[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]