[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CANCELLING CONSUMER CHOICE:
EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S
REGULATORY ASSAULT ON AMERICANS'
HOME APPLIANCES
=======================================================================
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
__________
JULY 18, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-004 PDF 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 Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Vacancy
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
David Ehmen, Counsel
Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
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
Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July18, 2023..................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
Dr. Geri Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and Innovation,
United States Department of Energy
Oral Statement................................................... 5
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
----------
* Report, Global Epidemiology, ``Gas Cooking and Respiratory
Outcomes in Children: A Systemic Review''; submitted by Rep.
Fallon.
* Questions for the Record: to Dr. Richmond; submitted by Rep.
Fallon.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
CANCELLING CONSUMER CHOICE:
EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S
REGULATORY ASSAULT ON AMERICANS'
HOME APPLIANCES
----------
Tuesday, July 18, 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 10:15 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fallon, Comer, Perry, Boebert,
Edwards, Bush, Brown, and Norton.
Also present: Representative Moskowitz.
Mr. Fallon. The hearing on the Subcommittee of Economic
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to
order. I want to welcome everyone. I want to apologize for
being a bit tardy.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today, we will examine the Department of Energy's proposed
rulemaking on home appliances, a tidal wave of regulatory
burdens affecting Americans' daily lives. This slate of rules
includes the controversial consumer convention cooking products
rule, which imposes stricter requirements on gas stoves, but it
does not stop there, unfortunately. There are other rulemakings
under consideration for dishwashers, refrigerators, water
heaters, furnaces, air conditioners, and other household
appliances under the guise of improving energy efficiency as
proscribed by the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act or
EPCA.
In May, this Committee invited DOE officials to discuss gas
stove rule, which would impact 40 percent of American
households, but the Department refused to make witnesses
available. Instead, the Subcommittee heard valuable insight
from nongovernmental witnesses that the gas stove rule is not a
sincere attempt to improve efficiency. Today, the hearing
follows over 2 months of correspondence between the Committee
and the DOE, requesting the Department testify on these opaque
and burdensome rulemakings.
During the Subcommittee's hearings last month regarding EPA
emissions rules, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
expressed annoyance that we are repeating hearing topics. I am
here to say that we wholeheartedly agree. As I said last month,
and I will say it again now, if the Administration cared about
transparency, they would appear before this Committee when
requested, and this Committee would not have to duplicate
hearing topics. We do have a lot to talk about in the next year
or two, and we would like to move on as well. And we are glad
the Department finally showed up to answer questions about the
burdensome rules that they want to impose on our constituents.
The gas stove rule, in particular, presents alarming
violations of EPCA and erroneous analysis according to the
experts who testified in place of invited departmental
officials. The Department relied on uncited, court-supervised
consent decree and dubious citings to the law as grounds for
refusing to testify at earlier hearings. We saw this rationale
on full display from Democrats who claimed the Department's
rule is ``required actually by law,'' which is not accurate. We
also heard the Democrats say that gas stoves create an unsafe
indoor air quality environment and may be linked to childhood
asthma, ignoring peer-reviewed research suggesting that there
is no causal relationship between the use of gas indoor cooking
appliances and asthma.
I am adding this research submitted by the American Gas
Association to the hearing record, and without objection, so
ordered.
In defending their position, the Department and Democrats
appear to be endorsing the sue and settle type of practices of
radical activist litigants, a practice which allows special
interest groups to achieve regulatory goals by forcing agencies
to implement policies in response to litigation by friendly
organizations that occurs in secret to bypass the legislative
and regulatory processes. On September 20, 2022, Natural
Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity,
and other liberal groups settled the lawsuit against the
Department to update ``overdue'' energy efficiency standards
for 20 categories of consumer and commercial appliances and
equipment, including gas stoves. The settlement accelerated the
Biden Administration's 100-plus actions on energy efficiency
standards, avoiding EPA requirements, which now cover a whole
host of household items Americans use every day.
Many of the rules result in hundreds of millions in cost to
manufacturers, costs which will ultimately be passed on to none
other than our constituents: the American consumer. The DOE,
however, will argue that the savings of, say, 12 cents a month
or $1.50 per year is more than enough reason to reconfigure the
entire gas stove industry. If that does not seem like much,
well, you can sleep easy knowing that getting rid of your gas
stove is saving the planet from climate change.
And, yes, come on. We all know that these rules are a
solution in search of a problem. America is a global leader in
technology and technological advancements in energy efficiency
regardless of the fuel source. And as I have said on many
occasions, we have reduced our carbon footprint by over 20
percent in the last 20-plus years where China has increased
their carbon footprint by 300 percent. The United States is not
a planet. We are sharing a planet with another 192 other
countries.
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the
coordinated efforts between radical environmental activists and
subsequent agency rulemakings that stand to impact even the
smallest aspect of our daily lives. If an agency is going to
propose rules that stand up and the entire sectors, you know,
like the appliance industry, then they should be ready to
answer questions about them, and that is why we are here today.
I want to thank our witness for appearing before the
Committee today, and I yield to Ranking Member Bush for her
opening statement.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. St. Louis and I are here
today, again, to discuss the Biden Administration's regulations
to improve the efficiency of gas stoves and now other household
appliances. Since our last hearing on this very topic, the
importance of commonsense regulations has not changed. The
harmful effects of fossil fuel usage, similarly, has not
changed. The consequences of Federal inaction remain dire.
Since we are at yet another hearing about home appliance
regulations, I am going to reiterate what we said last time
about gas stoves. The Biden-Harris Administration is not
banning gas stoves, nor is it leading a conspiracy to regulate
your appliances out of existence. This hearing is Republicans
playing defense for Big Oil and Gas. We should not be surprised
that some of the largest contributors to climate change are
for-profit interests opposed to regulations that reduce energy
consumption and affect their bottom line. Those who pay the
highest price from regulatory inaction are Black and Brown
communities.
Lawmakers have an obligation to regulate both indoor and
outdoor pollution by increasing the energy efficiency of common
household appliances. As energy-efficient technology evolves,
so should our regulatory powers. The Department of Energy
stated that their proposed changes to gas stove energy
standards ``would save a significant amount of energy and would
yield significant environmental benefits.'' These benefits
include lower energy bills, fewer toxic emissions in our air
and water, and providing monetary health benefits. The
estimated financial benefits of implementing these rules
amounts to over $130 million in reducing operating costs,
nearly $60 million in climate benefits, and $94 million in
health benefits. Those dividends are just on this single
proposal related to stoves and does not account for the
benefits of improving energy efficiency standards for
dishwashers, refrigerators, washing machines, and other common
household appliances.
Republicans enjoy talking about the price of regulation and
the cost increases companies and manufacturers may incur to
remain DOE compliant. The reality is the appliance standard
programs have saved consumers and businesses billions of
dollars. Families and businesses have benefited for decades
from more efficient gas stoves, laundry machines, dishwashers,
and light bulbs.
The climate crisis is here, and it is very, very real.
Record heatwaves have enveloped the Nation this month alone,
and large parts of Missouri have been designated as natural
disaster areas due to drought, as we speak. According to Nexus
Media, within this decade, St. Louis will become 2 degrees
Fahrenheit warmer than it was during the latter half of the
20th century. This warmer air will lead to more severe
rainfall, leading to massive and more regular flooding in the
region. Missouri endures both extremes of the climate disaster.
Parts of my state battle drought, while other parts of my state
battle historic flooding. In 2019, St. Louis' river system
reached a historically high level and inundated the area
surrounding the Gateway Arch. As these storms and flooding grow
more common, it is low-lying neighborhoods, often those of whom
who are populated with Black and Brown families, that will bear
the brunt of Federal inaction.
Despite the frightening reality of climate change and its
very real and very visible effects on our communities, my
Republican colleagues oppose commonsense regulations to curb
harmful emissions. The Biden Administration's rules incentivize
the innovations most private sector companies are already
pursuing. Some manufacturers are choosing not to protect our
health and safety in the interest of short-term profit. By
cutting regulatory corners, manufacturers are making it more
difficult to protect consumers, but the reality is Republican
opposition to basic efficiency standards is entirely new.
These pragmatic policies used to be bipartisan. Presidents
Reagan, H.W. Bush, and W. Bush all signed efficiency standards
for various household appliances into law during their
presidencies. Today, however, the only regulations Republicans
fight for are to restrict access to abortion and children's
books. Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to deny vital
access to Republican healthcare and to needlessly regulate
classroom learning, and yet it is not OK to protect the
environment. It is not OK to reduce climate change or improve
public health. The Republican agenda will exacerbate existing
health and climate issues. The Biden-Harris Administration's
plan, however, will help ensure a cleaner, healthier future for
our children. I want to thank them for their efforts on this
front, as well as the Department of Energy for protecting our
planet. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. I am pleased to welcome our witness today, Dr.
Geraldine Richmond. Dr. Richmond is an Under Secretary of
Science and Innovation at the Department of Energy. We look
forward to hearing what you have to say on today's important
topic.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(G), the witness will please
stand and raise her right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Richmond. I do.
I will let the record show the witness answered in the
affirmative. Please take your seat.
Mr. Fallon. We appreciate you being here today, Doctor, and
look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witness that
we have read your statement, and it will appear in full in the
written record, in the hearing record. Listen, please limit
your oral statement to 5 minutes. And as a reminder, you are
going to have a little button there. Please press it so we can
hear you. And then you will have a light that will be yellow
for 4 minutes--or I am sorry--it will be green for 4 minutes,
and it will turn yellow for the last minute, and then red, and
then if you could wrap it up, we would appreciate it.
And I now recognize Dr. Richmond for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GERALDINE RICHMOND
UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Richmond. Great. Well, good morning, everyone, and
Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. As mentioned, I am actually--you can call me Geri
Richmond--I am Under Secretary for Science and Innovation in
the Department of Energy, and actually 45 years of conducting
research at the University of Oregon, so I am a scientist by
trade.
Energy conservation standards are one of our Nation's most
important tools to save energy in homes and businesses across
the country, and under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
EPCA, Congress has required DOE to issue many of these
standards. From the program's inception since 1975 to 2020,
appliance standards saved consumers more than a trillion
dollars on their utility bills, and that number is expected to
pass $2 trillion by 2030. DOE's energy conservation standards
also provide transparency and uniformity, that is very
important, and stakeholders alike. Our test procedures ensure
all covered products sold in the United States are evaluated
against the same methods and criteria so consumers and industry
can compare apples with apples. What we are talking about today
is saving consumers and companies money, protecting the
environment, and improving our Nation's energy security. I look
forward to working with the Committee to advance each of these
important goals, which I know that we all share.
As I mentioned, Congress enacted EPCA in 1975 and
established a Federal program of test procedures, labeling, and
energy targets for consumer products. The law was amended in
1979 and directed DOE to establish energy conservation
standards for consumer products, including consumer
conventional cooking products. At least once every 6 years,
EPCA requires DOE to review existing standards for covered
products and determine whether to amend the existing standard
based on the analysis of stationary criteria.
Pursuant to its statutory obligations under EPCA, the
Department is proposing energy conservation standards for both
gas and electric consumer conventional cooking products, which
includes ovens, ranges, and cooktops. DOE is required to
conduct this rulemaking on a specific timeline due to the
consent decree ordered by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, which requires that the final
rule be completed by January 2024.
As with all energy conservation standards, the proposed
standards for cooktops were based on data-driven analysis and
statutory factors outlined in EPCA, including a robust
stakeholder process. These proposed standards would only apply
to products manufactured or imported into the United States 3
years from now, 3 years after a final rule is published in the
Federal Register. So, according to the efficiency levels
outlined in the proposal, American consumers would save up to
$1.7 billion per year in 2021 dollars, and a new gas cooktop
would use 33 percent less natural gas on average than the least
efficient models today. Nearly 50 percent of the current gas
cooktop models would not be impacted by the rule. In fact, the
entry-level gas models on the market are also the most
efficient and would not be impacted by this rule. In its
evaluation, DOE found that the proposed standards would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under
consideration. And that means the proposed rule would not make
stoves less hot or make them heat up more slowly, among other
performance features that we know consumers care about.
So, there has been some confusion around this rule, so I
would like to just provide some clarity on a few points. The
Department of Energy is not proposing any ban on gas stoves.
DOE is committed to consumer choice. The Department does not
have the authority to ban gas stoves. DOE cannot require and is
not proposing that consumers replace stoves already installed
in their homes. And again, DOE's proposed standards, if
adopted, would only apply to products manufactured or imported
3 years after the final rule published in the Federal Register.
The Department of Energy is always working to seize the
opportunities for energy efficiency offers and saving families
and businesses money by saving energy, and the Department will
continue to fulfill its statutory obligations as directed by
Congress and the courts. And I appreciate the chance to share
information on DOE's Energy Conservation Standards Program for
cooktops, and I am happy to answer the Committee Members'
questions on this topic. Thank you.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Doctor. I now recognize myself for 5
minutes for the purpose of questions.
Dr. Richmond, who was responsible for the decision at the
Department to decline the Committee's previous invitation to
appear before this Subcommittee to discuss the gas stoves rule
on May 24th?
Ms. Richmond. Well, I was not involved in that initial
decision that came from May 4th, but the minute that I got the
invitation to come and speak with you, I immediately accepted
it.
Mr. Fallon. Well, thank you because you understand why
there would be concern. It should be a bipartisan concern,
regardless of which party is in power, that we are the elected
representatives of the people. And when we ask an agency of the
administration to come and testify, I think it is incredibly
important and paramount really to doing your job effectively to
answer questions, both easy and the tough ones, the softballs
and the fastballs, if you will. As outlined in the Committee,
July 11, 2023, letter to your Department, the DOE
representative stated that preparing you to testify on all
proposed and finalized rules regarding home appliances would be
``too much to be able to get you ready to testify for.'' Do you
take exception to that?
Ms. Richmond. I could talk about the other ones, too, to
some degree. I am here. I oversee it, so to the degree that I
can, I am happy to talk about other appliances, but I may not
be able to be as much detailed as you might like, but I would
always get back to you, if you need it.
Mr. Fallon. Because, you know, seeing as all of these rules
fall under your purview----
Ms. Richmond. Yes.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. As Under Secretary, you would not
have any issues to be able to talk about the matters that
clearly fall within your job description.
Ms. Richmond. Yes. That is right.
Mr. Fallon. Yes. OK. Great.
Ms. Richmond. That is right.
Mr. Fallon. It seems clear that the sheer volume of rules
proposed by your office is impacting your ability to pay proper
attention to each proposal. Why would you allow so many rules
to be put forth if you do not have the ability to adequately
review since we were told that you would be unable to testify
about them? That is essentially what your Department had told
us.
Ms. Richmond. Well, thank you for that question. Let me
just say that DOE has an incredible team that works on every
single one of these, including the six that are up right now. I
am just incredibly impressed by it, and I do not think that it
is too much for the Department of Energy to be doing. We have
been doing this for 50 years, and as the number of appliances
have increased, their technical capabilities have increased,
too. So, I have full confidence that the DOE team involved in
this can manage the number of appliances that we are working on
right now.
Mr. Fallon. It is my understanding that the DOE relied on a
court-ordered consent decree initiated by environmental
activist groups as a basis for not providing witnesses at our
May 24, 2023 hearing. Is that correct? Do you agree with that?
Ms. Richmond. That they were influencing the decision as to
whether or not these other outside groups were?
Mr. Fallon. That they would not provide witnesses.
Ms. Richmond. The reason that DOE would not provide
witnesses----
Mr. Fallon. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Richmond [continuing]. To talk to you?
Mr. Fallon. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Richmond. No.
Mr. Fallon. OK. In October 2020, environmentalist groups
filed a lawsuit to update overdue energy efficiency standards
for appliances, which conveniently overlaps with the Biden
Administration's actions on energy efficiency standards. This
is certainly a coincidence. Is the DOE coordinating with
outside environmentalist groups to enact policy changes on
energy efficiency standards?
Ms. Richmond. No, we do not consult with environmental
groups in making our policy rules and decisions. Once we have
put them out, have announced our proposal, then we take a lot
of input both on the web as well as meeting with stakeholders,
but by no means is any outside group influencing the rules that
we propose. Again, after they have been proposed, we listen to
stakeholders.
Mr. Fallon. Doctor, thank you, respectfully, just because
my time is limited, when you say you meet with stakeholders,
did you meet with the stakeholders that produce the stoves and
other appliances?
Ms. Richmond. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. And do you feel that they are happy about your
decisions?
Ms. Richmond. Well, you know, in this case, we take all of
the input and then we discuss it, and I think for me to say
whether we are happy or not with it at this point would not be
appropriate. But we continue to listen, and many times
negotiate with them on things to make it so that it is not a
burden to them also, so I think we have a very open process.
Mr. Fallon. So, you are saying that you do not think that
these regulations are a burden on the producers of these
appliances because they believe that it is a huge burden, and a
lot of them think they are going to be losing millions if not
hundreds of millions of dollars.
Ms. Richmond. Well, thank you for that question. Our
analysis suggests that, for example, for the gas, if we are
going to focus specifically on the gas stoves, that for the gas
stoves, for all the products that are out there that we have
looked at, 50 percent of those do not require, and those are
the low-entry ones, they do not require any modification
whatsoever. Of the other 50 percent which would not be able to
meet the proposed rule, those would take, we figure, the
manufacturer, to cost about $12 per unit for them to modify
their gas stove, so we do not see that this is an undue burden.
Mr. Fallon. Well, thank you. My time is up, but the folks
in the industries vehemently disagree with what you just said.
Now I yield to Ranking Member Bush for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Bush. Thank you. St. Louis and I rise today to
reiterate, the Biden Administration is not banning gas stoves.
I just want to keep saying that. Despite what some of my
Republican colleagues and conservative pundits would like for
the American people to think, the Department of Energy's
updated appliance standards do not ban gas stoves or any
appliance. In fact, I believe that one of my Republican
colleagues came to that conclusion during our last gas stoves
hearing. He said in his closing statement twice, ``This is not
a ban,'' and so I am glad that my colleague agrees. The
Department of Energy's proposed updates to its appliance
standards, when implemented, will benefit American consumers in
several ways. So, Dr. Richmond, what are the costs in savings
for American consumers associated with the proposed updates to
these standards?
Ms. Richmond. Well, they are substantial, and, for example,
the gas stoves would take 33 percent less fuel in order to run
them. In 30 years, they save, in electricity, enough for $19
million homes and also can save consumers $2.3 billion on their
energy bills in that time, so it is significant savings. It is
significant savings, and, in fact, the estimate is that over
the lifetime of the gas stove, some are on the order of $45 for
the gas stove in terms of their energy savings, so it is a lot
of savings. And, you know, we are here to reduce waste and save
people money. That is what we do.
Ms. Bush. And that is significant. So, Dr. Richmond, will
these updates help reduce pollution and, as a result,
potentially improve health outcomes for families, and
businesses, and consumers alike?
Ms. Richmond. Well, no, it is not the role of Department of
Energy to determine issues of health. So, we are here, in
particular, to set the rules for increasing the efficiency of
the products, so health issues are a little out of the bounds
of what I can talk about. It is not really under our umbrella.
Ms. Bush. Let me ask, in the last hearing, one of my
Republican colleagues claimed that this proposed rule, if
implemented, actually raise rental costs for some home renters
because landlords will be forced to buy new ovens and would
pass along those costs to renters. Can you tell us, was this
potential scenario considered when the Department of Energy
published this rule? Is it a possibility?
Ms. Richmond. Well, thank you for that question because
that is an important issue to us because renters usually
oftentimes have the tightest budgets, but, no, it would not
because the point is we are not banning the gas stoves. We are
not forcing any building to have to retrofit to be able to go
to electric. Everybody can continue to use whatever gas or
electric that they want, so there is no reason for a building
to require its renters to change to electric.
So, in fact, you know, again, the 50 percent that will pass
through these rules without modification, they are really the
entry-level stoves. They are really the entry-level gas stoves,
and from my perspective, those are usually ones that are in the
rental units, too, so they are actually doing quite well with
regards to this rule.
Ms. Bush. So just to be clear, can the Department of Energy
go into people's homes or businesses and take away their stoves
or any other appliances? Is there anybody peeking in?
Ms. Richmond. No. No, we are not, and we are not in the
business of it. We are not yanking anything out. But that
aside, I think it is important to get across a point that we
want people to be able to choose what they want to choose, but
when they choose it, we want to make sure that it is the most
efficient appliance that they can get. That is the point.
Ms. Bush. And thank you for confirming what congressional
Democrats have been saying that the Biden-Harris Administration
is not banning gas stoves. With all of these described
benefits, I fail to see why my colleagues across the aisle
would be opposed to new Department of Energy efficiency
standards. These updated regulations are not an attempt to ban
or take away appliances, like gas stoves, light bulbs, or
dishwashers, from small businesses or from families. These
updated standards will improve the efficiency of appliances.
They will reduce harmful impacts to consumers and the
environment, and help families and businesses save money on
their utility bills. Thank you for being here, Dr. Richmond,
and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our good friend from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Chairman. I am sure I am happy the
Department of Energy is out here making sure that we can all
save money because we are too dumb to figure out how to do it
ourselves. Dr. Richmond, as I look at this, you are looking at
a gas stove rule, a dishwasher rule, a washing machine rule, a
clothes dryer rule, a general service lamp or light bulb rule,
a refrigerator rule, and a new room air conditioner rule. And
you said earlier that you do not coordinate with radical
environmentalist groups, but in May, in a letter refusing to
provide testimony at a hearing in this Committee, DOE relied on
a court-ordered consent decree initiated by radical
environmentalist activist groups for the basis for not
providing witnesses. If you do not coordinate, why was that the
case?
Ms. Richmond. So, thank you for that question.
Mr. Perry. You do not have to thank me, ma'am. Just answer
it. It would be great.
Ms. Richmond. So, that was to apply pressure for us to give
a timeline for us to actually put the rule in place, which is
now January 20.
Mr. Perry. So, OK, fair enough. When is it? When must
energy standards be updated per the statute?
Ms. Richmond. So, every 6 years, DOE is to look to see
whether----
Mr. Perry. And consider them, right?
Ms. Richmond. Yes.
Mr. Perry. OK, consider--does ``consider'' mean promulgate
rules every 6 years?
Ms. Richmond. No, it does not suggest that. What we do
every 6 years is we look to see whether----
Mr. Perry. OK. So, when do you decide that it is finally
time?
Ms. Richmond. Every 6 years.
Mr. Perry. Every 6 years you take a look to determine
whether you like efficiency standards or not, but every 6 years
you do not promulgate a rule, right? I just went through gas
stove, refrigerator, air conditioner, clothes dryer, a light
bulb, washing machine, but every 6 years we have not had one of
them. So, how come every 6 years we have not had one if you
look at them every 6 years?
Ms. Richmond. Well, you know, they are not exactly all
timed for the very same year, of course.
Mr. Perry. Well, they look like they are pretty well timed
right now.
Ms. Richmond. Well, the six are certainly, but we have 60
appliances that we work with.
Mr. Perry. Yes. And, you know, washing machines,
refrigerators, gas stoves are something that are found in most
people's homes, even people on the lower end of the economic
spectrum. Ma'am, I do not know what kind of gas stove you have
in your house, and to the gentlelady from the other side of the
aisle who says it is not a ban, according to my figures, 4
percent of current gas stovetops available in the market today
meet the rule, which means 96 percent of them do not. And if
you are not making a lot of money, you cannot afford the
expensive one that probably will meet it, so you got to try and
buy the other one.
You know, I am glad the Department of Energy is saving
everybody a bunch of money by forcing them to spend a bunch of
money, but if you have a gas stove in your home right now,
there is a gas line coming to it and probably a 110 connection.
Do you know what it takes to put an electric stove in your
home? Do you have any idea?
Ms. Richmond. No, I do not, but I do----
Mr. Perry. Here, I do. You got to run the 220 line, which
means you got to probably have to get an electrician because
unless you know how to do that yourself, you are playing with
potentially losing your life and electrocuting yourself, and
your township or your municipality is not going to let you do
it. You are going to have to hire somebody to come in and drill
holes in your floor and pull wire to the panel and hook that
whole thing up, and how much is that going to cost? Is that
included in your efficiency savings calculation? Is that whole
operation included, especially for poor people who are just
happy to have a gas stove?
Ms. Richmond. Well, I have two things to say to that. First
of all, we are not requiring anyone to change to an electric
stove.
Mr. Perry. So, when your stove dies, when your stove no
longer works, and the Department of Energy has determined you
cannot buy one of these. You have got to buy one of the
expensive ones or an electric one because that is all you can
afford, and then you have got to run electricity. I am just
asking, have you included that in your calculation of saving us
all from ourselves?
Ms. Richmond. Let me just say that we, again, are strongly
in favor of consumer choice, and so the consumer has something
to do.
Mr. Perry. Apparently not.
Ms. Richmond. And if I could----
Mr. Perry. Let me ask you this. DOE and EPA signed a joint
memorandum on interagency communication and consultation on
electric reliability in March, where both agencies agreed to
consult with FERC on carrying out activities related to the
reliability of the electric grid. Now DOE's proposal regarding
gas stove regulation encourages 40 percent of American
households to switch from gas powered to electric stoves. Did
the DOE consult with FERC to ensure the rules proposed under
your purview to not necessarily strain the U.S. grid?
Ms. Richmond. We did not.
Mr. Perry. You did not?
Ms. Richmond. No. What I am saying is that in our energy
conservation standards program, we did not consult with FERC on
what----
Mr. Perry. So, does that mean the Department of Energy
intends to ignore the impact of our Nation's energy security
for their own selfish reasoning and intent?
Ms. Richmond. Well, let me go back to the fact that we do
not require anyone to change from gas to electric----
Mr. Perry. Ma'am, you do not have to require them if they
are not available on the market to buy. There is no
requirement. You just cannot get it. Thank you very much for
limiting our choices. We thought we were free in America until
we met you folks. I yield the balance.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our friend from Ohio,
Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to set the
record straight, to clarify. If a home needs to overhaul its
electric wiring to accommodate these new appliances, by virtue
of the Inflation Reduction Act, which none of my Republican
colleagues voted for, a homeowner could receive up to $4,000 in
Federal assistance, not to mention that Dr. Richmond expressed
that the entry-level appliances are the ones that are the most
efficient and compliant as it relates to this non-ban. Let me
restate: non-ban on gas stoves.
But I regret that this Committee continues to hold hearings
on things that do not exist, like a bogus ban on gas stoves,
while ignoring the real economic and energy issues affecting
people across this country. Could it be that this is part of an
effort by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
distract from the numerous wins of the Biden Administration?
The more we see Bidenomics in action--lowering inflation, the
price of the pump going down, and record unemployment numbers--
the more we seem to hold these culture war hearings.
So, let us be clear. President Biden and congressional
Democrats have spurred the creation of over 13 million new jobs
since 2021. In fact, the national unemployment rate has fallen
below 4 percent for the longest stretch in over 50 years. And
how did we do it? By investing in clean energy and our supply
chain, by taking on Big Pharma in the Inflation Reduction Act,
and by taking historic action to rebuild our Nation's
infrastructure. But these are not the things that my colleagues
want to talk about. No, they would rather talk about our bodies
and banning books than real kitchen table issues. Well, let me
tell you, no matter what my colleagues may say, the Biden
Administration is committed to growing our economy from the
middle out and the bottom up, and that starts with everything,
from lowering prescription drug prices to the cost of
electricity and gas.
So, Dr. Richmond, can you share with us how are Biden
Administration policies making life more affordable for middle-
class Americans?
Ms. Richmond. Well, thank you for that question. I am going
to focus on, in particular, what our energy standards are that
we do in the energy conservation standards program. You know,
when we look at every 6 years when we are reviewing whether
there should be standards that could be improved or not
improved, what we do is we look at what is out there, and we
come up with a proposed rule. And the proposed rule has to fit
the seven statutory requirements of EPCA, and the most
important ones really are that they are more efficient, but
they are also affordable, and so this is what is of really
importance there. And so, they have the technical capabilities
to do that, but also, they are affordable, and that means that
they save money on the cost of the energy that they are using
in order to run that appliance. For example, as I mentioned, 30
percent less for a gas stove, 30 percent less energy to run
that gas stove. We have saved consumers trillions of dollars
since it was passed in 1975 on appliances.
There is no doubt about it that increasing efficiency saves
money, but we also take into account what the manufacturers are
concerned about with regards to cost for them to make those
changes. And that is where we come up with a value that we
believe shows that it is not an undue burden for the companies,
but it is also just a great savings for the consumer because
that is what we do. We want to reduce waste and save money.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Democrats are committed to delivering
record investments in America to create better-paying jobs. We
are taking on the special interests along the way and to lower
costs for our working families. Unfortunately, some of my
colleagues in this Committee, as a whole, seem to prioritize
made-up crises instead of the actual challenges we are still
facing, like income inequality, access to reproductive rights,
and out-of-control gun violence. So, I respectfully state for
the record that I truly hope that our next hearing will address
a new topic because this one is still dangerous and dumb. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our friend from North
Carolina, Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Richmond, thanks for
being with us today. You mentioned in your testimony just a few
minutes ago, as I heard it, 50 percent of the gas stoves out
there would be required to be modified, and that means 50
percent would not be required to be modified. Can you tell us
what you meant by that?
Ms. Richmond. Yes, I am happy to do that. I am happy to do
that because this is really the crux of what we are talking
about. So, what we do is we look at what Department of Energy
does, is it takes all the manuals. You know, we have got a lot
of appliances. And so, we take all of the materials that the
companies give us with regards to the different components that
they have within their gas or electric stove--we are talking
about this now--and we can figure out from looking at what
elements they have with the burner, and the grades, and
everything else, we can figure out, at least give an estimate
of what their efficiency is.
And so, when we did that, we found out that 50 percent of
those, which are really the entry-level gas stoves, those are
the ones that immediately already have the efficiency that we
would be putting in with the proposed rule. The other 50
percent are the ones that do not look like that they would be
able to pass the rule because of different features, whether
that be the down venting or things like that. But let me just
say, because it goes back to this 96 percent, we take those
that appear to be the least efficient, and we test those to see
if they actually are inefficient.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. So, are you saying that 50 percent
of the gas stoves that are out there today in American kitchens
would have to be modified in some way?
Ms. Richmond. No. Thank you for asking that question. No.
What it means is that the products that come on the market 3
years from now would have to have that efficiency.
Mr. Edwards. OK. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Richmond. I am sorry. Thank you for clarifying that.
Mr. Edwards. Can you describe the Department of Energy's
authority for establishing energy-efficiency standards and
then, more specifically, what can they do and what can they not
do when evaluating products that are available on the market?
Ms. Richmond. Thank you for that question. EPCA, passed by
Congress in 1975, required us to basically determine, to
develop rules which would look at the efficiency of appliances
and look to see if we could make them more efficient while also
being cost effective to the consumer. And so, we have seven
different factors--I could go into these, but probably not
time--seven different factors that we use to think about what
that rule should be set up on, and so that is where I talk
about efficiency but also consumer affordability.
Mr. Edwards. OK. Thank you. So, according to the Department
of Energy's own estimates, financial impact on gas stove
manufacturers would likely range somewhere between $155 million
to, well, at a total between 2022 and 2056, at a cost of about
$183 million. Is that number factored into your equation of
affordability?
Ms. Richmond. So, I am not so familiar with that number.
What I am familiar with is the fact that any particular unit
that we have looked at, I looked at how much modification it
would have to be to whatever component, and the companies can
decide which component they want to make more efficient. That
is on the order of $12 for the company per unit in order to
bring that up to where it would fit the standards.
Mr. Edwards. OK. What kind of precedent exists for a
rulemaking of this size and scale, and has anything this
expansive ever been proposed before?
Ms. Richmond. Do you mean for cook stoves and for gas?
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Ms. Richmond. I think it is very consistent with what we
have done over the past with regards to rules that we have
passed. I do not see it is out of the ordinary at all.
Mr. Edwards. So, $183 million impact to modifying conform
to this rule is normal.
Ms. Richmond. I do not know whether that number is
accurate. I do not know what the source of it is, but we are
happy to get back to you on that. Very happy to get back to you
on that. It is just not a number I am familiar with.
Mr. Edwards. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Richmond. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chair, I yield.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes our friend
from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first, may I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Moskowitz be allowed to participate
in today's hearing?
Mr. Fallon. Without objection, Representative Moskowitz of
Florida is waived on to the Subcommittee for purposes of
questioning witnesses today at today's Subcommittee hearing.
So, ordered.
Ms. Norton. As unlikely as it may seem, improvement of
household appliances, of all things, appears to have become a
new battleground for right-wing hostility, propaganda, and
outrage. The conservative narrative about Democrats' supposed
war on gas stoves, dishwashers, and laundry machines is the
latest misinformation campaign perpetuating right-wing
falsehoods and delaying critical action to protect our
constituents and our planet, and these tactics are all at the
behest of the fossil fuel industry.
Presently, right-wing propaganda surrounding the efficiency
regulations are focused on the false narrative that Democrats
and Department of Energy, itself, want to ban home appliances
to take away consumer choices. This falsehood could not be
further from the truth. I want to be clear: the Biden-Harris
Administration is not banning anything. Instead, the
Administration's actions will provide businesses and families
the information they need and the opportunity to purchase home
appliances that meet their needs and keep the planet and
themselves safe. Dr. Richmond, do the Department's proposed
energy conservation rules ban any type of household appliance
or take away choices from families and businesses?
Ms. Richmond. No, the Department of Energy is not
suggesting a ban. In fact, it has no authority to ban any type
of appliance.
Ms. Norton. Now, I want to be clear on another point. Some
claim that the Department of Energy's proposed standards would
be so stringent, that purportedly it would constitute a de
facto ban. Dr. Richmond, is that true?
Ms. Richmond. No, we do not see this as a de facto ban for
the same reasons that I have mentioned before, which is, at
this point, 50 percent of the gas stoves that are out there
would comply with the rule that, if finalized, we would set up
3 years from now, and the other 50 percent would take minor
tweaks in order to make them comply.
Ms. Norton. Dr. Richmond, does the Department ever set
efficiency standards that industry would be unable to achieve?
Ms. Richmond. No, no. The answer is no.
Ms. Norton. In fact, Dr. Richmond, does not the law require
DOE's efficiency standards to be technologically feasible based
on current industry trends?
Ms. Richmond. Yes. Yes. And, you know, let me just say that
industry is full of innovation, and look what they have done
over the years to the point that we, you know, that if you look
back, our clothes washers use 90 percent less energy, and that
is because companies have stood up and increased the efficiency
of those. Hopefully most of us have washers in our houses or
have access to washing machines, so this is just huge. This is
relative to a 1990 model. I need to get a new clothes washer.
Ms. Norton. And to be clear, the appliances that do not yet
achieve the proposed standard would have several years to be
improved before the standards would take effect. So, Dr.
Richmond, do I have that right? Is there any reason to think
that this proposed standard is unfair to, or unachievable for,
the private sector companies that manufacture appliances?
Ms. Richmond. Yes. Well, again, people that have gas stoves
in their home right now, they do not have to do anything. It is
the companies that then, the ones that they put out on the
market 3 years from now, to meet those standards. We do not
believe that that is an undue burden.
Ms. Norton. Dr. Richmond, could you briefly discuss the
costs the Department of Energy believes these regulations would
cause and who would incur those costs?
Ms. Richmond. So again, for the 50 percent of the gas
stoves that do not need modification, the companies can
continue to put them down as they are now. For the 50 percent
that we anticipate would need to be upgraded a bit, that is,
again, sort of $12 a unit, which we estimate, and they would
then pass that on to the consumer, and that is going to vary
based on how much of it and how much they need to change the
models. But 3 years from now, they would have to do that, and
that would be passed over to the consumer.
But let me also say that those in that upper 50 percent,
those are the fancier ones, also. And so, that what we are
really protecting are those that really are working with entry-
level stoves, which are in this bottom 50, this other 50
percent.
Ms. Norton. I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs.
Boebert, our friend from Colorado.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
amazing. I have heard today that this will have no impact on
consumers, and then I also heard that in 3 years, these changes
will be required to take place, and the companies will then
have to make those adjustments and pass on those increases to
consumers. So, it would seem that there is certainly a deficit
to the American people in this.
Under Secretary Richmond, why does the Biden Administration
not care about the hardworking Americans struggling to make
ends meet that will not be able to afford your Agency's new
regulations for gas stoves? As we just heard, in 3 years this
will be passed on to consumers for gas stoves, clothes washers,
dishwashers, clothes dryers, air conditioners, light bulbs, et
cetera.
Ms. Richmond. Well, thank you for that question. My
statistics are really about the gas stoves with regards to that
issue. But let me, again, reinforce the fact that 50 percent of
those gas stoves----
Mrs. Boebert. That still gets passed on to the consumer.
So, just by saying that somebody is more well off, more wealthy
than someone else, that that does not matter, that argument is
not flying with me. From mandating new electric vehicles and
electric stove mandates, to promoting ESG extremism, to pushing
radical Green New Deal policies, there is one thing you can
always count on in this Administration to do, and that is put
the American people and our economy last. Dr. Richmond, do you
believe, like many of our other colleagues, like many of your
other colleagues in the Biden Administration, that gas stoves
strongly contribute to climate change through greenhouse gas
emissions?
Ms. Richmond. Well, I am here today to talk about the----
Mrs. Boebert. Do you believe that gas stoves which you said
you are here to talk about, do they contribute strongly to
climate change through greenhouse gas emissions?
Ms. Richmond. We believe that anything that puts out carbon
dioxide does contribute, such as a gas stove, does----
Mrs. Boebert. Interesting. So, I would respond by pointing
out that many of the false and misleading studies that had been
cited by this Administration to support banning gas stoves were
authored and paid for by radical environmental extremists and
these activists with an agenda to ban fossil fuels entirely.
Now, you testified that the Department of Energy does not have
the authority to ban gas stoves. Does Consumer Product Safety
Commission have the authority to ban gas stoves?
Ms. Richmond. I do not believe so, but that is not
something I am certain about. I mean, how they get----
Mrs. Boebert. Well, then why, Dr. Richmond, did Richard
Trumka, Jr., a commissioner appointed by Joe Biden at the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, say, ``Gas stoves are a
hidden hazard. Any option is on the table. Products that cannot
be made safe, can be banned?''
Ms. Richmond. The Department of Energy has no authority to
ban gas stoves.
Mrs. Boebert. If the Biden Administration is not seeking to
ban gas stoves, as you claim, then why did a Biden-appointed
Commissioner Trumka initiate a notice for proposed rulemaking
to ban gas stoves in American homes?
Ms. Richmond. I cannot answer that because the Department
of Energy has no authority to ban gas stoves.
Mrs. Boebert. Does a Consumer Product Safety Commission
have that authority?
Ms. Richmond. I do not believe so, but I am----
Mrs. Boebert. You have a commissioner here advocating for
this. Has Commissioner Trumka ever been disciplined for going
rogue as some are trying to claim that he did?
Ms. Richmond. The Department of Energy does not have the
authority to ban gas stoves.
Mrs. Boebert. Has Commissioner Trumka ever been disciplined
for going rogue with this statement?
Ms. Richmond. I have no idea.
Mrs. Boebert. If he has not been disciplined, he is still
an acting Consumer Product Safety commissioner, and he has
aggressively tried to ban gas stoves in American homes. This is
shameful that you can sit here and try to claim that the Biden
Administration is not trying to ban gas stoves. Do you think
that Commissioner Trumka should resign or be disciplined for
his comments and efforts to ban gas stoves and end this
consumer product?
Ms. Richmond. I am sorry. I do not have anything to say
about that.
Mrs. Boebert. You would not condemn any remarks like that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to
you.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. So, I am trying to
reconcile something, Doctor.
Ms. Richmond. Uh-huh.
Mr. Fallon. Your testimony said, repeatedly, that half the
models of gas stoves that are on the market today would not
comply, you know, obviously, that glass half full, then half
would. But then when you do the research and you read the
Department of Energy's own estimates, it reflects that 96
percent would be non-compliant. Please help me reconcile these
two features.
Ms. Richmond. Thank you so much. I have been trying to----
Mr. Fallon. Again, do not thank me. Just please help us.
Ms. Richmond. No. OK. Here we go. Fifty percent, like you
talked about, the other 50 percent, so what we did was take a
small subset, but the 96 percent comes from the fact that we
took a small subset of those that would not comply, the ones
that looked like they would least comply, and we did tests on
them. We did tests on them to see actually would they comply or
not? There were 21 of those. One of them did comply, 20 did
not, so it was 96 percent that did not comply of the 21 models.
So, there are many more than that. So, that is where the 96
percent come from.
Mr. Fallon. But that is a pretty good sample size. I mean,
any statistician would tell you, you randomly picked these 21
models.
Ms. Richmond. They were the ones that when we looked at
them, and well, it was not particularly random because we
looked at all the manufacturing specifications that they had
there. And we looked at the ones that had features that seemed
to be the least efficient, so we took those 21. These 21 are
really the ones that seemed to be the least efficient, whether
it be whatever component it is, and that was only 1 of those 21
did pass.
Mr. Fallon. But why wouldn't you pick a sample size that
would reflect the market?
Ms. Richmond. In this case, we actually did physical tests
on them. And we do not have the capacity to physically test all
of them until the rules are passed and then we are able to make
sure that they comply.
Mr. Fallon. OK. My time is up. The Chair recognizes our
friend from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
allowing me to waive on. By the way, I love when we tell only
half the story. Mr. Trumka, who obviously, you know, is just
super important to folks here, came out afterwards and
clarified his comments and said that we are not coming to take
anyone's gas stoves away.
So, Dr. Richmond, I have a question, and I am sorry for
this line of questioning, but I think it is important because
of the messaging that has now not gone on at just this hearing,
but at a markup and a previous hearing. When are you coming to
take my gas stove away, and will I get a 4-hour, like, window,
like when Comcast comes to my house or the power company,
because I just want to be home when it happens because I have a
dog, and I do not want him to be let out by accident. So, can
we schedule that now? When are you coming?
Ms. Richmond. I am sorry for laughing, but I have two dogs
and chicken. OK. We are not coming.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK.
Ms. Richmond. We are not coming.
Mr. Moskowitz. So, I think this whole thing is kind of a
program, like, that has been around forever, right? We see it
in stores. It is called the Energy Star, right? It has to do
with, you know, making sure appliances are energy efficient.
And by the way, not to, you know, bring up Donald Trump, you
know, but he is in the news again today because he got a target
letter from the Department of Justice on January 6. But in
2019, Donald Trump proposed to lawmakers, in his budget, to
switch the burden from Federal funding of the Energy Star
Program away from the Federal Government, and he wanted to
switch that burden on to companies. He wanted companies to pay
a fee, and the companies said, well, if we have to do that,
that is going to drive the price of appliances way up. And so,
when I hear my colleagues talking about appliances being more
expensive, I did not hear them come out and say that Donald
Trump was trying to do that when he was trying to, in his
proposed budget, switch the burden to companies, which would
have made appliances more expensive.
What I do not understand is, aren't we really just talking
about innovation, Dr. Richmond? I mean, isn't this really just
about innovation, that as appliances get better and smarter,
they can hook up to Wi-Fi now, right? When we talk about
efficiency, that is really what we are talking about. We are
talking about innovation.
Ms. Richmond. Yes, absolutely. And, again, I am a research
scientist all my career. I understand innovation and I
understand the challenges, believe me, I do, but I also
understand the value of it, and you are absolutely right. If
you look at the amazing innovation that has gone into our
products, there is a TV on our refrigerator. I mean, you know,
things like that are just----
Mr. Moskowitz. And haven't we done really the same thing
with cars?
Ms. Richmond. Yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. Is anyone advocating that cars should only
get one mile per gallon? I mean, I think I kind of heard that
earlier, by the way, I mean, come on, we have made cars more
efficient. Did we ban cars? No. The industry now make engines
that can go more miles per gallon, right? And that is what this
is also. This is more miles per gallon, meaning you are going
to get more out of your appliance with less, meaning less
power, right? And that is what we do. We get more out of our
engines with less fuel. That is it. It is an efficiency thing,
and gas stoves are not going to disappear, or blenders, or
dishwashers, or refrigerators, or the Nutribullet, or Ron
Popeil's dehydrator or, you know, I could go on, anything that
they sell on QVC. None of this is going to disappear. It is
just going to get more efficient.
And I do not know why anyone on the Committee here is
against innovation. It does not seem right to me. I think it
would make more sense, quite frankly, it would be great if we
had a hearing more on supply chain, right, because I do not
know if anyone has had a microwave or a dishwasher or a
refrigerator go down. Sometimes it takes weeks to get parts
because those parts are not made here, and, in fact, that is
what the Biden Administration was doing with the CHIPS and
Science Act, which is trying to get these microchips made here
in this country. Obviously, most of my colleagues across the
aisle voted against that. But when we talk about appliances and
the American people, we should try to make it easier for these
appliances to get fixed by onshoring and nearshoring where
these appliances are made.
And just to finish it off, anyone keeping score, any parent
out there, anyone who has a kid, let me tell you something.
Here is the score: gun violence hearings in the 118th Congress,
zero; gas stoves, three. That is all you need to know about
what is happening in the 118th Congress. I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our good friend from
Kentucky, Chairman Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
leadership on this issue, and I have to respond to the gun
violence. What good does it do to have gun laws on the books
when you waive gun penalties for privileged White children of
high-elected public officials?
Mr. Moskowitz. Will you yield?
Mr. Comer. I will yield.
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, there were 17 people killed at
my high school in my neighborhood, and so let us not make gun
violence----
Mr. Comer. I am not making gun violence--I yield my time
back. I asked a credible question. You are not serious. So, Dr.
Richmond, thank you for being here. I think it has already been
mentioned that the Department of Energy estimates that the
conversion costs associated with compliance will be over $183
million. Obviously, that is very concerning to people in the
industry. I used to own some restaurant franchises. I knew
people are very concerned about these regulations. I wonder,
does the Biden Administration, before you issue executive
orders or have massive regulatory change, do you consult with
people in the industry at all to get their input?
Ms. Richmond. Yes, thank you very much for that question
because once we put out the proposed rule, which we did in
January, then we had open meetings, open sessions for people to
tell us what their concerns are. Also, their comments are all
on the web. That is on a regulatory docket on the web that you
can see all the concerns in the comments. So, we listen. We
listen very carefully, and that is why when we do have a
proposed rule and then in order to come up with the final rule.
So, we absolutely do listen.
Mr. Comer. So, I am sure you are getting feedback from
people in the industry. Obviously, the restaurant industry has
been severely impacted by COVID shutdowns and things like that.
A big part of the rationale behind the PPP loan program, which
I am not even going to get into that. One industry it did help,
and it should have helped was the restaurant industry. A lot of
people in that industry have expressed deep concerns about
these regulations and other regulations, quite frankly. The
energy policies coming out of the Biden Administration are very
concerning to the House Oversight Committee. We believe that
this is adding significant costs to consumers, creating more
obstacles for success for private industry, so I want to relay
our concern with the proposed rule.
Second, I assume that the proposal from the Biden
Administration is because you are concerned about climate
change and things like that. This Administration has a climate
czar by the name of John Kerry. Have you had any communication
with the climate czar, Mr. Kerry, on any of these rules or
regulations?
Ms. Richmond. No, not at all.
Mr. Comer. Because one of the things we are trying to
determine in this Oversight Committee is what exactly does John
Kerry do? We do not know what authority he has. He was not
approved for confirmation by the Senate, but yet it appears
that he has a Cabinet-level position. According to what I have
seen on television, he flies to China and negotiates with the
Chinese on climate policy. We have no idea what authority he
has, and I did not know if he had communicated or his office. I
think there are 40 employees or something in that office. No
communication on this regulation?
Ms. Richmond. No, none. None whatsoever.
Mr. Comer. OK.
Ms. Richmond. And I want to go back to the fact that we do
take very seriously the companies because we do not want to
have them go under. And that is why economically feasible fits
for both the consumers as well for the companies. And right
now, we have all of these massive comments that we have gotten
from consumers as well as stakeholders, and we are reviewing
those now as we work toward the final rule.
Mr. Comer. Got it. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you again, for
your leadership on this issue, and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, the Chair
recognizes our friend from Washington, DC, Ms. Norton, for her
closing statement.
Ms. Norton. I thank the Chair. My colleagues in the
Majority continue to insist that the Department of Energy is
trying to either outright ban or regulate gas stoves to death.
We have heard this talking point time and again, including
today, to the extent we are holding a second hearing to prove
it. And this time we have expanded the scope to look at all
appliances that Congress required DOE to regulate.
Republicans have said that the Department of Energy's
conservation program is a ``war on appliances.'' It is not.
Once again, my Republican colleagues have employed more
ridiculous and hyperbolic rhetoric meant to further divide our
country and wind back efforts to improve lives of families and
the air in our communities. They have even gone so far as to
pass legislation that bars the implementation of the Department
of Energy's proposed rule on gas stoves and legislation seeking
to prevent the Agency from proposing or implementing any
substantially similar rules regarding other household
appliances.
What Republicans did not tell the American people is that
the Department of Energy's proposed rule would lower energy
costs and provide health benefits to households and businesses.
Like the Biden-Harris Administration's energy agenda, we need
to clear the air. The DOE's Energy Conservation Standards
Program is simply an update to efficiency standards for home
appliances, an update that states and local governments
literally sued the Federal Government to make happen.
Updating energy efficiency regulations has been a standard
practice for years. In fact, Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush
both signed efficiency standards for various household
appliances into law during their presidencies. This hearing
today is just another example of Republicans' attempting to
ignite the right-wing rage machine over a non-issue. I yield
back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I now recognize myself for a closing
statement.
So, we just heard some interesting things that your
Department is in favor of consumer choice, and yet it is either
50 percent would not comply or 96 percent. Regardless, they are
both large numbers, and we are talking about less choice and
limited choices. And then a colleague of mine said that this is
going to result in massive savings and less pollution. Well,
who would be against that? Everybody would be for that. That is
ridiculous to say that. Unfortunately, it is not true, that
statement, saving money and reducing waste.
So, we are to be told that the Federal Government is going
to save us money and reduce waste and is going to be highly
efficient and make sure our products are. So, it is a question
of, really, do you trust the Federal Government or you trust
the private sector? And many people trust the Federal
Government to be more efficient than the private sector. I am
not amongst them. I believe in the private sector. I will give
you an example. There was a homebuilder in Texas. As you may
imagine, we have high electricity bills in the summer. And they
had a really insulated home, and they would brag about it
because instead of $700 a month in electric bills that you
would have in a regular home, their installation was so good,
it was only going to be 60 bucks a month. They did that on
their own in the free market because it was a selling point. I
almost bought a house. I did not even really like the house,
but I like $60 a month bills for electricity in July.
So, I trust the free markets and the private sector to say,
hey, look at my gas stove. It is so much more efficient. You
are going to use less energy. I would like to use less energy.
And then we had a colleague say that she was bragging about
Bidenomics and Joe Biden lowered inflation. I mean, that is
really high-quality spin. It really is, because the inflation
rate, everybody agrees, was 1.4 percent before he got into
office. It is 3 percent today, which is 214 percent higher than
it was when he took office, but somehow magically he lowered
it. That was a peach. But in 2021, it was at 7 percent. In
2022, it was at 6.5. So, if a car cost $20 grand back in 2021
when he took office, and if the inflation rate had remained
constant, that car would cost $20,852. But where we saw the
inflation rate actually go, that car would cost $23,475, or
$2,623 more or 17 percent more than it would have otherwise
cost. But magically, he lowered inflation for us, so I want to
thank him for that.
And I am grateful for the Department of Energy to decide
finally to, Dr. Richmond, for you to be here and to testify
today, and that you recognize Congress' authority to call
witnesses and discuss Article II rulemaking authority. So, if
anything, that was a plus and a win for our republic. So, this
Congress and the Majority has established a relentless pursuit
of holding the Administration accountable for what we believe
are unclear, unlawful, and un-American regulations.
The fact that the Department of Energy had to publish a
misinformation page on home appliance standards on the Agency's
website tells us all we need to know about the Administration's
priorities. We have seen that in responses to the Majority's
questions even today. We have also heard them loud and clear in
the earlier hearings on gas stove rules with non-governmental
witnesses. We have even heard the Vice President, Kamala
Harris, call on the United States to reduce population in
recent climate change speeches, which is rather an unbelievable
statement from a vice president.
This Administration simply does not care about what is best
for the American people. You know, I trust the American people
to live their lives in the best way possible. This Congress on
the gas stoves rule became a lightning rod for debate on
governmental overreach extending into those choices because
what can be more sacred than an American's right to a gas
stove? Even beyond that, the gas stove rules, the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has expended countless
taxpayer resources in a backward effort to limit customer
choice--gas stoves, light bulbs, dishwashers, clothes dryers,
gas furnaces, water heaters, air conditioners, refrigerators--
and as we heard today, the list goes on and on. This is
something the likes of which the American people have really
never seen.
It is important that we hear from the Department on the
development processes, the substance of all proposed and
finalized rules related to home appliances because another
thing that really concerns me is passing a rule first and then
seeing its effects. I would rather really know what the effects
are going to be before a rule is passed.
And career bureaucrats that we have seen across the
Administration are running wild with EPCA to take certain
products off the market with unjustified cost analysis. They
held studies that since have been walked back and de facto bans
on healthy and safe products the American people rely every day
on. The unelected Agency employees apparently have no check on
the practicality of the rulemaking, considering that the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy does not have a
confirmed official to hold it accountable. But not only that,
the Department leadership does not even have the subject matter
depth to understand the breadth and impact of the rulemakings,
considering the DOE needed to have over 2 months to decide if
its staff was even going to be ready to testify before
Congress, and the agencies need to step up and stop passing the
buck.
So, I am very glad that you are here today. I just look at
what the DOE is doing with energy efficiency standards, but
even the proposed rule, still in draft, are garnering
significant pushback like energy efficiency standards for water
heaters. But listen, I want to thank you all for coming, and
you have to understand, Congress cannot and will not pass the
buck. We are elected by the people, so we have to do our jobs.
And in conclusion, I urge the Department to reconsider,
reevaluate, and withdraw some of these proposed rulemakings in
light of these valid and pressing concerns. We are all about
efficiency. And, again, I trust the free market to be as
efficient as possible because it is a selling point when you
are selling your product, and I look forward to working with
you to achieve these results, and I want to thank everybody
here and thank you very much.
With that, and without objection, all Members will have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials, to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to witnesses for their response.
Mr. Fallon. If there is no further business, without
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]