but try to
    stay ahead of technology and move quickly is incredibly
    important. I would hate to see anything slow down, given the
    pace of innovation in this country, which I know you share a
    faith in.
        Mr. Upton. Just to conclude, because I know my time has
    expired, we are going to see amazing energy savings in a whole
    host of products. And I am going to be talking to Mr. Pallone
    later about actually having a hearing on where we are going in
    the future.
        So with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to continue with Mr. Friedman, but your name
    tags are all messed up, just for the purposes of the TV.
        So Mr. McGuire had an interesting idea about triaging the
    right kind of technology to focus on. Do you have an objection
    to that? Does that make sense to you, the notion that if
    something has gone through standards and there has been no
    basic research that has informed the technology, that we would
    focus on other things? Is that objectionable?
        Mr. Friedman. I am an engineer. I am very practicable about
    things. So I see no objection to that, but I also see no reason
    to add new red tape to get there. The DOE staff is perfectly
    capable of looking at the data, seeing whether or not there is
    a significant opportunity, and moving forward with other
    opportunities. Adding more red tape doesn't actually speed that
    up. It slows it down. So again, I would go back to there are
    really talented folks there. Let them do their work.
        Mr. Peters. Right I guess the question, the point he was
    raising is that there may be more return on applying their work
    in particular areas rather than others. And that is something
    that should be left to them, you think?
        Mr. Peters. Well, absolutely. I mean, obviously, technology
    allows much more return to keep happening than we might expect
    today. And it is DOE's staff's job to keep up-to-date on that,
    and they can already, under the current process, make decisions
    like that to focus on areas that can deliver the most savings.
    With others, if they can't, they just say they are not ready to
    be updated.
        Mr. Peters. Let me ask Mr. McGuire, what is it that keeps
    them from making that decision on their own?
        Mr. McGuire. I think the statute and resources prevent them
    from doing a realistic----
        Mr. Peters. What about the statute prevents that, though?
        Mr. McGuire. Because of the look-back requirements out of
    synch between standards and test procedures balanced against
    this test of savings of energy and economic justification. So
    no real prioritization has really occurred. Every look-back,
    except for I think one, has resulted in a full-blown rulemaking
    to go forward. The only time in our products that didn't happen
    was, after the new standard was proposed, we demonstrated that
    it would harm performance of the product. And then, DOE pulled
    it back. So the process worked.
        Mr. Peters. So I think it is a reasonable point to raise as
    we do some reform here.
        Ms. Kennedy, I wanted to ask you, do you perceive the
    issues that you have with the regime as mostly in the nature of
    oversight of how things are administered or do you think that
    there are statutory changes that are needed in the field to
    make sure that we are supporting climate change to the greatest
    extent or supporting climate action to the greatest extent
    possible?
        Ms. Kennedy. Well, certainly, there is a need for
    comprehensive U.S. climate legislation to address both clean
    energy and the climate crisis. Within the four corners of EPCA,
    this statute, I think that this subcommittee should look
    closely at opportunities to expand the program, as should the
    Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has the ability
    to expand the scope of the program in various ways. Of course,
    Congress, over the years, has added new products to the
    statute, such as lighting, and has, thus, brought to the fore
    really incredible energy efficiency change.
        Mr. Peters. And I think lighting has been a tremendous
    success. I want to know if you are aware of other things out
    there that we should be considering as a legislative body
    today.
        Ms. Kennedy. I think looking at the issue of consumer
    electronics is very important. And I would also counsel you
    that the products already covered by the statute can still
    produce significant energy efficiency improvements. So this
    idea in the process rule that we should set an arbitrary
    standard for energy efficiency savings of .5 quads is really
    misguided. We need all the energy efficiency savings we can
    get. The statute makes sure that every standard is economically
    justified, whether the savings are immense or slightly less so.
        Mr. Peters. Just really what I am trying to do is make sure
    that I understand what legislative action is required because I
    can't tell the administration how to administer this. So if we
    give them authority to do great things, and they decide they
    don't want to do that, that is their call. But what I need to
    know, and I ask for all of you going forward, is, if you would
    like to see reforms--and, Mr. Yurek, I think you are Mr. Yurek?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Yurek, you had some ideas specifically. I would like to
    know specifically what you would like to see in terms of
    reform, so we can get about doing the job that we need to do.
        I also take up Mr. Upton's suggestion that we talk about
    consumer electronics because that is probably something that
    the legislature hasn't looked at.
        But, again, not to be parochial, but I need to know what we
    want to put into legislation. And so to the extent you can help
    us with that, we will look forward to working with you all.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. Kennedy. Just looking at the example of California, if
    I may, should provide lots of ideas for Congress to----
        Mr. Peters. Of course you are right.
        [Laughter.]
        My time has expired.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    today's hearing.
        And to our panel of witnesses, thanks very much for being
    with us today.
        Mr. McGuire or Mr. Yurek, as you are probably aware, in the
    last Congress I worked on, and will continue to work on in this
    Congress, bipartisan EPCA reform. In your views, what should
    Congress prioritize as we consider modernizing EPCA. Mr.
    McGuire, I will start with you.
         Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Latta.
        Well, I think, first of all, with regard to the rulemaking
    process, addressing the look-back timeframe for standards and
    test procedures, and to consider a provision where they at
    least could be coordinated better. But, secondly, for those
    products that have been through several standards, generations
    of standards, such as home appliances, they would essentially
    go to the bottom of the list in terms of DOE prioritizing work
    looking for significant energy savings.
        And I think this quick assessment that DOE proposed is a
    good concept to think about, so that there is a bright-line
    threshold for significant energy savings. If that can't be
    found, and it is overwhelming that it can't be found, why spend
    three years on a rulemaking trying to determine if it is
    economically justified?
        Mr. Latta. Mr. Yurek?
        Mr. Yurek. I would agree with the position taken by Mr.
    McGuire, but I think it is really looking at this and saying,
    what was done before 2007 was DOE prioritized the rules that
    need to be done and concentrated on those where they saw the
    greatest energy savings. The amendment of EPACT 2007, then, all
    of a sudden, put these mandatory six-year reviews for
    standards, seven years for test procedures into the act for all
    products. And for all products, it doesn't make sense.
        So I think it is looking at how can you give DOE the
    authority to look at this, prioritize what needs to be done,
    focus on the products where we are going to have the energy
    savings and can get those right away versus wasting all this
    time doing all these evaluations. Yes, the clothes washer
    procedure worked that time, but that took how many years?
    Three-four years of DOE staff time analysis and other things,
    the industry's time, for something where there was no energy
    savings. Instead, look at it, figure out how we can prioritize
    it, and focus on where the biggest energy savings are.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. McGuire, you mentioned in your written testimony the
    example of DOE's proposed standard for dishwashers and how the
    standard was such that some dishwashers could no longer get the
    job done. And this is a good example of something that I want
    to make sure that DOE is taking into consideration. How does
    DOE ensure that a proposed standard won't negatively impact
    product performance? Because we have heard from other Members
    up here about you don't want to end up having to do the thing,
    whatever you are doing with that appliance, twice or three
    times because you are wasting more energy.
        Mr. McGuire. Right. Well, I think Mr. Simmons described the
    dilemma the Department has in making sure that the performance
    of the product isn't jeopardized. And that, in part, has led to
    difficulty meeting the statutory deadlines.
        In the case of dishwashers, DOE had proposed the most
    stringent of three options in terms of reducing energy and
    water use. And our industry during the proceedings said we
    think that most stringent level is not going to work for the
    product, and the process didn't allow enough time for our
    industry to test products for performance. And DOE proposed
    this most stringent level. We, then, did the testing, and it
    was clear that products from multiple manufacturers could not
    clean the dishes.
        So there is something wrong with a process that goes--they
    missed that on the performance. You could say, well, we caught
    it in our comments, but that could have been done before DOE
    reached----
        Mr. Latta. If I can interrupt, OK, so when that occurred,
    what did DOE tell you? You are saying that we are having
    problems, but they say just keeping going anyway?
        Mr. McGuire. Well, they said their consultant said it is
    fine, that it won't be a performance problem. That is why we
    undertook the testing in the laboratories that are used for
    compliance for DOE, ENERGY STAR, and standards, and proved
    without a doubt that multiple loads of dishes could not be
    cleaned with about one gallon of water in a cycle. That is what
    they had reduced it to, 1.1 gallons. We showed them that, and
    they said, ``You're right.'' And then, they pulled it back and
    said no standard is justified.
        And by the way, the standard that they had proposed had a
    payback to the consumer of 20 years. The life cycle of a
    product, of a dishwasher, is 13 years. How does that make
    sense?
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee chairman, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Assistant Secretary Simmons stated on the first panel that
    the proposed process rule is to, quote, ``reduce the burden of
    the process to create tests and implement new energy efficiency
    standards''. But, after reviewing the proposed process rule, it
    appears to me that steps are added to the process, with the
    appearance of lengthening the process. While the proposed
    process rule is thin on some details, I count about 17 steps to
    make and implement a new standard. And I find it hard to
    believe it will be more efficient.
        So I wanted to ask Mr. deLaski, can you walk the committee
    through the standard-making process under the proposed process
    rule? And compared to the current rulemaking process, how much
    longer do you estimate that each rulemaking will take under
    this proposed process?
        Mr. deLaski. I am not sure I could walk you through it. I
    have a colleague who has mapped it out for us.
        Mr. Pallone. OK, that is good enough.
        Mr. deLaski. It is complicated.
        Mr. Pallone. Explain it, though, because I won't follow
    that.
        Mr. deLaski. There is a lot of steps on this. The current
    process, under ideal circumstances, the current process takes
    about three years. This has added multiple additional steps.
    And as has been referenced earlier, some of these earlier steps
    now become a final step that would be a possibility for
    litigation.
        So if the current process takes three years--at best, I
    would submit to you that, typically, it takes longer, as we
    have heard sometimes today--based on my experience working with
    the program over the past 20 years, I would expect that this is
    likely a recipe to at least double the duration of the process,
    if not just shut it down altogether, because of the litigation
    that you are creating possibilities for.
        Mr. Pallone. That sounds like great streamlining.
        Mr. Chairman, do we have that sheet that Mr. deLaski--can
    we enter that into the record?
        Mr. deLaski. I would be glad to submit it for the record.
    This is our first draft, and we will be working to finalize it.
        Mr. Pallone. You will send us something?
        Mr. deLaski. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Well, in my opinion, these 17 steps in the rulemaking
    process, including the six public comment periods, are going to
    add years of delay, you said twice, and in some cases may block
    a standard from being implemented at all, which is what you
    said. Again, I am all for transparency, but this seems to me
    like delay masquerading as transparency, in all honesty.
        Now, in Assistant Secretary Simmons' testimony, he stated
    that DOE has issued seven final rules since President Trump
    took office. I was going to ask Ms. Kennedy, can you comment on
    this number? Does this represent work completed during the
    Trump administration or was some of this work completed by the
    Obama Department of Energy?
        Ms. Kennedy. It does not represent work undertaken by this
    administration. I will check on this and get back to you, but I
    believe that five of those standards which the Assistant
    Secretary referred to were issued under the Obama
    administration and two were congressional standards which
    really needed to be posted. But I will check on that and get
    back to you.
        Mr. Simmons acknowledged that there are 16 overdue
    standards that this administration hasn't issued and also,
    referred to the four Obama era efficiency standards which made
    it all the way through under that administration but have not
    been published in The Federal Register since 2016.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. deLaski, I would like you, if you have anything to add
    to Ms. Kennedy's comments on that. But, then, I also wanted to
    ask you, I understand that appliance standards are saving
    people a lot of money and helping cut climate change emissions,
    but you also mentioned in your statement that they can help
    with resiliency, reliability, and affordability. So if you want
    to add to what Ms. Kennedy said, and then, if you could explain
    a bit more about what you said on resiliency, reliability and
    affordability?
        Mr. deLaski. Yes, I would be glad to do so. And just to
    follow up on Ms. Kennedy's comments, none of those seven
    standards represent substantive work by the current Department
    of Energy administration. They have not issued a single
    proposal for a new standard or a single proposal for a final
    standard that is the result of work under this administration.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks.
        Mr. deLaski. With respect to your second question,
    resiliency, it is often an overlooked benefit that we get from
    improving efficiency of all of our products. On the sweltering
    summer day when the electricity grid is struggling to keep up
    with the demand of people's air conditioners, it matters
    enormously how energy efficient those air conditioners are. By
    keeping down the demand levels--the electric grid has to match
    up. Demand and supply have to match up. And as the demand goes
    through the roof, if supply doesn't keep up, it leads to
    outages.
        The same thing on the heating side. When the polar vortex
    hits, the furnaces, the efficiency of furnaces in our homes
    affects the ability of the natural gas supply system to keep
    up. If the system can't keep up, if the pressure can't be kept
    up, then people suffer. So by keeping efficiency in place, we
    are building resiliency into the electric supply and the gas
    supply system that, ultimately, helps consumers to stay warm or
    to stay cool and to be safe.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank Mr, Pallone. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. So here is the dilemma we have. I think we
    all want things to be more energy efficient, but we want
    products, when we go to buy them, to actually do what they are
    supposed to do and what they are purported to do, and not have
    to spend three times or double the cost to get our dishwasher
    working, to get our clothes washer working, to have our
    refrigerators working. I mean, that is the dilemma, and it is
    good that we are having this hearing, Mr. Chairman, so that we
    can try to sort these things out.
        But I did find it of interest, I had this thing that my
    constituent sent me, and it is a little old, about the washing
    machines that I mentioned in the previous hearing and have
    mentioned a couple of times over the years, because I had a
    constituent that was all fired-up about it. And I noticed in
    there that--and it is a little old, so I understand that;
    things may have gotten better. But, in 2007, according to this
    piece out of The Wall Street Journal, after the more stringent
    rules kicked in, Consumer Reports noted that some top-loaders--
    washing machines we are talking about--were leaving its test
    swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For the
    first time in years, Consumer Reports said, ``We can't call any
    washer a Best Buy.''
        ``In 2007''--again, I am acknowledging it is a little old,
    so I am not saying it is something we should take to heart
    today, but it shows the point that consumers are having the
    problem with--``in 2007, only one conventional top-loader was
    rated `very good.' Front-loaders did better, as did a new type
    of high-efficiency top-loader that lacks a central agitator.
    But, even though these newer types of washers cost about twice
    as much as conventional top-loaders, overall, they didn't clean
    as well as the 1996 models.''
        My dishwasher is newer now than it was three years ago. Got
    a new dishwasher. I find, as you, Mr. McGuire, pointed out, and
    even though that reg didn't come in, I am doing a whole lot
    more washing of the dishes before I stick them in the
    dishwasher. And I actually mentioned to my wife, maybe we
    should just not have one if they are not going to clean the
    dishes. And she said, yes, but the temperature gets hotter in
    the dishwasher and that helps to sanitize them. But when I am
    at home, I am washing those dishes and I am cleaning everything
    off of them because I don't trust the dishwasher. I am not
    going to pull that dish out of the dishwasher and serve it to
    somebody with specks of stuff on it.
        Mr. McGuire, isn't that the problem that you have been
    trying to highlight? Even though my dishwasher may not be the
    cause of the latest regs, but isn't that what consumers are
    finding out there?
        Mr. McGuire. It is a very important feature of the
    balancing test that Congress enacted into EPCA and DOE has to
    deal with. Significant energy savings, economic payback, and
    don't wreck the product. It has got to deliver performance.
        And our industry is in everyone's home every day. Our
    products have to be trusted. And so in the case of the
    dishwasher I had mentioned, fortunately, that was pulled back
    by DOE. But, in some of these home appliances, like clothes
    washers or cooking products, there are diminishing returns that
    make the payback questionable.
        We are not here arguing about whether there should be
    efficiency standards. We all agree on that. We are talking
    about how you do it and how you prioritize with limited
    resources.
        So we believe that today's dishwashers that meet today's
    standards perform very well. And I am sorry to hear about your
    neighbor's clothes washer.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes, and I don't think my dishwasher that I
    have now works as well as the one that was 15 or 20 years old
    before. But that is just anecdotal.
        Mr. McGuire. It should. It just uses less water, but it
    should operate just as well.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes. And then, you wanted to talk about----
        Mr. Friedman. As the representative of the Consumer
    Reports, could I just respond to that really quickly?
        Mr. Griffith. Well, sure. Do you have an update for me? Can
    you send me that data? Just send it to me because my time is
    running out.
        Mr. Friedman. I am happy to send it to you.
        We put out a letter to the editor of The Wall Street
    Journal because they misrepresented our data.
        Mr. Griffith. OK.
        Mr. Friedman. So that is an inaccurate reference.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. Well, that is fair. And I
    appreciate you letting me know that because I want accurate
    data.
        Mr. Friedman. I am happy to help.
        Mr. Griffith. The problem is the consumer is feeling like
    they are getting less. They are spending more money on the
    product that they bought before, a lot more money, and they are
    not getting the product that they thought they were getting.
    And they feel like they are not getting as much. I think we
    have to make sure we have that balance out there.
        Refrigerators, you wanted to talk about that a little bit,
    Mr. McGuire? You had talked about the efficiency on
    refrigerators for not a whole lot of money or for a whole lot
    of money more, $5 or $6 savings?
        Mr. McGuire. Well, yes, today's refrigerator standard that
    is in effect, and the ENERGY STAR level above it, which is
    voluntary, but that ENERGY STAR level is a more efficient
    product. And it is only saving the consumer about $5 a year in
    electricity payment. So it just shows you that some of these
    incremental changes for products that have been regulated three
    and four times are going to be harder to justify.
        Mr. Griffith. Right. I appreciate that.
        My time is up, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McEachin for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And to all of our witnesses, I would also say thank you for
    being here today.
        I want to just echo what I said earlier. Achieving greater
    energy efficiencies is incredibly important to the health of
    our planet and our communities. And pursuing these efficiencies
    will also put money back in the pockets of our constituents,
    including struggling families for whom every dollar, every
    extra dollar makes a difference. So I think our topic today is
    incredibly important, and I am very glad that we are having
    this hearing.
        Ms. Kennedy, I would like to echo the same question I asked
    Mr. Simmons earlier. Your testimony describes climate change as
    an existential threat, and you identify energy efficiency
    standards as a crucial tool in the struggle to minimize that
    change. So if energy efficiency standards are one tool in the
    climate toolkit, are we using that tool as effectively as
    current law permits? Does DOE decision making on these
    standards fully reflect the true long-term climate costs of
    greater energy use? And if not, what would you like to see
    improved?
        Ms. Kennedy. Thank you for that great question.
        The consequences of the Department of Energy's delays on
    energy efficiency standards are really moving us backward on
    climate change. So just to put some specifics there, DOE's
    failure to issue the 16 overdue energy efficiency standards
    that we have discussed puts at risk 70 million metric tons of
    carbon savings each year. That is more than the annual carbon
    emissions from energy use in all homes in New York City, Los
    Angeles, Houston, Chicago, and Philadelphia combined. So we are
    talking about some major backward progress on climate through
    DOE's inaction.
        We see the same thing through the lighting efficiency
    standards. The lighting provisions which were added in 2007 by
    Congress, and signed into law by President Bush, will have huge
    carbon savings. And by gutting the definition of light bulbs,
    as DOE is proposing to do, in effect, DOE is taking almost all
    of the energy efficiency savings out of that standard, a change
    that will cost consumers up to $12 billion on their utility
    bills and cause the use of up to 25 more power plants' worth of
    electricity each year.
        So this program, when it is in place and being robustly
    implemented, is a big climate pollution saver and a big
    pollution saver overall. But, right now, Americans aren't
    seeing those benefits from the efficiency standards program. We
    would like to see DOE get back on track with its legal
    responsibilities to issue these standards. We would like to see
    DOE abandon its efforts to really gut the lighting efficiency
    standards, which Congress put into place.
        And while we are happy to talk about improvements to the
    process on issuing efficiency standards, the process rule we
    are concerned is going to set us back, lose valuable time, as
    Mr. deLaski has outlined, and again, is really putting us in
    reverse, when we need to be all in on energy efficiency as a
    way of fighting climate and reducing American energy bills.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mr. Harak, can you speak to how delays at DOE or laxity in
    terms of where standards are set adversely affect low-income
    families? Can we put a dollar figure on the savings that these
    families have missed out on as a result of the current
    administration's regulatory choices?
        Mr. Harak. I don't think I can put precise dollar figures
    on it, although I can give you an estimate. So furnaces, in
    particular, as I mentioned, are one of the biggest bills for
    people in States that have some level of serious heating load.
    And an efficient furnace could cut your bill, particularly if
    you are replacing an old, inefficient furnace--that is, when
    you bought it, it had a certain rating; well, it has degraded
    since then--it could cut the bill 25 percent. I know with the
    low-income network that I work with and that actually installs
    these furnaces in low-income homes, you could easily be cutting
    that person's heating bill by 25 percent. And for a low-income
    person living in an inefficient house with an inefficient
    furnace, that is hundreds of dollars a year that are being lost
    out.
        So as I mentioned in my initial testimony and in response
    to Mr. Pallone's questions, we are at the National Consumer Law
    Center particularly interested in stronger furnace standards
    because it is incredibly important for low-income people. And
    any delay in that--the last time the rule was significantly
    revised is more than 25 years ago now. There was some modest
    change in the 1990s. So delay really hurts low-income people
    and a very impact on their energy bills and their health and
    comfort, when you are talking about furnaces.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes for the purposing of
    questioning the witnesses.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Harak, I wanted you to talk a little bit more about
    renters. As you know, we have had a tremendous shift in our
    society. I will tell you, like personally, the neighborhood
    that my mother grew up in, the Lake Como community, because of
    segregation during that time period, there were people of all
    economic backgrounds that lived in that community, doctors,
    lawyers, but also people that worked in people's homes and
    drove buses, and did a lot of different jobs. Most of those
    families had two household incomes. They had two incomes inside
    of that house and they were homeowners.
        As you know, now many low-income people in this country can
    no longer afford to buy a home. They are no longer homeowners.
    And many of them no longer have the luxury of two incomes in a
    household, and they find themselves more and more having to
    rent.
        I wanted to ask you, what would be the stress put on low-
    income households if landlords don't--if we don't update this
    policy, making landlords updating their appliances, and things
    like that? And what impact can that have on the bottom line of
    low-income household families?
        Mr. Harak. Do you mind if I just ask where your district
    is? I have lived in Texas. So I am curious.
        Mr. Veasey. In Fort Worth, Texas. Mom grew up in a little
    community in Fort Worth, Texas, called the Lake Como community.
        Mr. Harak. I have lived in Fort Worth. So I was curious.
        So let me say that, when the Department was considering
    central air conditioning standards, I made sure to speak to
    people at Texas ROSE, Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy,
    in Texas, to get a sense of how do low-income people come into
    homes where there are these appliances. Well, one, they are
    renters. And as I mentioned in my testimony, renters will lose
    out if we don't have good standards because the owner is going
    to buy that appliance, and the owner is often going to go get
    the lower-cost appliance. It makes perfect economic sense.
        But, then, I also spoke to folks. Well, how do people wind
    up in homes even as homeowners, let's say, with central air
    conditioning? Well, they are usually buying an older home. And
    so someone else probably installed that appliance. So that a
    low-income person buying a modest home in Fort Worth is
    probably not going to install new central air conditioning. And
    so we need the standards because the homes that are now on the
    kind of secondary market, that appliance was installed by
    someone else. We want to have good standards because low-income
    are buying that home after the central systems have already
    been in the home. So I think both low-income renters, but even
    low-income homeowners benefit from strong standards around
    these appliances that are the major portion of their bills.
        I hope I answered your question.
        Mr. Veasey. Absolutely. No, that was actually very helpful.
        I wanted to ask you, Mr. Friedman, would you agree that the
    DOE has a clear set of tools in its toolbox to help low-income
    renters?
        Mr. Friedman. I do think DOE has many tools to help low-
    income residents. But, let's be honest, with more resources, I
    think DOE could do more. The Weatherization program has an
    amazing history of helping folks and during ARRA, was able to
    really ramp-up and help even more. But, at this point, the
    funding is much lower than it was during the Recovery Act. So
    that is certainly one place where I think, with more resources,
    DOE could do more.
        I would also just add that ensuring that every dollar spent
    at DOE that is supposed to be focused on efficiency and getting
    appliance standards out is going to help everyone, and
    especially low-income homeowners who spend, as a share of their
    income, three times as much on heating, electricity, water, et
    cetera, than your average American. So low-income Americans
    tend to stand to gain even more than most Americans from these
    standards.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Harak, do you have any----
        Mr. Harak. I do think Mr. Friedman raises an incredibly
    important point. I am meeting with my Congresswoman, Katherine
    Clark, I hope in about 30 minutes to talk to her about the need
    for increased funding for the Weatherization Assistance
    Program.
        If you want to talk about a program that makes a gigantic
    difference in the lives of low-income people, it is the
    Weatherization Assistance Program. As I mentioned in response
    to your first question, when the network I work with in
    Massachusetts goes to a low-income home, the low site savings
    are 20 percent in their energy bills. And if that house was
    really poorly insulated and had an old heating system,
    sometimes we are saving 40 percent in the household we are
    touching. So it is very important we get to more of those
    households, and that means we need a lot more money in the
    Weatherization Assistance Programs, which is, of course, part
    of DOE.
        I appreciate the question.
        Mr. Veasey. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. O'Halleran from Arizona for 5 minutes for the
    purposes of questioning the witnesses.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to commend each of the witnesses in our second
    panel today for contributing thoughtful insight into this
    important conversation about energy efficiency standards. I
    believe we can all agree that meaningful efficiency standards
    are important not only for the marketplace, but for consumers
    and the environment as well.
        Mr. deLaski, in your testimony you cite a recent economic
    study which estimates that savings from energy efficiency
    standards resulted in 300,000 more jobs in the United States
    economy in 2016 than would have been the case, absent any
    standards. In your view, how might a delay in issuing
    efficiency standards impact the availability of these related
    jobs, especially in rural communities?
        Mr. deLaski. So the delay in the standards and updating
    standards is reducing the savings that consumers will get in
    the future. What was described in that economic study is the
    secondary effect, that if people save money on their bills,
    they are spending less money on gas and electricity and water
    and sewer bills, and that puts money back in their pocket that
    they spend on other goods and services. So the delays mean that
    there are $60-some billion in savings that are going to be
    delayed, which means people have less money in their pocket to
    put on other goods and services that helps to create jobs in
    local communities. So that is the cost.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Friedman, in your testimony you
    highlight your concerns with the Department's proposed changes
    of their process rule. In your view, do you see any harms
    caused to the marketplace by the Department setting a new
    definition for efficiency?
        Mr. Friedman. Well, certainly, the thresholds that they
    have created, I see significant harm in terms of devices that
    people refer to as vampire loads, all those electronics that
    now we literally rely on throughout our daily lives. If the
    process rule and that threshold blocks the ability of the
    agency to set those standards, it is going to set us all back.
    And right now, that equipment is about 40 percent of energy
    use. That is only going to grow, both as other appliances get
    more efficient and as we get more and more cool stuff.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
        Ms. Kennedy, I used to be a project manager and working on
    fairly complex projects on technology and buildings and
    development of designs of buildings in order to incorporate
    technology into them. I am at a loss, and maybe you can help me
    because you seem to be very concerned with the timeliness of
    things getting done here. I am at a loss to understand how it
    takes so long within this Department--and quite frankly, I have
    worked with the FCC and the CFTC, and some others--to get
    things done in an efficient way, in a timely way, to make sure
    that we take advantage of changes in technology and other
    areas, and make sure that we, as a Government, are efficient,
    also, in moving projects forward and getting things done on
    time. Can you help me at all?
        Ms. Kennedy. I was struck by the fact that Assistant
    Secretary Simmons didn't point to any reason for the delays in
    the 16 overdue efficiency standards. He said that the
    Department had sufficient resources. He didn't point to any
    particular problem. And so that tells me that there is a
    problem, that there is a problem of will, and that we need to
    get that program back on track. There is nothing in regulation
    or statute that is causing those delays. It is something within
    the Department of Energy under this administration.
        And we have seen this program work well over various
    different administrations over the years of both political
    parties. So there is some issue around political will, possibly
    around ideology, which is holding things back. And that is
    really concerning for consumers, for the environment, for jobs,
    and our ability to fight back on climate change.
        Mr. O'Halleran. I do know the developers that I have worked
    for in the past would be very upset on cost overruns and not
    getting jobs in and done on time.
        So thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
        I believe efficiency must be our first fuel of choice.
    According to the International Energy Agency's Energy
    Efficiency 2018 Report, energy efficiency alone can account for
    more than 40 percent of the emissions reductions needed to meet
    global targets set forth in the Paris agreement.
        So Ms. Kennedy, what have you and NRDC found? How important
    is efficiency for achieving climate targets?
        Ms. Kennedy. Energy efficiency is absolutely crucial and
    fundamental to achieving our U.S. climate targets, or what
    should be our U.S. climate targets. Without energy efficiency,
    we can't get the job done. We need to also invest in
    renewables, electrify transportation and buildings, but energy
    efficiency is absolutely fundamental to fighting climate change
    and to doing it in an affordable way.
        NRDC issued a report last year called ``America's Clean
    Energy Frontier: The Pathway to a Safer Climate Future''. And
    energy efficiency is going to deliver the largest amount of
    carbon savings that the U.S. can muster. So it is really
    important.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And would you say DOE's standards program plays a big role
    in our overall efficiency agenda?
        Ms. Kennedy. It plays a very crucial role, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. And can you give us a sense of how important
    improvements in lighting, including the performance gains and
    cost reductions in LED technologies, have been to improve
    building efficiency?
        Ms. Kennedy. The innovation that we have seen in lighting,
    the improvement that we have seen in lighting efficiencies,
    spurred by Congress' actions and by DOE's actions under the
    last administration, have been hugely important.
        Mr. Tonko. And, Ms. Kennedy, again, and Mr. deLaski and Mr.
    Friedman, I am sure all of you are familiar with the Energy
    Independence and Security Act of 2007. Can you explain the
    statutory backstop on tier 2 of lighting standards? And as you
    do that, can you also respond to the response made to me about
    the backstop of the Assistant Secretary and his rationale?
    Because I am trying to figure out what triggering the backstop
    is all about.
        Ms. Kennedy. Yes. The Department of Energy's current
    interpretation, which Assistant Secretary Simmons discussed
    this morning, is incorrect, in my view, and I have been
    addressing these issues for decades, both through litigation
    and through rulemaking, and other activities.
        EISA directed the Department of Energy to do a rulemaking
    by 2017 to examine the scope of light bulbs that would be
    included under the new set of standards and also, to examine
    whether the standards in the backstop should be stronger. The
    Obama administration came up with a rule, through a long
    process that involved all sorts of stakeholder engagement, and
    acting within the authority which EISA provided it, determined
    that the scope of general service lamps should be expanded in
    various ways to include a number of additional bulbs.
        The Department of Energy is now trying to undo that, and it
    faces a very high burden as it does that, because, as you know,
    once a Federal agency has gone through a long rulemaking, made
    a determination, there is no finding--there is no challenge
    striking down that determination, it is very, very hard to undo
    it and reach a different result.
        The backstop absolutely has been triggered. Congress in
    EISA included this backstop provision, so that if the
    Department of Energy didn't do its job, that backstop would be
    in place, as of January 1st, 2020. So that backstop is there. I
    believe it is enforceable. And what the Department of Energy is
    doing is creating all sorts of uncertainty for manufacturers
    and for consumers.
        And I will also just mention, those standards, the backstop
    standards, have been in place in California since 2018, and it
    has been a smooth transition, no problems, tons of bulbs on the
    market that meet those standards.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. deLaski and Mr. Friedman, I have just a little bit of
    time left, but if each of you could just speak to the comments
    made by the Assistant Secretary about the backstop?
        Mr. deLaski. I just will echo what Ms. Kennedy said, which
    is that the Assistant Secretary is wrong. The backstop has been
    triggered, and the light bulb standards needed to get back next
    year. That is what the law requires. And failure to do so is an
    abdication of the Department's legal obligations.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. Friedman?
        Mr. Friedman. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure my
    signature is on that rule that came out under the Obama
    administration. Our general counsel was very clear on the law.
    The Secretary supported the general counsel, and we issued a
    change in the definition. So I think the law is pretty clear,
    and I think, sadly, this may end up being the courts that have
    to reinforce what Congress said. Again, statute is not
    arbitrary. Statute is not optional. It needs to be followed.
        Mr. Tonko. And resolving it in the courts will only provide
    for more uncertainty.
        So I thank you all for your responses.
        And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
        I thank the panel.
        Mr. deLaski, Vermont enacted a couple of State-level
    standards, appliance standards, in the past two years, one for
    light bulbs and another that covers 18 products. Can you
    explain the relative role of States and the Federal Government
    in appliance standards?
        Mr. deLaski. Yes, I would be happy to. One of the
    fundamental elements of the Federal law that we haven't talked
    a lot about today is the Federal standards are generally
    preemptive. Once the Federal standards are in place, States are
    preempted from acting.
        But one of the fundamental elements of the Federal
    legislation is that, in preempting the States, the Congress put
    on DOE the obligation to keep standards up-to-date, to do the
    reviews we have been talking about. That is the deal.
        Mr. Welch. Right.
        Mr. deLaski. So when that is not happening, you are seeing
    more States, leaders like Vermont, and there are another 13
    States that are considering similar legislation currently,
    following in Vermont's leadership, leading footsteps. You are
    seeing more States step in. Now they can't address things that
    are preempted, but they are looking at other products.
        Mr. Welch. Right.
        Mr. deLaski. And they are also adopting the light bulb
    standards because they are concerned.
        Mr. Welch. Yes, let me go on that. So one of the laws that
    we did pass in Vermont was designed to protect against the
    Federal rollback of the light bulb standards, and it,
    essentially, copied the Federal light bulb standard in a State
    law. And now, the DOE has announced that they intend to rescind
    the broadened scope of the light bulb standards. What does that
    mean to States like Vermont and others that have essentially
    copied the Federal standard?
        Mr. deLaski. So Vermont, like California, will now be in a
    position to enforce standards, instead of the Federal
    Government. So what we are going to see is a State-by-State
    approach, in addition to insisting that the Federal standard
    also is in place. So the uncertainty that was referenced
    earlier, it is being multiplied over and over again.
        Mr. Welch. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. deLaski. Instead of having a situation where we knew
    what was going to happen--Congress set the bar 13 years ago--
    now we have uncertainty that is creating lots of problems.
        Mr. Welch. Right. Thank you.
        Mr. Yurek, how does the uncertainty that was just
    mentioned, introduced by the DOE failure to meet their
    deadlines, affect your member companies? And you mentioned in
    your testimony that the feast-or-famine is not a helpful way
    for DOE to run the program. Can you explain what you mean by
    that?
        By the way, my whole understanding is that a lot of the
    manufacturers in the private sector, they can live with
    standards. They just want to know what they are, and then, the
    competition is about who can do the best product compliant with
    those standards.
        Mr. Yurek. That is very correct, Congressman. My members
    don't manufacture light bulbs. So I am not going to go down
    that path. But we do cherish and want certainty and
    predictability, and we need that to plan and make the
    investments in our products, in our production lines, in the
    distribution of those products. And so when there is a
    schedule, we want that schedule to be met, so that we can meet
    those. But we also want good rules that make sense.
        And it also goes to the different consumers that were
    talked about earlier and their ability to afford. And we want
    to make sure that they are economically justified, so all
    consumers, be they low-income as well as those that can afford
    the higher costs, can afford to get the equipment to get the
    comfort that they need. So it is balancing that and using the
    full timeframe for developing the rule versus short-circuiting
    it, and then, coming up with rules that might not be the best.
        Mr. Welch. OK. Ms. Kennedy, actually, following up on that
    question, one of the debates we have here--it was on the
    earlier panel where my friend from Virginia raised questions
    about the affordability of standards. That, by the way, is a
    concern I have. And we are always wrestling with whether the
    standard overdoes it by making a product more expensive than
    you can afford, and then, you lose the savings because the
    product isn't going to be deployed.
        So one of the challenges I have is there will always be a
    difference of opinion about where is the right place to land,
    but we probably agree, Morgan, that using less energy is better
    than using more. Is there some mechanism by which there can be
    some flexibility and quick response to negative reaction in the
    marketplace because the standard just overreaches a bit?
        Ms. Kennedy. Well, there is some flexibility in the
    procedures and the statute. Manufacturers have the ability to
    petition DOE for an exemption or waiver from a particular
    standard when----
        Mr. Welch. Could we get a turnaround on that a little
    quicker? Because I am actually sympathetic to that. I have a
    door and window manufacturer and they were totally committed to
    standards, totally committed to efficiency, but they actually
    were having a problem with the compliance challenges for a
    standard that was set to the point where people weren't going
    to be able to afford to buy that product. And if we can get an
    answer on that, then we take some of the fight out. Because the
    overreaction we have from some folks who are legitimately
    concerned about their lower-income consumers is to say, look we
    don't want any standards because it is going to price them out.
        And Mr. Griffith, I don't want that. I really want
    standards.
        But do you have some suggestions on how we could get a
    quicker turnaround, so there would be some confidence?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank all the witnesses for
    your participation. I know it has been time-consuming, and we
    certainly value your time. We certainly appreciate all your
    efforts and all your testimony here this morning. We want to
    thank you very much.
        And the witnesses are dismissed. Right now, thank you once
    again.
        And the Chair requests unanimous consent to enter into the
    record documents that have been previously agreed to by the
    ranking member of the subcommittee. And without objection, so
    ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Rush. I remind Members that, pursuant to committee
    rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional
    questions for the record to be addressed by the witnesses who
    have appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any
    such question that you may receive.
        At this time, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]