[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






 
                   CONSUMER CHOICE ON THE BACKBURNER:
                  EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S
                         REGULATORY ASSAULT ON
                         AMERICANS' GAS STOVES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 24, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-37

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  
  
  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                        ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
52-571          WASHINGTON : 2023
                           
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                          David Ehmen, Counsel
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

 Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ro Khanna, California
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 24, 2023.....................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Mr. Matthew Agen, Assistant General Counsel, American Gas 
  Association
Oral Statement...................................................     4
Mr. Kenny Stein, Vice President of Policy, Institute for Energy 
  Research
Oral Statement...................................................     6
Mr. Ben Lieberman, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise 
  Institute
Oral Statement...................................................     8
Mr. Andrew deLaski, Executive Director, Appliance Standards 
  Awareness Project
Oral Statement...................................................     9


Alejandro Moreno, (Invited), Acting Assistant Secretary, Office 
  of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of 
  Energy
Dr. Carolyn Snyder, (Invited), Dep. Asst. Secretary for Energy 
  Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
  U.S. Department of Energy

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * Letter, from Rep. Fallon and Rep. Comer to DOE, May 24, 2023; 
  submitted by Rep. Fallon.

  * Statement for the Record, Association of Home Appliance 
  Manufacturers (AHAM); submitted by Rep. Fallon.

  * Statement for the Record, American Public Gas Association; 
  submitted by Rep. Langworthy.

  * Letter, from Consumer Federation of America and the National 
  Consumer Law Center; submitted by Rep. Bush.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Matthew J. Agen; submitted 
  by Rep. Langworthy.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Lieberman; submitted by 
  Subcommittee Chairman Fallon.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Stein; submitted by 
  Subcommittee Chairman Fallon.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Matthew J. Agen; submitted 
  by Subcommittee Chairman Fallon.


The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.


                   CONSUMER CHOICE ON THE BACKBURNER:



                  EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S



                         REGULATORY ASSAULT ON



                         AMERICANS' GAS STOVES

                              ----------                              


                    Wednesday, May 24, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy

                     Policy, and Regulatory Affairs

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Fallon, Donalds, Edwards, Bush, 
Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, and Brown.
    Also present: Representatives Palmer, Issa, and Moskowitz.
    Mr. Fallon. This hearing on the Subcommittee on Economic 
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to 
order.
    I want to welcome everyone. Without objection, the Chair 
may declare a recess at any time.
    I ask unanimous consent for Representative Palmer of 
Alabama, Representative Issa from California, Representative 
Moskowitz from Florida to waive on to this Committee for the 
purposes of asking questions during this hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today we are going to examine the Department of Energy's 
proposed rule on conventional cooktop stoves and more 
specifically its de facto ban on gas stoves. This proposed rule 
is just one in a series of recent actions that embody the Biden 
Administration's whole of government approach to overregulate 
American's day-to-day lives.
    Like many of you, I was shocked when I first heard the 
report that the Federal Government was even considering such a 
proposal. I thought surely this cannot be true. It is some 
clickbait. But, no, after looking into the details, it is, 
unfortunately, true. It is a de facto ban. The Biden 
Administration is looking to regulate gas stoves out of 
existence. We know that the Department has the authority to 
regulate energy efficiency standards for appliances and has 
done so far--you know, they have done that for decades without 
really a major issue.
    But since Joe Biden took office, he made it clear from day 
one that he was on a mission to abolish fossil fuels. Under his 
watch energy prices have skyrocketed, while agencies push 
through rules to suppress energy production and hurt American 
energy independence. His Administration is even going after 
Americans' household appliances. What is more American than a 
gas stove? And not just gas stoves. It is also targeting 
dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters, furnaces, and even 
air-conditioners.
    So, while Americans suffer under the weight of inflation 
that has not let up--it was not transitory--the Biden 
Administration is trying to make Americans' lives even more 
expensive. The Biden Administration does not seem to understand 
it is supposed to be government of, by, and for the people, not 
bureaucrats, and not the beltway. Or maybe it is just that that 
is why it is taking such an effort to hide this agenda from the 
American people.
    For example, today we have another Biden Administration 
agency refusing to testify about a rulemaking--a rule and 
rulemaking authority that is affecting so many Americans. The 
Department of Energy ought to be here at this hearing to answer 
questions about rulemaking on its gas stoves. But, again, it is 
not. The Department of Energy refused to come, claiming that 
the rulemaking process is ongoing. That is exactly when 
Congress should be asking questions, not when it is finished.
    What the Department of Energy--you know, what are they 
hiding? Why is it--why are they afraid to come and answer 
questions about one of its own priorities before the elected 
representatives of the people? Well, they cannot keep hiding. 
That is why Chairman Comer and I have sent an invitation for 
Under Secretary Dr. Geri Richmond to testify about not just 
this rulemaking, but the entire Department of Energy's 
rulemaking agenda for home appliances. And I ask unanimous 
consent to enter this letter into the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Fallon. The American people deserve to understand the 
Biden Administration's efforts to regulate their stoves, their 
furnaces, their appliances, and, quite frankly, their lives.
    That said, I thank the witnesses for appearing today and 
for your willingness to testify about this important issue.
    And with that, I yield to Ranking Member Bush for her 
opening statement.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    St. Louis and I are here today to discuss climate, the 
environment, and the very air we breathe, not just gas stoves.
    I wish my Republican colleagues were as concerned about 
Black and Brown communities on the frontlines of our climate 
crisis as they are about an appliance. This proposed rule is 
not a ban on gas stoves. This proposed rule is not a ban on gas 
stoves. We are regulating indoor air pollution. The climate 
crisis is happening all around us, and Republican inaction is 
costing us lives. As lawmakers, we have a moral obligation to 
prioritize the health and well-being of every person across our 
country.
    I represent a community where the threat of climate 
pollution comes from both inside and outside our homes. In St. 
Louis City, Black children are twice as likely to test positive 
for lead in their blood than White children. St. Louis ranks 
among the highest across our country for rates of asthma, with 
rates significantly higher for Black residents than White 
residents.
    I can only imagine the number of my constituents who are 
unknowingly being poisoned by their gas stove in the state that 
it is without this proposed rule being in effect, especially 
young children, our elders, and people with disabilities who 
are disproportionately at risk for contracting respiratory 
illnesses.
    Let us not forget that many of these gas stoves are not 
owned by the residents of those homes, but often absentee or 
corporate landlords. That is a thing. We have a number of 
housing regulations in place to ensure that renters are kept 
safe. This also applies when we speak about keeping renters 
safe to the indoor air pollution, how that should be a top 
concern. This proposed rule is not a ban on gas stoves.
    Research proves that improving the energy efficiency of gas 
stoves and switching to electric stoves completely will save 
lives, will save money, and will save our environment. The 
Department of Energy estimates that the updated standards to 
improve gas stove energy efficiency will save consumers at 
least $100 million, provide climate benefits of $67 million, 
and health benefits of $65 million each year.
    Congress has an obligation to make smart and forward-
thinking investments with taxpayer dollars to ensure our future 
generations are not plagued by illnesses that lawmakers can 
prevent today.
    It is important to recognize that gas stoves perpetuate an 
unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels and can cause 
significant health issues. We know the Department of Energy's 
proposed rule and new efficiency standards will reduce both the 
negative climate and negative health impacts.
    The Department of Energy policy would keep our communities 
safe, so it is no surprise the Republicans are against it. 
Republicans are consistently against regulations that maintain 
workplace safety standards, enact gun control to keep our 
children safe in schools, and allow access to reproductive 
care.
    These standards are not a ban on gas stoves, but a way to 
move the Nation forward and reduce health and climate risks to 
people in our planet while giving consumers more information 
and more options. Gas stoves have long been linked to serious 
health hazards, especially in children who grow up in homes 
with gas stoves.
    According to the Scientific American, scientists have long 
known that gas stoves emit pollutants that irritate human 
airways and can cause or exacerbate respiratory problems.
    We have the tools and the technology to address these 
issues definitively within the timeline DOE set forth. Three 
years to allow manufacturers to produce more energy efficient 
stoves is being generous. The real work comes in communicating 
with folks at home and urging them to consider the necessary 
changes, making these changes to keep their household and their 
family safe and working with the administration to ensure every 
single family has access to safe, effective, and affordable 
appliances.
    This proposed rule is not a ban on gas stoves. As Ranking 
Member of this Subcommittee, I know that the work starts today. 
I implore my colleagues to join Democrats in the serious work 
of helping keep our communities safe and informed rather than 
partaking in the unserious work of sensationalizing safety 
standards by DOE and misconstruing the science and 
misconstruing the facts.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. I am pleased today to welcome our panel of 
witnesses.
    First, I would like to welcome Matt Agen who currently 
serves as Chief Regulatory Counsel for Energy at the American 
Gas Association. He brings with him over 18 years of experience 
in both private and public sector working on numerous facets of 
the energy industry.
    Our second witness today is Kenny Stein, Vice President of 
Policy at the Institute for Energy Research who specializes in 
domestic and international energy policy, environmental 
regulation and policy, Federal and land management policy, 
federalism, and legislative analysis.
    Our next witness is Ben Lieberman, a Senior Fellow at the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, who also served as Senior 
Counsel on the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
    Our last witness today is Andrew deLaski, an Executive 
Director at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
    I welcome all of you here today and look forward to hearing 
your testimony on this important topic.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but truth, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witnesses have all answered in 
the affirmative.
    Please feel free to take your seats.
    We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your 
testimony. Let me remind you that we have read your written 
statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing record. 
Please limit your oral testimony to five minutes.
    As a reminder, just press the little button to talk so we 
can all hear you. And the first four minutes you are going to 
get a little green button, and then the last minute it will be 
yellow, and then red is kind of wrap-up.
    I recognize Matt Agen to please begin your opening 
statement.

                       STATEMENT OF MATTHEW AGEN

                    CHIEF REGULATORY COUNSEL, ENERGY

                        AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Agen. Thank you, Chairman Fallon and Ranking Member 
Bush and the Members of the Committee.
    My name is Matthew Agen. I'm the Chief Regulatory Counsel 
for Energy at the American Gas Association. The American Gas 
Association represents over 200 local distribution companies 
that serve customers throughout the United States.
    The natural gas distribution system in the United States 
serves approximately 187 million Americans, and that includes 
5.5 million businesses. I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
today on DOE's proposed cooktop rule.
    AGA's members have long supported energy efficiency and 
conservation efforts. AGA member gas utilities spend 
approximately $4.3 million a day on energy efficiency programs. 
These efforts have resulted in a 50 percent decline in 
residential natural gas use per customer since 1970.
    AGA's members are also serious about climate change and 
fighting to reduce emissions. Methane emissions from the 
distribution system have declined 70 percent since 1990, and 
that includes adding approximately 750,000 miles of pipe to the 
systems.
    AGA has also issued a climate change commitment aimed at 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and 
modernizing the infrastructure, and that includes adding 
renewable natural gas and hydrogen to the gas systems.
    Despite attempts to limit customer access to appliances and 
gas service, natural gas remains popular with customers and 
businesses. More than one new residential customer signs up for 
natural gas every minute, and approximately 80 businesses sign 
up for new natural gas service every day.
    Households that use natural gas for heating, cooking, and 
clothes drying save an average of $1,068 a year as compared to 
homes that use electricity for those applications. Moreover, 
the natural gas system is 92 percent efficient from production 
to customer.
    Turning to DOE's proposed rule, AGA respects and supports 
DOE's role in setting energy efficiency standards. The natural 
gas industry is ready, willing, and able to support cost-
effective, consumer friendly efficiency measures that are 
economically justified and technologically feasible.
    Unfortunately, DOE's proposal is an attempt to remove a 
large portion of natural gas cooking products from the market 
that would result in nominal energy savings and limited cost 
savings.
    DOE's own testing resulted in a 96 percent failure rate. 
When DOE later accounted for additional models that were not 
included in testing, it estimated that the cooking products 
rule would wipe out 50 percent of the current gas cooktops from 
the market. Eliminating anywhere between 50 and 96 percent of 
the available gas stoves from the market is simply not 
justifiable.
    Furthermore, the proposed rule would eliminate features 
that make gas stoves popular, such as high input burners that 
allow for quicker cooking and cast-iron grates that allow for a 
level cooking surface and the ability to slide a pot safely 
across the cooktop.
    Regarding the purported benefits of the proposal, DOE's own 
analysis projects that this extraordinary regulatory action 
would result in a customer cost savings of a scant $1.51 cents 
per year.
    Regarding the test procedures that underpin DOE's rule, AGA 
has explained to DOE that the test procedures were flawed 
because they were bias against gas products. AGA is also 
concerned that the proposed rule will lead designers and 
manufacturers to leave the market instead of spending millions 
of dollars to comply with the proposed rule.
    The Proposed Cooking Products Rule is not DOE's only effort 
to limit access to gas appliances. DOE currently has 
rulemakings pending that would remove a large number of gas 
furnaces from the market, as well as other gas products, which 
will increase cost to customers. DOE is also attempting to 
eliminate natural gas from new and renovated Federal buildings.
    DOE is not acting alone. DOE is acting in conjunction with 
various other agencies in an effort to eliminate or restrict 
direct use of natural gas.
    Based on the aforementioned factors, as well as others, AGA 
requests that DOE rescind the Proposed Cooking Products Rule, 
and AGA encourages DOE to work with stakeholders to develop a 
new approach.
    I look forward to answering your questions today on this 
important topic.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    And I now recognize Kenny Stein for his opening statement.
    Mr. Stein.

                        STATEMENT OF KENNY STEIN

                       VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY

                     INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH

    Mr. Stein. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify at this hearing.
    The Department of Energy's proposed rulemaking on 
conservation standards for gas stoves is not a sincere attempt 
to improve efficiency. This rulemaking is yet another piece of 
this Administration's whole-of-government approach to targeting 
energy sources that it disproves of for ideological reasons. It 
is an attempt to stop consumers from using a product, natural 
gas, that is an affordable, abundant, and convenient.
    This proposed rule is deficient in its justification and is 
outright illegal, obviously violating the plain language of the 
statute. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the statutory 
authority relied upon for this rulemaking, is a consumer 
protection statute. The law does mandate energy efficiency 
standards, but it also protects consumers from overreach from 
the Department of Energy.
    In the case of the proposed conservation standards for 
conventional cooking products, i.e., gas stoves, DOE is 
overreaching in multiple ways and violating the plain text of 
EPCA.
    While there are other deficiencies in the proposed rule, I 
will focus my comments on two specific legal failures. This 
rule violates the features provision of EPCA, and it violates 
the significant savings of energy requirement of EPCA. By the 
features provision of EPCA, I'm referring to 42, U.S.C., 
629404. EPCA is designed to protect consumers economically, but 
it also protects consumers from DOE removing useful products 
from the market. The Secretary of Energy under that section is 
forbidden by statute from promulgating regulations which result 
in the unavailability of products or product features.
    In the technical support document for this proposed rule, 
there are 21 gas stoves in DOE's test sample that met DOE's 
screening criteria of including important features such as 
continuous cast iron grates and at least one high input rate 
burner.
    In the TSD, DOE also specifically acknowledges that 
continuous grates and high input rate burner are features under 
EPCA. Of the products in the test sample, only a single stove 
met DOE's proposed standard, meaning that only four percent of 
the units included in the test sample met DOE's proposed 
standard.
    Elsewhere in the TSD, DOE characterizes the 21-stove sample 
as representative of the gas stove market. Promulgating a rule 
where only four percent of the market, according to DOE, would 
meet the standard, violates the features provision of EPCA.
    But it gets worse. IER's research suggests that the one gas 
stove that did comply with DOE's standard is actually no longer 
on the market. DOE does not disclose the models in its test 
sample, instead only gives the test units an anonymous number. 
This failure to provide the model number deprives the public of 
critical information necessary for the public to have proper 
notice of the impact of regulation.
    In the case of this proposed rule, the lack of model 
numbers is especially troublesome because, if our research is 
correct, it appears that the only model in DOE's test sample 
for conventional gas stoves that meets DOE's proposed standard 
is no longer on the market.
    From our research we found two slightly different model 
numbers that meet the description in the TSD of test unit 
number 2, both from Dacor. The problem is that these related 
models have been discontinued. Now, it is possible that test 
unit number 2 was not one of the Dacor models that we 
identified or a similar unit, but because DOE does not actually 
disclose the models, the public cannot even be sure that there 
are any products that meet this standard.
    If our research is correct, though, DOE is proposing a 
standard where zero products with important features meet DOE's 
standard and are available for purchase. This is a facial 
violation of EPCA.
    DOE attempts to muddy these waters with its February 2023 
Notice of Data Availability. In the NODA, DOE provides 
information on three additional gas stoves that were screened 
out of the original 21 included in the TSD. These do meet the 
proposed efficiency standard; but as DOE noted, they do not 
include the useful features of having high input rate burners 
and continuous cast iron grates. DOE has not provided any 
information on the actual testing of any additional gas stoves.
    Thus, from the data DOE has provided in the TSD, the 
proposed rule, and the NODA, DOE has not tested a single gas 
stove that, one, meets the standard; two, has the required 
features; and, three, is available for purchase. Even if only 
one gas stove is available for purchase, only one of 21 gas 
stoves demonstrates DOE's proposal to eliminate the vast 
majority of gas stoves that have important features for 
consumers. This is a clear violation of the law.
    This proposed rule also violates EPCA's requirement of 
significant energy savings. As part of Congress' statutory 
scheme to protect consumers from DOE, EPCA required that, 
quote, new or amended standards must result in significant 
conservation of energy.
    Even though this regulation is overly aggressive and may 
make all gas stoves with continuous cast iron grates and high 
input rate burners illegal, it still does not provide 
significant savings of energy. For gas stoves, DOE's TSD states 
that consumers will only save $21.89 cents over the 14.5 year 
average life of the product, or $1.51 a year. Saving $1.51 in 
energy a year is not a significant savings of energy. But it 
actually gets worse when you look at the consumer savings for 
electric stoves.
    Consumers will only save $13.29 over the 16.8 year average 
life of the electric stove, or a mere $0.79 a year. This 
miniscule monetary savings is a direct result of miniscule 
energy savings and, therefore, not a significant savings of 
energy required under EPCA.
    These two clear violations of EPCA exposed in this proposed 
rule as contrary to statute, and the Department of Energy must 
abandon this regulatory overreach.
    Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ben Lieberman for his opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF BEN LIEBERMAN

                             SENIOR FELLOW

                    COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

    Mr. Lieberman. Chair Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today on an issue that few, if any of us, thought would 
get this much attention when the year began, stoves.
    My name is Ben Lieberman, and I'm a Senior Fellow at the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI, a nonprofit, nonpartisan 
public policy organization that concentrates on regulatory 
issues from a free market perspective. I work in CEI's Energy 
and Environment Department where I cover a number of regulatory 
programs, including Department of Energy, DOE, appliance 
efficiency standards, such as the first ever proposed rule for 
stoves at issue here.
    Prior to joining CEI in 2018, I was a staff member on the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee where I also worked on DOE 
appliance regulations, although it was mainly other appliances 
and overall process reforms and not stoves that were the focus 
of the Committee's attention at that time.
    I include in my testimony an April 17, 2023, comment to the 
agency critical of its stove proposal which was signed by 30 
other free market organizations. The regulatory comment focuses 
on the underlying statute, the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act of 1975, or EPCA, from which DOE derives its authority to 
regulate appliances.
    Contrary to some descriptions, EPCA does not take an 
efficiency-at-all-cost approach to appliance regulations. In 
fact, the statute contains a number of provisions to protect 
consumers from excessively stringent standards that may do more 
harm than good and reduce freedom of choice. But, 
unfortunately, these provisions have frequently been ignored by 
the agency in their zeal to crank out more and more 
regulations.
    Things have only gotten worse now that the agency is trying 
to use these regulations to advance climate objectives at the 
expense of consumers. This is particularly true of appliances 
that come in natural gas and electric versions such as 
furnaces, water heaters, and stoves.
    Natural gas has a lot of advantages for consumers, 
including being over three times cheaper than electricity on a 
per unit energy basis. But natural gas is also a fossil fuel 
and, thus, is a target of the Biden Administration's all-
encompassing climate agenda.
    The proposed rule disproportionately burdens gas stoves 
relative to electric versions and threatens to take away some 
of the features people like about gas stoves. Doing so violates 
the law but, more importantly, it is bad policy. Consumers 
should decide what kind of stoves they want in their kitchen, 
not the government.
    DOE's stove rule is just one of many efforts on the part of 
the Biden Administration to wean Americans off natural gas 
stoves and other appliances and in favor of electrifying 
everything. Indeed, DOE is, but one, of two agencies currently 
targeting gas stoves.
    The Consumer Product Safety Commission is the other. And at 
the same time the Administration supports state and local bans 
on natural gas hookups in new construction and opposes natural 
gas pipelines. You cannot have a natural gas stove if you do 
not have natural gas.
    New subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act further tilt 
the balance heavily in favor of electric stoves, $840 for a new 
electric stove, but zero for a new gas stove. An upstream of 
the end user hostility to natural gas drilling on Federal lands 
and natural gas pipelines threatens the cost advantage natural 
gas currently enjoys over electricity. Make no mistake, there 
is a war on natural gas, and it is extending into our homes and 
into our kitchens.
    In sum, I would like to emphasize that this hearing really 
is not about what kind of stove is better or which kind of 
energy source is better. It is about who gets to decide these 
things. And on this point, I think the decision should always 
rest with the homeowner and not the Federal Government.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, sir.
    I now recognize Andrew deLaski for his opening statement.

                           (Minority Witness)

                      STATEMENT OF ANDREW DELASKI

                           EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

                 APPLIANCE STANDARDS AWARENESS PROJECT

    Mr. deLaski. Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Andrew deLaski. I'm the Executive Director of 
the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. ASAP works to 
advance appliance efficiency standards that save money, 
particularly for low-and moderate-income households, as well as 
cut air pollution, planet warming emissions, and water waste. 
ASAP is housed within the American Council for Energy Efficient 
Economy, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that works to lead 
and advance energy efficiency policies, programs, and 
technologies.
    I would like to start by making three points about 
appliance efficiency standards before turning to the proposed 
stove standards.
    First, efficiency standards save consumers money, and they 
protect consumer choice. Federal appliance standards are a 
money saver for American households. As a result of standards 
in effect today, the typical American household saves roughly 
$500 a year on their annual utility bills. That is real money. 
The program was designed to ensure that consumers see cost 
savings across a wide variety of appliances and equipment.
    By law, the Department of Energy must periodically review 
and update standards to reduce energy costs and emissions 
across appliances. The law also requires the duty to ensure 
that consumers continue to have access to the product choices 
that they value.
    Contrary to recent misinformation, DOE is expressly 
prohibited from eliminating categories of products that use a 
particular fuel type and has not proposed any standard that 
would do that.
    Robust energy efficiency standards help reduce energy bills 
for low-and moderate-income Americans. These households spend a 
disproportionate share of their income on their energy bills. 
They tend to benefit most from energy efficiency standards 
because they are often renters, with little control over the 
energy efficiency of the appliances that get put into their 
homes. Equally important, standards ensure that manufacturers 
include energy-saving innovations throughout their product 
offerings, including their basic, low price point models, the 
ones that typically are bought by low-and moderate-income 
purchasers.
    The second point I want to make is that efficiency 
standards enhance U.S. energy security. The Federal appliance 
standards program is a strategy to boost energy security that 
dates back to the aftermath of the energy crisis of the 1970's.
    Energy efficiency standards bolster our Nation's energy 
security and independence by freeing up critical natural gas, 
oil, electricity supplies, and reducing the need for imported 
fuels. In addition, by reducing peak electricity and natural 
gas demand, standards make our energy systems more robust and 
resilient.
    Third point, there is bipartisan support for strong energy 
efficiency standards. Recent polling by Morning Consult 
demonstrates the breadth and strength of this support. Three in 
five adults support stronger standards including a super 
majority of Democrats and a plurality of Republicans. Polling 
over more than a decade demonstrates very durable public 
support for improving energy efficiency. The public support is 
cutting energy waste and saving money.
    This Administration has been working toward its statutory 
requirements to finalize more than 40 standards due by the end 
of 2025, including many that are long overdue by law. Once 
finalized, these standards are poised to save an additional 
$570 billion for consumers and avert 2.4 billion metric tons of 
climate emissions on a cumulative basis according to the 
Administration's estimates. We estimate that the typical 
household could save nearly $350 annually once upgraded 
standards are implemented and compliant products are the norm.
    In my last couple of minutes here, I'll focus on stoves, 
and let me be clear: There is no ban on gas stoves. This 
argument is a red herring. DOE does not have a statutory 
authority to ban gas stoves and has not made any such proposal. 
If the proposed standard is finalized, consumers would continue 
to have a wide variety of gas stove models from which to 
choose.
    The proposed efficiency standard for gas stoves would 
benefit consumers. About half the gas stoves sold today already 
meet the proposed standard. Others, primarily the luxury, 
commercial style models, would require modest improvements, 
resulting in about a 30 percent reduction in energy use to do 
the same amount of cooking. That is a good thing. That will 
both save consumers money and improve public health outcomes.
    These modest energy efficiency improvements, and others for 
electric cooking products too, will add up to $1.7 billion in 
savings for consumers over time. That is why the Consumer 
Federation of America, the Natural Consumer Law Center, who are 
prominent voices for low-and moderate-income consumers, support 
the proposed standard. And I've recently submitted letters to 
the Committee and to the Department expressing their support.
    By law, DOE must adopt the maximum improved standard that 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. That is 
what the law requires. A final rule for stoves is now six years 
overdue, and as part of a settlement, DOE must finalize new 
standards by next January. If finalized, the proposed rule 
would take effect in 2027, providing manufacturers with 
significant time to modernize any designs as needed.
    In conclusion, energy efficiency standards for household 
appliances and commercial equipment have been a cost-saving 
feature of American energy policy for decades. It has been 
working and working well. The DOE should expeditiously finalize 
strong energy efficiency standards to secure real cost energy 
savings and long-term energy security for the American people.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Agen, you just heard Mr. deLaski say that if this rule 
goes into effect, there is still going to be a wide variety of 
gas stoves available for consumers.
    Do you agree with that statement?
    Mr. Agen. No. Like he even said, they are going to wipe out 
50 percent of the market. Fifty percent of the market will not 
comply with DOE's proposed rule. That is a substantial amount 
of gas cooktops. Of the higher end cooktops, professional grade 
cooking products, again, about 96 percent will be wiped out.
    So, a large chunk of the desirable products with the 
features that people are looking for will be wiped out, and 
that will go all the way down to the mid-range to low-range 
product as well.
    Mr. Fallon. But, Mr. Agen, they said this is not a ban. My 
colleague said it was not a ban. We have a witness that says it 
was not a ban. So, is it not a ban?
    Mr. Agen. Basically it is going to amount to just--there 
are going to be fewer, a lot fewer choices, and it would really 
effectively be a ban in the sense that----
    Mr. Fallon. Ah-hah. So, a de facto ban.
    Mr. Agen. You basically will--an indirect way of banning 
gas.
    Mr. Fallon. So, overregulating and regulating to such 
degree that is, in fact, pretty much a ban, except for the four 
percent that already complied?
    Mr. Agen. Right.
    Mr. Fallon. So, for the 96 percent, you are kind of out of 
luck?
    Mr. Agen. You will get the choice that you probably do not 
want at the store basically.
    Mr. Fallon. A choice for consumers.
    Mr. Agen. Right.
    Mr. Fallon. Choice, interesting. OK.
    Can you explain the versatility in performance of gas 
stoves compared to electric stoves? Because I love gas stoves. 
In fact, I was just talking to counsel. He is looking for a 
house. He would not even buy a house unless it had a gas stove, 
and I tend to agree. And if I go to a place, like a VRBO, and 
they have a gas stove, I get excited. It is just me, anecdotal.
    But you go ahead.
    Mr. Agen. No. So, gas stoves, obviously, are very versatile 
and have features that people want. The important thing is, 
obviously, people like having the immediate control over the 
flame, being able to control the cooking temperature, being 
able to react quickly, temperatures can go up and down, and 
then also cooking a variety of products. If you are looking at 
cooking at high heat or sear, you can do meat or vegetables in 
that way, looking to boil a large amount of pasta or any kind 
of rice. It basically makes it more efficient to do cooking.
    And, also, these cooking products are actually not just 
used for residential purposes. If you are a small business 
working out of your home, it provides that level of versatility 
that allows you to work in your home business and get things 
done in that fashion.
    Mr. Fallon. So, let us talk about, like, states that are 
calling for gas stove bans. New York comes to mind. Celebrity 
chefs are suing. They like their gas stoves. They are the 
experts with the culinary deliciousness that we, as Americans, 
like so much. They get exceptions for their businesses. Courts 
are even ruling in their favor. This is just outrageous logic. 
Why are celebrities getting favored treatment over everyday 
Americans?
    Mr. Agen. Yes. Obviously, we would want direct use for 
access to natural gas in people's homes and the stoves in 
people's homes. It is clear that they are making these 
exceptions because it will economically affect towns and 
businesses that are looking to ban natural gas. They do not 
want to see those restaurants leave. And you are starting to 
see that in certain areas where restaurants are starting to 
push back. And that is why really the California Restaurant 
Association sued Berkeley to kind of make sure that they 
could--the restaurant could still get access to natural gas in 
Berkeley, California.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    Mr. Lieberman, your organization has participated in a 
Department of Energy rulemaking over the last 20 years 
regarding energy and water conservation standards for home 
appliances such as gas stoves. How does the efficiency standard 
in the proposed rule violate the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act.
    Mr. Lieberman. The law is very clear that energy efficiency 
standards cannot compromise product quality, choice, and 
features. And that clearly is at issue here. Gas stoves are 
much disproportionately burdened under this. Gas stoves will 
survive, but they will have to cut corners in order to comply. 
They will have to cut back on the very highest heat burners as 
we have heard. And these are features that people want. They 
are on the market because people want.
    Essentially, the statute says if a feature is on the market 
before a standard, it has to remain on the market in at least 
one model after the standard. That is not going to be the case 
here.
    And regarding a ban, remember, the Department of Energy and 
Consumer Product Safety Commission are both targeting gas 
stoves. The idea that two agencies going after stoves and we 
have nothing to worry about is just not realistic. You add to 
that natural gas hookup bans, which are now getting support 
from the Federal Government through the Inflation Reduction 
Act, $840 of taxpayer money for the purchase of an electric 
stove, zero for a gas stove, a whole host of measures opposed 
to natural gas more broadly, you know, limited leasing on 
Federal lands. It all adds up to a whole lot fewer gas stoves 
in the future if all of this is allowed to be finalized.
    Mr. Fallon. And $840 for an electric stove and----
    Mr. Lieberman. I do not know how it works because some do 
not even cost $840.
    Mr. Fallon. Right. Maybe get the stove and some money on 
it----
    Mr. Lieberman. Yes. We will pay you to take the stove, yes.
    Mr. Fallon. All right. Well, thank you all. I thank the 
witnesses. I now yield.
    And I recognize Ranking Member Bush for her five minutes of 
questions.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I are here today to present the 
facts about gas stoves and the hazard they pose on our 
environment and our health.
    I think about my colleague says, he likes gas stoves. I 
like gas stoves. We all like gas stoves. Seatbelts work too 
because there are standards put in place to keep people safe. 
This is a standard. This is a--we are talking about keeping 
people safe, and I like people to be alive, not necessarily 
what looks like a way to weaponize or to politicize an 
appliance. Let us keep people safe.
    So, scientific research has proven there is a direct 
connection between gas stoves and let us just take childhood 
asthma, finding that gas stoves are linked to one in eight 
childhood asthma cases. These findings are especially 
concerning considering that asthma disproportionately affects 
Black and Brown communities--like whole communities of people, 
humans.
    According to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, 13.4 percent of Black children have asthma, while 
only 7.8 percent of White children have asthma. New mothers 
heating up bottles or making pancakes could be poisoning their 
children without their knowledge. We want to keep them safe.
    This evidence linking gas stove emissions to negative 
health outcomes, it continues to grow. Gas stoves rely on 
natural gas or methane as a fuel source which affects the 
climate both as a fossil fuel source and as a greenhouse gas 
itself.
    So, Mr. deLaski, how does using natural gas as a fuel 
source contribute to the climate crisis?
    Mr. deLaski. Burning natural gas in our homes and in our 
power plants is a significant contributor to climate change 
emissions and also a significant contributor to air quality 
challenges and problems indoors and outdoors. And making our 
stoves more efficient would reduce combustion and reduce the 
emissions coming from our stoves.
    Ms. Bush. OK. Mr. DeLaski, would improving the efficiency 
of gas stoves, would that help reduce the impact on the climate 
crisis?
    Mr. deLaski. Absolutely. Improving the efficiency of our 
gas stoves would help.
    Ms. Bush. I wholeheartedly agree.
    A 2022 study by Stanford Science has found that annual 
methane emissions from all gas stoves in the United States in 
our homes have a climate impact comparable to the annual carbon 
dioxide emissions of 500,000 cars, with more than three-
quarters of methane emissions originating while the gas stoves 
were not even in use.
    So, Mr. deLaski, what actions can manufacturers, can 
consumers and regulators take to prevent the vast amounts of 
methane leakage from gas stoves?
    Mr. deLaski. One of the steps that we can take is for the 
Department of Energy to set the first ever efficiency standards 
for gas stoves. We now, for the first time, have a way of 
measuring relative efficiency and to ask manufacturers to make 
the investment to make their gas stoves that they sell more 
energy efficient, reducing their emissions.
    Ms. Bush. One more question for you.
    What pollutants do gas stoves emit that are so harmful to 
human respiratory systems?
    Mr. deLaski. I'm not an expert in the various emissions 
that are coming out of gas stoves. I would point you to 
comments filed by the American Lung Association, as well as a 
number of nurses' organizations and other public health 
advocates, to the Department of Energy in the gas stove docket 
where they lay out some of the problems for indoor air quality 
and for ambient air quality. They are the experts, and I point 
you to the American Lung Association. They support the gas 
stove standard and are vocally supporting it.
    Ms. Bush. Well, I would just add, like, nitrogen dioxide 
which is known to irritate the human respiratory system, and as 
a nurse, I have seen it all too often, the effects.
    Further research we know is warranted. In the meantime, 
experts suggest several actions businesses and families can 
take to reduce the health risks associated with gas stoves. 
These include opening a window, using an exhaust hood, 
installing carbon monoxide detectors, and making the transition 
to electric stoves. Everyone should have the necessary 
information about their household goods to determine what is 
best for them, particularly their stoves.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes my good friend and colleague from 
Florida, Mr. Donalds.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Chairman.
    First and foremost, I find it to just be highly 
disrespectful that the Department of Energy was asked to be 
here, they are not here. They do not want to answer questions 
about their own rule, which is going to impact the bottom line 
in the pocketbook of every American, especially those who own 
gas stoves currently. And, you know, I just find that to just 
be ridiculous.
    They must be taking a cue from the President who does not 
even want to answer questions, does not do press conferences, 
and just is nowhere to be found. I find that to just really be 
laughable, to be honest.
    Secondarily, this whole gas stoves thing makes no sense. 
Mr. Stein, I think you were saying in your testimony that 
roughly only four percent of the current product in the gas 
stoves market would actually even comply with the EPA's rule.
    So, if you are a homeowner or even a renter and there are 
gas hookups into the kitchen, what are they supposed to do? Are 
they now supposed to retrofit their kitchen for an electrical 
outlet? Because it is not a normal outlet with electric stoves. 
It is a specially designed outlet for the electric stove in the 
kitchen.
    So, I would ask the Department of Energy, if they were 
actually here, what do you expect the American people to do 
with respect to their kitchen? Are they going to now retrofit 
their kitchen to allow for an electric hookup to go in there 
when the house was not designed for that?
    Mr. deLaski, what is the cost on that? Is that in your 
research?
    Mr. deLaski. The Department has not proposed to ban gas 
stoves.
    Mr. Donalds. The Department did not propose banning gas 
stoves, but the Department is actually going to regulate the 
fact that most gas stoves on the market would no longer be able 
to be sold. They would not be allowed to be sold, only four 
percent.
    Do you agree with that, Mr. deLaski?
    Mr. deLaski. No. I have seen this movie before where----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. deLaski, this is not a movie. This is 
reality.
    Mr. deLaski. The claim is that----
    Mr. Donalds. Because this is--Mr. DeLaski, this is reality. 
Because if you are going to tell--let me bring it to you this 
way.
    If you are going to tell my mom that she cannot have a gas 
stove anymore and she can only buy an electric stove, but there 
is a gas hookup in the kitchen and now the kitchen has to be 
remodeled--and we were renters; we were not owners, which meant 
the landlord had to go and redo that--do you know what that is 
going to do to her livelihood? What happens if the landlord 
says, Man, I have got to go through these massive retrofits; 
I'm not paying for that? It falls back on the back of the 
renter, which is what does happen.
    Does that sound like a movie to you? No, it does not. I'm 
not even asking you a question, because this is ridiculous. 
This is not a movie. This is people's lives, and we have the 
Department of Energy who does not even have the guts, the 
courage to come in here and answer questions about their 
proposed rule. They would rather hide in their building down 
the street than come in here and talk to the American people, 
talk to the people's representatives.
    I mean, we do have to fund the Department of Energy. That 
is coming up in a couple of months. If you cannot even come in 
here and answer questions, why would we fund you? And that is 
serious. I'm not even joking around, because this thing is 
stupid.
    For Black and Brown communities, the cost of actually 
having to go out and buy a new appliance or to retrofit your 
kitchen is far more dangerous to your bottom line and to your 
pocketbook. I'm being honest. It is far more dangerous.
    I noticed in the Ranking Member's comments she never once 
mentioned what it would cost a Black and Brown family. She did 
not talk about that. All she is talking about is the fact that 
the entire Green New Deal agenda may--and I stress may--cut one 
half of a degree in the world's climate by 2050. And I stress 
may, because there was a representative from the Department of 
Energy in the Senate a few weeks ago, and he could not even 
answer the question that came from Senator Kennedy. He did not 
know. He had no answer. He was like you, Mr. deLaski, just 
going back through the ``This is not a movie,'' or whatever the 
heck you are saying over there. This stuff is dumb.
    Listen, what we should be doing is a couple of things. No. 
1, making sure that there is actually cheap and readily 
affordable energy for our businesses and for our people, 
period, full stop.
    Two, this notion of chasing down the Green New Deal fantasy 
which, by the way, half the globe is ignoring. China is not 
doing this. Russia is not doing this, and the Europeans are 
backpedaling from this quickly because even the Europeans now 
understand that they cannot live their Green New Deal dreams on 
gas that they were getting from Russia. They do not get to do 
that anymore, so now Europe is backpedaling.
    We need to get serious in the United States. And if we want 
to have an economy where everybody has got to be able to earn 
money in and we want to have an energy grid that is 
sustainable, what we cannot do are these crazy demands from the 
Department of Energy and from the EPA.
    The last thing I will say is this. If we follow the 
President's dream and the other party's dream of electrifying 
every car and electrifying every stove, you know what we are 
going to have? We are going to have an electric grid with not 
enough energy to turn the lights on. Those are the facts.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Donalds.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Brown from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today my friends on the other side of the aisle are, 
unfortunately, spreading unfounded fear mongering about gas 
stoves.
    As someone who uses a gas stove, I want to address some 
myths.
    First, the Biden Administration, again, is not banning gas 
stoves. I repeat, the Biden Administration is not banning gas 
stoves. The Department of Energy is not banning gas stoves. 
And, in fact, the Department of Energy cannot ban stoves 
through energy efficiency standards. Instead, consistent with 
the law, the Department of Energy is proposing standards that 
would improve the efficiency of gas stoves built in the future.
    Mr. deLaski, to your knowledge, will new conservation 
standards affect existing stoves installed in homes and 
businesses across America?
    Mr. deLaski. No, it will not.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    Mr. deLaski, can you describe some of the benefits related 
to the improved efficiency of gas stoves?
    Mr. deLaski. The improved efficiency of gas stoves would 
cut bills for consumers. For a gas stove owner, it is going to 
save them about 50 bucks, and for an electric stove owner, 
about $75 over the life of the stove. Those are--you know, if 
you saw $50 laying on the ground, you would pick it up. And 
that is what the government is doing by setting efficiency 
standards for gas stoves and for electric stoves too.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    Mr. deLaski, why is it important for the public to have 
accurate information about the energy conservation health 
impacts of the products they use?
    Mr. deLaski. Consumers having information is what helps 
them to make good decisions that are best for their families, 
and one of the things that we accomplish with these standards 
is allowing people to understand what is the efficiency 
performance of different products in the marketplace so they 
can make the choices that are best for their families, while 
they still have a range--and they will continue to have a range 
of choices, let us make no mistake, both electric and gas 
products, once the standard is in place.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much for that.
    Listen, experts have long held concerns about the impact of 
gas stoves on human health. It is unacceptable that nearly 13 
percent of childhood asthma is directly connected to gas stove 
emissions.
    To be clear, while the Department of Energy works to 
improve the efficiency of stoves, we can all take steps to 
reduce the potential health risks associated with their use by 
doing small things like turning on a vent or opening a window. 
As mentioned, one of the essential services that our government 
provides is to review consumer products and identify ways to 
make them cleaner and safer. That is exactly what the 
Department of Energy is doing, making sure that gas stoves are 
less expensive to operate and produce fewer toxins and health 
hazards.
    It is my hope that my Republican colleagues will redirect 
their focus to the well-being of American people rather than 
politicizing kitchen appliances. Because you know what they are 
banning? Abortions. You know what they are banning? Books. You 
know what they will not ban? Assault weapons. But we are 
sitting up here talking about a ban on gas stoves. But I should 
be excited. Because if my colleagues are interested in an 
appliance that is causing harm to children's lives, perhaps 
they will get the courage to have a hearing about banning 
assault weapons which are actually killing people every single 
day.
    So, yes, I agree, this is dangerous and dumb. We have much 
better things to focus our time on.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz from 
Florida.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the 
waiver onto the Committee.
    And first let me say, from a policy perspective, I think my 
colleagues across the aisle are correct. I do not think we 
should ban gas stoves, and I do not think banning gas stoves is 
the least impactful way to address the gas nitrogen or carbon 
monoxide or formaldehyde that is coming out. It is ventilation. 
Ventilation is the way to address that.
    And so, I'm here to say, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with 
you that we should not be banning gas stoves. And the good news 
is that this proposed rule does not ban gas stoves. And I get 
it. I get that every morning, you know, as you are getting your 
coffee, you know, and it is warm and you are in the kitchen and 
you stare into the knobs of your beautiful stainless steel 
beauty, I got it. I get the bravado. You can--we can pry your 
gas stove from your cold, dead hands, or give me my gas stove 
or give me death. You know, I have a six-burner, double oven 
range that sits on legs. I mean, I miss her right now as we are 
talking about it.
    And so, I think--because it is a two-party system, I think 
when my colleagues across the aisle, the other party, show 
leadership, the leadership of our times that is desperately 
needed, Democrats like myself should commend them. And I want 
to apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party that we have 
decided to put kids, kids' safety in their neighborhoods, from 
getting gunned down in movie theatres or grocery stores or 
school churches or synagogues, we as Democrats have clearly 
lost our way, that we are not focused on appliances.
    And so, we are finally seeing our friends across the aisle 
stand up for parents all across the country as they tuck their 
kid in at night, as they dress them for school in the morning, 
as they are worried that they may not come home. My friends 
across the aisle are telling those parents, you can breathe a 
sigh of relief, that the grand appliance party is going to make 
sure your gas stove goes nowhere.
    You might own a small business, and you are worried about 
how you are going to pay your employees if we default. The good 
news for you today, is that if you have to shutter your 
business because the country defaults, your gas stove will 
still be there.
    And so, you know, I look forward to the legislation of our 
time, the Appliance Bill of Rights, that might come in front of 
this Committee and joining in this fight together as we show 
Americans that Congress can still do big things, that we have 
not lost our way, and that when the American people need 
leadership from their elected leaders, we are going to deliver 
for them and their gas stoves.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Bush for 
close.
    Ms. Bush. As we have heard over and over again, this is not 
a ban on gas stoves. This is not a ban on gas stoves. This is 
not a ban on gas stoves. We would love to see actual action 
that saves lives, but we continue to see from our Republican 
colleagues actions that loosen regulations, that make it easier 
for humans to lose their lives, make it easier for humans to 
become ill.
    Gas stoves have an enormous impact, a negative impact on 
the climate and on humans' health. We have said it over and 
over again, including contributing to childhood asthma, and 
that is a big deal. Respiratory illnesses are a big deal. 
Energy efficiency standards benefit American consumers by 
lowering the risks that are associated with gas stoves and 
saving them money on their utility bills.
    The Department of Energy's proposed rule on energy 
efficiency for consumer cooking products is part of the normal 
course of business, and it is required, actually, by law. The 
proposed rule is also part of an effort to catch up on the long 
overdue updates to energy efficiency, those standards that fell 
to the wayside during the Trump Administration.
    The proposed rule also has the support of consumer 
protection organizations, such as Consumer Federation of 
America and the National Consumer Law Center.
    I would like to request unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a letter from these two organizations submitted for this 
hearing.
    Yes?
    Mr. Fallon. So, moved.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so moved.
    Ms. Bush. I would also like to highlight an important point 
raised in the letter, and I quote: Inefficient stoves raise 
important equity concerns. If DOE fails to adopt strong 
efficiency standards for stoves, it will leave millions of 
renters who are disproportionately low-income, compared to the 
population at large, confined to having less efficient stoves 
installed with consequently larger energy bills.
    The proposed efficiency standards are not a ban on gas 
stoves, again. The Department does not want to, nor can it, ban 
gas stoves. The Biden-Harris Administration has specifically 
stated that it is not in favor of banning gas stoves. 
Republicans are deliberately misrepresenting the facts and 
misrepresenting data, all the while focusing on this made-up 
war, let us call it that, on gas stoves and ignoring far more 
pressing issues for Americans across the country.
    We are about saving lives. That is more important than what 
we are seeing about how comfortable it is to have a gas stove 
in the manner that we have them now. It is OK. New technology 
comes out. New information comes out. I think we should move 
forward with that, and we do not have to ban gas stoves to do 
it.
    Consumers should have all of the relevant information, all 
of the important information that they need to make an informed 
decision about appliances in their own homes.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. I want to thank Representative Moskowitz for 
coming in and giving his testimony. He was waived on the 
Committee. He actually was one of the 29 Democrats that voted 
with the Republicans to prevent this rule from going into 
effect, so I want to thank him for his support as well on this.
    So, I figured at the beginning of the hearing that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say either this 
is not a ban or regulating them out of existence is something 
that--because it is not a ban. It is regulating out of 
existence. That is what it is, so I would partially agree. And 
it--or they would say, this is something--climate change 
demands it, so we are going to command it. This is something 
that we are going to make mandatory, but, actually, they did 
both. And some of the salacious and ridiculous and hyperbolic 
claims, like the Republicans are against safety, I mean, that 
is absolutely absurd. You know, this is about taking away 
choice. And every time you take away choice, you take away 
liberty. And it seems to me the only choice that many of our 
Democratic colleagues are comfortable in allowing the masses to 
have is abortion. Everything else, it is best left to the 
elites. And this is not a ban. Yes, it is, again, regulating 
them out of existence. And what they do, they cite a wild and 
hollow savings claims.
    And I prefer, if we are going to give someone a choice, do 
you trust the American individual or do you trust an unelected 
bureaucrat? And this, again, comes down to is it the rule of 
law, which is what I thought we were supposed to be a rule of 
law Nation, or is it the law of the rule?
    And then we were told gas stoves are hazardous or they are 
disproportionately harming people of color or they are 
dangerous or they are poison, they are poisoning, and gas 
stoves kill. So, I guess by implication gas stoves could be 
racist. Or are they just better to help us scramble some eggs 
and make some crispy bacon?
    This is about, at the end of the day, choice. And it is 
clear that the American people simply do not want these opaque 
and complicated rulemaking standards that the Biden 
Administration is putting forth.
    Nominee after nominee that President Biden puts forward has 
faced serious opposition or straight up rejection because this 
is extreme. Just take the sinking of the nominee for the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, for example. We 
would have loved to have him testify on the proposed rule at 
issue today since his office would be having to sign off on it. 
But as you can see, there are two empty chairs that the 
Department of Energy was asked to come, and they just again 
thwarted the request of Congress.
    Concerningly, these agencies are moving forward with 
overreaching ideologically driven rules without the consent of 
the American people, and then they won't even come to answer 
questions from the American people's elected representatives. I 
would be just as angry if they ignored it under a Republican 
Administration.
    The Department of Energy is even relying on a court-ordered 
consent decree initiated by environmental groups as a basis for 
staying out of this hearing room today. And let us get real. 
Agencies avoiding accountability is a theme we have seen 
through this Congress from this Democratic Administration. We 
saw it last Congress with the Democratic Majority as well.
    The reason for this behavior is that the Biden 
Administration knows it is politically exposed and compromised. 
This is an uncomfortable hearing. We hear this from our 
colleagues about, don't we have better things to do than 
talking about appliances and gas stoves? We are talking about 
liberty and we are talking about freedom.
    But this is the same party that had, I think, three 
hearings with this Committee about the Washington Redskins and 
Daniel Snyder. I think we have a lot more important things to 
do than to harass that man. I forget what they call them, the 
Commanders, I do not even know. They will forever be the 
Redskins to me.
    Mr. Fallon. Republican legislation protecting consumer 
choice has talked many Democrats out of supporting the 
Department of Energy's proposed rulemaking. And as I mentioned, 
this is bipartisan support to kill this rule. Twenty-nine 
Democrats joined all the Republicans.
    So, meanwhile, we have Energy Secretary Granholm, herself, 
has defended bans against gas stoves. Although, she has one 
herself, which is at the height of leftist hypocrisy. So do 
celebrities in California who are suing for exceptions to have 
the gas stoves in kitchens. Can you imagine suing to keep a gas 
stove in your kitchen? This is absurd. This is where 10 years 
ago, I do not think any of us saw. There is plenty of topics 
today, that 10 years ago we would have thought there was no 
possible way that we would get there.
    One of the key principles of our great country is we the 
people, not we the bureaucrats. That is kind of a dictatorship 
of the bureaucracy, quite frankly. Free markets determine what 
we want for ourselves and our families and our communities. And 
people in America are free right now to have a choice. You can 
have an electric stove, if you want, or you can have a gas 
stove.
    I want to thank the witnesses for their participation in 
contributing to this meaningful discussion today. I look 
forward to scheduling a follow-up hearing with the Department 
of Energy, and maybe then they will actually show up and do 
their jobs and be held accountable to the American people. They 
do cash a check, and that check is written by the American 
taxpayer, at which time we hope that they will appear, and that 
they can answer our questions.
    And with that and without objection, all Members will have 
five legislative days with which to submit materials and then 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which 
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. If there 
is no further business, without objection----
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. I apologize. I do not know if I was waived in at 
the beginning, would I be allowed to submit----
    Mr. Fallon. You are.
    Mr. Issa. All right. Then I would like to submit mine for 
the record, too. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. You are welcome. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Fallon. If there is no further business, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands at adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]