[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING THE AMERICAN DREAM: EXAMINING
AFFORDABILITY, CHOICE, AND SECURITY IN
APPLIANCE AND BUILDINGS POLICIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-37
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-783 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida, Vice PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
Chairman
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas, Vice KATHY CASTOR, Florida
Chairman Ranking Member
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio KEVIN MULLIN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa DORIS O. MATSUI, California
JOHN JAMES, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
GABE EVANS, Colorado FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas officio)
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, opening statement..................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Witnesses
Buddy Hughes, Chairman, Board of Directors, National Association
of Home Builders............................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions............................... 199
Ben Lieberman, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Answers to submitted questions............................... 208
Kara Saul Rinaldi, Chief Policy Officer, Building Performance
Association.................................................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Answers to submitted questions............................... 210
James Steffes, Senior Vice President of Regulatory, Policy, and
Advocacy, Washington Gas....................................... 70
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Answers to submitted questions............................... 213
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 130
Letter of September 9, 2025, from Indya Rogers, Director,
Plastics Building & Construction, American Chemistry Council,
to Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor.................................... 131
Letter of September 8, 2025, from Aaron H. Levy, Vice President,
Federal Relations, and Ryan Colker, Executive Director, Energy,
Resilience & Innovation, International Code Council, to Mr.
Latta and Ms. Castor........................................... 134
Letter of September 8, 2025, from Ryan Dougherty, Executive
Director, Geothermal Exchange Organization, to Mr. Latta and
Ms. Castor..................................................... 139
Letter of September 8, 2025, from American Chemistry Council, et
al., to Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor............................... 144
Letter of September 9, 2025, from Thomas McLaughlin, Founder &
Chief Executive Officer, Black Flare, Inc.,, to Mr. Latta and
Ms. Castor..................................................... 146
Letter of September 9, 2025, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice
President, Government Affairs, American Cement Association, to
Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor....................................... 149
Letter of September 9, 2025, from Stephen Wieroniey, President,
Spray Foam Coalition, to Mr. Guthrie, et al.................... 151
Letter of September 9, 2025, from the National Multifamily
Housing Council and the National Apartment Association to Mr.
Latta and Ms. Castor........................................... 155
Study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, ``Do Energy
Efficiency Investments Deliver? Evidence from the
Weatherization Assistacn Program,'' by Meredith Fowlie, et al.,
July 2015 \1\
Report by UL Environment, ``Effects of Indoor Environmental
Quality on Performance and Productivity''...................... 161
News release of July 8, 2025, ``Energy Department Announces Over
$400 Million in Funding and Removes Burdensome Policy, Helping
Americans Save on Energy Bills,'' Department of Energy......... 175
Letter of May 8, 2025, from Arctic Technical Services, et al., to
Senator Mike Lee, et al........................................ 178
----------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF03/20250909/118590/HHRG-119-IF03-20250909-SD018.pdf.
BUILDING THE AMERICAN DREAM: EXAMINING AFFORDABILITY, CHOICE, AND
SECURITY IN APPLIANCE AND BUILDINGS POLICIES
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:18 p.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Latta, Weber, Palmer,
Allen, Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, James,
Bentz, Fry, Lee, Langworthy, Rulli, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak,
Guthrie (ex officio), Castor (subcommittee ranking member),
Peters, Menendez, Mullin, McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko,
Veasey, Schrier, Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations;
Christian Calvert, Press Assistant; Clara Cargile, Professional
Staff Member, Energy; Andrew Furman, Professional Staff Member,
Energy; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
Calvin Huggins, Clerk, Energy; Megan Jackson, Staff Director;
AT Johnson, Special Advisor; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff
Director; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy; Ben Mullaney,
Press Secretary; Jake Riith, Staff Assistant; Jackson Rudden,
Clerk, Environment; Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder
Director; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member,
Energy; Timothy Trimble, Staff Assistant; Jane Vickers, Press
Assistant; Keegan Cardman, Minority Staff Assistant; Waverly
Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
Kristopher Pittard, Minority Professional Staff Member; Shae
Reinberg, Minority Intern; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy
Analyst; Medha Surampudy, Minority Professional Staff Member;
and Tuley Wright, Minority Staff Director, Energy.
Mr. Latta. Good afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing,
``Building the American Dream: Examining Affordability, Choice,
and Security in Appliances and Building Policies.'' And thank
you to our witnesses for appearing with us today.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Today, we will discuss policies that have raised energy and
product prices for American families and business owners,
putting America's homeownership out of reach and jeopardize
grid reliability. Many of these policies have been implemented
in the name of energy efficiency, but the forced
electrification from the left does not equate to increased
energy efficiency and ignores affordability and consumer
choice.
Energy conservation will play an important role in meeting
our Nation's growing energy demand. However, consumer choice,
affordability, and innovation must be prioritized in the
execution of these goals.
Over the last decade, it has become apparent that the
statutory process for energy efficiency standards is broken. We
must reform the process to restore consumer choice, appliance
affordability, and true energy savings as the foundation of
DOE's Appliance and Equipment Standards Program.
Everyone here supports true energy efficiency and the
benefits it yields to our constituents and consumers. However,
over the last several years, the focus has clearly strayed from
enhancing efficiencies and realizing cost savings.
This direction has gone well beyond DOE's energy
conservation standards. We have also seen a misalignment of
priorities in building codes, performance standards, and State
and local restrictions on the use of fossil fuels.
Nowhere is that more reflective than the cost of homes.
Over the last 15 years, home prices have steadily increased,
putting the dream of homeownership out of the reach of millions
of Americans. Today, more than 80 percent of adults in the
United States say housing affordability is a problem in the
city or county in which they live. And homeowners now spend 34
percent more on household appliances than they did in 2010.
While there are a variety of factors that have contributed to
these rising costs, we can't ignore the impact of misguided
policies at hand.
The Biden administration tied Inflation Reduction Act, the
IRA, funding to the forced adoption of the 2021 model energy
codes, which restricted the use of gas and promoted
electrification even if it was not an appropriate choice for
the consumer. This was done despite their own data that showed
homes with natural gas hookups are over three times more
affordable than electric options.
But the Biden administration didn't stop there. The DOE
issued a rule to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in all-new
and modified Federal buildings beginning in 2030. This would
have included military installations and houses, some
residential buildings, and sites of critical national security
importance like the Pentagon. Not only would this compromise
our security, but the rule would also have actually increased
energy usage and added for the strain to our Nation's electric
grid.
We must strike a healthy balance between utilizing
affordable energy and implementing commonsense, effective
energy conservation measures.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their
participation here today, and we look forward to hearing their
perspectives. And I want to again thank you all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And I yield back the balance of my time and now
recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the
gentlelady from Florida's 14th District, for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
everyone. I have been looking forward to this hearing because
it provides us with an opportunity to remind Americans that
significant savings and tax credits are available if you need
to replace a household appliance, upgrade your AC and heating
system, or make other home improvements. These savings were
intentionally provided by Democrats in the Inflation Reduction
Act that we passed in 2022. The savings were supposed to be
available to all Americans for 10 years, but Republicans ended
them early to pay for huge tax breaks for billionaires and big
corporations in their Big Ugly Bill.
But there is still time. If you need to install a new,
energy-efficient appliance or make home improvements by the end
of year, you can save a whole bunch of money. In 2023, 3.4
million households saved over $8 billion from these tax
credits. And that doesn't count the reduction in electric
bills. Hard-working Americans could really use those savings as
electric bills and costs continue to skyrocket.
In Florida, the largest power utility in our State proposed
a nearly $10 billion rate hike earlier this year. That is
reported to be the largest hike in American history. And all
across the country, customers are grappling with surging
electric bills. And I think we have to say now, here we are in
September, it is clear that Donald Trump and Republicans have
broken their promise to lower costs. And their reckless
policies are making life more expensive.
In addition to the harsh impact of the Big Ugly Bill, Trump
tariffs are causing pain and creating chaos. And to add insult
to injury, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration
have taken a hatchet to energy efficiency standards, which is
so silly because energy efficiency saves people money.
Appliance standards typically save households more than $500 on
their energy bills each year. Homeowners will save $15,000 for
homes built using the 2021 building codes compared to the old
ones.
And my neighbors back in Florida, they know firsthand about
the importance of building energy codes. They keep people safe
in well-insulated homes amid record heat waves like the one we
experienced this summer.
Families and businesses also save money when codes and
design standards help their building stand up to strong winds
and flooding and increasingly intense hurricanes. Strong
building codes provide insurance companies with greater
certainty in high-risk areas, allowing them to offer less
costly insurance policies and saving taxpayers from becoming
the insurer of last resort.
Federal codes and standards are developed collaboratively
with local officials, builders, manufacturers, industry, and
consumer reps. And neither Congress nor the administration--
they don't force it on anyone, they are adopted and enforced by
State and local jurisdictions, not the Federal Government. And
when these standards are not updated, it also hurts America's
global competitiveness. The modern standards increase
incentives to innovate and protect domestic companies against
competition from inferior projects.
Now, all of this--so you have the tariffs, you have the Big
Ugly Bill, you have got energy--a war on energy efficiency, and
then the President wants to eliminate EPA's Energy Star
Program. That is what I heard when I was home all summer.
Let's make things more expensive. Let's make our appliances
more expensive. Let's take that public information away from
people who need it.
No.
Let's be clear: Energy efficiency saves electricity,
reduces consumer costs, and increases household comfort,
reliability, and resilience. So Republicans can kill consumer
savings, they can turn a blind eye to tariffs, they take a
hatchet to efficiency. And just last week, Republicans passed
their energy and water spending bill, which is another way they
are raising costs on American families. Because weatherization
of homes is very popular, but you know what they did in their
spending bill? Then ratcheted back those important
weatherization assistance programs that help families save
about $372 more every year.
So, unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are going in
the extreme opposite direction they are proposing to prevent
any future regulations on products like dishwashers and washing
machines, stoves, or light bulbs. They want to trap Americans
with outdated and expensive technologies forever while the rest
of the world moves on without us. That is an expensive
proposition that we reject.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Castor. I yield back my time.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Latta. Thank you
for holding this hearing, and I thank our witnesses for being
here.
Under the Energy and Policy and Conservation Act, DOE must
evaluate energy efficiency standards for equipment categories
every 6 years. But it may also impose new or amended standards
if it finds that such standards are technologically feasible,
economically justified, and will result in significant energy
savings.
Unfortunately, DOE's Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program has strayed far from its original intent and now yields
de minimus energy efficiency benefits while imposing sufficient
costs on consumers and manufacturers.
Today's homeowners spend about 34 percent on appliances--or
more than they did 15 years ago. From 1995 to 2005, the average
homeowner replaced appliances every 12 to 13 years. Now that
timeline has shrunk from every 8 to 9, and I can tell you that
from personal experience. Even more concerning, aspiring
homeowners also face record housing prices in part due to the
rising costs of compliance with onerous regulations under the
guise of energy efficiency.
The Biden-Harris administration's DOE issued nearly 30
energy-efficient regulations, totaling over 60 billion in costs
to the economy. Biden's DOE proposed and finalized--President
Biden's DOE proposed and finalized new standards to regulate
virtually every appliance American consumers use, forcing
families to spend more on less reliable options.
Sadly, these costs hit the working families the hardest. In
fact, several regulations promulgated by the Biden
administration went as far as banning natural gas appliances, a
blatant attack on consumers in the market, forcing American
families to purchase electric appliances. And the irony is that
in doing so, demand on our electric grid, exacerbating
reliability issues they are already facing due to another--
misguided electric grid policies.
At least 70 local governments in California as well as
dozens more in States and Washington, DC, also have active
restrictions on gas appliances. New York has a statewide gas
ban. And many States have adopted building codes and
performance standards that act as de facto gas bans.
As if this wasn't going far enough, the latest
administration--the last administration also finalized
regulations to enforce a fossil fuels ban on all Federal
buildings, including military installations. Residents are
housing in sites with highly sensitive functions like NIH and
the Pentagon. These building and appliance policies are
dangerous, unsustainable, and expensive.
American rate payers are seeing the impact of these
misguided policies reflected in their utility bills already. As
more strain is placed on the grid and baseload sources like
natural gas are restricted, prices will rise and reliability
will plummet.
I look forward to working with Chair Latta and members of
this committee to develop policies and make homes and
appliances less expensive for consumers, strengthen our
electric grid, and allow more families to realize the American
Dream. It doesn't make products cheaper to make them more
expensive and just subsidize on the back end. What we need to
do is make the products that people--allow manufacturers to
make products that people want to buy at the price they want to
pay for it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. So I thank you for that, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing continues Republicans' illogical plan to
increase monthly energy bills for American families who are
already struggling to make ends meet as prices on everyday
goods increase thanks to Trump's trade war. The latest jobs
report, the worst since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic,
proves just how devastating Republican policies are.
In August. Job growth came to a crawl, adding just 22,000
jobs. At a time when home energy bills are rising all over the
country in large part thanks to the disastrous and malicious
policies of the Trump administration and congressional
Republicans, House Republicans have chosen to double down on
their attacks on the very tools that we have to keep energy
bills low.
In my home State of New Jersey, energy prices have already
increased thanks to PJM's inability to add new resources to the
grid. These increases, coupled with the devastating project
funding cuts from the Trump administration, hurt New Jersey
families. And now House Republicans seem to have decided rather
than helping everyday families with monthly energy bills, they
want to make our homes more expensive to heat and cool.
Today, we are likely to hear Republicans misrepresent the
facts around energy efficiency, conservation standards, and
building codes. And let me set the record straight about some
of the misinformation.
Committee Republicans continue to circulate a factually
inaccurate claim about the cost of meeting the 2021
International Energy Code. Their numbers result of double
counting and including measures not required by the code. The
reality is building energy codes have a negligible impact on
housing prices, but they save homeowners real money on their
monthly energy bill from the moment they move into the house.
And Republicans also suggest that energy efficiency standards
disproportionately target natural gas products. But in reality,
the law prohibits DOE from eliminating products based on their
fuel source.
This is all incredibly important at a time of rising energy
prices, increased energy demand on the grid, and slow job
growth. Republicans' Big Ugly Bill is projected to raise
electricity prices by an astonishing 61 percent over the next
decade, costing Americans nearly $300 more each year. And Trump
ran on a promise to cut energy costs in half in his first year.
The Republicans jammed through this disastrous bill that
provides giant tax breaks for their billionaire friends while
sending American utility bills through the roof.
Energy efficiency standards are popular. In 2024, American
households saved over $500 on their energy bills thanks to
industry-supported appliance standards. And in 2023, energy
efficiency jobs employed almost 2.3 million people.
But I am not surprised that we are here debating all of
this again. Energy efficiency used to be a bipartisan topic.
But over the last few years, Republicans have politicized and
polarized these commonsense policies.
Congressional Republican in the Trump administration spent
the first 8 months of the year gutting the Department of
Energy, targeting efficiency standards for numerous
Congressional Review Act resolutions, gutting clean-energy
incentives, keeping expensive fossil fuel plants online, and
imposing costly tariffs that are supercharging inflation. These
actions directly result in rising costs for Americans.
Republicans don't care about lowering costs. All they care
about is rewarding their oil and gas friends, punishing clean
energy, and keeping President Trump happy. It doesn't matter
what the facts are. If Trump doesn't like his showerhead,
congressional Republicans will prioritize his needs over the
needs of everyday Americans.
And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I
hope we are able to have a productive conversation centered
around facts and the merits of energy efficiency.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back the balance of his time.
And that now concludes Member opening statements. The Chair
reminds Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members'
opening statements will be made part of the record.
Again, we want to thank our witnesses for being with us
today and taking time to testify before the subcommittee. Each
witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement
of 5 minutes followed by a round of questions from the Members.
And just some housekeeping. You want to make sure that the
mic is pulled up close to you. And turn that mic on when you
speak. If you see the light goes red when you are in your
statement, that means it is time to sum up.
But our witnesses for today are Mr. Buddy Hughes, the
chairman of the board at the National Association of Home
Builders; Mr. Ben Lieberman, senior fellow at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute; Ms. Kara Saul Rinaldi, chief policy
officer at the Building Performance Association; and Mr. Jim
Steffes, the senior vice president of Regulatory, Policy, and
Advocacy at Washington Gas.
Again, we appreciate all of you being here today.
And, Mr. Hughes, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF BUDDY HUGHES, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; BEN LIEBERMAN, SENIOR
FELLOW, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; KARA SAUL RINALDI,
CHIEF POLICY OFFICER, BUILDING PERFORMANCE ASSOCIATION; AND JIM
STEFFES, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY, POLICY, AND
ADVOCACY, WASHINGTON GAS
STATEMENT OF BUDDY HUGHES
Mr. Hughes. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify here today.
My name is Buddy Hughes. I am small builder from Lexington,
North Carolina. And for 2025, I am chairman of the board for
the National Association of Home Builders.
Our members are on the front lines of an affordability
crisis. Seventy-five percent of households can't afford a
median-priced new home, and half the renters in this country
spend over 30 percent of their income on housing costs. New
Washington mandates will only make this crisis worse.
One of the biggest drives of those costs are restrictions
on energy choice, appliance standards, and mandates on energy
codes. While often well-intentioned, the reality is they drive
up prices, limit choices for families, and take important
decisions out of the hands of homeowners.
Energy choice is at the top of our list. More and more
States and cities are moving to ban natural gas. New York has
already passed a ban that takes effect in 2026, and that means
no gas stoves, no gas water heaters, no gas furnaces in new
homes.
In cold weather States, meeting those requirements can add
more than $15,000 to the cost of a home. That is just not
sustainable in a place where most households are already priced
out of the new home.
Families feel it every month in their utility bills. Last
winter, households using natural gas spent about 42 percent
less and saved over $125 billion over the last decade.
That is why NHB believes families, not government mandates,
should decide what energy and appliances make sense in their
own home. Appliance choice is part of that same story. DOE's
recent rules on furnaces, water heaters, and stoves phase out
natural gas, raise costs, and cut off choices.
Congress can protect families from higher costs by
preventing appliance standards from being turned into backdoor
gas bans.
Now, let me be clear: When it comes to building energy
codes, NHB supports reasonable and most of all cost-effective
codes. We have worked with State and local governments for
decades to modernize codes. But what we can't support are rigid
Federal mandates that force every State and local government
into the same costly outcome.
The push to require the 2021 IECC as the national baseline
is a prime example. Compliance with this code can add more than
$31,000 to the cost of a new home. And the payback period on
that extra cost and upgrades is approaching 90 years. This
problem is compounded by Section 50131 of the Inflation
Reduction Act, which conditions a billion dollars in Federal
funds on adoption of the 2021 IECC. Now tying dollars to a
single code, the program eliminates local flexibility,
undermines State authority, and pressures communities into
costly mandates that hurt affordability.
You don't have to look any further than Kansas City,
Missouri. After adopting the 2021 IECC to qualify for these
funds, single-family housing permits dropped 22 percent while
permits in the surrounding communities jumped 117 percent. The
resulted was fewer homes, fewer jobs, and higher costs for
families.
New homes are already highly efficient. The bigger
opportunity lies in the 130 million older homes built before
modern codes, where retrofits can deliver far greater energy
savings than adding cost to the small share of new homes built
each year.
NHB supports practical, cost-effective energy policies, but
Federal mandates on energy, appliances, or codes that ignore
affordability would only make the housing crisis worse.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify here
today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your statement.
And, Mr. Lieberman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BEN LIEBERMAN
Mr. Lieberman. Chair Latta, Ranking Member Castor, members
of the subcommittee, the dedicated staff, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Ben Lieberman. I am a senior fellow with the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan public policy
organization that concentrates on regulatory issues from a free
market perspective. Prior to that, I worked on several of these
issues as a staffer on this committee from 2011 to 2018. But I
have actually been following these issues all the way back to
the 1990s. And over that span, I have seen some of the problems
with these regulations only getting worse for consumers.
When I started, most home appliance were subjected to one
or at most two rounds of Department of Energy efficiency
regulators--regulations. But now, many have been hit with, four
or five or even six rounds of successively tighter standards.
And the law requires DOE to periodically revisit these
standards and consider tightening them but does not allow the
agency to make them less stringent or sunset them, even if
there is clear evidence that they backfired on consumers.
Now as far back as 1996, there was widespread recognition
that there were problems with appliance over regulation, and
DOE instituted a number of process reforms to restore balance.
I bring this up for two reasons: It demonstrates that some of
the problems were already evident almost 30 years ago, and
given that these reforms were instituted under President
Clinton, it shows that this issue wasn't always as partisan as
it is today. But, unfortunately, the 1996 process reforms were
not judicially reviewable and have sometimes and quite often
been ignored.
Now, all of these standards raise the upfront cost of
appliances. And in some cases like the upcoming furnace and
water heater regulations, the increase is so steep that
homeowners may not earn back the upfront costs in the form of
energy saving. The law has a provision that the initial cost
increase not be more than that is earned back within 3 years,
but this metric is not mandatory and is routinely bypassed.
Other rules compromise product quality. Perhaps most
annoying are dishwashers which now take 2 or more hours to do a
normal cycle, twice as long as it took before standards were in
place. Washing machines have been subjected to regulations in
1994, 2004, 2007, 2015, 2018, and most recently in 2024, and
have also caused several performance problems. And
refrigerators don't last as long as they used to.
Choices are also being limited, and not just incandescent
light bulbs. For example, the option of a noncondensing gas
furnace will no longer be available in 2028 when the latest
rule takes effect.
Climate change has become a finger on the scale favoring
more regulations and has been used to disproportionately target
natural-gas-using appliances in favor of electric versions.
Now, H.R. 4626, the Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act,
contains a number of very good ideas and deserves serious
consideration. Best of all is the lookback provision, which
would allow the agency to fix problems with existing
regulations.
I mean, do we really want to keep pretending that
Department of Energy appliance regulators have never made
mistakes that need correcting? And do we want to keep
pretending that there aren't homeowners who aren't happy with
the results of some of these regulations? I would note that
this commonsense reform was one of the recommendations in the
National Academies report on appliance regulation.
The bill also contains provisions to ensure that any new
rule saves consumers more money than it costs, which makes so
much sense that most people would be surprised that it isn't
already standard practice at the agency.
The bill also states that these regulations cannot be used
in postclimate policy, and that natural gas appliances cannot
be disproportionately targeted.
In addition, H.R. 4758, the Homeowner Energy Efficiency
Act, takes the critical re-step of repealing several Inflation
Reduction Act programs that pursue this anti-natural-gas
agenda. Needless to say, the American people don't want to see
our tax dollars being used to take away our energy choices.
I do think these bills could go further. In particular,
there are several home appliance that have already been so
badly overregulated, they should be exempted from any further
rules. I would suggest dishwashers, washing machines, and light
bulbs. I also believe that stoves should never have been
regulated in the first place and ought to be excluded.
But overall, the less government interference with our
clients' choices, the better. If we can't sunset the program
entirely, let's at least do some judicious pruning, and these
bills are a good start.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lieberman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. That you, Mr. Lieberman.
And, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KARA SAUL RINALDI
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Subcommittee Chair Latta, Chair Guthrie,
Subcommittee Ranking Member Castor, and Ranking Member Pallone,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify.
The buildings sector is responsible for nearly 30 percent
of U.S. energy consumption, but a significant portion of this
energy is wasted. Energy efficiency in buildings and appliances
lowers costs for families and businesses. Policies aimed at
building homes more efficiently and retrofitting over 120
million existing residential units across the country will not
only help homeowners save money but will also improve household
comfort, health, safety, and resiliency.
Advancing energy efficiency across the U.S. reduces demand
on our energy system while driving local job growth among the
small business contractors that I am proud to represent here
today.
My name is Kara Saul Rinaldi, and I serve as the chief
policy officer for the Building Performance Association. The
BPA is a membership-driven association dedicated to advancing
the home and building performance industry.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent BPA to share how
energy efficiency isn't about doing less. It is about using
America's greatest resource to do more, better, and at lower
costs.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Energy released its
United States Energy and Employment Report, or the USEER. The
2025 USEER affirmed what past reports have repeatedly shown,
that the energy efficiency sector is the largest employer
across the entire energy sector, employing nearly 2.4 million
Americans and more workers than the entire U.S. fuels and
electric generation industries combined.
Using data from the USEER BPA release is an annual Energy
Efficiency Jobs in America Report featuring district-level
data. And I look forward to sending it to each of your offices
when the report is ready later this fall.
A home built today is an existing home tomorrow and may be
part of our housing infrastructure for a century. If it is not
built with adequate insulation, air ceiling, efficient duct
work, heating and cooling, and windows, homeowners will be hard
pressed to spend the time and money to upgrade their home at a
cost significantly more than building the home efficiently in
the first place.
Building codes and standards also protect renters.
According to the 2023 census data, 35 percent of Americans live
in rental properties. Tenants usually pay the electric fuel
bills. Because landlords do not receive energy savings benefits
when replacing appliances, they have no incentive to invest in
more efficient equipment. Building energy codes and appliance
and equipment standards provide the minimum efficiency baseline
to protect American homeowners and renters.
According to ACEEE, while we continue to see rising energy
demand, energy efficiency saves American approximately $1
billion annually. By investing in energy efficiency, we have
built buildings and appliances that save more, do more, and
last longer while using less energy. And we need to continue
this innovation if we are to mitigate the cost of bringing new
data centers online.
While data centers accounted for roughly 4.4 percent of
U.S. electricity use, as of 2023, this figure is projected to
rise as much as 12 percent in the next 3 years and will greatly
impact the cost of energy for everyday Americans.
We know that capital investments to meet peak energy
demands is a primary driver of costs. But if American homes are
allowed to invest in dynamic efficiency improvements, we can
mitigate billions of dollars of long-term distribution system
costs.
Energy efficiency upgrades and utility data access paired
with smart devices can reduce peak demand and allow new data
centers to join the grid without significant costs to rate
payers. Given the time needed to build new transmission, energy
efficiency and flexible demand technology are the only
solutions that can meet the rapid pace of data center
deployment.
Roughly 60 percent of homes were built before 1980 before
modern energy codes, leading to unnecessarily high utility
bills for many Americans. Over 33 million American households
are energy insecure, with nearly 25 million households reducing
food or medicine to pay for energy costs.
DOE estimated that while the average household spends
$2,000 on their annual utility bills, between $200 or $400 of
this is wasted from inefficiency.
In conclusion, despite the incredible strides in energy
efficiency building, including the appliances and equipment in
them, are among the largest consumers of energy and some of the
greatest opportunities to support dynamic change.
With policy and program innovation that brings the pieces I
have discussed together to optimize energy usage, we can
deliver more reliable and affordable energy, all while making
buildings healthier, sturdier, cheaper, and more comfortable
places to live and work.
Thanks, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Saul Rinaldi follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your opening statement.
And, Mr. Steffes, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JAMES STEFFES
Mr. Steffes. Thank you, Chair Latta, Ranking Member Castor,
and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity
to testify today.
My name is Jim Steffes. I am the senior vice president of
Washington Gas Light. Washington was a small town when
Washington Gas brought light to its first customer, the U.S.
Capitol, in 1848. We have grown with this community ever since
and care deeply about the more than 1.2 million customers we
serve today across the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia. We deliver affordable energy to heat homes, cook
food, and enjoy hot showers.
This safe and reliable energy is easy to take for granted,
but it is only available because of the more than 1,000
dedicated employees and our continued capital investment,
maintaining a vast network of essential infrastructure.
Every day at Washington Gas, we work to earn our customers'
trust and confidence. Our mission is simple: Deliver
affordable, reliable, safe, and secure energy to the National
Capital Region.
Energy security is critical and inseparable from national
security. Our community and our customers, including the
Federal Government, depend upon natural gas from Federal
offices and military installations to mission-critical research
campuses, to hospitals and homes, our gas service allow
customers to do what needs to get done affordably and reliably.
Disruptions and challenges to delivering natural gas across
the National Capital Region would ripple far beyond the local
community, threatening the functioning of Federal agencies and
their ability to respond to emergencies and our Nation's needs.
That is why Washington Gas continues to make strategic
investment in safety and modernization.
Energy delivery in the National Capital Region is not just
a utility service, it is an essential underpinning of Federal
Government operations. Make no mistake, our region is facing
significant energy challenges, especially electricity market
challenges.
The National Capital Region has seen a price for a power
capacity surge 964 percent since the summer of 2023. Analysts
project household electricity rates could rise 30 to 60 percent
by 2030.
Eliminating or restricting natural gas at a time of sizable
electricity demand growth would further destabilize the grid.
While transmission and power generation projects are
underway, they are slow to develop and interconnect. PJM's
power capacity price forecast highlights this lengthy process.
In the meantime, modernizing our gas pipeline infrastructure is
a proven, effective way to keep energy affordable and reliable.
That is why we have continued to invest over $500 million
annually, all while creating good-paying jobs.
To continue our infrastructure modernization efforts, we
asked to direct PHMSA to reengage actively with State
regulatory commissions, as PHMSA did under Secretary Ray
LaHood's leadership through the 2011 call to action. Safety
mattered then, and it still matters today.
PHMSA must urge regulators in the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia to continue to authorize accelerated
replacement mechanisms with a clear focus on safety. PHMSA
engagement with the States is critical to ongoing pipeline
replacement programs and derisking our pipeline network.
Energy choice is also under threat. New-use restrictions of
the local and State level limit our customers' choice for
natural gas. Instead, both the District of Columbia and
Montgomery County, Maryland, have passed building performance
standards and net-zero building codes that restrict customer
energy choice, force electrification, and impose millions if
not billions of dollars in compliance costs. At the Federal
level, Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act
requires new and renovated Federal buildings to eliminate
fossil fuel use by 2030.
These local, State, and Federal policies impose new costs
onto households, businesses, and the Federal Government. These
policies also risk amplifying the crisis in the electricity
market.
To overcome these restrictions on energy trades, Congress
should do two thing to support energy security and energy
choice. First, pass the Reliable Infrastructure Act, which
repeals Section 433, and allow Federal buildings to take a
balanced approach to their understanding future. Second, pass
the Energy Choice Act, which prevents State and local gas bans
from restricting energy choice in a balkanized and haphazard
manner.
Together, these two actions safeguard energy affordability,
energy reliability, and energy choice for consumers, including
Federal facilities.
Natural gas is indispensable to heating our homes, to
powering our families, to delivering energy affordability, to
growing our economy, and to ensuring long-term energy security.
Washington Gas is committed to working with you to
modernize our infrastructure, protect energy reliability, and
preserve energy choice so we can meet the energy needs of today
and tomorrow affordably and securely.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steffes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
And that will conclude our witnesses' opening statements. And
at this time, we will go to the Members' questions. And I will
begin with my questions and for 5 minutes.
U.S. utilities have committed to 116 gigawatts of large
capacity additions in the next few years, approximately 15.5
percent of the current peak demand. There is significant need
for energy capacity and associated infrastructure, and the
market is responding. A leading industrial firm will double gas
turbine production capacity within the next 2 years.
Distribution transformers are also in high demand.
The previous administration proposed a standard under EPCA
for transformers that would have required a complete retooling
of the product design and material composition while yielding
an efficiency gain of less than one-tenth of a percent. This
standard will exacerbate supply chain issues.
Mr. Lieberman, do you know if efficiency gain of less than
one-tenth of a percent qualifies as yielding a significant
energy savings as required by EPCA?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, clearly, it doesn't. And there is a
provision in the underlying law, the Energy Policy Conservation
Act, explicitly forbidding DOE from setting a new or an amended
standard unless it saves a significant amount of energy. That
is in the statute more than once.
Unfortunately, it never quantified ``significant
conservation of energy.'' And we have seen over time it has
become eye of the beholder, and DOE will set a standard even if
the energy conservation seems to be trivial.
Another example of that is the most recent stove standard,
which saved gas stove cook top owners about 21 cents a year.
That was considered significant.
So I think there is some value, and the Don't Mess With My
Home Appliances Act puts numbers and percentages on
conservation of energy. So it is not really changing the
underlying statute toward provisions, it is just making them
easier--or making them harder to get around.
So I think the answer is yes, it was a trivial amount of
energy, and that standard should not have----
Mr. Latta. Well, let me ask you another question. When a
product has maximized technologically achievable energy
efficiency gain, is it reasonable to allow products to no
longer be regulated under EPCA?
Mr. Lieberman. Yes, and some of these appliances have been
regulated now four time, five times. Some of them are on to the
sixth round of successively tighter standards where we are
proving the law of diminishing larger returns or maybe even
negative returns. I think it makes perfect sense to have
stopping points.
I believe the original statute contemplated that. But we
are not seeing that. As somebody once said, birds fly, fish
swim, and regulators regulate. So we will just keep seeing more
and more regulations over time, even if they don't necessarily
make sense.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
Mr. Steffes, Section 433 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act required DOE to phase out fossil-fuel-generated
energy consumption in new and remodeled Federal buildings by
2030.
How will this impact energy reliability at sites of high
national security importance like the Pentagon and Fort Mead?
Mr. Steffes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the energy
network is built upon two distinct networks: the gas network
and the electricity grid. They work together. Removing natural
gas from facilities--Federal facilities, whatever form they
are, office buildings or military installations--will reduce
the ability to have redundant energy needs, backup energy needs
in the moment of crisis. Clearly that will challenge
reliability.
Our system, our natural gas system, is 99.7 percent
reliable. We were very proud of that fact, it's an underground
network. Removing that removes our reliability. I also think it
will challenge affordability by doing that. The Government will
have to invest money that it would otherwise not need to
invest. And worst of all, you are going to be driving up the
demand in a very difficult time for the electricity market. All
of those things are coming to bear if we don't repeal 433.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
Mr. Hughes, in my last about 45 seconds, the previous
administration took a whole-of-government approach to develop a
mandate, green building policies to end all your use of fossil
fuel for heating and cooking. And how are these policies
already impacting Americans despite the current
administration's efforts to correct course? I have got about 22
seconds.
Mr. Hughes. And I am sorry, I didn't understand.
Mr. Latta. Yes, the previous administration took a whole-
of-government approach to develop the mandate green building
policies to end use of fossil fuel energy for heating and
cooking. And the question is, How are these policies already
impacting Americans despite the current administration's
efforts to correct course.
Unfortunately, I am out of time, and I am going to ask to
get that in writing from you. And at this time I yield back.
And I will recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for her
questions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, this committee has heard repeatedly that
we can anticipate unprecedented increases in electricity
demands in the coming years. How do appliance standards and
energy efficiency and building emergency codes help address the
growing load growth requirement?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Load growth is going to need to be
addressed by energy efficiency. There is no way to actually be
able to meet it as rapidly as load growth is without being able
to deploy energy efficiency. Codes and standards set a
baseline. And then what we really need is to have an additional
dynamic efficiency that is using buildings as virtual power
plants so that we can meet these additional peak loads.
We have to remember that utilities build power plants to
meet their peak needs. And so buildings can be a part of
meeting those peak needs by reducing energy use during those
peak times.
But building codes and buildings and appliance standards
will add additional--will bring additional demand off the grid
and further help meet the needs of that load growth.
Ms. Castor. And talk about the speed and the timeline of
deploying energy efficiency to address load growth or building
a new power plant, whether it is renewable or gas.
Mr. Steffes. To permit and build a power plant can take 5
to 7 years, whereas, depending on whether or not the
technologies have already been deployed, deploying energy
efficiency by a virtual power plant way--which is connecting
all of those buildings and all of those smart systems--can
take, you know, 5 to 7 months. So it is significantly faster to
deploy energy efficiency. And then, of course, as you move
energy efficiency in and give opportunities, whether it is tax
credits to buy those more efficient appliances, those are
things that can further push the higher-efficiency elements
into the marketplace.
Ms. Castor. And it seem like just a recipe for higher costs
if you denigrate the ability of energy efficiency to help with
load growth issue.
I was also really surprised in your testimony that you
pointed out the 2025 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. I had
no idea that the Energy Efficiency Sector employs 2.5 million,
while if you add up petroleum, natural gas, coal combined, it
is 866,000 workers. That is surprising to me.
So now that Republicans have repealed tax credits and
savings in their Big Ugly Bill, and when you add on the tariffs
and you are cutting weatherization, and now obviously they are
setting up some bills to come to committee to undermine energy
efficiency and savings, what do you project is going to happen
to all of those job?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. It is hard to know because we just had
the bill, and it just recently passed. And we still have the
tax credits. The 25(C) tax credit, which is the energy
efficiency credit for homeowners, they have until the end of
the year to take advantage of those tax credits. So contractors
are working really hard to make sure that their customers know
that if they were thinking about putting in a heat pump, they
were thinking about putting more insulation in their home, this
is a time to take advantage of that tax credit if they have a
tax liability. So we don't know quite yet. We do know that
these tax credits passed--the 25(C) tax credit passed in 2005,
and it did lead to an increase in jobs.
And so, as we take those opportunities away from homeowners
to be able to meet those additional higher technology jobs,
which do cost a little bit more, and be able to offset that
with a tax credit, it is unclear exactly what that is going to
do to jobs where there will be an impact.
Ms. Castor. You know, thank you very much, because that is
where I started my testimony. Folks have until the end of the
year to take advantage of that. And back home in Florida, do
you know how important it is as people rebuild from the
hurricanes? We are one year out from Helene and Milton. And
this is a godsend because those tax credits can go to doors,
windows, insulation. You are replacing your AC with a much more
efficient heat pump that will save you money.
So let the word go forth: These have to be installed by the
end of the year. And the American people deserve these savings.
It is just not right for Republicans here in the Trump
administration to serve the bottom line of polluters and
billionaires rather than hard-working Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the
balance of her time.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hughes, I want to come to you first. As you know, I was
an air conditioning contractor for 35 years. So I have been in
a small business, and I have watched this whole episode of the
SEER ratings moving up on not only air conditioning units, but
on a gas AFUE settings as well.
You said a couple of things as a small builder. You said
you are concerned about this because this is restrictions on
the energy source--and I will come back to you in just a
second--then said it was mandates, and then you said it
affected appliances. Describe for us what you meant by it was
restrictions on energy source.
Mr. Hughes. Well, it is getting to be more of a concern
that we are losing those choices on what energy. And having to
change different equipment, different appliances, it is going
to add to the cost. In some cases, they are simply not
practical. Some of the new codes, for instance, require duct
work replaced in heated space, which is not practical on slab
homes.
Mr. Weber. Amen, brother. I have been there. I have been in
those homes. I have watched what I would call middle
America's--American citizens in Texas. When that--you are
familiar with SEERS, Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratings, on air
conditioners. When I got in the business in '81, it was 8--was
it--it was 8.0 SEER. Then they went to 9, then 10, then 12,
then 14, and 15. And you watched the price of those units to
almost double.
So now you had a homeowner who's--working family--my bias
of--49 years, was a teacher for 27 years, and I owned my own
company but 35 years--we watched working families struggling.
They lived in a house that was 15, 20, or 25 years old. For
them to get all-new equipment at the higher SEER ratings might
take a complete system change up from $12,000 to $18,000. And
they couldn't well afford the first price much less the next
price even though they had tax incentives on it, because
they're struggling.
Mr. Lieberman, I am going to come to you. Nonconditioned
gas furnace, you said in your comments, would not be available
after 2028. We all know that the AF--some of us know that the
AFUE rating on those furnaces go up to 92 percent. It also
requires the change in the venting. You know this. It requires
a grip rake and requires all kinds of stuff that normal
furnaces don't require. Especially in Texas, there is no reason
why the Department of Energy or anybody else, the EPA, should
be mandating that Texans have to have a certain efficiency. You
are aware of what AFUE furnaces, I trust.
Mr. Lieberman. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Go ahead.
Mr. Lieberman. No two homes are alike. No two homeowners
are alike. And we all know our own individualized circumstances
and preferences better than any one-size-fits-all regulatory
process. And so, with the furnace rule that will take effect in
2018, there are a lot of homes that won't get the furnace that
makes the most sense for them. And as it turns out, it tends to
be older, smaller, space-constrained homes owned by generally
lower-income Americans. One size fits all is very much a
problem with some of these--
Mr. Weber. It really is. It affects not just lower income
but also no income. I can't tell you how many times I have been
in a house that was 20, 25 years old or older, and I said,
``Sir, ma'am, there is a crack in your heat exchanger or your
old original furnace. It is going to have to be changed. But it
is also going to have to be a upper AFUE rated furnace, you
need a new evaporator coil, and a new outside unit.'' And now,
instead of a furnace that is usually choosing $1,800, $1,900,
or whatever it is, you are now looking at about 7, 8 thousand
dollars back in the '80s or 9,000, much, much higher than that.
And I have had people look me in the eye and say, ``Well,
Mr. Weber, you say there is a minor crack in the heater
exchanger that puts out carbon monoxide?'' ``Yes, sir.'' They
said, ``How dangerous is that?'' And I said, ``Well, you know,
if you get enough in your bloodstream it can kill you.'' I
said, ``You can go to sleep at night, and the next morning you
can wake up dead, which is not a bad way to go if you are ready
to go.'' And they literally would look me in the eye and say,
``What are the odds, what is the percentage rate that it would
actually kill somebody in our family?'' And I said, ``Well,
they are actually pretty low, but when it happens, they are
just as dead as they could be.''
And families can't always afford these mandates. It is a
good idea. I know that we want less pollution, and we want all
this stuff that we want to happen. But we have to take into
account that American families can't always afford these good
ideas.
Ms. Rinaldi, I am going to come to you. Everything you said
sounds good about all the energy savings, but I just laid out a
scenario for you where Americans can't really afford all this.
So I am just going to end my comments, Mr. Chairman, by
saying, it is like the best-laid plans of mice and men, and I
yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
the remaining balance of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three
questions of Ms. Saul Rinaldi. So I am going to try to get
through the three.
At a time when Americans are struggling wit everyday
prices, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans
have enacted policies that in my opinion only result in
increased energy prices for American families.
So my first question is, with these increased energy costs,
can you please talk about the role of energy efficiency in
helping households keep monthly energy bills affordable? And
what happens if Republicans continue to gut efficiency
standards, if you will?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Well, without efficiency standards, then
homeowners would buy whatever is cheapest in order to put it in
their house. That would likely not include the higher-efficient
technologies. And they would be spending more on their monthly
utility bills. I think one of the key things is most of the
time--we all know when we buy a new appliance is because
something broke, it is because our air conditioner broke, or
our dishwasher broke.
And what ends up happening is that they don't necessarily
have thousands of dollars or even hundreds of dollars burning a
hole in their bank account. So that homeowner needs to figure
out how they are going to serve the needs of their family in
the most cost-effective way possible.
I know they will buy often what is just at standard. And so
what building standards do and what appliance standards do is
provide that baseline standard so we make sure to protect
homeowners from the least efficient appliances and the least
efficient codes. So that is why they are just really critical.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks. And my second question is--
I mentioned this, what I said was a factually inaccurate number
in my opening statement. I would like to get your take on it.
Republicans claim that meeting the 2021 International
Energy Code can add up to $31,000 to the price of a new home.
But based on my review, this number includes several items that
are not even required by the code.
So have you seen this number before? And can you confirm
that it includes several items that are not required by the
code?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes, about 80 percent of that number is
different. There's many different pathways for both
prescriptive and performance in the code. And that number is
choosing more expensive pathways. I can give you some examples,
if you would like.
Mr. Pallone. You want give us an example?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. So, for example, there is a number of--on
double-wall construction, it leads to $18,000 in that example
of that 31,000. That $18,000 can be led to in much cheaper ways
through different pathways which include single wall and
wrapping the house. There is also $3,000 for the ventilation
energy package, which can often be substituted with a hot water
heater. For example, a more efficient hot water heater.
So there is different pathways to get--to meet the model
energy code. And that $31,000 number is more elevated than one
would see in the marketplace normally.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. Then my third question
is about--let me get to it here--is about energy efficiency and
this idea that energy standards helps provide clarity and
stability to American manufacturers.
Can you elaborate on the collaboration that takes place
between DOE and manufacturers as it relates to energy
efficiency and energy conservation standards? How do these
standards help American manufacturers compete and avoid being
undercut by inefficient foreign products, if you will?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. By--it is, though--remember when I talked
about some of those really potentially cheap products that
could flood the market, those would likely be foreign products.
And American manufacturers work with the Department of Energy.
They go through the standards. The standards process takes some
time. Not every single appliance that is reviewed has a new
standard. It has to be cost-effective and technologically
feasible, and that they work with the manufacturers and other
stakeholders to make sure that they are coming up with
something that will work for the marketplace.
And then the manufacturers--what that does is it helps
strengthen the manufacturers to make sure that the lines of
products that they put on the market are from that base
standard, and then additional efficiency so that they cannot
have to be competing with foreign manufacturers that might have
cheaper, less efficient products on the market.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here today. I appreciate your time.
My first question is to Mr. Steffes. I appreciate you
discussing the critical role natural gas plays in maintaining
an affordable, reliable, and resilient energy mix. Similar to
the service territory of Washington Gas, the district I
represent, Ohio's 12th Congressional District, is in the PGM
footprint, and we are currently experiencing a massive increase
in the development of new data centers across central Ohio.
Mr. Steffes, as we are seeing this historic demand grow due
to electrification and the buildout of new data centers to
support AI, we are also seeing efforts by local and State
officials to ban natural gas use. How do decisions by local
officials to phase out natural gas use--which may seem like
local, isolated decisions--negatively impact consumers and
consumers in other regions or other States?
Mr. Steffes. Thank you, Congressman.
Straightforward question of supply and demand. For the
customers that I serve, a lot of their needs is heating,
natural gas heating, hot water, cooking. If you mandate as in
our communities no more natural gas will be used, those
customers are going to find another way to provide heating.
They are not going to go without heat. They will use electric
heat. That will add additional demand to the electricity market
while it is very difficult to add supply. Additional demand
without supply increases prices.
Mr. Balderson. Agree.
Mr. Lieberman, I would like to get your thoughts on how
natural gas bans can impact reliability and resiliency.
Mr. Lieberman. Well, natural gas takes a good bit of the
load that would otherwise have to be carried by electricity for
residential use, which is what I have looked at most closely.
And there is a reason people choose natural gas. It is 3\1/2\
times cheaper on a per-unit energy basis, and that is from the
Department of Energy. So there's a lot of good reasons for
homeowners to choose a natural gas water heater, natural gas
furnace, a natural gas stove. Others who are into cooking swear
by the superiority of gas cooking. But from an energy
perspective, gas is cheaper, and it takes some of the load off
of electricity at a time where we are struggling to keep up
with increasing demand.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Lieberman.
My next question is directed to Mr. Hughes. In your
testimony, you note your concerns with the previous
administration's final rule on residential furnaces, which
effectively bans noncondensing gas furnaces after 2028. Can you
walk us through how this rule would increase costs for
consumers and specifically how it would disproportionately
impact seniors and low-income families?
Mr. Hughes. Well, just the added cost of installation in
most cases. We are a big proponent, as Ms. Rinaldi is, to
upfitting existing homes. But in too many cases, condensing
units aren't practical, aren't always practical. So just a--the
added installation cost alone and the added equipment cost
alone is a huge factor.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. I will do a followup with you,
Mr. Hughes. I think many on this committee, myself included,
have deep concerns on that the efficiency standards proposed
and finalized by the previous administration failed to meet
EPCA's requirement that the standard is economically justified.
Do you believe those efficiency standards finalized on home
appliances were economically justified or cost effective?
Question. And how would some of those appliance standards hurt
consumers and new owners?
Mr. Hughes. In most cases, we found that they are not cost
effective. New appliances to these new standards I found
personally simply don't last as long. They are more expensive,
and they simply don't last as long. So that adds to costs also.
Mr. Balderson. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Steffes, would you
like to add anything to that? Mr. Lieberman? You can go first.
Mr. Lieberman. Well, for one thing, the statute has a
provision in it that says that the higher upfront costs should
be no more than is earned back in the form of energy savings
over 3 years. But we see that provision bypassed--it is not a
requirement. I think making that a requirement, making certain
that consumers save more than it costs, would be--would be very
valuable.
I would also say there is no downside to not regulating.
Anyone who wants an ultra-efficient appliance is always free to
buy one, and there's plenty of models available. Manufacturers
have shown that they will make models that go above and beyond.
Go to Home Depot, Lowe's. You can find appliances in any
category that are much more efficient than the standard.
But the standard doesn't make sense for everyone, and that
is why I think we should go to a more--approach with consumer
choice rather than Federal mandates.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
I apologize, Mr. Steffes, but Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's
4th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member
Castor, for holding this very timely hearing.
Across the country, one in three households is forced to
cut back on basic necessities just to afford their energy
bills. In Virginia, families face electricity rate hikes of at
least $10 a month. This is on top of rising grocery prices
caused by President Trump's reckless tariffs and draconian
Medicaid cuts that strip health coverage for millions of low-
income Americans.
And rather than addressing these problems, the Trump
administration has frozen or canceled funding for clean energy
projects even though clean energy consistently delivers cheaper
electricity than dirty fossil fuels. And the Republicans' Big
Ugly Bill is terminating clean energy tax incentives that were
already helping homes and businesses save money through energy
upgrades. And Republican leadership used the Congressional
Review Act to reverse the Biden-Harris administration's
commonsense energy efficiency standards that had broad public
support and saved customers money by reducing their individual
demand.
In 2024, DOE standards helped the average American
household save over $500 on their utility bills. And in this
committee we often discuss how growing energy demand from
manufacturing and data centers and the urgent need to bring
more generation online. But energy efficiency is one of the
quickest and most cost-effective tools we have to reduce peak
demand, to reduce individual demand and therefore lower
individual customer bills, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and
strengthen grid resiliency and energy security.
Now, Virginia is home to more than 600,000 veterans, many
of whom face unique challenges transitioning to civilian life
and finding good-paying jobs. But energy efficiency jobs have
provided important opportunities for veterans who currently
make up about 10 percent of the workforce in this sector alone.
For many veterans, energy efficiency jobs offer a meaningful
way to leverage their leadership and technical skills while
continue to--continuing to contribute to our national security.
So Ms. Saul Rinaldi, could you discuss how Federal energy
efficiency policies support workforce development and create
career opportunities for veterans and other workers?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Absolutely.
And I am glad you brought up workforce training. Workforce
training is critical right now. In the building sector, every
time we talk with contractors, we always are looking for
trained workers. And veterans are a big part of where they seek
to find and bring in new workers to be a part of their teams.
Workforce training is critical, and unfortunately, the
unobligated funds from the workforce training grants were taken
out in the last--in the OBBA legislation. But workforce
training is critical. We need to have on-the-job training as
well as apprenticeship programs. We need to be investing in
apprenticeship programs and workforce training so that these
contractors can go into the homes and be able to understand how
to size appropriately the furnaces, how to--how much insulation
is needed, and how to make sure to make the most cost-effective
upgrade for that home. Whether that home is fueled by gas or
whether it is electric, the contractors need to be trained to
make sure that they are making the best decisions for those
homeowners.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
And one of the programs under the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law was a $500 million Renew America's Schools program to help
public schools lower energy costs and improve indoor air
quality, creating healthier learning environments for students
and teachers across the country.
In the 2024 funding cycle, Richmond Public Schools in my
district was one of 16 districts across the country to receive
over 15 million to support much-needed upgrades at 22 Title I
schools. Many of these schools were over 50 and in some cases
over 100 years old. So you can imagine how inefficient
energywise they were. But in January, President Trump issued
Executive orders illegally freezing funding for the Renew
America Schools.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, how has the uncertainty created by the
Trump administration's funding freezes impacted schools and
businesses looking to upgrade their facilities?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Well, I think any of the funding freezes
that we have seen, or cancellations, has created some
uncertainty in the marketplace, particularly when it comes to
job creation and hiring and for contractors who are unsure
whether or not certain programs are going to be there to fund
those upgrades. They certainly don't want to promise something
and go through all the effort to put together a school
redevelopment or a church redevelopment for those nonprofits in
that program and then find out that they don't have the funding
there to be able to meet that need.
So uncertainty is really hard in general for the
marketplace, particularly for the small business contractors.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired, yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Georgia's 12th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, for holding this
important hearing to discuss appliances and--appliance and
building policies, and I thank the witnesses for being here
today.
During the Biden administration, there was a 4-year assault
on consumer choice of appliances from gas stoves,
refrigerators, and freezers to washers, dryers, dishwashers,
and air conditioners. No household appliance was off limits in
their pursuit of a radical rush-to-green agenda. In fact, I
tell you, I got more questions in the district this last--it
was August work period. I mean, people asked me, ``Why is my
new air conditioner costing 3 times what I paid for it 10 years
ago?'' And because of this new gas and this--yes, these--yes,
``I thought technology was supposed to lower prices,'' and that
is the comments I got. But it is really--it is a real problem
for our consumers.
And, of course, that is why I am proud that I--to introduce
the bill Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act, which
implements necessary reforms to the Energy Policy and
Conservation, or EPCA, prevent future administration from
issuing burdensome standards on household appliances that would
drive costs and reduce availability. And like I said, I don't
know where we are getting these numbers about all this money we
are saving, but like I said, the costs are enormous.
In fact, I had to do something I never thought I would do
in my lifetime: stand on the House floor and defend my wife's
gas stove. And we won that battle. She got to keep it. So--but
again, what is important is to preserve consumer choice and
maintain a diverse energy mix.
Mr. Lieberman, you mentioned in your testimony the issues
with EPCA and how costly it can be to implement new appliance
regulations. You have an average of how much the Biden
Department of Energy's rules on some appliances cost consumers?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, you mentioned air conditioners.
Central air conditioners are in the very unfortunate position
that they are hit with Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection Agency regulation, and it is that one-two punch that
has really done a number on appliances. A DOE rule that
predates the Biden administration but took effect in 2023
raised the cost of home air conditioners. And then a Biden EPA
rule that took effect for manufactured equipment after January
1st of this year has really done a number on appliance
affordability, especially air conditioners.
And I have talked to air conditioner installers who say
that that EPA rule alone added $1,500 on top of the other
regulations. So it is definitely a cumulative effect. And a
number of these regulations were from the Biden administration,
but a number of them predate the Biden administration as well.
Mr. Allen. Well, another problem is some of this stuff
doesn't work. I mean, the washing machines, I am told, don't--
you got to wash your clothes multiple times. I mean, we had one
lady that wrote in here, said she had to put more water in her
washing machine to get her clothes clean, had to drag the water
hose in there and put it in the--I mean, you can't believe this
stuff.
You mentioned my bill, the Don't Mess With My Home
Appliances Act, to reform EPCA. How would this bill help with
ensuring consumer choice and lower costs of appliances?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, I think it would reinstate some
safeguards against excessive future regulations. That is very
useful. It would also have this lookback provision so we can--
we can revisit past regulations, have a notice in comment
rulemaking where those who think the appliance standard was
just fine can say so, but those who think there have been
problems can say so. And we can--we can revisit some of these
past standards, maybe even make them less stringent if it is
efficiency that comes at a cost of choice, performance,
features, reliability, and longevity.
Mr. Allen. It is called common sense or street smarts,
whatever you want to----
Mr. Lieberman. Yes, trusting consumers to do the right
thing.
Mr. Allen. Mr.--``Steff-iss''? Is that correct? Part of my
bill, the Don't Mess With My Appliance Act, prohibits the
Secretary of Energy from banning products based on their type
of fuel source--most notably, natural gas. Natural gas
traditionally uses less energy. So can you share how many
natural gas appliances and natural gas, such as my wife's gas
stove, as a fuel source in building would strain the grid and
raise energy cost?
Mr. Steffes. Thank you, Congressman.
Absolutely. Driving gas out of homes will raise--will
increase electricity demand because people will still want to
cook. They will still want heat. That will only increase demand
in a tight supply market, and the prices are going to go up
from there.
Mr. Allen. All right. Well, I am out of time. Mr. Hughes, I
had a question for you. For the record, I will get that to you.
But obviously, we have a huge housing shortage in this country,
and affordability is a big issue. We got to solve that problem
for the American people.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
15th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses for your testimony today.
As we know, affordability is a huge challenge. While the
majority has passed One Big Beautiful Bill, their policies have
increased energy bills by hundreds of dollars a year for
families across America. This is on top of higher costs at the
grocery store and diminishing coverage at the doctor's office.
Instead of dealing with this affordability crisis, the
President has mandated that outdated coal plants keep running,
which will cost billions of dollars a year. Republicans have
proposed bill after bill to roll back efficiency standards,
which would only lock in higher costs for families.
Americans are being squeezed on many fronts, and for
utility bills, they simply have to eat the cost or turn out the
lights. For renters, this issue is especially urgent because,
while they pay their own energy bills, they don't have control
over whether their homes and appliances are energy efficient.
So Ms. Saul Rinaldi, can you explain how strong appliance
standards and building codes protect renters and homeowners
from higher monthly bills?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Absolutely. And you are correct. That
split incentive is critical for the third of the country that
rents and that--one of the key issues that appliance standards
can do is that a typical household has saved $576 per house per
year as a result of appliance and equipment standards.
So once they--once these purchases are made by the landlord
for the renter, those energy savings are recouped by the
renter. So by setting a standard as the lowest cost that a
landlord can put into a home or apartment is critical. And
homeowners get the same. They purchase the appliance with
some--potentially an upfront cost, potentially not.
I think the costs of appliances aren't necessarily weighed
directly against standards. There is also inflation. There is
also the cost of the installation. So there's many things that
go into the cost of installing a new unit and why those costs
might go up.
But the appliance standards and the building standards are
just setting a baseline to make sure that we are protecting our
homeowners and our renters from appliances that are really
wasteful.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that.
I would also like to take a moment to talk about the impact
of housing codes on resilience to extreme weather for both
buildings and the electric grid. According to a FEMA report
from the first Trump administration, communities with modern
building codes avoid 32 billion, with a B, in disaster losses
over 20 years compared to places without them. That is why I
introduced my Weatherization Resilience and Adaptation Program,
or WRAP Act, to help low-income families harden their homes
against natural hazards.
We also know that more energy-efficient homes and
appliances will reduce strain on the grid by lowering demand
during heat waves and cold snaps.
So again, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, beyond lowering bills, can you
speak to how stronger codes and home-hardening investments work
together to reduce our disaster losses?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Well, one important piece that you had
noted is that when you upgrade the efficiency of a home, it
also means that they can--that installation helps that home
withstand heat or the loss of--if it is during a heat wave,
they can withstand the energy--air conditioning, it can hold in
the air conditioning. It can hold in the heat if they have lost
power during--if it is cold out. So it makes the home itself
act a bit like a cooler rather than a paper bag. So the home
itself helps maintain the temperatures within it even if there
is a loss of power. So that is--that is one of the key ways
that it helps.
There is also--just in general, the homes are built with--
sturdier, and those sturdier homes are able to withstand some
of the more extreme weather events that we have been seeing.
Mr. Mullin. Appreciate that answer very much. Thank you all
for your testimony.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 11th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to get to the heart--Mr. Hughes, I will start with
you. I want to get to the heart of--efficiency is good, and it
is happening. And things--and there's lots of different
industries that are making things more efficient. But I don't
need, in west Texas, to be hurricane-proof, because we don't
have hurricanes in west Texas. And I think the--as we consider
different things that are mandated, we want to make sure that
we are not overreaching, which is exactly what has happened in
the last 4 years. And we are trying to swim out of that, that
mess.
Housing prices are obviously--they are very expensive right
now. We have lower numbers of first-time home buyers. And I
would like to hear your thoughts as you have kind of mentioned
already today on the additional Federal appliance code mandates
that have impacted the affordability of homes and just broad
thoughts on how to tackle it to make sure we do gain efficiency
but we don't overreach.
Mr. Hughes. Absolutely. As has been mentioned several
times, it is not a one size fits all. And you are right. You
don't have hurricanes in Texas, but we do in North Carolina. It
should be left up to individual States and local governments to
tailor those codes to those areas.
As far as the cost, the more regulations we pile on, the
more it drives that cost up. We feel like the homes that we
have built in the last 20 years perform very well. We feel like
we have reached a good base, and continuing to pile on is
simply not cost effective. You are not going to recover that
extra funds. We are a big advocate for upfitting existing
homes, and we feel like that is where a lot more good can be
done.
Now, as far as how that increases resiliency,
unfortunately, that is not quite as easy. But I can assure you
in North Carolina, we are constantly looking for ways to be
more resilient. And there are a lot of great innovative
products out there that increase resiliency. And luckily today,
a lot of those products also increase efficiency.
Mr. Pfluger. Right.
Mr. Hughes. Unfortunately, they all cost more.
Mr. Pfluger. We have to be careful about what we mandate
and how that affects the one size fits all--I hope--I hope that
this committee is listening to that.
Mr. Steffes, I will go to you. You testified that 20
percent--changing subjects completely here--but 20 percent of
Washington's gas service goes to Federal facilities, including
buildings at the White House and the Pentagon. And what risks
do you see if Section 433--if Section 433 forces those
facilities to abandon natural gas in favor of an all-electric
mandate?
Mr. Steffes. A few risks there, Congressman. Thank you for
the question.
First, the risk that I see is--because energy security in
multiple redundant networks to deliver energy is critical, I
see a risk to national security and our ability--the country's
ability to continue to operate when storms come through, when
matters that are critical to citizens are dealt with.
I also see a fundamental question and challenge around
affordability. As Federal office buildings are mandated to move
down one path and only one path, clearly they are going to
spend more money when they could otherwise use a different
technology and solution.
We trust strongly that the Federal Government--the people
that run the buildings, that operate these facilities, will
make the right choices for affordability, for reliability, for
security, as well as for safety.
Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Hughes, I will go back to you.
Forced electrification. You testified that the cost can be
as much as 40 percent more. So in the same way that we are
asking Federal buildings whether they want forced
electrification, what is your opinion on that with houses?
Mr. Hughes. Well, again, it is all about the cost. It is
going to drive up costs. We have to change appliances to meet
those regulations, the cost of the appliance and the
installation. It is all about the cost. And again, the point
has been made. The best plan in the world isn't worth anything
if the homeowner--if the home buyer can't afford it.
Mr. Pfluger. Finally, Mr. Lieberman, cost question. You
note in your testimony that DOE rules could add hundreds of
dollars to the cost of furnaces and water heaters. And what
kind of effect is that going to create for first-time home
buyers?
Mr. Lieberman. It adds to the cost----
Mr. Pfluger. Push your mic.
Mr. Lieberman. It adds to the cost of that first-time home.
I should say that the water heaters rule, it actually
impacts existing homes a little bit more than the new homes
because most of those are built with the condensing furnaces.
But again, there is a cost for existing homeowners, but there
is also a cost for new homeowners. I think the biggest single
appliance affecting new homes is central air conditioners,
which have become very, very expensive because of this one-two
punch of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
Agency regulations. But almost every room in the house has
something that is going up in price, and it adds up.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony. I yield
back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired,
yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado's 1st
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am always happy to talk about
overburdensome government regulation because, unbelievably,
maybe, to Republicans, I am opposed to that too. I think that
government regulation should be lean and mean, and I think it
should help consumers. Nonetheless, I was really perplexed
because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to
think that all of these efficiency standards they are talking
about are actually going to hurt consumers rather than save
them money in the long run.
And so I was--I was ruminating about what the Republican
majority has been doing yesterday to slash things because they
don't comport with their drill, baby, drill agenda, which will
actually hurt consumers. And I just give a couple of examples
from the Big Bad Bill.
One: They slashed the energy-efficient commercial buildings
deduction to assist with the installation of energy efficiency
appliances and commercial buildings. So this was money that was
going to help people install these appliances so they could
save money in the long run. Gone.
They terminated the Energy Efficient Home Improvement tax
credit. This tax credit helped over 2.3 million Americans make
their buildings more resilient and efficient and saved an
average of $130 a year in energy costs. And that is all gone
now. Those people, they can't save that money now because we
are not helping them.
Just last week, my Republican colleagues voted to cut DOE's
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by half. In my
home State of Colorado, that would eliminate our funding for
the Weatherization Assistance Program by a third, as just one
example.
So in other words, you are making these houses and
commercial buildings more efficient so people will save money,
but my colleagues don't like that.
So, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, I want to ask you a couple of
questions about the impact of cutting energy efficiency
standards because, in my opinion, these standards create
healthier, more comfortable indoor spaces, and in fact they
help with health issues, respiratory issues, and preventing
chronic diseases like cancer, lower respiratory diseases, and
other things.
So let me ask you. Poor indoor air quality leads to more
asthma incidences, causes colds, allergies, headaches, fatigue,
and negatively impacts our mental health. Is that what studies
show?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes. That is exactly what studies show.
Ms. DeGette. OK. So given that we spend 90 percent of our
time indoors, wouldn't it stand to reason that health issues
caused by poor indoor air quality would lead to an increase in
healthcare costs?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. So Mr. Chairman, I have here a study, and it
is from UL Solutions, which concludes that negative health
effects triggered by poor indoor environmental quality make up
nearly 14 percent of healthcare costs. I ask unanimous consent
to put that in the record.
Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Now, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, efficiency standards not only
mitigate health risks, but modern building codes protect us
during natural disasters by making our buildings more
resilient. Is that right?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Now, are you aware of the study that FEMA
concluded where they said that every dollar spent on building
code adoption saves $11 in disaster repair and recovery
expenses?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes, I am.
Ms. DeGette. So in an area like my home State of Colorado,
which is facing our worst fire year since 2020, energy
efficiency standards and weatherization programs have reduced
energy bills by nearly 25 percent. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes. That makes sense.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And so I guess the way I feel is, if you
really want to reduce the burdensome effect of the Federal
Government's actions, then help people to make their homes and
businesses more resilient and also more healthy so that they
can save money and so that they can have better health
outcomes.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the
balance of her time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this hearing,
appreciate being here.
And, Mr. Steffes, some of the argument has been that you
put in regulations that drive the price of products, of energy,
of housing up, and then you have a bill to subsidize it. You
take away the subsidies, you are increasing the price of
everything.
Well, the problem really is, is making things affordable in
the first place so you don't have to subsidize it, because it
seems like we just dismiss--when you subsidize something,
somebody is paying for it. And so that is what we need to
recognize.
And so, Mr. Steffes, in your testimony, you discuss State-
level actions, including Maryland's building energy performance
standards, and the lack of consideration given to whether the
grid can handle increased demand from electrification. What
kind of price increases can PJM customers expect as performance
standards and other gas restrictions take effect?
Mr. Steffes. Thank you, Chairman.
Yes, as I said in my testimony, we have already seen almost
1,000 percent increase in capacity prices in PJM. If we
continually restrict natural gas at the site, in buildings and
homes, all that is going to do is to drive electricity. And how
do we make electricity in PJM today? Well, if you look at PJM,
we make it primarily with natural gas and some coal and
nuclear. The idea that we are going to then just push the gas
back down the power wire and use it in a less efficient manner
than you would use it at home is absolutely going to rise
prices.
I will give you another example. In Baltimore, over about 5
years, electricity customers have seen 1,000-dollar-a-year bill
increase, sort of that--in our Maryland customers, we have seen
$100. Natural gas is much more affordable than electricity
delivered. And we need to be thinking about that as we restrict
people's use of natural gas.
Mr. Guthrie. So I know our friends in Europe are begging us
to export more liquid natural gas. It is national security. If
you are pro-Ukraine, you want to ship natural gas to Europe
because that is--which I am, and so that--by the fact that they
are buying natural gas from Russia funds Russia to go attack
Ukraine. I just talked with our Japanese and Korean allies, and
they want us to unleash our natural gas out of Alaska, which
helps some of their competition with China.
So it is also a strategic thing. But people will say, well,
prices--like you are saying in electric, prices are going up in
places like Maryland, therefore we need not export natural gas.
I have heard that argument, actually.
And the problem with electric prices isn't the existence of
natural gas. It is the ability to use it, correct?
Mr. Steffes. Correct.
Mr. Guthrie. So I just want to make sure that--and then
also--so Mr. Hughes, in the Inflation Reduction Act, or so-
called--if we are going to call it--they are going to use our
bill, I will use theirs--so-called Inflation Reduction Act. It
included provisions to pressure State localities adopt
burdensome building codes and performance standards that
negatively impact potential home buyers. Even in California,
they paused some of these codes. We have seen some books, the
books of abundance or something, come out about how these
regulations are--I haven't read that book, but I have heard
about it.
So Mr. Hughes, what kind of flexibility do State localities
need when implementing building codes?
Mr. Hughes. As we continue to say, it is not a one size
fits all. Every State needs to do their own thing. As was
mentioned earlier, not every State has hurricanes. We do. So
you have to be--you have to have that flexibility.
And above all, maintaining consumer choice. It comes right
down to it. Again, no matter what the plan is, if consumers
can't afford it, what good have we done?
Mr. Guthrie. So how do we balance? So I think as a Federal
Government, a lot of times we have these tragedies, FEMA comes
in and helps. The people want their Federal Government to come
and help, and it does. And so there is some Federal interest to
making sure people don't build flimsy buildings in an
earthquake area or buildings that are--that can't withstand--
right on the water in Florida that can't withstand hurricane
wind.
And so how do we balance locals making their decisions--let
the Federal Government know, a lot of times we foot the bill,
we want to make sure--so what I am saying is that all
regulations aren't bad. How do we know that we get the right
level of regulations between State and Federal?
Mr. Hughes. Well, we feel like we are there. Again, the
houses, the homes that we have built in the last 20 years
perform very well. You can ride up some of the valleys, creeks
and----
Mr. Guthrie. I am about out of time. So what is being added
to that--you think you are there. So what is being added to
that you think we need to not do?
Mr. Hughes. Well, you name it. Extra energy requirements
and--the resiliency is there. Some places require more. But
again, that flexibility. On our coastal areas, we need--you
know, we need better windows and doors, but we don't
necessarily need it in my Piedmont area. So we have to maintain
that flexibility and affordability.
Mr. Guthrie. I just want to--before I yield back--that all
things aren't bad. They need to be correct, and we need to make
sure they are at the right level. So thank you, and I yield
back, Mr.----
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's
8th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
And I appreciate this--us having this hearing today, you
know, and talking about policies. The Republicans have control
of this chamber, they have control of the Senate, and they have
a Republican President, yet they want to cast the blame, the
affordability challenge, on the prior administration instead of
taking accountability for their lack of action to drive down
the costs that so many of our families are burdened with.
In addition, Republicans like to claim their focus this
Congress is on eliminating waste across the Government. This
was their justification for taking healthcare away from 15
million Americans and making the largest cut to SNAP in the
program's history.
Now, folks on this side of the aisle voted against that.
But that was their framing of the conversation, right? ``There
is waste that we need to go cut out,'' and their way to do so:
taking healthcare away from 15 million people.
As we all know, the opposite of waste is efficiency. This
administration set up the Department of Government Efficiency.
That sounds like a good idea, right? Most of us would agree in
that type of efficiency. What they really did was just fire,
RIF, remove, hire back career Government officials who have
done so much incredible work for our country, and created no
efficiency in the process.
But let me ask all of our witnesses today, as a general
matter: Is efficiency good or bad? Give me a thumbs up or
thumbs down. Good. OK. I think--that is interesting. We will
come back. Good. Good. Great.
But as we have already heard this afternoon, as we have
already seen this Congress, Republicans in the Trump
administration seem to take issue with efficiency when it comes
to energy. This May, Republicans passed and President Trump
signed multiple pieces of legislation that repealed Biden-era
Department of Energy efficiency standards.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, with respect to waste, wouldn't
inefficient household appliances actually contribute to a waste
of energy?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes. Inefficient appliances do contribute
to waste.
Mr. Menendez. Right. Waste bad, efficiency good. Makes
sense.
So if more people use energy-efficient products, would that
lead to lower energy costs for American families?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. Right? And if more people use energy-
efficient products, wouldn't that relieve some of the burden
that we are putting on our energy grid?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. It does.
Mr. Menendez. Seems so simple.
Energy prices are dramatically increasing across the
country, and our constituents are footing the bill. In my home
State of New Jersey, my constituents' energy bills rose by 20
percent this summer. PJM and others are blaming these price
hikes on increased demand due to the rapid deployment of data
centers and increased AI adoption, which, as we all know,
consumes a significant amount of energy.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, your testimony points out that data
centers account for roughly 4.4 percent of electricity use in
2023, but they are projected to grow to--to account up to 12
percent of energy use over the next 3 years.
Question: Are you aware of any rules or actions being taken
by the Trump administration or House Republicans to keep the
costs associated with these data centers from being shifted to
households?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. I am not aware of anything specific.
Mr. Menendez. Yes, because I am on this subcommittee, and
we have not had--we have had tons of AI hearings but not one
about the energy that goes into powering AI, which our
consumers--and when I say ``consumers,'' I mean our
constituents--are footing the bill of.
And so it seems to me that is a big challenge that we have
to face which we don't actually want to face here. We just want
to look backwards to the Biden administration and blame them
for their policies instead of taking accountability in the work
that remains ahead.
Shifting a little bit, a question for our witnesses: Do we
need more energy production? Just yes or no.
Mr. Hughes. Yes.
Mr. Lieberman. Yes.
Mr. Steffes. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. Great. I agree.
But instead, President Trump and Republicans in Congress
have consistently made policy choices to inhibit our ability to
quickly bring new energy sources online in order to prop up
fossil fuels, including by gutting the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act and
imposing tariffs that will dramatically increase the costs of
equipment necessary to build out energy project.
Just quickly, have tariffs been good for home building or
bad for home building?
Mr. Hughes. Still----
Mr. Menendez. It has not been good so far, has it?
Mr. Hughes. No.
Mr. Menendez. Yeah. Pretty bad.
So they have completely abandoned renewables such as solar
and wind, so much that they refuse in this committee to use the
word ``renewable'' when we are talking about energy. And this
administration does not allow administration officials to
acknowledge an all-the-above strategy when it comes to energy
production.
We have had witnesses here who say we need more energy. We
are seeing the increased demand in AI data centers. But we are
going to cut off the country's supply because we don't believe
in offshore wind or solar despite the fact that in Texas, not a
blue State, 30 percent of their energy production has come from
the word ``renewable'' energy. And that is why consumers in
Texas are paying lower prices for their electricity.
Instead of making that a national profile that we can do,
they want to take us an opposite direction. They have failed on
accountability. They are failing every single day, and it is a
travesty that the American people are literally paying for.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired. And the Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's 1st District for
5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
for being here with your testimony.
And you mentioned how States and localities have used
building codes to go around EPCA State preemption and to
mandate de facto gas bans and appliance standards. And I guess
I will start with you, Mr. Hughes, since I can understand your
accent, OK?
I know that all over the country, there has been a housing
shortage, especially in places like California and New York,
and even in Tennessee. In particular, they struggle to increase
their housing supply. If we don't have enough rooftops, we
can't fill the jobs that we have.
What do your members say is the single largest cost to
build a new home?
Mr. Hughes. And for the record, everyone else has an
accent.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, totally.
Mr. Hughes. What is the single biggest cost--addition right
now? Is that what you are saying?
Wow. It varies--different areas. On the West Coast, it has
got to be impact fees. For us, labor is a big factor. Some
areas, it is lots. So the list goes on and on. And it varies
from one State and one region to the other.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Hughes. Again, a reason we don't need a one size fits
all.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Correct. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Steffes, in Tennessee, homes that use gas for heating
save around $449 annually when compared to an all-electric
home. And Tennessee has been a leader when it comes to energy
choice and has enacted laws to ensure customers make the
decision about what is right for them.
As a regulated utility, can you explain how these gas bans
impact the service Washington Gas provides to its customers?
Mr. Steffes. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I would just say this: Our customers tell us every day--
either current customers that want to ensure affordable future
and reliable future, or developers and builders who are trying
to build in this region--that they want to have the choice of
natural gas because they understand, as residents of Tennessee
realize, it is a more affordable option.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Steffes. So we are hearing that every day from our
customers.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. Can you explain why Washington Gas
uses demand-side management and utility programs to incentivize
energy efficiency and grid resilience?
Mr. Steffes. One of the things that, you know, Washington
Gas does, we do, we believe strongly in energy efficiency. We
work with our customers in Virginia and Maryland so that they
can bring more efficient products into their homes as they
choose to do that because, ultimately, they want--we want them
to use the amount of energy they think is appropriate in the
way they want to use it.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lieberman, for American manufacturers that build here,
they must make significant investments to comply with EPCA.
When we consider EPCA reform, how do we ensure DOE cannot
change or reverse standards that would allow foreign
manufacturers to flood the market, hurting our domestic
industry and putting U.S. jobs at risk?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, I do have to say that my sympathies
are more with consumers, homeowners, than with manufacturers,
and especially unsympathetic when manufacturers actually
lobbied for these standards, as is the case in a few instances,
as with air conditioners, for example. This gave air
conditioner manufacturers a captive market for more expensive
equipment. So I don't have a lot of sympathy there.
I think it is true that, you know, if we revisit any
standards, we might want to consider, you know, a glide path,
not abruptly ending things, because manufacturers have made the
transition, and that is something that should be taken into
account if we make changes to these standards.
But again, a lot of my sympathies are with the consumer,
not the manufacturer.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Whenever DOE decides to make a change to
its energy efficiency standards, the ruling must be
economically justified. In your opinion, sir--and this is Mr.
Lieberman--do you think EPCA's current seven-factor test that
guides the DOE's economic justification needs to change? And if
you do, why?
Mr. Lieberman. I think there's some factors that just don't
get included enough. Some of these new standards--and Mr.
Hughes can attest--have made installation costs higher. And
that is something that DOE doesn't usually factor in
sufficiently.
We have also heard more and more--every one of these
standards comes with a very optimistic analysis when it is
finalized by the Department of Energy: high benefits, lost
cost. But then reality kicks in, and a few hours--a few years
later, I should say, we see that the reality wasn't so rosy.
One of the things we see is impacts on product reliability.
Also impacts on product lifetime.
So there's some aspects to appliance affordability that
aren't fully taken into account. And so I think that we could
do--or DOE could do a better job of taking those into account
and considering not regulating--there is no--there is no
requirement to regulate. In fact, you are required to not
regulate if doing so is not economically justified.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California's
7th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank the witnesses for being here today.
When Donald Trump ran for President, he promised the
American people he would cut their energy bills in half. But
the reality is very different. Since Donald Trump took office,
electricity rates have gone up by 10 percent, and families are
feeling it every single day. The latest inflation report makes
clear it is not slowing down. Electricity prices are rising
twice as fast as the cost of other household goods.
And why? Because President Trump is making deliberate
choices that drives costs higher. Trump is slapping new tariffs
on energy inputs. He is doing everything he can to wage war on
clean energy across the country.
And congressional Republicans just repealed the tax credits
that reduce the cost of new energy products--or projects. It is
not rocket science. If you reduce the supply of energy, it is
going to cost more. And that is what Trump and congressional
Republicans are doing right now. And now Republicans are in a
crusade to make everything in our lives less efficient. If they
have their way, people's energy bills would skyrocket even
faster.
Energy efficiency is one of the best ways Americans can
lower their electricity bills. Ms. Saul Rinaldi, can you give
us a brief breakdown on the energy use in the average American
home?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Well, homes make up approximately 20
percent of our Nation's energy consumption, and so--but
primarily--primary in each house, it is the systems. So that is
the heating and cooling makes up the majority of that.
Ms. Matsui. Mm-hmm. OK. I understand that heating and
cooling is probably 50 percent, is that right?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. At least. It depends on how well
insulated the house is.
Ms. Matsui. Sure. And water about 15 percent?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Right.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So if the average American family wants to
reduce their energy use and save money on utility bills, what
would you recommend?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. First, usually recommend an energy audit,
having a professional come review the house, make sure that
their air conditioner's sized properly, make sure they have the
right amount of insulation, and make sure that they are taking
advantage of all of the low-hanging fruit for energy
efficiency. Then usually, since nine out of ten homes are
underinsulated, probably energy-efficient insulation would be
what they would need to do. And then after that, make sure that
their systems are--are the most efficient possible to make sure
that those big system costs are reduced.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Now, savings from efficiency can really add up, but some of
the Republican witnesses here today have raised concerns about
the upfront costs of energy-efficient homes. I find this
incredibly cynical. Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act expanded
tax credits that reduced the upfront costs of energy efficient
homes. But Republicans just repealed those tax credits in the
big ugly bill. In fact, just 2 months ago, every Republican on
this committee voted to kill those tax credits.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, can you explain what those tax credits
were and how the repeal of those credits will increase costs
for Americans?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes. The 25C Energy Efficient Home
Improvement tax credits that were repealed, they are--they are
available until the end of this year. But starting in January,
homeowners will no longer be able to take credits for gas and
electric heat pumps--heat pump, water heaters, insulation,
doors, windows. And 2.3 million Americans claim the 25C tax
credit, receiving over $2 billion back in tax credits. And the
average tax credit was $882 per house. So that was pretty
significant for many homeowners.
Ms. Matsui. Yes, it is.
Now, it is really a shame because an energy-efficient home
can be life changing. Our public utility in Sacramento, SMUD,
helps to retrofit customers' homes with the latest efficient
appliances and HVAC systems.
Last fall, I had the privilege to visit with a constituent
who had received an energy efficiency makeover. She was
absolutely thrilled, because Sacramento summers can get quite
hot, sometimes sweltering, but a new HVAC means her home stays
cool without breaking the bank. She was really very happy
because, you know, she had to pay for food and everything else
and try to look to see where she can find savings but, you
know, her house is cool, and she didn't have to pay those
bills.
The benefits of efficiency extend beyond our homes. This
committee has already held five hearings this year on how to
meet rising energy demand. Well, energy efficiency is one of
the most cost-effective ways to solve this problem.
And I see I am running out of time, so I will follow up
with the questions later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa's 1st
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Castor, for holding this important hearing on building
and appliance standards.
Iowans value their freedom to choose, whether that is
appliances in their homes, the energy that powers them, or how
they build their communities. Today we are addressing
fundamental concerns about government overreach threatening
consumer choice, energy choice, and affordability. I was proud
to sponsor H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator Freedom Act, which
passed the House of Congress. I wish I would have sponsored the
Washing Machine/Refrigerator Act because this Saturday my
washing machine went out, and I am currently shopping for a new
one.
Iowa follows 2009 IECC standards with amendments equivalent
to the 2012 standards. This balanced approach works for both
our environment and citizens' pocketbooks, yet pressure amounts
to adopt standards that could add tens of thousands of dollars
to home prices, pricing out young families and seniors.
Iowans need freedom to make choices that work for their
families, not Washington mandates. They need flexibility to
choose reliable, affordable, and abundant energy options that
work for their lifestyles.
Mr. Steffes, I have heard from our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle that in their States, their energy prices are
going up. And is this because of increasing demand for energy,
or is this because policies in the past 6 months that have not
even yet gone into effect?
Mr. Steffes. Energy prices have been going up for some
time. As I said, in Baltimore for the last 5 years, we have
seen electricity prices go up. American consumers are demanding
additional energy----
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Does increasing energy supply, would
that help to lower prices?
Mr. Steffes. Additional supply, all things equal, would
lower prices.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
Ms. Rinaldi, I noticed that when the question was asked if
whether we need increased power, you were equivocal on whether
or not we need increased power, increased energy. So is it your
assertion that merely having more energy-efficient appliances,
which also cost more money, that that would meet the demand
that we need for energy?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. I was equivocal just because it was
related to data centers, which will take more time to build
power. It was just more of a time----
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I just want to know: Do you think that
more energy-efficient appliances will meet the demands for
increased energy that we have? Yes or no.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Not only, no.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. No, they will not. Thank you. So I would
say yes, we need more energy.
Mr. Hughes, Home Innovation Research Labs found in 2021
IECC compliance costs range from 9,600 to 21,000 above the 2009
baseline. Since Iowa still uses the 2009 standards, given the
rising energy demands that we have talked about, could these
costs balloon too, and how would this extend payback periods
for Iowa families?
Mr. Hughes. Well, there is no--there is no limit to where
it can go if--if we don't check--and again, it is about choice.
It is about appliance choice, and I hate to keep saying cost.
But regardless of the plan or regardless of the great things
that are out there, we still have to keep them affordable. As I
said earlier, 75 percent of average homes today still can't
afford a new home. So why continue to pile on costs on top of
that if----
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Which makes it unaffordable.
Ms. Rinaldi, what is the environmental impact of replacing
an appliance, especially a computerized appliance, every 6 to 8
years? As I told you, I am looking for washing machines right
now. My current washing machine--front loaded, energy
efficient, water efficient--has lasted over 20 years. And as I
am shopping, I am told these new energy-efficient appliances
that you want mandated--that they are going to last 6 to 8
years. So what is the environmental impact of replacing an
appliance and the cost to families replacing it every 6 years
instead of every 10 or more years?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. The environmental impact of recycling the
appliance? Is that what the question----
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Of having to replace an appliance in a
shorter duration because they are less reliable and they are
less durable. Do you think there is an environmental impact, an
impact to the landfill, an impact to computerized critical
element devices that are in appliances that are being mandated
when they last a shorter time?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. I am afraid I don't have the answer to
the impact to the landfill.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I would--I would suggest that if that is
the policy that you want to see, that you want to know the
environmental impact if you are doing this in order to have an
environmental safety protocol and more energy efficiency.
Mr. Hughes, as a U.S. Army veteran, I am deeply concerned
about our military families. The 2023 OMB report documented
severe quality issues in military housing: mold, lead paint,
structural problems. Section 433 would require massive capital
investments to electrify all Federal buildings, including
military housing, by 2030.
Given that privatized housing companies have already--are
already struggling financially, and military families are
dealing with substandard conditions, shouldn't we prioritize
fixing existing health and safety hazards before forcing
extensive energy transitions that could divert resources from
basic maintenance?
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired. Could you
answer that yes or no? Or you could also respond to her in
writing.
Mr. Hughes. Well, yes. But we will respond in writing.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 33rd
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know how we got here. I am really concerned. You
think about some of the great appliances that we have. We
invented the washing machine in America. We invented the
dishwasher in America. We invented the microwave in America.
And we are arguing, and it almost sounds like we are ceding the
opportunity to be the leaders in innovating and creating new
products for the next wave of innovation and technology in
America and that we are just going to let--what, are we going
to let the Europeans beat us at it? Are we going to let the
Chinese Communist Party beat us at it?
Like, I think that this is crazy that we are kind of having
these arguments. We know that we want to be the leaders and we
want people to buy American appliances and that we want to be
the innovators in these new technologies, energy-efficient--
energy-efficient technologies, and that we are going to have to
find energy as the country continues to grow and more and more
of the world gets online.
In the 1970s, in a move towards American energy
independence, we passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
that established a Federal program of tests, procedures,
labeling, and energy targets, and we continue to lead. But I
don't want to cede in that area. That is one of the reasons why
I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant Program, because this program provides
communities with resources that help people lower bills so we
don't have to worry as much as--we are going to have to worry
anyway with all the energy that we are going to need to
continue to power America. And the EECBG program represents the
largest nationwide direct investment in energy efficiency and
cleaner energy technologies at the community level in U.S.
history.
And so I want to be clear, the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Grant Program was first authorized under the Bush
administration--a Texan--under the Bush administration, the
Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007. And there were 95
Republicans--and I bet you there were a lot of Texas
Republicans--I wasn't in Congress at the time, but I bet you
there were a lot of Texas Republicans that supported President
Bush on that. And there was a time when reducing costs for
consumers and creating regulatory certainty and supporting
American innovation was a shared priority because, again, we
don't want the Chinese beating us at this stuff. We want to be
the leaders in this stuff.
And so I just want to ask Ms. Rinaldi. Energy efficiency
already supports 2.3 million jobs nationwide, many of them in
small businesses. Can you speak to how stronger efficiency
standards and building codes translate into local job creation
and economic development, and how we can continue to be the
leaders in this area, not the Chinese?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Thank you. Yes, and energy efficiency has
historically been a bipartisan issue. And, yes, jobs are--your
local contractor is not going to be found overseas, nor is
there a job going to be shipped overseas. So local contractors
are part of our neighborhoods, they are part of our
communities. And when they grow their small businesses, they
grow from their communities.
So EECBG and the city energy office funding that funds so
much working and training and communities are a part of how we
explore additional jobs in our communities, because the--
including the Weatherization Assistance Program, which also has
significant job creation as a result of upgrading homes.
Mr. Veasey. Right, right. Exactly. And kind of in that same
direction, I am also interested to know Federal local
partnership model. How can local governments best use these
grants to maximize savings and other benefits for their
communities?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. The local--you mean the local communities
working with the Federal agencies?
Mr. Veasey. Yes.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Local communities working with Federal
agencies, that is one of the key ways that we can expand. There
is, for example, in the energy efficiency EERE has the
Buildings Upgrade Prize, which really expanded to a whole lot
of rural communities and additional communities that hadn't
been served by Federal agencies before.
So there's lots of new opportunities that have come out in
recent years to help support local communities using those
Federal dollars, and that is big part of job creation with
those local communities.
Mr. Veasey. And also, because I don't have much time left,
I know that manufacturers want clear and consistent
certification requirements. And so if you could please let me
know in writing how gutting the DOE's authority to set these
efficiency standards creates confusions and could raise costs
for businesses, that would be awesome.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired, and
yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan's
10th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Castor, for holding this very important hearing today.
Across the country, families are struggling to afford a
home. In Michigan, the situation is dire. Governor Whitmer is
pushing to adopt the 2021 building codes--codes that would add
an estimated $15,000 to the cost of new homes.
Now, let's be clear about what that means. For every $1,000
increase in price of a home, 3,393 families are priced out of
the market. By adding 15,000 in mandated costs, you are talking
about tens of thousands of hard-working families losing their
shot at home homeownership.
And why? Because the Biden administration's so-called Green
New Deal policy and the Whitmer administration's echo of them
in Lansing are forcing climate mandates that carry a crushing
price tag. Families are being told they must pay more now while
any alleged savings from these policies won't be realized for
decades, if at all. In the meantime, first-time home buyers are
locked out, priced out, and pushed further from the American
Dream.
The situation in Michigan is so severe that the Michigan
Home Builders Association has taken the extraordinary step of
suing the current administration in Lansing over these
mandates, because they know what this means for families,
builders, and the future of housing affordable in our State.
But the damage doesn't stop there. The rush to green
policies isn't just driving up home prices. It is also putting
a dangerous strain on our electric grid. MISO, the regional
operator for Michigan and much of the Midwest, is already
running at dangerously low levels of reserved capacity. At this
very moment, energy demand is hitting record highs as America
races to power new technologies and compete with China in the
AI revolution. These policies are undermining the reliability
and affordability of the very system our economy depends on.
This is the wrong direction.
Washington and Lansing should be tearing down barriers to
homeownership, strengthening our grid, and lowering costs for
families. Instead, they are pushing mandates to leave Americans
paying more for less.
Mr. Hughes, can you articulate for us what happens to
affordability when families are forced into an all-electric
home versus being able to choose natural gas or other options?
Mr. Hughes. Well, for starters, I am not very articulate,
but I will try. Again, the added cost of these appliances and
overall added codes, whether it is resiliency or efficiency--
and I remind the committee, again, we feel like that we are at
a very good level already. Our houses that we have built over
the last 20 years perform very well from resiliency and energy
efficiency.
We were big advocates of updating existing homes, ttere is
no question. Of the 137 million homes in this country, 130
million of them were built before modern codes. So we don't
feel like the answer is to continue to pile on costs that
homeowners can't already afford. We feel like we are at that
level right now. And anything going forward has to be cost
effective. We have to reach that balance. If we are going to
spend more for it, we have to know that we are going to get a
return on that investment.
Mr. James. That is very good stat. Of the 137 million
homes, 130 of them were built before those codes. And now we
are at a housing crisis because of policymaking and these
governments around the Nation. Getting power back to the people
is probably a good call.
Mr. Hughes, once again, from your perspective as a
homebuilder, why is it so important that we keep
affordability--affordability--front and center in these energy
policy debates in capital cities across the country?
Mr. Hughes. Well, it is pretty simple. If home buyers can't
afford them, there is no need in us building them to start
with. So, I mean, it is just again common sense. We haven't
used that word quite enough today, or that term quite enough.
We have got to use some common sense.
Mr. James. Well, common sense----
Mr. Hughes. Excuse me. I am a big advocate of energy-
efficient products. There is no question. I have used them for
25 years. You have to have that upfront money to begin with.
We feel like we have reached a good baseline, and there is
no need pushing it and requiring it when homebuilders simply
can't afford it.
Mr. James. Oh, common sense seems to be in short supply in
this town, which is why I am glad that you are bringing
perspective from home. Thank you so much.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's
20th District for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is no doubt that our constituents are experiencing
higher and higher energy bills. We can continue to spend a lot
of time talking past each other and playing the blame game, or
we can take concrete steps that will actually help make energy
more affordable by using proven programs.
DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program is incredibly
effective. That is supporting energy-efficient retrofits of
low-income homes. Each home receiving weatherization services
saves on average $372 every year on its utility bills, and that
doesn't even consider the nonenergy benefits of living in a
healthier and more comfortable home.
So, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, at this time of rapidly increasing
energy demand and prices, can you give us a sense of why the
Weatherization Assistance Program is needed and whether there
are some program reforms that can help make the program even
more effective?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes, Congressman. And the Weatherization
Assistance Program has weatherized over 7 million homes since
1976, and it continues--and it weatherizes 35,000 homes every
year. Those homes are for people who are at 200 percent of the
Federal poverty line, and many of them are choosing between
paying for medicine or paying for food and paying their utility
bill. A lot of them have homes that aren't even able to be
upgraded.
So there is weatherization readiness to help them get their
homes free of mold or asbestos so they can be sealed and
upgraded. And that keeps people in their homes from having them
being forced out of their homes for not being inhabitable.
The Weatherization Assistance Program is critical to the
most underserved people in our communities, and that is why the
Building Performance Association strongly supports the
weatherization legislation that you introduced.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you. That bill that you just
indicated is our bipartisan bill, H.R. 1355, that would
reauthorize the program while making modest reforms to allow it
to even more effectively serve eligible households. And I don't
see any reason why we couldn't come together to work on this
effort.
The last time this program was reauthorized, President
Trump signed it into law as part of the Energy Act of 2020. So
as recently as July 8, DOE issued a press release celebrating
$325 million in weatherization assistance funds and 30 million
in weatherization readiness funds being made available to
States. A DOE official is quoted as saying, ``Thanks to
President Trump's leadership, we are able to focus on reducing
energy costs for Americans that can least afford high energy
prices through the efforts of weatherization.''
Mr. Chair, I would like to request unanimous consent that
this press release be included in the hearing record.
Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. I thank you for that.
In addition to the administration's acknowledgment of the
effectiveness of the program, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, you mentioned
in your testimony that nearly 750 contractors and individuals
from across all States, all 50 States, have expressed their
support for this reauthorization effort.
Can you give us a sense of why BPA, along with many small
businesses it represents, believes this program is so
important?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Weatherization is a job creator, and
there is training associated with Weatherization Assistance
Program. Across the country, we see more contractors being
trained to work in these low-income homes. And the contractors
also have a real connection with their customers. They see how
it helps change their lives for the better. Our contractors are
very supportive of the weatherization program because of that
real connection they have with their customers and the training
that it provides them.
Mr. Tonko. And I thank you for that.
I would like to request, again, unanimous consent to add a
May 8 letter from nearly 750 individuals and contractor
businesses to Chair Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and the
leadership of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources in support of H.R. 1355. So I can get approval there,
Mr. Chair?
Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. I certainly want to make sure
the contractors carrying out this work are able to continue to
provide weatherization services, but unfortunately I have heard
reports that those previously announced DOE funds have not yet
been received by States, which is partially due to DOE staff
reductions leaving insufficient people in place to review and
approve these State plans.
So Ms. Saul Rinaldi, can you give us a sense of how these
delays are affecting contractors that carry out this work as
well as the individuals that are waiting to get their homes
weatherized?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. My understanding is only 6 of 56 States
and Territory plans have been approved. Without those plans
approved and the funding reaching the States, we are seeing the
potential of layoffs. We have talked with contractors from
Michigan and Georgia who have also noted that they are very
concerned with not having access to these funds and concerned
that there might be layoffs as a result.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I appreciate it. It is obvious that
weatherization works, and I hope we can get those dollars out
the door. With that, I thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired and yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon's 2nd
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hughes, I am looking at the LEED, Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design, standards--which, I am from Oregon,
and so I am extremely familiar with these, having heard about
them for years back in Salem during the 12 years I was in the
Oregon legislature.
The list of things that are green--and that is what this
hearing is about today--includes location and transportation,
sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere,
materials and resources, indoor environmental equality,
innovation and design, and regional priority. These are all
important matters. But they add between 10 and 30 percent to
the cost of a house.
And so my question to you is how many of those things that
I just listed are essential, in your opinion, to a home?
Mr. Hughes. I guess they are all essential, but it should
be--we feel like it should be left up to the homeowner as which
are the most essential, which are the most important, which are
they willing to pay extra for?
Mr. Bentz. I wouldn't call them essential if you can
choose, but maybe desirable is the word. Location and
transportation, who wouldn't want that? Sustainable site. All
of these things are things that you would want. But if we are
going to impose them upon people, there is the small matter of
having to pay for them.
And right now, there are huge groups of people who simply
can't afford this kind of--shall we call it a luxury, or what
should we call it?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, probably a luxury. And, unfortunately, too
many times those luxuries are what garner the most cost or what
people are more willing to pay. Location. It is sad to see as
much money spent on location as it is when it could be--I would
rather see it spent on the envelope.
Mr. Bentz. There is zero doubt that we need more housing.
Zero doubt of it. And this debate about whether those houses
have to be ``green,'' in quotes, and using the LEED standard is
to me something that certain people can afford, but most people
cannot.
Mr. Hughes. Correct.
Mr. Bentz. And when I first looked at this hearing, I
thought we would be talking about building codes. I called one
of my--I am a lawyer--I called one of my former clients, a
building contractor, and I said, ``What is the most important
thing about codes?''
You are a builder. What do you think his answer might have
been?
Mr. Hughes. I am sorry, what----
Mr. Bentz. I asked him what was the biggest problem when it
came to building codes? And his answer was the inspector. That
is how he answered it. And I agree with that, because of the
dramatic variability in who you get as an inspector.
Mr. Hughes. Oh, sure.
Mr. Bentz. So I have to say as we are having this debate
about codes, I am amazed because there is this underlying
assumption that they are all equally applied, and that is
simply not true. At least, that has been my experience from a
distance. How about yours?
Mr. Hughes. Absolutely. And the term that I hate to hear
the most when I ask an inspector a question sometimes is when
then say ``what I like to see.'' And I say, ``No, I am not
interested in what you like to see. What does the code say?''
Well, it is very different.
Mr. Bentz. What I am saying is, if we are going to debate
whether it should be green or whether it should not, one has to
understand the enormous amount of flexibility--which is a nice
word I am going to use--in the application of whatever those
standards might be. And I just want to say that, when it comes
to affordability on the one hand and a code on the other, who
should be making that decision and where should it occur?
Mr. Hughes. The homeowner.
Mr. Bentz. The homeowner should make that choice. But when
it comes to a code that is a mandate, it seems to me that there
is the Federal level of determining that, there is the State
level of determining that----
Mr. Hughes. Right.
Mr. Bentz [continuing]. There is the local level, and then
there is the inspector. So where would you suggest we focus our
attention when we are trying to figure out how we are going to
apply whatever code we might think is mandatory?
Mr. Hughes. Personally, I feel like it should be done at a
State level. Unfortunately, that varies too. There are some
home rule States that leave it up to individual municipalities,
counties, and cities, which is a disaster because more times
than not it comes down to that inspector.
In North Carolina, we have a uniform code, and it is still
a struggle to make sure that everybody gets the same answer.
Mr. Bentz. It certainly is. Thank you for being here. Thank
you for all of your participation.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the lady from Washington's 8th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses.
You know, I remember the 1970s. We had a gas crisis, we had
gas lines, and that brought us gas-efficient cars, and it
brought down prices and our need for gasoline, and it reduced
pollution. And it was a win/win/win. And we all learned from
that.
Since the 1980s, the Pacific Northwest has embraced energy
efficiencies, squeezing every single drop out of each kilowatt
from our hydroelectric dams and other sources. And that has
resulted in the Pacific Northwest reaping huge efficiency
benefits for decades, delivering lower costs and keeping the
power on and not--and keeping our grid from getting overloaded.
And so the premise of this whole hearing--it really boggles
my mind--I mean, it is really just not that complicated for me
or for my constituents. Who wouldn't want more energy
efficiencies with this kind of track record of money savings
and reliability?
And I will tell you that in my district, Democrats and
Republicans agree on this. We like efficiency. The public
utility districts love this. They don't want to have blackouts.
It just feels like a no-brainer, and I can't imagine why it is
not a bipartisan agreed-on issue here.
And I say that because the recently passed, you know, One
Big Beautiful Bill stripped away these tax credits that we have
been talking about today that were meant to help consumers pay
any increased upfront costs on an energy-efficient home. And
that is not reducing cost.
Now we have an administration that is set on weakening the
Energy Star program. Who doesn't love the Energy Star program
when you are buying a new appliance? I mean, we love those
programs. We get heat waves now in the Northwest. Most of us
don't have homes with air conditioning. So now we are all
getting air conditioning for the first time, and we want heat
pumps because they are energy efficient, and they will save us
money.
And not just that. These incentives send signals to the
market so that they build more of these. And there is
competition, and prices come down. Like this all just makes
common sense.
I also just wanted to touch on building codes because that
is really the topic here. For years, the PNNL, the Pacific
Northwest National Lab, has provided detailed cost/savings
analysis for consensus-based building codes from a panel of
experts. And for the most part, these building codes, they are
local, and States and communities need good information based
on evidence to make those decisions. And yet, even that
research is being undermined by this administration. In fact,
the program that funds it is being cut by 93 percent.
Mr. Hughes, NAHB was an active participant in deliberating
these building codes. Can you just simply agree that decimating
funding to assess new building codes takes--and efficiency
standards--takes critical information away from developers who
are looking at building codes or people buying new appliances?
Like, does evidence help them make decisions?
Mr. Hughes. I would have to say yes.
Ms. Schrier. I would say yes too. I mean, I love having
data to help me make a decision. We are putting in new
appliances right now.
Our national labs employ some of the smartest scientists in
this country. And actually because of this same work, we know
that on average it takes only 2\1/2\ years for households to
recuperate any increases in construction costs through these
energy efficiency savings based on 2024 data. And every year
past that, they are just saving and saving. And most people
stay in a home for at least, I believe, 12\1/2\ years.
I understand that making these jumps to new standards is
not easy. I will also mention that there are programs that
train those in construction to build these and to be able to
install these. That program was also cut. In fact, Washington
State has now not had a $3 million grant delivered.
So I guess it is not a question so much. I just really want
to make this comment. Like, innovation is a good thing. Saving
energy is a good thing. We are seeing unprecedented and rising
demand with data centers. We talk about this all the time, how
we need to modernize grid, and we need to get every kilowatt
out of our system. And it just seems like efficiency should be
a place we can agree and also give localities the ability to
implement commonsense building standards that will save people
money.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields
back the balance of her time.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's
15th District for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Lee of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this important hearing. And thank you to our witnesses for
joining us here today to share your insights and your
testimony.
For many Americans, the American Dream includes
homeownership. And we saw during the Biden administration that
owning a home became increasingly out of reach in part because
his Department of Energy advanced numerous building and
appliance regulations that raised costs, constrained consumer
choice, and diminished our grid security.
We have worked with President Trump to already reverse some
of these policies, including signing into law the CRA
resolution to rescind regulations imposed on appliances,
including natural gas water heaters, dishwashers, and central
AC.
I appreciate our witnesses sharing their insights about the
impacts of mandating burdensome building and appliance energy
standards and discussing with us today the further steps that
we can take to restore the American Dream of homeownership.
Mr. Hughes, I would like to start with you. Your written
testimony touches on a point that I think is important to
understanding the impact of some of these regulations, and that
is that the majority of your members, the majority of the
homebuilders, are actually small businesses that build 10 or
fewer homes per year. Is that right?
Mr. Hughes. Correct.
Ms. Lee of Florida. Would you share with us how an
expansive, very imposing regulatory burden affects those small
businesses in particular and makes it more difficult for them
to do their work?
Mr. Hughes. That could be--give a couple of answers there.
I can speak to how to fix--many of our small builders are small
builders because they build customs homes. And there is a wide
variety of options in custom homes. So, obviously, there are
going to be a lot more increased costs. And at that price
point, homeowners can afford more of the things that they
want--more expensive appliances, more efficient appliances. But
we still feel like that we are at that point--even if it is
small businesses, small builders, we are at that point where we
are doing things as efficient and as resilient as they can be
done. We don't need to continue to pile on.
Ms. Lee of Florida. Would a typical small homebuilder have
an in-house legal department.
Mr. Hughes. No.
Ms. Lee of Florida. Would a typical small homebuilder have
an in-house compliance department?
Mr. Hughes. No.
Ms. Lee of Florida. Now another thing that I hear
frequently from--I am from Florida, so one thing I hear
frequently back home is the concern about the rising cost of
housing. And in your written testimony, you also mention that
energy efficiency enhancements are often not fully accounted
for in the appraisal of homes.
Can you explain to us why these enhancements might be
difficult to account for?
Mr. Hughes. Well, I can tell you from experience. As we
tried--as I mentioned earlier, I am a big advocate of energy-
efficient system, and I have been using them for 25 years. And
I can tell you in that 25 years I have had one appraiser to
give me any extra credit for an innovative new product. That is
also a crisis. I have been sitting around tables for 25 years,
and we have gotten nowhere with it. And that makes it
difficult, too, as we continue to add regulations. If you are
not going to get credit for it and you can't afford to pay for
it to begin with, then we have gotten nowhere.
Ms. Lee of Florida. So, in other words, a home buyer who
pays for a more expensive specific alliance to comply with this
type of standard might not see that value add in the home later
if they were to sell it.
Mr. Hughes. Absolutely not.
Ms. Lee of Florida. And tell me what challenges, if there
are others, that disconnect between the appraisal value and the
actual constructions cost posed for families who are interested
in buying a home?
Mr. Hughes. I am sorry. Can you----
Ms. Lee of Florida. How does that affect a family in real
terms if they are trying to buy a home?
Mr. Hughes. The appraisal process? Well, sometimes the loan
simply won't work. If it won't appraise, you are not going to
get the money. And as a rule, especially the further down the
chain, they don't have that extra money.
And too many times, young couples, first-time couples, if
they can't make that appraisal, they don't have the extra money
for a down payment. So in most cases it is a deal breaker if it
won't appraise.
Ms. Lee of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the
balance of her time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas' 7th
District for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you, Chairman Latta, and thanks
to you and Ranking Member Castor. And thank you to all of our
witnesses for being here today for this timely hearing.
I am going to follow up on some of the questions that my
colleague from Florida just asked about, some of these
challenges to homeownership, and some of the rising costs.
Because I think, you know, we can all agree that as we sit here
today, the American Dream is becoming less and less attainable.
And that dream of homeownership, one of the building blocks of
a good life and of pursuing the American Dream, having that
financial security, they are out of reach for too many
Americans. And that number is going up and not down.
I know that in my hometown of Houston, which is known to be
a place where the housing is plentiful and affordable,
purchasing a home costs almost 5 times the median income, and
that is nearly double what it was in Houston just 15 years ago.
Inflation is making necessities more expensive, and, you
know, total U.S. household debt hit a record high in the second
quarter of this year, so just a couple months ago.
And I think that we have talked in this committee a bit
about, you know, permitting delays and red tape and some of the
other things that have restricted construction of new homes and
created bottlenecks in our energy supply, as well, really
driving up cost for folks.
And today, I think most of what I have heard from my
colleagues on the other side about focused on their complaints
about policies from the Biden administration. But we really
haven't heard a word from them about what is driving up these
prices right now, and that is President Trump's chaotic
economic policy, which favors his inner circle and his
billionaire buddies and leaves Americans behind.
And we know, for example, that when it comes to
homebuilding, President Trump's tariffs are going to increase
the cost of building a home by more than $10,000. That is the
estimate I have seen, Mr. Hughes. There may be others out
there. But we know that--I am hearing from contractors in my
district that the cost of materials is going up, everything
from drywall to carpet to so much more. And appliances can be
included in that, but we are focused just on appliances in this
hearing. The costs of everything it takes to build a home are
going up.
And so, you know, I think it is really important to focus
on that and also understand that the policies that this
Congress enacted in that Big Ugly Bill are estimated to raise
electricity prices by 61 percent. That is just an astonishing
number. And so the cost of inputs of building are going up, the
costs of the maintaining and living in our homes are going up.
And so one of the things that we know is that these energy
efficiency standards have really been important to keeping
costs low for Americans. And, of course, maintaining consumer
choice and ensuring that these standards are attainable is
really important.
We are all consumers. I think we all support and agree with
that. But I think what we are seeing is that this Congress
giving the Trump administration a blank check to just slash and
burn as it pleases is moving us in the wrong direction. And in
less than a year, President Trump has attacked nearly every
facet of the Federal Government that keeps costs down for
Americans in need, and including firing all the civil servants
that administer the program to keep energy prices down for our
constituents, the LIHEAP Program, Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program.
So I know that we have limited time here, so I am just
going to mention, of course, there are tens of thousands of
households in Texas that rely on that LIHEAP Program to keep
our costs down. Certainly, with air conditioning in the summer
and heating in the winter, we have seen in Texas that,
unfortunately, we have extreme weather events at all times of
the year.
And I have mentioned before in this committee, but I think
it bears repeating with these witnesses as we think about
insulation, energy efficiency, building our homes: It was just
a couple years ago, less than 5 years ago, when we had the
winter freeze and the winter storm in Texas, and a little boy
not far from where I live froze to death inside his own home.
So we are talking about life-and-death issues for our
constituents here when we talk about the importance of these
investments in terms of making energy affordable.
So I am going to run out of time to ask my question. I know
I am going to get in trouble from the chairman.
So, Ms. Rinaldi, I am going to ask you a question for the
record. If you can in your written testimony respond about what
kind of cost savings Americans can expect from weatherization
upgrades, especially in States like Texas with increasing hot
summers and cold winters. And also how low-income Americans
will be impacted by cuts to efficiency standards and assistance
programs like LIHEAP.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired, and yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota
for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
my colleagues for letting me go before them. I appreciate that
opportunity.
I am going to kind of simplify my questions today. When I
travel around my State, which is North Dakota, I hear from
many, many folks in the smaller and the larger towns that one
of their biggest problem is access to housing. There's not
enough new houses on the market. There is just not enough
housing stock on the market.
And then when I talk to our homebuilders association, the
North Dakota Home Builders Association, which I met with
several times because this is a big issue in my State as we are
hearing all over the country, they talk about--the first time I
met with them, they talked about the building codes and how
unappropriate they are for my State.
The 2021 International Energy Conservation Code, according
to the North Dakota Home Builders Association, can add more
than $22,000 to the price of a home in my State. And in
practice, the builders have estimated up to $31,000. Yet, even
more troubling, for all of that investment, they tell me that
it will take up to 90 years for a homeowner to get the payback
for those standards in my State. So, obviously, that doesn't
make any sense at all to the ideas here that we don't--this
one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work.
So, Mr. Hughes, can you talk about what are some of the
alternatives to this?
Mr. Hughes. Alternative to codes?
Mrs. Fedorchak. Yes, to this one-size-fits-all approach.
Mr. Hughes. Well, throwing it back to States so the States
can establish their own codes. And they have that freedom now.
And, unfortunately, too many--the code that has been developed
as a model code has been presented at unamenable. We have to
make it as is.
And we are a strong advocate that each State should take it
and tailor it to their location and to their needs. And much
more of that needs to take place.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Is there anything stopping that? What is
stopping that from happening?
Mr. Hughes. What is stopping it?
Mrs. Fedorchak. Yes.
Mr. Hughes. Maybe education. Just the fact that too many
States don't realize that they can do that. Several States are
doing very well. Texas, Washington, California, North Carolina,
we do our own code. We have resources to do that. We have
personnel that work on--we have--in North Carolina, we have a
residential code council, and we have full-time employees that
lobby that. Too many States don't have those resources.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Sure.
Mr. Hughes. And they are told that they can't make
amendments to that code, and that is simply not true.
Mrs. Fedorchak. So are there other problems? Like the last
several building code updates developed by the ICC have clearly
prioritized the green agenda over cost-efficient home
construction and the Department of VA, USDA, and--have already
adopted those latest ICC energy code standards for the homes
they financed, effectively imposing these standards on those
federally backed loans. So that probably prevents or prohibits
the ability of States to develop their own standards, if some
of these big Federal programs are requiring the IECC
standards--I would assume, but interested in your thoughts on
that.
And then, in your view, what would be the effect on the
U.S. housing market if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to adopt
these standards?
Mr. Hughes. Well, that is one of our greatest fears, no
question. And in North Carolina, we have gone to a 6-year code.
And our legislation actually imposed a pause on any new energy
codes until the next cycle. That will take place in 2030.
If the HUD rule stays in place--I think you are talking
about that--that eliminates USDA and VA loans, then we simply
lose all of those in North Carolina. So talk about a huge
limiting factor. It just won't work.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Right, excellent. Well, I have more
questions but not that much time. And you guys have been here a
long time today. So I want to thank you all for your time and
your expertise.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 6th
District for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Lieberman, ENC has combated Biden overreach, ensuring
Americans' home appliances actually work. Other measures like
House Joint Resolution 24 saved businesses using refrigeration
from billions and increased compliant costs or even closures.
In my own personal experience, the EPA has changed the
refrigerant of freon in different grocery stores in the country
3 different times in the last 15 years. What that means is,
when you have a compressor, you have to pump down the
compressor, you have to discard all your old gas, you have to
flush out the lines, you have to buy the new gas.
Like, in a company that my brothers run, you have anywhere
between 60 to 75 compressors. This could be a cost for a very
small business of anywhere from 50 to 150 thousand dollars
every single time you do that. And this is our businesses that
are running on one-and-a-quarter percent net.
Now, if you are a small little mom-and-pop independent,
much smaller than my brothers', you are going to go out of
business. Now, for the big boys like Kroger, this could cost
them 10 to 45 million dollars just to apply this to their
stores. And here is the thing: There is no proof in the EPA
that the new refrigerants they are using within these systems
actually do any better for the environment. So there is
actually no proof to back this up.
In fact, one of the different changes in the gases, I
believe from, like, it was 2007 to 2013, there was virtually no
change in any way, shape, or form. And they actually made you
do this. And it was such a tremendous cost to the actual small
business owners that a lot of them went out of business.
So I think we have to really look at things sometimes
differently. Like, the opposition party, if you look back in
history when they were talking about bags in retail, first they
said let's get rid of the paper bags to save the trees, then
they said we can't use plastic bags anymore, then they said we
are going to go to the cloth bags. And the cloth bags were
shown to hold all this bacteria within them, and they thought
that was bad.
So instead of moving quickly and changing these procedures
of what gas we use in our compressors within the retail
industry, I think we should slow down and have more testing
done to see which actually makes sense.
So, contrary to popular belief, Republicans are
conservation. That is what we believe in. When you look at
Ducks Unlimited, we are about preserving the land. We want to
hunt, we want to fish, we want to love the outdoors. We want to
work with the opposition party for a commonsense approach to
having a better system where mom-and-pop stores can actually
stay in business.
We simply don't want to use tax dollars to push an agenda.
We want to look at everything from every possible angle.
So, Mr. Lieberman, my question to you would be, How can we
continue to protect the environment while also protecting
consumers' choice and protecting small businesses? Thank you.
Mr. Lieberman. Well, you are very much correct that the
proliferation of refrigerants is a big requirement. Decades
ago, the trademark freon but known as CFC-12 or CFC-22, a host
of chemicals, were restricted on the grounds that they were
depleting the ozone layer. Years later, the ozone-friendly
substitutes were targeted as greenhouse gases. So it is kind
of--it is always something. And so this has added greatly to
consumer cost, it has added greatly to repair costs.
For example, I know a repair service technician saying he
may have to get a bigger truck because of all these different
refrigerants, and some of it requires dedicated equipment just
for that particular refrigerant. There is a risk of cross-
contamination using the wrong refrigerant. There is a lot of
costs that are on consumers. He also mentioned refrigeration
users, our supermarkets, and others.
So our refrigeration and air conditioning has very much
been hit with an avalanche of regulation. So at the very least,
a go-slow approach would be better than this approach where
equipment that has years of useful life left suddenly they have
to consider maybe making some changes because it is not clear
that the refrigerant needed the service that will be available
in the years ahead. So there is a lot to be said for a more
measured approach rather than constantly changing the
requirements.
Mr. Rulli. Very eloquently said. And I do think there is
good intentions on the opposition party, and perhaps within the
EPA the intentions are good. But perhaps conversations with
associations that this is going to affect so they can see the
boots on the ground and see how it actually affects the
economy, it affects the public--I think those talks would be
very helpful to all of us. Even bringing in the research,
bringing all three of the parties together.
I thank you for your time. And I yield my time back to the
Chair.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina's 7th District for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here.
I am struck--and I am going to go off script a little bit
because the Democrats on this committee seem to be operating
under a little bit of amnesia. You know, they have highlighted
or they talk about the last couple of months that the President
has had the White House, but they have completely forgotten the
four disastrous years of the Biden Presidency.
Inflation surged, peaking at 9 percent in mid-2022. It
remained above the Fed's 2 percent target for 40 months. That
is on their watch. That is what they did. Prices rose for the
consumer 17 to 20 percent since Biden took office, with
essentials like food, rent, and electricity increasing sharply.
Real wages fell 4 to 5 percent since January 2021.
So all these things that they are talking about, about the
homeownership being unaffordable, these are things that they
caused.
And, sir, you talked about a lot of this with the standards
that they impose. They don't make any sense. And then they come
to this committee, and then they forget what the last 4 years
look like. And then they come up with low-energy slogans like
Big Ugly Bill. Well, that is just nonsense. If they had voted
for this, they would be supporting working families, and the
tax hike that would have happened if they did nothing. Which,
if they were in power, that is exactly what would have
happened.
And so this Presidency and this Congress, are about making
things affordable again. It starts with the Working Families
Tax Cut that was just passed. It starts with reversing the
Biden-level obscene regulations that we have on everything from
refrigerators to home appliances.
Like, who would have thought that any of us when we ran for
Congress would be talking about gas stoves or shower heads, for
God's sake? But nonetheless, I have a bill dealing with shower
heads because of things that happened under the Biden
administration. So let's talk about that.
Instead of empowering families, the Federal Government has
been telling the people how long that their dishwashers can
operate and what kind of stove they can buy, and even how much
water that the shower head could use. And so the bill, the one
I am talking about, restores some of that common sense. Let's
get back to it and its accords about protecting families from
bureaucratic overreach. We see this time and time again, where
the ivory tower of Washington comes in in their infinite wisdom
and tells the rest of everybody how to live.
Mr. Lieberman, can you describe the whiplash regulations
between the last few administrations as they relate to, I don't
know, shower head water flow?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, actually, the shower head saga has
been going on since 1992. It was the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
It originally had these shower head provisions. Some people
don't like the lower flow. I think it is quite frankly a very
silly regulation. If the shower is hitting you with too much
water, you turn the damn knob down. I don't know why you ever
really needed the Government.
But over time, it is true that shower head makers have made
adjustments to the lower flow, and that has improved things a
little bit. Also, it is easy to defeat the--don't get any of
that from me--but it is easy to defeat the low-flow provision--
the flow restrictor, I should say, in the shower head.
Mr. Fry. Yes, contractors do it all the time, right? You
don't have to answer that. You can plead the Fifth. But I am
sure they do that all the time, right?
Mr. Lieberman. I am not Mr. Hughes.
And one of the issues was whether shower heads with
multiple heads, whether each shower head can give you a good
flow of water, or perhaps you have to take the cumulative
effect into account. And so----
Mr. Fry. But, again, it gets to the point where we are
depriving consumers of the ability to make that choice for
themselves, right?
Mr. Lieberman. That is really what this is all about, is
letting people decide for themselves.
Mr. Fry. The Department of Energy is taking comments on the
issue, the center point of a recent Executive order issued by
President Trump. Is energy efficiency really being prioritized
when you are restricting water usage, though?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, it is the energy used to heat the
water. So, if you are taking a cold shower, you are not helping
out. But, again, whether we really need Federal intervention on
shower flow is, I think, was questionable, but this has been
going on for----
Mr. Fry. Questionable, we like that.
Mr. Lieberman, energy efficiency and resilience measures
are important to South Carolinians, but not all energy
efficiency efforts are created equal. I think it is important
that taxpayers get a good deal.
Mr. Lieberman, are marginal energy savings associated with
weatherization programs, with the costs?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, there have been some studies that say
that the benefits tend to be overstated and the costs tend to
be understated. Usually, there's projections that come up with
benefits well in excess of cost. But there have been some
retrospective analyses that found that it isn't nearly so clear
whether this is a program that is worth the cost. I think it is
at least worth looking at some of those studies to see if we
are getting the bang for the buck with this program.
Mr. Fry. I appreciate your answer to that. I see my time
has expired. But I think that goes to his point earlier that
the housing costs have gone up 10 to 30 percent based on the
regulations.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and
yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's
23rd District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In my home State of New York, Albany politicians, they have
decided that they know better than the people that they serve.
They have moved to rid natural gas out of all new construction
in residential homes as of January 1, 2026, and they are
marching towards banning it in every new building. It is not
just bad policy, it is a direct assault on affordability,
reliability, and my constituents' safety.
When government bans natural gas, the cost of everything
goes up, especially building a home. It can go up 10, 20, 30
thousand dollars in upgrades. And that is money that my
constituents don't have, and it pushes the homeownership dream
further out of reach for our youngest generation.
Monthly bills pile up because, in States like New York,
heating with natural gas is extremely cheaper than--and more
reliable, frankly, than electricity.
In my district, we know what happens when the power goes
out during a brutal winter storm. We saw this, I lived this
during Winter Storm Elliott in 2022. Families, if they were
left with nothing but electric heat, it was a dangerous and
deadly situation. We lost 69 people in that storm. People can
and will lose their lives when politicians take away their
ability to choose the energy source that makes sense for their
homes.
Mr. Hughes, how are these natural gas restrictions
affecting builders in the housing market today?
Mr. Hughes. How gas--again, the increased cost of having to
go total electric. Because the equipment as a rule is more
expensive, and it operates more expensive.
Mr. Langworthy. I met with many homebuilders in the last
month in my State, and they have got people literally walking
away from the table when they have told them they can't get
their building permits registered by New Year's Eve Day, and
they will have to fully electrify their homes in New York. I
appreciate your answer.
Energy choice gives families the ability to pick the most
affordable and reliable way to power their homes. The same
principal needs to apply to our Federal Government. Yet current
policy has moved in the opposite direction, forcing Federal
buildings to eliminate natural gas and rely exclusively on
electricity. Natural gas powers backup systems that keeps our
veterans' hospitals running, supports energy-intensive work at
our national labs and military installations. Removing it
reduces flexibility, it increases costs, and it makes critical
infrastructure more vulnerable.
The numbers tell the story. Natural gas is more affordable
than electricity and will remain so for decades to come. The
DOE analysis shows eliminating it could increase energy
consumption and emissions, which totally undermine our
efficiency goals. These policies risk disrupting operations,
jeopardizing national security, and wasting taxpayer dollars.
Federal agencies need options so that they can operate
effectively and reliably, just as families deserve the same
flexibility in their homes.
Mr. Steffes, what kind of long-term uncertainty do gas bans
and fossil fuel phaseouts like Section 433 of the Energy
Independent Security Act pose for Washington's gas customers?
Mr. Steffes. Well, it creates an environment where
businesses or the Federal Government, in this instance, is
unaware and uncertain about what their next investment is going
to be to meet the energy needs. If you restrict natural gas,
which is a very affordable, very reliable--again, our
reliability to deliver to the Federal buildings is 99.7
percent--you take away the ability for them to find redundant
and resilient electricity when they need it through backup
generation. But you also then impose an increased obligation by
an electricity grid, making that even more strained than it is
already today.
Mr. Langworthy. We are seeing this in real time in New York
as the Governor has increased--had her Public Service
Commission increase utility rates for the second time in a
year. My constituents are facing double-digit-percentage
increases in their utility bills. We have taken power off of
the grid and increased the demand on the grid and are surprised
that the cost is rising in a drastic rate. And that is exactly
why I have introduced the Energy Choice Act, which hopefully
this committee acts on very soon, that would ban the bans, ban
the natural gas and propane bans that a lot of our left-leaning
States are going toward.
At the end of the day, energy choice is about freedom, it
is about affordability and common sense. And families shouldn't
be forced into costly one-size-fits-all mandates, and neither
should the Federal Government.
Taking away options doesn't save money, it raises bills. It
doesn't improve reliability, it weakens our systems, and it
puts people's lives at risk. Real leadership means empowering
people and agencies to choose the energy source that works best
for them. And energy choice is not negotiable, it is essential.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado's 8hth
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--of course, to the
ranking member. And thank you to all of our witnesses for
coming today to have this conversation.
We all want clean air, clean land, clean water. We all want
to be good and responsible stewards of our environment and the
energy that we produce from our environment. But we also have
to have a commonsense approach to this.
And so my first question will be a yes/no question to
everyone on the panel. Do you think that the government should
mandate that electric utilities and appliance manufacturers
have the ability to reach into a private citizen's house and
adjust their thermostat, their water heater, literally the
ability to dim lights in the name of energy efficiency?
Mr. Hughes?
Mr. Hughes. No.
Mr. Lieberman. No.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. No.
Mr. Steffes. No.
Mr. Evans. I am sorry, Ms. Saul Rinaldi?
Mr. Hughes. I said no. You mean the Federal Government? No.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. The reason that I ask that question
is because of something that has happened in Colorado. The
State has adopted the Model Low Energy and Carbon Code, which
is a modified version of the 2024 building code, IECC building
code.
And it mandates that in 2026, municipalities will have to
adopt, as their own baseline when updating building codes,
codes that include aggressive incentivization to switch all
homes over to electricity only, require homes over a certain
square footage to basically become carbon neutral and offset
their power by having solar panels either onsite or other
methodologies.
And it is one of the first in the Nation to require--and I
will read you from the code here, which I actually have pulled
up--``demand responsive controls for electric heating and
cooling systems shall be provided with demand response
controls.''
What is a demand response control for heating, for cooling,
and then in other places in the code it talks about lighting
and water heaters? Demand response is, it is connected to the
utility. The utility can literally reach in and lock you out of
your own thermostat, your own water heater, control the
lighting in private buildings in response to energy efficiency
mandates.
I don't think that that sort of intrusion is something that
our consumers want. I don't think that is something that they
want to pay for in terms of having to buy appliances that have
this demand response capability, to say nothing of the security
risks that go along with, as we all know, the Internet of
Things and having your water heater, your lighting, your
thermostat connected to the utilities, which by government fiat
has to have--excuse me--has to have the ability to reach in and
control all of those things in the name of energy efficiency.
We know it is expensive, and I don't think that that is
good policy. So I am glad to hear you all say that you are
somewhat in agreement with me on that.
The next question will be to Mr. Hughes. During the whole
rulemaking process around adopting this Model Low Energy and
Carbon Code in Colorado, the Colorado Association of Home
Builders warned that these rules would restrict the housing
supply in Colorado, making for more competitive and more
expensive markets than neighboring States, and actually don't
do anything to help consumers actually be able to afford homes.
Can you speak a little bit to the affordability component
of having this sort of mandate around household appliances?
Mr. Hughes. I can't see where there would be any
affordability. It looks to me like it would reduce
affordability.
Mr. Evans. OK. I appreciate that. We saw in 2021 in
Colorado--unfortunately, we had a very tragic fire, the
Marshall Fire--and as a result of that Marshall Fire, a lot of
homes were actually destroyed. The rebuild cost for those homes
on average was about $20,000 more because of a lot of these
green building codes.
I think one of the earlier panelists had mentioned that, if
somebody is locked out of their thermostat, they are just going
to buy an electric space heater that the utilities don't
control to be able to heat their homes. They are going to find
other workarounds. But those workarounds come with more
expense, more demand on the grid, and ultimately more cost to
the consumer.
And so for an actual real-world scenario in Colorado, we
saw the answer: It is $20,000 more in these green energy codes
to be able to put that housing back into effect.
Mr. Lieberman, I got 20 seconds here. Can you just talk a
little bit about the cost savings when folks are being forced
to move away from natural gas towards these types of
electrifications. I have got 12 seconds.
Mr. Lieberman. As I mentioned, the Department of Energy
says that natural gas is 3\1/2\ times cheaper than electricity
on a per-unit energy basis. And even besides that, we are
always better off when we have choices. I have a natural gas
hookup in my home and electricity. I like being able to choose
from both.
Mr. Evans. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and yields
back.
And the Chair, seeing no other Members wishing to ask
questions, I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing
before us today. I know it has been a long afternoon.
Members may have additional written questions for you. I
remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record. And I ask our witnesses to
submit responses within 10 business days upon receipt of those
questions.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing documents list. And
without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Latta. And without objection, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]