[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
APPLIANCE AND BUILDING POLICIES: RESTORING
THE AMERICAN DREAM OF HOME OWNERSHIP
AND CONSUMER CHOICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-38
[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
61-790 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
Jeff Novak, Acting General Counsel and Principal Deputy General
Counsel, Department of Energy.................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions............................... 205
Jennifer Cleary, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Deputy
General Counsel, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers... 69
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Brian Tebbenkamp, President and Owner, Patriot Homes, on behalf
of the Home Builders Association of Greater Kansas City........ 82
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Andrew deLaski, Executive Director, Appliance Standards Awareness
Project........................................................ 89
Prepared statement........................................... 91
George Lowe, Vice President, Governmental Affairs and Public
Policy, American Gas Association............................... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Answers to submitted questions............................... 220
Legislation
H.R. 4626, the Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act............ 143
H.R. 4758, the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act...................... 158
H.R. 3699, the Energy Choice Act................................. 160
H.R. 3474, the Federal Mechanical Insulation Act................. 162
H.R. 4593, the Saving Homeowners from Overregulation With
Exceptional Rinsing (SHOWER) Act............................... 165
H.R. ___, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act................ 167
H.R. ___, the Affordable Housing Over Mandating Efficiency
Standards (HOMES) Act.......................................... 171
H.R. 1355, the Weatherization Enhancement and Readiness Act of
2025........................................................... 173
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 178
Letter of September 10, 2025, from Peter A. Feldman, Acting
Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission, to Mr. Latta and
Mr. Guthrie.................................................... 179
Letter of September 15, 2025, from Lisa Jacobson, President,
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, to Mr. Latta and Ms.
Castor......................................................... 181
Letter of September 15, 2025, from Ruthann House, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Community Action
Partnership, to Mr. Latta...................................... 184
Letter of September 15, 2025, from Erin M. Jeffries, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Miami Valley Community Action
Partnership, to Mr. Latta...................................... 186
Letter of September 15, 2025, from Angie Franklin, Executive
Director, Northwestern Ohio Community Action Partnership, to
Mr. Latta...................................................... 188
Letter of September 16, 2025, from Kerry C. Stackpole, Chief
Executive Officer and Executive Director, Plumbing
Manufacturers International, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor....... 190
Letter of July 11, 2025, from Mike Johnson, Manager, Product
Compliance & Regulatory Affairs, Delta Faucet Company, to David
Taggart, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy... 193
Letter of July 15, 2025, from Kerry C. Stackpole, Chief Executive
Officer and Executive Director, Plumbing Manufacturers
International, to David Taggart, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Energy........................................... 196
Report to the Department of Energy, ``National Cost-Effectiveness
of the Residential Provisions of the 2024 IECC,'' by V. Robert
Salcido, et al., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, January
2025\1\
Budget in Brief, FY 2026 Congressional Justification, Department
of Energy, May 2025\1\
Letter of May 2, 2025, from Russell T. Vought, Director, Office
of Management and Budget, to Hon. Susan Collins, Chair, Senate
Committee on Appropriations\1\
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF03/20250916/118615/HHRG-119-IF03-20250916-SD017.pdf.
APPLIANCE AND BUILDING POLICIES: RESTORING THE AMERICAN DREAM OF HOME
OWNERSHIP AND CONSUMER CHOICE
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.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, Bentz,
Fry, Langworthy, Goldman, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio),
Castor (subcommittee ranking member), Peters, Menendez,
McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, Fletcher,
Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Joyce and Houchin.
Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Byron
Brown, Chief Counsel; Clara Cargile, Professional Staff Member;
Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Matt Furlow, Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Andrew Furman, Professional
Staff Member; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
Calvin Huggins, Clerk, Energy; Megan Jackson, Staff Director;
AT Johnson, Special Advisor; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff
Director; Giulia Leganski, Chief Counsel, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy;
Sarah Meier, Counsel and Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief
Counsel; Ben Mullaney, Press Secretary; Seth Ricketts, Special
Assistant; 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; Matt VanHyfte,
Communications Director; Jane Vickers, Press Assistant; Waverly
Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Kristopher Pittard,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Emma Roehrig, Minority
Staff Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst; Medha
Surampudy, Minority Professional Staff Member; Tuley Wright,
Minority Staff Director, Energy; Shae Reinberg, Minority
Intern; and Jackson Hall, Minority Intern.
Mr. Latta. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Energy
to order, and 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
Welcome to today's legislative hearing, ``Appliance and
Buildings Policies: Restoring the American Dream of Home
Ownership and Consumer Choice.'' Today we will hear from the
Department of Energy and industry stakeholders as we consider
eight bills seeking to address consumer choice, appliance and
home affordability, reckless Federal building policies, and
duplicative regulatory structures.
Many policies pushed over the last several years have
raised prices for all consumers, strained our Nation's grid,
and yielded little to no benefit for Americans. That is why the
subcommittee will discuss legislation that would have a massive
impact on the day-to-day necessities on which American families
and businesses rely.
During last week's hearing, Jim Steffes of the Washington
Gas said it well when discussing gas bans: ``The idea that we
are going to push the gas back down the power line and use it
in a less efficient manner than you would use it at your home
is absolutely going to raise prices.''
Importantly, one of the bills we have on the docket, the
bipartisan Energy Choice Act, will prohibit State or local
governments from adopting policies that ban access to an energy
service that is based on the fuel that is sold. This includes
building performance standards and codes that act as de facto
gas bans.
The Homeowner Energy Freedom Act will repeal the funding
included in the IRA, which bribed States to adopt the 2021 IECC
Model Code. Today we will hear firsthand testimony of the
chilling effect that has had on home building in those States.
Duplicative standards for manufactured housing have also
decreased production of affordable new housing. As home
ownership continues to be a top concern for millions of
Americans, we must remove regulatory red tape that has
restricted options for families.
The antifossil-fuel agenda does not stop at the State or
local laws. Federal policies like the required phaseout of
fossil fuel in Federal buildings could jeopardize our national
security. The Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act will repeal
this inappropriate policy, and the bipartisan Federal
Mechanical Insulation Act will refocus evaluations for Federal
buildings on the potential for implementing true energy
efficiency measures like the installation of mechanical
insulation.
The legislation before us today is focused on restoring
consumer choice, especially for America's working families. The
misguided and redundant policies from the previous
administration hit them the hardest because they, number one,
price out first-time homeowners; two, destroy appliance
affordability through steep upfront and installation costs; or
three, discourage the production of affordable manufactured
homes through regulatory morass.
The Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act will make much-
needed statutory reforms to energy efficiency and standards for
appliances which have increased costs while deteriorating in
performance because of overregulation.
Lastly, the SHOWER Act will codify a commonsense definition
of a showerhead, improving water pressure for those who desire
that choice.
We have also included, at our Democratic colleagues'
request, legislation by the gentleman from New York's 20th
District on DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program. While I
have concerns with the bill as introduced, we are willing to
work with our friends on the Democratic side to reach
compromise.
All together, the majority of the bills before us today
represent an opportunity for this committee to refocus energy
efficiency policies on true energy savings, whether reflected
in the cost of an appliance or the utility bills for hard-
working American families.
I want to thank our witness for appearing before us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Florida's 14th District, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Thank
you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
everyone.
Here we are, 9 months into the Trump administration, and
Republicans in Congress have done nothing to lower energy
costs. In fact, energy costs keep going up, up, and up, and the
GOP policies are making it worse. You know, Americans deserve
better.
Household electricity prices are up 10 percent this year; 1
in 3 households is cutting back on basic necessities like
groceries to afford their electric bills; 3 in 4 Americans are
concerned with their utility bills increasing, and they should
be: Over 100 gas and electric utilities have either raised or
proposed higher rates that will go into effect next year. And
in Florida, Florida's largest utility earlier this year filed a
petition for a rate increase across 43 counties to increase
rates by nearly $10 billion over the next 4 years, and
customers are already paying $400 more annually than they were
5 years ago.
So what do House Republicans do? They bring bills today
that will heap higher costs on Americans, trap families with
outdated and expensive technologies, undermine American
manufacturers, and force us to use more energy at a time when
AI data centers need all the electricity that they can get. So
I want to dispel some misinformation we will hear today.
So let's be clear: Energy efficiency saves money, reduces
consumer costs, and it increases household comfort,
reliability, and resilience. Appliance standards have saved
households more than $500 in energy bills each year. Homeowners
will save up $15,000 for homes built using the 2021 building
code compared to the old ones. So I urge my colleagues on the
other side to join us in working to tackle the affordability
squeeze. And one way to do that would be to stand up to the
Trump tariffs that are inflicting financial pain on working
families and are estimated to cost American households at least
$2,300.
You know, tariffs are also a factor in increased energy
bills due to higher prices for imported goods, including those
used in energy production, construction, and maintenance of
power plants. That would be an important step to help soften
the pain of the Big Ugly Bill, which is broadly unpopular,
partly because of the increases in electric bills as the
Republicans axe the clean energy tax credits that lower costs
for consumers in order to provide huge tax breaks for the
wealthy.
Since passage of the Big Ugly Bill in July, the average
cost of U.S. wind and solar power purchase agreements has
increased by 4 percent. So Republicans have managed to take one
of the cheapest and fastest-growing sources of energy in the
U.S. and make it more expensive. And that is on top of the
Trump administration killing numerous cleaner, cheaper energy
projects, domestic manufacturing plants that would help lower
bills.
You know, before Republicans killed the clean energy tax
credits I toured a large solar inverter manufacturing plant
back in Pinellas County. Three shifts, 400 workers. Republicans
essentially, in repealing those tax credits, now shut down that
factory and more across the United States, costing jobs at a
time when witnesses across the political spectrum have appeared
here to advise us that America should expect significant rising
electricity demand and that we need all the solar, wind,
storage, energy conservation that we can get because we cannot
win the AI competition of the 21st century with energy policies
from the 20th century.
Unfortunately, House Republicans have not been able to meet
this moment, so today we are rehashing old messaging bills,
most of which they know will never become law, to try to
gaslight the American people into believing that it is your
washing machine and your light bulbs that are causing higher
prices. People are looking for sanity in Washington right now,
and I regret you are probably not going to find it here with a
war on appliances and energy efficiency.
But there is one good bill. I really appreciate you
bringing Congressman Tonko's Weatherization Enhancement and
Readiness Act. That is a bipartisan proposal to reauthorize and
update weatherization assistance. I am proud to cosponsor this
bill and support the savings for our neighbors back home at a
time they need it to make their homes more resilient to
dangerous heat waves and hurricanes.
I hope my Republican colleagues will consider this bill
seriously and advance it through to the full committee. After
all, our neighbors back home are counting on us to make their
lives more affordable.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the
chair of the full committee, 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, Chairman Latta, and
thank you to our witnesses for being here--witnesses for being
here today. Today we will--and witnesses later today--today we
will examine legislation to restore consumer choice in the
appliance and homes Americans purchase, reverse Federal
building policies that put our Nation's security at risk, and
restrict activist States and localities from implementing
policies that ban energy services based on the fuel source.
As many of the subcommittee members stated last week, we
all support energy efficiency gains, but affordability must be
at the forefront of the conversation, as my friend was just
discussing. Bad building codes have decreased housing
production and can add up to $31,000 to the price of a new
home. Egregious appliance standards have caused homeowners to
spend 34 percent more on appliances than they did 15 years ago
while having to replace them at a faster rate, and antifossil-
fuel agendas have raised energy prices and jeopardized
reliability for millions of customers.
Furthermore, many policies put forth in the name of energy
efficiency don't result in substantial energy gains. Some, like
natural gas bans, actually increase energy use and consumer
prices. In Kentucky, homeowners using gas for heating saved
$610 annually as compared to electric-only alternatives. And
the State has protected energy choice in statute. All Americans
deserve to make that same choice based on what works best for
their families and their pocketbooks.
Today Republicans bring solutions to the table. The pieces
of legislation being discussed today will reform the broken
statutory process for energy efficiency standards for
appliances and equipment, repeal fossil fuel phaseouts and
bans, and reduce regulatory confusion, and nullify IRA programs
that encourage States to adopt rigid building codes.
As Chair Latta mentioned, the subcommittee will also
discuss a bill from Representative Tonko on the Department of
Energy's Weatherization Program. We are willing to work with
our Democratic colleagues to see if we can reach a compromise
on that bill.
I look forward to hearing today--and I just want to say
that we do have a rising demand of energy. And so if the
previous 4 years hadn't done what they did, if it was still the
same, the rising demand of energy--if we don't produce more
energy, it is going to have an increase in energy prices. That
is just the supply and demand. And so we have to make it more
affordable, we have to make it more abundant, and it has to be
all of the above.
But, you know, wind and solar is subsidized because it is
expensive. It is not because it is cheaper. I mean, it is
because it is expensive. If it was cheaper, it wouldn't have to
be subsidized. And sometimes the subsidies distort the
investment where you get nondispatchable power, and that is
what we are talking about today. So it has to be all the above.
It has to be all of those sources, but it also has to be where
it makes economic sense to do so.
And we have to reform the system. There is a new word that
is coming from--I have heard from progressives that it is
called abundance, the abundance strategy. And we need
abundance. We--you know, there was a $42 billion fund for
broadband that after 3\1/2\ years spent--not a single inch of
fiber was laid in 3\1/2\ years because of all the procedures
that people had to go through to try to do broadband. It was a
noble exercise. But think, a $42 billion appropriation--or
authorization and appropriation sat there because you couldn't
get through the process.
And so what we want to do--and I know--I actually didn't
even vote for that 42 billion, but I know the people that did,
and they wanted that money spent. But the whole system, the
whole--it has become a procedure system, a process system. And
so what I would like to look at, as chairman of the full
committee, in this subcommittee and others on both sides of the
aisle--we are working with Mr. Tonko today to get the
weatherization bill--that we figure out how to get the
procedures in place that protect the environment.
I went to school on the Hudson River. You couldn't swim it
in the 1980s. We do not--as a matter of fact, Robert Kennedy,
Jr., was leading the Riverkeeper Program to try to clean up the
Hudson River. We don't want that. That is--we want to make sure
we have processes in place to prevent that. But now, almost 40
years later, when I was in college, we got to the point where
we--you can't build hardly anything.
In California the reason the abundance has come out,
because housing prices are so expensive in California, because
building codes make it prohibitively expensive to build, and so
that is what, hopefully, we can do as a committee together,
is--I know that we have different views. We have different
energy sources that are preferable. But in the end we have to
do things that work. And I think all of us--I think 435--I
think it is 432 Members now--want to beat China. All of us do.
And so we have to figure out how we work together to make sure
we have the energy, we have the infrastructure, we have the
processes in place where we are successful in protecting
ourselves, but also successful in beating China.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. And I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back, and
the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, 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, Chairman Latta.
Chairman Guthrie, you can tell everybody that you went to
West Point. I know you are very proud of it, and I think it is
great, so you don't have to say it is on the Hudson River.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Guthrie. I guess there are several other colleges on
the Hudson River. I didn't go to Columbia. So I did go to West
Point, yes.
Mr. Pallone. Anyway, at a time when America--
Mr. Guthrie. I wasn't at Columbia, anyway, so it--
Mr. Pallone. At a time when American families are
struggling with rising energy bills, thanks to the policies of
President Trump and congressional Republicans, today committee
Republicans are doubling down on legislative proposals that
will further raise energy bills and threaten America's power
grid. These partisan bills are meant to prop up expensive
fossil fuels so Republicans can score points with their
billionaire buddies. It is just part of their agenda to serve
their corporate-interest friends, not everyday, hard-working
Americans.
Most of the bills we're discussing today gut efficiency
programs, make buildings use more energy, and raise costs for
Americans. These bills don't just drive up energy costs for
Americans, they also threaten our ability to compete with
China. We have had numerous hearings this Congress about data
centers, artificial intelligence, and the increasing energy
demand from these technologies. In these hearings, witnesses
have made clear that we need more energy available on the grid
in order to scale rapidly, meet this growing energy demand, and
remain globally competitive.
Everyone knows that to meet growing demand, two things must
happen.
First, you need more energy on the grid. But in their Big
Ugly Bill, Republicans eliminated incentives that get cheaper,
clean energy on the grid quickly. This was a reckless action
that will result in household energy bills increasing, as well
as significant delays in getting new energy on the grid. And
clean energy is fast to deploy, and it is crucial for meeting
our growing energy demand and competing with China.
Second, you need to decrease energy consumption wherever
possible, and that is where energy efficiency can play a
critical role. By decreasing the energy consumption of
households and businesses, more energy is available to meet
greater demands, which is why it is baffling to me that
Republicans, after slashing incentives to get energy on the
grid quickly, are now pursuing policies to make our homes and
buildings less energy efficient, all while they claim to
support American energy dominance and want to compete with
China in the AI race.
The Republican-led bills target the Department of Energy's,
DOE's, ability to keep appliances efficient and affordable.
They rip away appliance rebates, building codes funding, and
workforce funding. They go after Federal building efficiency
and attack efficiency standards for manufactured housing. Taken
together, these bills will dramatically increase household
energy expenses.
Now, I said this at last week's hearing, but it bears
repeating. Congressional Republicans and the Trump
administration spent the first 8 months of the year targeting
efficiency standards through numerous Congressional Review Act
resolutions, gutting clean energy initiatives, 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.
Now, there are a couple of bipartisan bills that I do
support on the agenda, including Congressman Tonko's
Weatherization Enhancement and Readiness Act. And this
bipartisan bill reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance
Program and raises the average cost per household so that more
families can receive assistance that better matches their need.
It also reauthorizes the Weatherization Readiness Program to
help households pursue structural repairs so they can receive
weatherization assistance, and this is an important and timely
bill.
But I really do hope that the bipartisan bills on today's
agenda receive the support they deserve, and I hope we can turn
a corner on discussions about energy efficiency, and recognize
that it really is one of our best tools for keeping costs low
and also for remaining competitive.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And so I thank the witnesses for being here
today and yield back the balance of my time, Chairman Latta.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back the balance of his time, and the Chair--this now concludes
our Members' opening statements. The Chair likes--would like to
remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members'
opening statements will be made part of the record.
Also, I would like to also remind Members that we do have
two panels today, and votes are at 1:30. So--and also, somehow
Environment is supposed to meet in here at 2:00 since we are
offline on the third-floor office--or committee hearing room
upstairs. So the Chair just wants to remind Members that at 5
minutes into your questions I will bring down the gavel so we
can keep things moving.
Again, I want to thank our witness for being with us today
and taking the time to testify before our subcommittee.
You are going to have 5 minutes for an opening statement,
and followed by a round of questions from our Members.
Our witness today is Jeff Novak, the acting general counsel
and principal deputy general counsel at the U.S. Department of
Energy.
And again, Mr. Novak, we appreciate you being here today,
and you are being recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement. So if you press that button and pull up the mic
close, and we will--like to hear your testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JEFF NOVAK, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL AND PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Novak. Thank you, Chairman Latta, members of this
committee. I would say thanks for being here, but I am told
this is bumpy sometimes, so maybe I will just say I am honored
to be here.
I have been in my role for just a little over 3 months. I
am, as the Chair said, the principal deputy general counsel and
I have been the acting general counsel pending the confirmation
of the President's nominee. And I am here at the subcommittee's
invitation to talk about the eight energy-related bills under
consideration.
Two of these bills, the Energy Choice Act and the Reliable
Federal Infrastructure Act, are responses to categorical
prohibitions or mandates to reduce or eliminate fossil-fuel-
generated energy.
At last count, 149 jurisdictions have adopted laws or
ordinances effectively banning natural gas consumption and, by
extension, gas appliances. Some do this directly by mandating
all-electric energy supply for newly constructed or renovating
residential and commercial buildings. Some do this indirectly
by mandating net-zero energy standards or zero-emission
standards for natural-gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.
Whether done directly or indirectly, these laws and
ordinances deny residents and commercial tenants access to
energy solutions like tankless water heaters that are
demonstrably more efficient, gas water heaters that can provide
significant long-term savings to owners, gas ranges that can
perform better and be 10 to 30 percent cheaper to operate than
their electric counterparts. Two of these bans or mandates and
the question of whether they fall within the broad preemptive
provision of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 are
the subject of ongoing litigation in the Second and Ninth
Circuits.
The Energy Choice Act, the first of these bills, would bar
States and localities from prohibiting or limiting energy
service based on the type or source of energy to be delivered.
This legislation would enable a broader range of energy
solutions that would, in turn, both preserve and expand
consumer choice in regard to the appliances that they depend on
to heat their homes, to heat their showers, to wash their
clothes and dishes, and to cook their food, while also yielding
significant savings to U.S. households.
I will add that access to natural gas or propane can be
more fundamental than energy inefficiency or cost, as we saw in
events like the Christmas blizzard of 2022, when people with
all-electric heat froze to death inside their homes during
extended power outages.
The Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act would amend section
305(a)(3) of EPCA to strike the requirement that the Secretary
of Energy promulgate energy performance standards for Federal
buildings, mandating the reduction and eventual elimination of
fossil-fuel-generated energy. The bill enables a broader range
of energy solutions at Federal buildings that can help reduce
construction and operating costs, as well as accelerating
construction timelines by positioning decision makers to
balance local energy delivery options against cost parameters
and mission readiness needs.
The third bill, the Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act,
presents a similar set of policy issues. The bill proposes
several changes to the Appliances Standard program that the
Department administers under EPCA, and this includes the
implementation of a mechanism for revoking prior energy
conservation standards, revised criteria for determining the
economic justification of a standard, a provision to address
the fuel neutrality issues I mentioned in connection with the
first two bills, a new test to address the utility or
performance of an appliance, adoption of a significant energy
savings threshold, and the localization of standard-setting
criteria to particular appliances rather than broad factors
such as greenhouse gas emissions and social costs. This
legislation broadens choice and refocuses the cost-benefit
analysis of the Appliance Standards program to consumer impacts
and significant economic benefits.
The fourth bill, the Federal Mechanical Insulation Act,
aims to address a gap in how regulators assess insulation
inefficiencies in Federal buildings under NECPA. Current
assessments focus on the insulation of building envelopes,
walls, and roofs. This bill recognizes that there are other
insulation efficiencies gained by insulating piping, ductwork,
HVAC, et cetera. And this bill clarifies that those
efficiencies are properly included within statutory audits.
The fifth bill, the SHOWER Act, would adopt the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers' definition of a showerhead and
require the Secretary to update Federal regulations based on
this definition with the aim of increasing manufacturing
flexibility and, by extension, consumer choice.
The sixth bill, the Affordable Homes Act, streamlines the
assessment of potential savings from energy standards imposed
on manufactured housing, and whether those savings offset costs
to consumers from two regulators, currently the Departments of
Energy and Housing and Urban Development, to one: HUD.
The seventh bill, the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act, repeals
three State and community, or SCEP, programs, rescinding
unobligated funds that were appropriated for high-efficiency
electric home rebate program, as well as the funds that were
appropriated to provide assistance to States and localities
adopting energy conservation building codes. As the chairman
mentioned earlier, according to the National Association of
Home Builders, these compliance----
Mr. Latta. Mr. Novak, if you could just----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Add as much as $31,000----
Mr. Latta [continuing]. Wrap up real quickly, if you could,
please.
Mr. Novak. Yes, $31,000 in additional cost with a payback
period as long as 90 years.
And the eighth bill, as we mentioned, is the Weatherization
Enhancement and Readiness Act.
The Department would welcome the opportunity to provide
technical assistance on these bills.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Novak follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your statement
this morning, and the Chair now will move to our questions from
the Members, and I will begin with my questions. I recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
When Congress reauthorized the Weatherization Program in
2020 we also required DOE to study the effectiveness of a
program that includes grants to make homes ready for
weatherization. DOE has not completed that evaluation. Is that
correct?
Mr. Novak. That is correct, Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. When you perform this evaluation,
will you evaluate whether some types of entities are more
effective than others in implementing the innovation
enhancement program and weatherization in general?
Mr. Novak. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latta. And will you also look at how States safeguard
against waste and abuse?
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Mr. Latta. OK, let me--let's, if we could, back up to my
second question on the--you know, when you are looking at
evaluating what types of entities are more effective than
others, do you have any idea what those might be right now,
what is more effective than others, or is it something you are
going to have to look at when you do the study?
Mr. Novak. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the acoustics are
a bit off.
Mr. Latta. OK----
Mr. Novak. Can I ask you to restate the question?
Mr. Latta. Yes, again, are--when you do the study--and
maybe it is a little bit early, maybe you are into the study
right now, but when you are looking at the effectiveness of
the--implementing the innovations and enhancements in the
program and also in weatherization, what--do you know what you
are specifically going to be looking for right now?
Mr. Novak. Mr. Chairman, I will have to take that question
up with staff in terms of the scope of the assessment.
Mr. Latta. OK. What about on the waste and abuse? Any--are
you still looking at formulating that at the staff level?
Mr. Novak. Correct.
Mr. Latta. On how you are going to be doing that?
Mr. Novak. Correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. OK. Billions of taxpayer funds have been
obligated and expended on weatherization over the past 4 years,
including $3.5 billion in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act. DOE has not done a full assessment of the broader
weatherization program since 2014.
You know, do you know what DOE's plans are to conduct a
full assessment of the broader weatherization program at this
time?
Mr. Novak. If I can, Chairman, I will take that question
for the record and provide a follow-up to the----
Mr. Latta. OK, I appreciate that. Do you also believe that
Americans should have--you know, do you believe American
consumers should pay more for a dishwasher, for example, to
offset the social cost of carbon emissions?
Mr. Novak. The policy position, sir, is no, we do not. At a
personal level, I would say I don't either, just having bought
a dishwasher that doesn't do what I would like it to do.
Mr. Latta. Well, let me ask another question. From DOE's
perspective, how does limiting natural gas impact grid
reliability?
Mr. Novak. Well, fewer choices put more strain on the
existing grid. There are some really interesting developments
that are going on now. For example, collocated gas generation
facilities at data centers. It is a fascinating area of
development, and the idea here is that energy-intensive uses--
and one of the problems we are trying to solve for is that most
everybody got it wrong in terms of the forecasting. Nobody
anticipated the Nvidia chip, the energy demands of the Nvidia
chip, much less the cooling demands for chips that run hotter.
This is something that--we have got innovation. The idea
here is to have more choice. A broader range of choice means
more opportunity for innovation. And I am familiar with others
who are developing business models around, again, a collocated,
gas-fired plant at a data center with the idea that it would--
it wouldn't draw on the grid at all. In fact, it might push
excess electricity onto the grid rather than drawing from it.
So it would be neutral in regard to--and maybe positive
benefits to ratepayers.
Mr. Latta. Well, you brought up a--you know, when you are
talking about the data centers in particular--because we know
that you are going to have your primary source, and you are
going to have to have two backups going into that data center,
so you are--because there can never be a glitch in a power
source when you are doing that. So that is very, very important
when you are talking about the reliability of the grid.
I am going to yield back the balance of my time and
recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for 5 minutes
for questions.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Novak, welcome.
Mr. Novak. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. Last week, Secretary Wright and the Department
of Energy claimed online that wind and solar energy
infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside
and the wind is not blowing.
Why is the Secretary and the Department ignoring batteries?
And--because that has been such a long-time research and
deployment priority of the Department of Energy.
Mr. Novak. I will say, Member Castor, I am a lawyer, not a
policymaker.
What I would say is that one of the things that I am still
sort of getting up to speed on is intermittent energy.
Ms. Castor. All right, so here is one source you can go to.
The U.S. Energy Information Agency is predicting that battery
storage will practically double from 2024 to 2026, up to 65
gigawatts of storage capacity.
But I think part of the answer--you can look at what
Secretary Wright was doing last week in Europe. He was shilling
for gas companies and exports of American gas.
Has the Department of Energy done any analysis on what
consumers in America will see in higher costs due to exports of
our domestic energy?
Mr. Novak. I have to take that question for the record. I
would be happy to provide a followup for that.
Ms. Castor. OK, all right.
Mr. Novak. I do know that one of the issues that I am aware
of, just, you know, by virtue of being in conversations, is the
subsidy aspect of intermittent generation, even with the
battery, is something that, frankly, people are struggling to
get the math to work out on that. So absent the subsidy, it is
something that doesn't seem to----
Ms. Castor. Do you know how much the U.S. taxpayers
subsidize oil and gas and fossil fuels? Are you going to take
that for the record too?
Mr. Novak. I can take that for the----
Ms. Castor. Please do. OK.
In July, DOE released a deeply flawed draft report picked
by five--or written by five hand-picked climate skeptics which
severely downplayed the negative impacts and the threats from
the heating climate. What a backlash, because at that point
more than 85 scientists got together to point out errors and
misrepresentations of climate science in that report.
Mr. Novak, what review process did the report go through at
DOE? Did career staff or DOE scientists provide any input?
Mr. Novak. My understanding is that there was review done
within the research labs.
I will say as to the----
Ms. Castor. Well, we are going to need that in detail,
because that has not--that certainly hasn't been provided by
these--this working group. DOE's so-called Climate Working
Group did not issue any public notice for its meetings or
attempt to balance the points of view of its members.
Do you believe the group violated the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act?
Mr. Novak. I am sorry, was that a question?
Ms. Castor. Yes. You are acting general counsel.
Mr. Novak. No, no, I do not. This group--which, I will add,
included the former chair of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences, who was part of the National Research
Council's Climate Research Committee; a theoretical physicist
who served in the Obama administration as Undersecretary for
Science at the Department; the professors who were the first
ones to successfully develop a satellite temperature record--
this was a distinguished group----
Ms. Castor. Why did they try to write that report out of
public view?
Mr. Novak. Again, I think the point of this--and I will say
at the outset I am here to testify on the eight bills before
the committee, so this is a bit afield of what I prepared for
today. But I will add that the purpose of this group was,
frankly, to enlarge----
Ms. Castor. To undermine the science that has been a
hallmark of previous administrations and now, under the Trump
administration, they discount the science, they discount the
experts. They try to take us off on these tangents that are
really hurting people. They are raising costs on consumers,
whether it is the tariffs, the Big Ugly Bill, all of these
policies.
And you know what? We need the science. My community back
home is recovering from the two worst hurricanes in our
lifetimes. We need to know what the impact of the heating
climate is going to be so we can prepare. And we need to save
energy. And we need--we don't need to go across the pond to
shill for oil and gas companies. And that is also going to
raise prices.
So everything the administration is doing is really hurting
the bottom line of hard-working Americans, and I appreciate
your appearance here today so we can ask you questions and hold
you accountable. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time is
expired, and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the full
committee chair for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Thanks for being here, Mr. Novak. And I have had my good
friend from New Jersey talking about billionaires who invest in
oil and gas. There are billionaires investing in wind and
solar, so, I mean, we could compare--as a matter of fact, some
of them are the same, the same billionaires who invest in both.
And I would guess--and I absolutely hope somebody invests
and creates a sustainable battery that is affordable, that can
store wind energy, that can compete with all the others, and I
hope somebody can do that, and I guess if somebody figures that
out they will be a billionaire because it will be valuable to
the world to have a battery that is affordable, sustainable,
and have wind and solar that works and is dispatchable. So--and
I hope that comes to pass.
So--but--so getting back to the bills before us, so the
committee is talking about home appliances and some of the
costs that have been incurred with the last administration. So
Mr. Novak, is DOE ensuring that any new amended energy
efficiency standards are truly cost effective, yielding
significant energy savings, and technologically feasible?
Mr. Novak. That is the aim. That is the aim, is to ensure
that the analysis that is done around this is, again, localized
to the efficacy of the appliance, the cost efficiency of the
unit, and, again, preserving the policy choice that consumers
should have a range of choices available to them.
Mr. Guthrie. So thank you. So under EPCA, DOE is required
to review energy efficiency standards for covered products no
later than 6 years after the issuance of final rule, with an
option to decline, setting a new standard if it would be
inappropriate. Has--how has this 6-year look-back requirement
in EPCA resulted in never-ending regulation for certain covered
products?
Mr. Novak. I will say in regard to the 6-year look period,
I had conversations with staff in advance of being here today,
and I understand that it is a challenge, and the 6-year look-
back is a challenge, and the 2-year look-back may be a
challenge. Again, we would invite technical assistance in how
we could best satisfy any look-back requirement in a bill.
But again, my understanding is that there are some
challenges in regard to these look-back requirements.
Mr. Guthrie. So switching gears a little bit, some States
and localities have implemented natural gas bans, driving
prices up for consumers and straining our Nation's electric
grid. How important is redundancy in our energy networks?
Mr. Novak. It is important. Reliability and adequacy are
key policy aims of the Department. So ensuring that we, you
know, we don't create shortfalls by, for example, by retiring
in advance of their, you know, the expiration of their service
life units, this ensures that we have enough dispatchable power
on the grid.
And again, the policy choice here that has been made by
policymakers is one of addition, and it is the idea of adding
additional--we want additional power to the--on the grid. And
we want a variety--again, a variety of choices that make sense.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And before I yield back, we--I am
an all-of-the-above. And I am going to just say it, all of the
above. But it needs to be sustainable and affordable, and the
subsidies can't displace--so you subsidize one, and so people
don't build the other which is dispatchable and there and
available.
So we need to--I want us all to--everybody on both sides of
the aisle on this committee to think through this, is that, you
know, you have to have permits to build. Like we talked about,
there was $42 billion held up because they couldn't get
approval to build fiber in the Inflation Reduction Act. You
need permits to build wind. You need permits to build solar.
You need to move those electrons. If you create electrons in
wind and solar, you got to move those through transmission
lines. For an all-of-the-above, you have natural gas, you have
clean coal. You have got to move some of that through the
pipeline.
So we have to move the energy sources to where it is turned
into electrons, and we have to take the electricity and move it
to where people use and consume it. And so that is behind. We
are behind China in doing that. And we--I know that I always
say there is 432 of us, I think, still in Congress right now.
And 432 of us, I think, without--I can't think of a person that
doesn't want to make sure we win the battle for the economic
future over China. And a big part of it is energy, having the
right mix and having the ability to move it. And hopefully,
this committee will dedicate ourselves, both sides of the
aisle, to getting to the right mix at the sustainable,
affordable--and be able to move it to where people need it to
use it.
So that is what our focus is going to be, and hopefully we
can all do it together.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, the ranking member of the committee, for 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I listened
to Chairman Guthrie say he is for all of the above, and it
sounds like, Mr. Novak, you are saying you are for all of the
above. But when Secretary Wright was here in June, we
specifically asked him if he was for an all-of-the-above energy
policy, and he said no, he is not.
So, I mean, it is very nice that you and the chairman are
saying that you want to consider renewables and that you are
for, you know, all different types of energy. But the Secretary
made it quite clear that he is not, and neither is the
President.
And you know, we have three bills on the floor this week
that are clearly not for all of the above and that clearly make
it--that say pretty emphatically that, you know, they want to
eliminate or pretty much eliminate renewables and put all the
emphasis on fossil fuels. So, you know, forgive me if I say
that I don't think you are really speaking for the Secretary,
frankly.
But I wanted to follow up on a letter I sent to Secretary
Wright last month. As you know, the DOE staff have been sent
to--DOE staff have been sent to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and they are operating without NRC supervisors in
an apparent contravention of the Energy Reorganization Act,
which explicitly separated DOE and NRC.
So my question. At one point in July, David Taggart was
listed as simultaneously being both the NRC's chief counsel and
DOE's deputy general counsel for litigation. Can you confirm if
Mr. Taggart is still employed by the Department?
Mr. Novak. He is not employed by the Department, and hasn't
been since he went to NRC.
Mr. Pallone. All right. So when did Mr. Taggart actually
cease being a DOE employee, approximately?
Mr. Novak. I will get--I will take that for the record, but
I believe it is 2 months that he has been at NRC.
Mr. Pallone. And on that day, when he ceased to be a DOE
employee, who was his supervisor at that point, do you know?
Mr. Novak. It would have been me.
Mr. Pallone. It would have been you. OK.
Mr. Novak. So, yes, I joined May 22. David had been, at
that point, the acting general counsel. When I joined, he slid
into the deputy general counsel role, and then subsequently
moved to NRC.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I am saying this because my----
Mr. Novak. Which----
Mr. Pallone [continuing]. Concern is that the Department
and administration have broken the law when it comes to
separating DOE's--or separating out, I should say, DOE's
function of supporting the nuclear industry and the NRC's job
of regulating it, and I feel like we are getting a runaround
here. So maybe that is why they sent you as the general counsel
here today because, you know, they have broken the law, and,
you know, they want to deal with this from a legal point of
view.
But I think it is important that the Republican majority
finally begin to hold some oversight hearings of this
administration rather than hearings on bills that will raise
prices for Americans. But let me turn to the bills before us
because I only have 2 minutes.
According to section 342 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, the Secretary ``may not prescribe any amended
standard which increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product.'' However, in May of this year DOE proposed to weaken
or eliminate standards for 17 products. And Secretary Wright
was asked about this when he was before us in June, and he
couldn't give us a straight answer. So maybe you can.
So, Mr. Novak, can you explain how DOE decided it need not
comply with section 342 and judicial precedent the way I
described, if you will?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question for the
record. I would be happy to provide a detailed response.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I would appreciate that. And, you know,
I think it is clear that the DOE is breaking the law here, and
American homeowners are going to pay the price.
When your monthly energy bills keep going up because your
home appliances use more energy, you know, I just hope that
everyone remembers that the Trump administration is to blame
here. I just think that what the Department is doing is--you
know, not only in terms of what they are doing at the NRC but
also what they are doing with energy efficiency is totally
contrary to the statute. And, you know, I don't know if--you,
as the general counsel, can't answer that question now. It is
kind of unfortunate, but I would appreciate if you would get
back to me.
But I am going to reiterate it again. You know, you come
here, and the chairman keeps talking about all the above, and I
appreciate all that. But if you look at the bills that are on
the floor today and what this Trump administration is doing,
they clearly don't want anything to do with renewable energy.
They want to prioritize oil and natural gas. And that is all
because they want to help their oil and gas friends. And
anybody who thinks contrary, I think, is just kidding
themselves.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 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. Novak, thank you for being here. According to a
December 2022 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report,
the Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in the
United States, with about 350,000 Federal buildings which are
using over 344 trillion--with a T--BTUs of energy and 119
billion gallons of water in 2021 alone.
GAO also found that only 1 out of 27 Government agencies,
only 1, actually--using their compliance tracking system, DOE's
Compliance Tracking System--only 1 agency actually met the
energy and water use evaluation requirement, meaning, bottom
line, that taxpayers' dollars are being wasted, even with all
those plans for all those agencies.
Have you ever heard the term, ``The best laid plans of mice
and men''?
Mr. Novak. I have.
Mr. Weber. You have? That is quoted from Robert Burns, the
1785 Scottish poem. You know, that and $7 will get you a cup of
coffee at Starbucks, now that you know that.
My question is, my legislation, the Federal Mechanical
Insulation Act, which means that when your--you know, I was an
air conditioner company owner for 35 years, so I have watched
all the ratings change and all the energy requirements change
for years and years and years, which means that when you are
evaluating the SEER, Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating, of an
air conditioning or heating system--both, actually--you need to
take into effect the loss of energy, the energy loss on the
duct system.
They have never done that. They looked at the condensing
unit, they looked at the gas furnace, they looked at the
evaporator coil. So they never had a--never actually looked at
the mechanical--the insulation on the ductwork part.
So this legislation, we aim at increasing energy efficiency
in Federal buildings while saving taxpayer money. Section--and
so do you agree with that, that would be a noble thing for us
to want to do?
Mr. Novak. I do. It is a gap in the current NECPA----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Auditing scope.
Mr. Weber. You betcha. And so section 433 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act establishes a timeframe--also,
this is another gotcha for the consumers--establishes a
timeline to phase out fossil fuel in Federal buildings.
Now, you said in earlier comments that people who had
electric heat in the northeast when the winter was so secure
and they lost power, they froze to death. If they had natural
gas, they could--at least could--they could run a, for example,
you know, fireplace or something in there if they needed to--
crack a window, we always tell everybody, so that the carbon
monoxide doesn't build up.
So without intervention, if we don't get this bill passed
where we figure in all the SEER requirements--without
intervention what might be the potential impact on grid
reliability if that 344 trillion BTUs currently supplied by
fossil fuels was entirely shifted to the Federal grid? What do
you think the outcome of that would be?
Mr. Novak. It would clearly have benefits for the grid.
Mr. Weber. Oh, it would absolutely do that. So I appreciate
that answer. I appreciate you taking notes to be able to get
back with everybody. I appreciate your appearance here today.
So thank you for being here and for bearing my history lesson.
And Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
the balance of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey's 8th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Novak, just quickly, do we need more energy production
in this country? Just yes or no.
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you. And is ensuring that consumers'
energy bills are affordable a priority for this administration?
Just yes or no.
Mr. Novak. It is one of the objectives: affordable, secure,
reliable, abundant.
Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that. Is it a priority of this
administration to ensure that the United States continues to
compete with China with respect to energy production?
Mr. Novak. It is.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you. In a hearing yesterday with
Chairman Latta, he described that a large part of China's
energy production comes from coal plants, and cited this as a
justification on why this administration is prioritizing the
revival of coal energy. Would you say this is an accurate
characterization? Yes or no.
Mr. Novak. I----
Mr. Menendez. To compete with China. They utilize coal, and
therefore we should revitalize coal in the United States to
compete with China. Is that a fair assessment? Yes or no.
Mr. Novak. Coal is clearly part of how we generate a lot of
dispatchable baseload in this country.
Mr. Menendez. I am just curious if you know how China is
meeting their electricity demand growth.
Mr. Novak. I have seen charts of nuclear, coal. They have a
mix. They have a----
Mr. Menendez. And that mix would include solar and wind.
Mr. Novak. Correct.
Mr. Menendez. According to the New York Times, China met 84
percent of its electricity demand growth with solar and wind
power. And China is well known to be the world's top
electricity producer from renewable energy sources. In 2024
China installed over 373 gigawatts of renewables, and their
goal is to meet 80 percent of its total energy mix from
nonfossil-fuel sources by 2016.
So if the goal here is to maintain American energy
dominance over China, why are we completely abandoning
renewables and allowing China to become the world leader in
renewable energy production?
Mr. Novak. I think the answer there, it is not all of the
above, it is best of the above. And the best of the above is
always context dependent. There are certain contexts in which
particular generation makes a lot of sense, and there are other
contexts in which it doesn't. And that is, again, very fact
specific, very site specific, and----
Mr. Menendez. But you also stated earlier in your testimony
that--I believe your quote was ``fewer choices put more strain
on the grid.'' Do you--was that your statement earlier,
something to--along those lines? ``Fewer choices put more
strain on the grid''?
Mr. Novak. Depending on what the range of choices is.
Again----
Mr. Menendez. Well, but if States----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Context specific.
Mr. Menendez [continuing]. Are deciding, right, that they
want to advance offshore wind, and the President pauses those
projects, wouldn't that be fewer choices on the grid? And
wouldn't, therefore, that put more strain on the grid and make
prices more expensive for our residents? Just yes or no.
Mr. Novak. Again, contextually dependent. If a----
Mr. Menendez. The answer is yes.
Mr. Novak. If it is----
Mr. Menendez. And the Trump administration Republicans in
Congress are actively making policy choices that inhibit our
ability to quickly bring more energy sources online. So far
this Congress, their focus has been on undoing Biden-era
policies, including going after energy efficiency standards.
They have also imposed tariffs that will dramatically increase
the cost of equipment necessary to build out energy projects,
and completely abandoning renewables such as solar and wind.
So I am struggling to see what the play here is, because it
almost seems like this administration and what they are doing
with offshore wind is retribution for the Obama
administration's decision on the Keystone Pipeline. Would you
say that is accurate, that this feels like Obama administration
made a decision with Keystone Pipeline so now the Trump
administration is going to make a decision with offshore wind,
despite the fact that most people here agree that we need an
all-of-the-above strategy, including wind and solar?
Mr. Novak. Let me say first, again, I am a lawyer, not a
policymaker, and I can't speak to the context of Keystone, but
I am not aware of anything that, at least in my experience,
that would suggest that there is some retribution afoot.
Mr. Menendez. But----
Mr. Novak. But what it----
Mr. Menendez. You may not be a policymaker, but as the
acting general counsel you are involved in a lot of these
decisions that go into the policies. Yes or no?
Mr. Novak. I advise policymakers----
Mr. Menendez. Right.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. On the law.
Mr. Menendez. And are you aware of any policy that the
administration is considering that will help reduce the cost
being borne by consumers with respect to the increase in AI
data centers? Just yes or no.
Have you--has anything come across your desk that shows the
administration is dealing with the increase in demand caused by
data centers?
Mr. Novak. Yes. For example, I mentioned earlier the idea
of collocated gas-fired facilities. It is a very attractive
idea to have a point source solution for generating----
Mr. Menendez. OK. And you are general counsel. We have had
witnesses here from the Department of Energy who cannot
acknowledge the benefit of clean, renewable energy. I am
curious if there is a DOE policy that prohibits employees--its
employees and officials from speaking to the benefits of clean
energy.
Mr. Novak. None that I am aware of.
Mr. Menendez. OK. Are you aware of anyone left at the
Department of Energy who still believes in clean, renewable
energy?
Mr. Novak. Oh, I would say we have got a range of people
with a range of viewpoints on policy, and those get full-
throated expression when people are talking about policy----
Mr. Menendez. And then presumably shut down by this
administration. Thank you.
I am out of time, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired, and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Alabama's 6th District for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Novak, are you aware that we are in an arms
race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing with
China?
Mr. Novak. I am, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Are you aware that we are going to have to
double our baseload capacity in order to power the data centers
that we will need to win that arms race?
Mr. Novak. I am, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Do you believe, based on your knowledge of what
the Department of Energy is doing, that we can do that with
renewables?
Mr. Novak. No. No, sir.
Mr. Palmer. The physics don't work, do they?
Mr. Novak. They don't.
Mr. Palmer. I keep hearing my colleagues talk about what
China is doing. I know they are big fans of China, but I think
we are in a existential competition with China that is going to
determine who is the dominant power in the world. Whoever
masters AI and quantum computing, they will not be a
superpower, they will be the superpower. And we need to do what
it takes to be able to meet that challenge and win that arms
race, as I said.
I know China has built a lot of renewables, but they are
basically forcing renewable power generation on the general
population in order to preserve their fossil assets, fossil
fuel assets. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Novak. I am not familiar, sir, with the policy choices
that are being made by the PRC. It is a different economic
system. The----
Mr. Palmer. It is also more part of their national strategy
because they are putting more and more into their military.
They realize that they have limited resources. They have huge
amounts of coal, limited access to natural gas.
They are also--they are ahead of us in small modular
reactors. They have got one online already. They have got four
in the queue.
One of the things that I think we--that everybody on this
committee ought to be focused on is small modular nuclear
reactors, because it addresses the whole issue of emissions but
it also will help us meet that increased baseload demand. Are
you--have you been informed on that effort?
Mr. Novak. I have, I have had several conversations with
Ted Garrish, who is our nominee for the Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear Energy, about the objectives in regard to small modular
reactors and microreactors, a very promising solution,
something we are committed to.
Mr. Palmer. Well, there is one of the things that I think
we can do--and over the last several years we have closed about
300 hydrocarbon power generation facilities. Most of them are
coal. I know there is some concerns that the administration may
be open to reopening some of those using coal, but I have been
really pushing putting small modular reactors on those sites.
Now, that helps deal with the not-in-my-backyard issue, but
also the transmission lines are still there.
We could place small modular reactors based on the design
capacity of the transmission lines, which would, I think, help
increase the baseload available to make sure that the power--
utility rates didn't go up for households and for businesses
but also help us meet the increased demand that we are going to
have.
The other thing, are you aware of how dependent we are on
China for refined critical minerals and rare earth elements?
Mr. Novak. I am.
Mr. Palmer. Are you aware that there is not a single major
refinery for rare earth elements in the entire Western
Hemisphere?
Mr. Novak. I am.
Mr. Palmer. Are you aware that it is going to be a
tremendous additional demand for power to build processing and
refining capabilities and capacity here in the United States?
Mr. Novak. I am.
Mr. Palmer. Can we do that with renewables?
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. Do you think we can meet that power demand with
renewables?
Mr. Novak. No, sir. No, sir.
Mr. Palmer. You cannot have a power source that does not
give you a consistent baseload.
Mr. Novak. Correct.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. I just think that we are in a
situation right now that we are no longer talking about
economics, we shouldn't even be talking about politics. We
ought to be talking about national security. We have a window
that is going to close. If we don't meet this challenge, we are
going to find ourselves in a really bad place, and the future
of the country will be in the balance. That is my opinion. It
is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many, many others.
So that is one of the reasons why this committee, under the
leadership of Chairmen Guthrie and Latta and some of the
others, have made it a top priority to meet that demand, to win
that competition.
So I just want to make the statement for the record we
cannot do it with renewables. We are going to have to do it
with the resources that I think that we can lead the world in,
and that is small modular reactors to meet that power demand,
to be able to refine the rare earth elements that we need to
build the microchips and semiconductors in order to win that
arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. 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. Thank you, Chairman Latta and
Ranking Member Castor, for holding this very important
legislative hearing. We can't afford to turn away from energy
efficiency at this critical moment. We need to meet rapidly
growing energy demand, as we have heard, and we need to do it
in a way that is affordable for households.
And households across the country are already struggling
with rising energy bills while facing more extreme weather
exacerbated by climate change, whether that is increasingly
severe storms, increased flooding, record heat waves, dangerous
winter freezes, and that is why I am grateful that we have
included Ranking Member Tonko's Weatherization Enhancement and
Readiness Act in our discussion today.
This bill makes necessary investments to help more low-
income families weatherize their homes by fixing structural,
plumbing, roofing, and electrical issues. And programs like
Weatherization Assistance Program cut costs, improve energy
efficiency, and make communities more resilient. And according
to the Department of Energy itself, the program supports 8,500
jobs, provides weatherization services to approximately 32,000
homes every year, saving those homes, on average, $372 or more
every year.
And this is important because studies suggest that 35 to 60
percent of energy consumption in U.S. homes is wasted through
air leaks, outdated systems, phantom load from devices in
standby mode, and we can't meet our exploding energy demand if
we continue to waste 35 to 60 percent of energy in our homes
from things that are fixable. So weatherization and energy
efficiency goals are things that this committee should be
focused on, and not attacks on popular standards that are cost
saving and common sense.
Now, Mr. Novak, my office has learned that the team from
the Department of Energy responsible for the Weatherization
Assistance Program has lost nearly 70 percent of its staff
since President Trump took office, and that now only 11 people
manage 54 formula grants. And on top of that, the DOE is no
longer allowing the remaining staff to travel, which makes it
harder for them to oversee the program and ensure that funds go
towards weatherizing homes.
Mr. Novak, how are DOE staff supposed to effectively
conduct their outreach and oversight of this program without
leaving their desks?
Mr. Novak. It is a very good question. One of the
objectives of this administration--and it is something I came
in--I wasn't involved in architecting it, but I am involved in,
obviously, managing a team of lawyers now--is the idea of a
lighter, more efficient, more nimble Federal workforce. So I
will tell you, even within my Department, I am managing a lot
of demand with fewer lawyers. And we are doing that by,
frankly, trying to figure out how to get the balance right in
terms of the work that lawyers are doing, prioritizing the
work, and putting, frankly, more human resource where there is
more work being done, and more emphasis on the policy
priorities.
The SCEP bill here, I note that, you know, this--the bill
that is before this committee would increase the average cost
per unit. That is something that reflects increases in labor
costs, materials, and I am not sure--one of the things I would
like to take for the record is to go back to staff and to talk
to staff about how they are going to manage, recognizing that
if there is going to be more money in the program to, again,
account for increases in labor and increases in material, and
we are going to stand up a new readiness program, there is, you
know, a new statutory implementation framework. And one of the
questions I would just like to take back to the record is how
we are going to meet that statutory implementation framework
with the headcount we have got.
Ms. McClellan. OK. I think you need more headcount.
In fiscal year 2025, DOE illegally shifted funds between
programs, particularly within the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Account. The Building and Technologies Office
lost over $180 million, which is 50 percent of the funding that
Congress intended, and DOE's decision to pull that funding
directly ignored the specific levels appropriated by Congress
and signed into law by President Trump.
Mr. Novak, you would agree that Congress holds the
congressional authority to appropriate funds, right?
Mr. Novak. Correct, the Constitution commits appropriations
to Congress.
Ms. McClellan. Did DOE move fiscal year 2025 funds away
from the Building Technologies Office, despite what Congress
intended?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question under--for the
record.
Ms. McClellan. I would appreciate that----
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Ms. McClellan [continuing]. Because it is completely
unacceptable for an agency to ignore the law and redirect
congressionally mandated funding to support the Secretary's
personal agenda. And I think, as general counsel, you would
agree with that.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and 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 legislative hearing to discuss appliance and billing
policies. I thank Mr. Novak for being here today from the
Department of Energy to testify.
Last week we had a background hearing where I discussed my
bill, Don't Mess With My Appliances Act, which implements
necessary reforms to the Energy Policy Conservation Act, or
EPCA, to prevent future administrations from issuing burdensome
standards on household appliances that would drive up costs and
reduce availability.
Let's be clear: Folks back home want to know why the cost
of replacing their air conditioning has increased more than 3
times in less than 5 years, and that includes appliances that
don't work. And obviously, my wife wants to keep her gas stove.
So I am glad that we are here to discuss the provisions in my
bill.
In my bill the statutory look-back requiring the DOE to
evaluate standards is repealed. Can you just share the
Department of Energy's thoughts on this provision?
Mr. Novak. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Allen, we--I had a
conversation with staff about look-back. And what staff relayed
is that the 6-year look back is--it is just challenging. It is
something challenging for staff to do. And that is not based on
head count, it is just the exercise itself is a bit
challenging. And the view was that, you know, a more frequent
look-back thing just basically means, you know, more challenges
over a shorter period of time.
This is an area where we would invite technical assistance.
We would love to work with this committee to figure out how we
can address some of those challenges in performing look-backs
if this bill should become law.
Mr. Allen. My bill also requires a payback period of 3
years. Can you share with--the Department of Energy's view on
that?
Mr. Novak. Payback periods are significant. As I mentioned
earlier, the--you know, the National Home Builders estimates,
for example, you know, a $31,000 increase to most home buyers.
But a payback period of 90 years, while the National
Association of Home Builders doesn't provide a working life of
a home, they do provide working life of elements. And that is
basically the working life of the elements of a home, the
foundation, the walls, et cetera. So in terms of consumers
being able to have a range of choice and for those choices to
be informed, knowing the payback period and having a reasonable
payback period is significant. To wait for a 90-year payback is
not--that is--you are not getting your money back in 90 years.
Mr. Allen. How is the Department currently prioritizing
consumer savings in the rulemaking process?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question back to staff
that handles the rulemaking in this area.
Mr. Allen. Can you share any other insights on how my bill
would--will protect consumer choice and affordability for
appliances?
Mr. Novak. Well, so the idea, at least as I understand the
bill, sir, is that you would localize the assessment here. You
would look at the utility of the appliances, the appliance
doing what it is supposed to do. Is the--is it actually
yielding a significant energy savings? And instead of looking
at something broad--social cost of carbon, that sort of thing--
again, you would be having a localized inquiry about the
efficiency of this particular appliance, measuring that against
the utility of the appliance itself.
I can share, you know, my personal anecdote. We had 15
people under roof at Thanksgiving last year. We killed our
dishwasher. We bought a new dishwasher, went to, you know, the
store. I bought the nicest dishwasher I could find with the
best Consumer Reports rating. It doesn't dry the dishes, right?
We--you know, we dry the--you know, we open it up, we leave it
open for a day, or, you know, we towel down the dishes. This is
something we think--you know, a sensible analysis of an
appliance should take this into account, right? Is it doing
what you ask?
We have a dryer, a clothes dryer, where we routinely run
three cycles because the moisture sensing thing, it doesn't
give us anything other than wet laundry. So, you know,
typically we hang the laundry around the house. Again, this--
you know, a smarter analysis, I think, is going to pay a little
bit more attention to the utility of the appliance to the
consumer and then making sure that if you are going to have
some trades there in regard to energy efficiency, that, again,
that is a localized assessment. You want it to be a significant
savings, and not to give up significant utility to yield
marginal savings.
Mr. Allen. Yes, it sounds like we are going back to the old
days. We are going to all have the clotheslines in the
backyard.
Mr. Novak. I have suggested as much to my wife.
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Novak. I do most of the laundry and the cooking in our
house, and I share your passion for--I cook over propane and
I----
Mr. Allen. Well, I grew up without air conditioning, so
somehow I made it. Yes. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th District for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the biggest crises facing my constituents in San
Diego is the threat of rapidly rising energy costs, which I
believe we should be addressing through every solution
available. President Trump promised in his campaign he would
lower--he would cut the energy costs of my constituents in half
by--within a year. We are going the other way. They are up 5.5
percent from a year ago. And unfortunately, the majority-passed
reconciliation bill is going to eliminate a lot of energy
source and energy production. I do believe we should be
adopting an all-of-the-above energy strategy that brings more
power onto the grid, lowers cost for consumers.
You indicated that you are an attorney, though, so I ask
maybe some questions about that, because I used to be an
attorney and would love to hear your thoughts about the
Revolution Wind project.
So Revolution Wind is a project that is 80 percent complete
off the coast of New England. It is about to bring 704
megawatts: 400 megawatts to Rhode Island, 304 to Connecticut.
They have invested $4 billion already. They have completed 45
out of 65 turbines, and 1,200 jobs. And President Trump and
Secretary Wright pulled the permit.
Does the Secretary have the authority to pull a permit that
has already been issued without any reason?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question for the
record. I am not familiar with the project or the permit, but I
would be more than happy to look into it and get a response to
you.
Mr. Peters. Generally, once a permit is issued, you would
need a reason to pull it though, right? I mean, just under--you
are the general counsel of the Energy Department. I can't--I
imagine you wouldn't--you would think that you would need a
reason to pull a permit.
Mr. Novak. I am not sure the nature of the permit, whether
it was a conditional permit. Again, I would like to look at the
particulars of this project you mentioned. It is the Revolution
Wind project?
Mr. Peters. Revolution Wind, yes.
Mr. Novak. I would be happy to take a look at the
particulars of that.
Mr. Peters. I--you know, I also--I would ask you --maybe
ask you for the record, if there is a reason, what is the
reason that that project was canceled, and maybe you could find
that out----
Mr. Novak. Yes, I will----
Mr. Peters [continuing]. For us. And also, are we liable
for damages? Because there is a reliance here, 15 years of
review, permitting, and development. I think all of us on the
committee are--so many of us are frustrated with the time it
takes to get through this process. They got through this
process. They are 80 percent complete, and they got their
permit, I believe, canceled because the President doesn't like
offshore wind.
And obviously, I think that is a--there is a lot of issues
with that that put us at risk. One is, first of all, it is not
competitive. China installed 80 gigawatts of wind last year. We
installed, as a country, 60 gigawatts of wind total. China is
not doing it because they are climate warriors. They are
installing wind because it is available, it is fast to get to,
and it is reliable energy. It is an important part of their
mix. And we turned away from that in the Big Beautiful bill. We
undercut a lot of the incentives that we put in there to get
that developed.
And also the message it sends to investors when you do
things like that, when you cancel a permit that has already
been issued, is that you can't rely on the rule of law that has
always been a foundation of the entrepreneurial spirit here,
the willingness to invest in the United States. The willingness
of foreign governments, foreign companies to invest in the
United States depends on that reliability. And we have undercut
that.
And so one energy investor told me that they view now
investing in energy, renewable energy in the United States, as
if they are investing in Vietnam or Brazil. That is the kind of
security they feel, given what we have seen here. So I think it
is a very serious concern. It is a legal concern.
And I would ask you to see if you could respond to me
because I heard also, you know, I have heard all this talk
about Keystone Pipeline, and the allegation about Keystone
Pipeline is that President Obama and President Biden turned
their backs on Keystone Pipeline for ideological reasons, and
that upset a lot of people, particularly the workers who wanted
to build it.
Well, now we sent 1,200 workers home because of ideological
reasons. I think this is President Trump's Keystone Pipeline,
and I think he needs to answer for it. So if you can help me--
if there are any answers to these questions, I would love to
know what they are.
But to me, we are really turning the country backward for
ideological reasons while we watch our competitor, China, 80
gigawatts of wind last year, 227 gigawatts of solar. Again, not
because they are tree huggers, because they know that is the
fastest way to get energy on board. Meanwhile, we did--since
2014 we have done in North America 7 gigawatts of interregional
transmission, high-voltage transmission, about half of that in
the United States. In South America the number is 22, in Europe
the number is 44. China has done 260 gigawatts of this.
So I think we are--when we revoke permits that are already
issued on viable energy sources, we are really setting the
cause backward, and I would love to have answers to those
questions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired and
he yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio's 12th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Novak. I would
also like to thank you for your work that you and the
Department are doing to support the development of affordable,
reliable energy in Ohio and across the Nation.
Mr. Novak, the Department of Energy and Secretary Wright
have placed an emphasis on winning the AI race. How do natural
gas bans at the State and local level threaten U.S.
competitiveness in that space?
Mr. Novak. Well, as I mentioned, one of the promising
solutions--we recognize that data centers running Nvidia AI
chips consume a lot more power. They run hotter, they consume a
lot more power to keep those facilities cool.
One of the more promising solutions out there will be
collocated, gas-fired generation. As I mentioned, this is
something that will be neutral, maybe even beneficial to
ratepayers because you have the capacity to not draw from the
grid--in fact, to put surplus generation onto it--and again, to
remove the natural gas as an option, as you know, 150-some
jurisdictions have done. That is something that impedes that
sort of solution. And that is not the only sort of solution.
But I appreciate that, as I mentioned earlier, the best of
the above is really a highly contextual assessment of what
works, what pencils out, if you will, as an engineering matter,
as a financial matter, what can survive without subsidy. It is
very fact-dependent. And again, sort of removing the choice, if
you will, is something that stifles innovation, and this
innovation is going to be absolutely key to the AI race.
Mr. Balderson. All right, thank you. Will forced
electrification raise electricity prices for consumers?
Mr. Novak. I think it will.
Mr. Balderson. In that, what are you seeing in areas like
New England?
Mr. Novak. Well so, for example, in New England, as I
mentioned earlier with the, you know, the Christmas storm from
a few years ago, extended power outage in an all-electric home,
that is a big issue. We depend in our home, for example, on
propane not just to cook, but that is what heats our home also.
That is what heats our water. All of our neighbors are like
this. I am in a neighborhood that has been there since 1890.
You know, that is our best option, frankly.
So, you know, in places where you have exposure to, you
know, cold winters, long, cold winters, you know, to remove one
of the options and to insist upon electrification, it comes at
a cost, and it comes with risk.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. My next question is about H.R.
4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, introduced by my
friend, Congressman Langworthy from New York.
If left in place, the Energy Independence and Security Act
would require the elimination of onsite fossil fuel use from
new and renovated Federal facilities beginning in 2030. Can you
discuss the Department's efforts this year to rein in the
previous administration's rulemaking on section 433?
And as a followup, can you discuss why it is important for
Congress to pass the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take for the record the question
about the rulemaking, and I will be happy to meet with staff
and get you a response for the record, on the----
Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Status of the rulemaking efforts
there.
I will mention in regard to the legislation, again, as with
homeowners, to remove the option there regardless of the
context is something we think is a bad--it is a bad policy
outcome.
Federal facilities ought to have flexibility in the same
way that homeowners ought to. There are certain things that
will make sense in particular contexts. There are certain
things that won't. But to remove gas and coal-fired, for
example, from, you know, across the Federal footprint really
hamstrings several things. You know, there is not just cost of
operation in terms of the utility bills that the Government is
going to pay over time, it also affects the way you are going
to engineer the buildings. This is also going to, you know,
affect delivery timelines. That in turn is going to affect
mission readiness.
So again, the view here is by having a suite of options
there, that gives you flexibility, technical flexibility,
financial flexibility to do what makes sense in a particular
context.
Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. Another bill I am excited we
are discussing today is H.R. 4626, the Don't Mess With My Home
Appliances Act. This bill prohibits the Secretary from
prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards for a
product that is not technologically feasible and economically
justified.
Mr. Novak, we saw the previous administration finalize a
number of conservation and efficiency, excuse me, standards
that covered a range of home appliance products. Do you believe
these standards, finalized by the previous administration, were
technologically feasible or economically justified? And you
have 8 seconds, sir, please.
Mr. Novak. Again, I will take that question for the record.
I know that I have been working with the team that has been
working on the rules around this to assess the rules.
One of the things that this legislation aims to do, again,
is to localize some of the assessment here of the efficiency
standards around appliances. And again, I think by refocusing
this on significant benefit, significant savings, looking at
the utility--again, does it work for the consumer? And what are
the tradeoffs there in regard to utility versus energy
efficiency?
Mr. Latta. Pardon me.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and 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. Novak, I have got a couple of questions for you. The--
are you aware of the DOE estimate that the average American
wastes as much as $400, or up to 20 percent of their annual
utility bill, on energy leaks, drafts, and outdated heating and
cooling systems?
Mr. Novak. I am not familiar with that----
Ms. DeGette. You are not----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Statistic.
Ms. DeGette [continuing]. Aware of that. OK. Do you--are
you aware that many Americans are having leaks to their
systems?
Mr. Novak. Actually, I take that back. I do believe I have
read about this----
Ms. DeGette. Yes.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. The--yes.
Ms. DeGette. So you are aware of that?
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Are you familiar with the organization the
International Energy Conservation Code?
Mr. Novak. I am familiar with the Code, correct.
Ms. DeGette. OK, IECC. Are you aware that they recommend
tackling those issues by adjusting air tightness in the
building envelope and requiring better sealing to reduce
uncontrolled air movement in a building?
Mr. Novak. Correct. I am----
Ms. DeGette. Yes, OK.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Generally familiar, yes----
Ms. DeGette. Super.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. With the Conservation Code.
Ms. DeGette. Are you aware that DOE determined that the
2024 IECC reduced--would reduce--or reduce energy costs by 6.6
percent?
Mr. Novak. I am not sure I am familiar with that statistic.
Ms. DeGette. OK, would you----
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. But you are not--you wouldn't question that
statistic if--I mean, I am telling you that is what they said.
Mr. Novak. OK.
Ms. DeGette. Would you question that statistic?
Mr. Novak. I don't have any reason, as I sit here----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. To question that statistic, no.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, DOE, in fact, estimated the
cumulative savings from installing modern energy codes between
2010 and 2040 at $182 billion annually. Were you aware of that?
Mr. Novak. I am not familiar with that statistic.
Ms. DeGette. OK, well, I will tell you that was what they
said.
So what those energy codes mean for an average home, I
would like to offer for the record a study from the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Mr. Chairman, that found the
average homeowner could save almost $3,000 annually for single-
family homes with the 2024 IECC, and I ask unanimous consent to
put that in the record.
Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF03/20250916/118615/HHRG-119-IF03-20250916-SD017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. DeGette. OK. So Mr. Novak, in the budget proposal that
Secretary Wright proposed for DOE, that would cut the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 74 percent. Is that
correct?
Mr. Novak. I would have to take that question for the
record to----
Ms. DeGette. Really?
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Go back and look at the budget--
Ms. DeGette. You don't know the answer to that question?
You don't know that the budget proposal said that it would be
cut by 74 percent?
Mr. Novak. I, you know, I don't work----
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. In that program office, so----
Ms. DeGette. Sir, right here I have got it. And guess what?
I will have my staff give you a copy of it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to put
that in the record too.
Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF03/20250916/118615/HHRG-119-IF03-20250916-SD017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. So I will tell you that is what it
says: 74 percent.
Now, maybe you don't know this either, but I am going to
ask you: Isn't it true that President Trump's budget would cut
$4.25 billion from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, which helps low-income families meet the costs of
heating and cooling their homes?
Mr. Novak. Again, I am--this is quite a----
Ms. DeGette. You don't know that either?
Mr. Novak. Well, what I will----
Ms. DeGette. Wow.
Mr. Novak. What I will say is----
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Novak. this is actually quite a distance from the eight
bills that I am here to testify to today.
Ms. DeGette. OK, well, I know, but you are here--but you
are supposedly an energy expert.
So I will tell you I have got the budget right here, and it
says that--Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put
that in the record, too.
Mr. Latta. Without objection----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. Now, maybe you know this, that there--about
the reports that keep fossil-fired power plants running could
cost consumers 3 to $6 billion a year. And last month DOE
issued an emergency order to keep a Michigan power plant online
past its entire--intended retirement account. Were you aware of
that?
Mr. Novak. I am aware of the Campbell plan and the
emergency order----
Ms. DeGette. And the intended----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. I am aware of----
Ms. DeGette [continuing]. Past the intended retirement day,
are you aware of that?
Mr. Novak. I am aware that the--any additional costs go
through a FERC rate-making proceeding----
Ms. DeGette. Well, no, you are not answering my question.
They told them to keep it on past the intended retirement date.
Yes or no?
Mr. Novak. I actually believe the facts of the----
Ms. DeGette. Oh, you are not going to answer that.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. With the Campbell plant----
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Were it was being retired before
its--the end of its scheduled working life.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Novak. It was in accelerated retirement----
Ms. DeGette. So----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. According to the plant operator.
Ms. DeGette. So you think it is not past the intended
retirement date.
Mr. Novak. I believe the Campbell plant was a retirement
prior to the ended----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Or the scheduled----
Ms. DeGette. Great.
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, we would love to work with you
on these issues, but we can't do it when the administration is
cutting all of the funding for people to retrofit their--and
improve their homes.
And I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired, and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Texas's 11th District for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and almost 80 million
Americans voted for a new energy policy because the last
administration failed at theirs.
So Mr. Novak, thank you for being here, and you are doing a
good job, and we appreciate the fact that you are trying to
provide affordable, reliable energy to every American, and in
direct opposition of what we saw the previous 4 years.
Natural gas plays a huge role in this equation, and not
just in homes, but also in managing costs for businesses. So I
want to look at what EPCA has required DOE to do to ensure that
any new standards are both technologically feasible as well as
economically justified. So my first question, which I know you
have touched on a little bit, but I will give you some time to
expand: How does DOE weigh the projected energy savings against
the upfront costs that consumers will bear when these savings
might be modest or indistinguishable?
Mr. Novak. Well, I think that points up why the bill is
before the committee, which is the idea to sharpen the
assessment of that tradeoff there between utility and the
energy efficiency gain to the consumer. It is something that,
at least in a lot of people's experience, seems to be a bit
off. Part of it is that the calculus now includes some things
that are quite broad--social cost of carbon, for example,
greenhouse gases, which is something a little bit broader and
different than what is the energy consumption compared to the
usage of this particular device and what is the utility of the
device.
Mr. Pfluger. So when a proposed standard only offers a very
small amount of savings, what process does DOE use to decide
whether it is worth moving forward on that?
And what input do you gather to pull the facts?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question back to staff.
That is involved in the project office that actually performs
the assessment here.
Mr. Pfluger. I will move to Federal facilities and section
433 implementation of the Energy Independence Security Act,
which requires phasing out fossil fuel use in new or newly
renovated Federal buildings by 2030.
So how is DOE approaching this requirement while ensuring
that critical facilities--whether they be Federal courthouses
or VA facilities or military bases--that they can continue to
operate reliably, number one, but also in a cost-efficient
manner?
Mr. Novak. It is a challenge, to be blunt, and it is a
challenge just not in regard to the existing Federal footprint,
but the addition of any new Federal facilities where the
requirement here is to basically be all-electric. So this is
one of the things, again, that points up, you know, the--you
know, what is motivating the bill here is to, again, get some
flexibility here so that the energy solution both for the
existing footprint as well as any new facilities is something
that takes into account local delivery options as well as
design specs, delivery timeframes, et cetera.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, look, the mandate of electrification in
a lot of these facilities was one of the reasons that millions
of Americans came out and said that is just not realistic. It
is not feasible. It is not realistic.
Have you assessed the cost implications for agencies that
would need to replace natural gas systems?
I mean, what does that look like if we were to go forward,
and would it even be possible to do that by 2030?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question back for the
record to see if we have a particular cost estimate----
Mr. Pfluger. And what about the feasibility? I mean, just
from your experience.
Mr. Novak. It is a challenge. I will just say it is a
challenge.
Mr. Pfluger. Which types of Federal buildings, agencies,
and entities would suffer the most?
And which Americans and which populations would--
demographics would suffer?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question back for the
record to see if we have heat-mapped that against sort of
location and community.
Mr. Pfluger. I am worried about, again, military bases, VA
hospitals, the facilities that are providing care and help to
people that you mandate a switch to electrification, which is
not feasible. Would DOE support clarifying or updating section
433 to provide flexibility for installations when natural gas
remains the most reliable option?
Mr. Novak. We would.
Mr. Pfluger. Very good. Is there anything else that you
previously were asked but didn't have time to answer that you
would like to expand on in the next 45 seconds?
Mr. Novak. I think a lot of questions, but we will keep
moving ahead. Thank you, though, for the opportunity, yes.
Mr. Pfluger. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time, 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. I want to
thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing today.
Mr. Novak, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to
set spending levels. Is that correct?
Mr. Novak. I am sorry, could you repeat the question?
Ms. Matsui. The Constitution gives Congress the authority
set spending levels. Is that correct?
Mr. Novak. Appropriations? Correct.
Ms. Matsui. So why does DOE's 2025 spending plan completely
disregard the spending levels set by Congress?
Mr. Novak. It is----
Ms. Matsui. Congress enacted $318 million for solar energy,
but DOE is illegally using that funding for other purposes.
Congress enacted $137 million for wind energy, but DOE has
illegally reallocated 78 percent of that funding. This is
illegal, plain and simple, and it demonstrates a shocking and
unprecedented disregard for congressional authority and the
law. Do you disagree?
Mr. Novak. Again, that question is quite a ways from the
eight bills that I am here to talk to today, but I would be
happy to take that question for the record.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, let me just say that the general
counsel is explicitly responsible for determining the
Department's authoritative position on any question of law.
Now, is that correct?
Mr. Novak. That is correct.
Ms. Matsui. OK, OK. Now, I am looking at this and realizing
that the fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill--OK, section
301(d) of the 2024 spending bill clearly states that the
spending tables in the explanatory statement are legally
binding. And section 1105 of the 2025 spending bill states that
the terms and conditions of the 2024 spending bill remain in
force, including the requirement that DOE must follow the
spending tables and the explanatory statement.
Now, let me just say this. The Department of Energy is
clearly and plainly not quite understanding what is legal here,
and it is this committee's responsibility to hold DOE
accountable. Mr. Novak, if Congress passes a continuing
resolution on September 30, will you commit to spend the full
appropriations enacted by Congress?
Mr. Novak. Again, that is----
Ms. Matsui. It is outside of your purview, even though you
are the general counsel and----
Mr. Novak. Well, it is outside of the subjects on which I
was asked to be here today----
Ms. Matsui. Yes, your----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. To testify on, these eight bills.
Ms. Matsui. But----
Mr. Novak. What I will commit to is, you know, it is my job
to advise the Department and the program element leads in
regard to what the law requires.
Ms. Matsui. So you won't commit to spending the amounts for
each office and program as specifically required in the law. So
would you, as general counsel, look into this?
Mr. Novak. I am sorry, what was your question, ma'am?
Ms. Matsui. As general counsel, I believe that is one of
your responsibilities, is it not?
Mr. Novak. It is, to advise on what the law requires, law
and regulations require.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Novak, I authored the Healthier and
Greener Schools Act, and that bill was enacted as part of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and created the Renew America's
Schools grant program. The Renew America's Schools program
provides funding to schools to install upgrades that improve
air quality and student health and save energy. Unfortunately,
since President Trump took the office, DOE has withheld that
funding, denying children across our country access to cleaner
air.
Recently the nonpartisan GAO found that DOE has violated
the law by withholding the funding. So what is your response to
the GOE finding?
Mr. Novak. I am familiar with the GAO report. I have read
that, and I would be happy to take for the record a response to
the question of the Department's throughput in regard to the
GAO report on the----
Ms. Matsui. OK, well----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Act issues.
Ms. Matsui. Well, DOE must obligate congressional
appropriations during their period of availability. And so I am
looking at this, trying to figure out how we actually go
through this process. Does the Department intend to cancel
funding for the Renew America's Schools program?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question for the
record.
Ms. Matsui. OK. But I will just say, are you aware that OMB
proposed canceling the Renew America's Schools program in the
2026 budget? Do you have to take that back also?
Mr. Novak. I will. Again, it is just beyond the scope of
what I prepared for today.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So do you recognize that only Congress has
the authority to cancel this funding? Is that--that is part of
the law, is it not true?
Mr. Novak. That is my understanding, yes.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So if Congress does not cancel this
funding, would DOE follow the law and resume awards under this
program?
Mr. Novak. Again, that is beyond the scope of what I
prepared for today, but I would be happy to take the question
for the record.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I will continue to follow up on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired,
and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Tennessee's 1st District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Novak, for being here today. In my district
and throughout the east Tennessee region we are seeing
significant advances in nuclear innovation, driven in large
part by the President's leadership and the work of this
committee. That is one of the reasons why I am glad that the
Energy Choice Act includes all sources of energy such as
nuclear and other emerging technologies.
I guess my question is, you mentioned the Department is
supportive of the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, which
ensures energy neutrality for Federal facilities. Can you
explain the cost to the taxpayer to transition a Federal
facility from oil and gas to other sources, and how that
transition might impact reliability?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take it in terms of the--whatever
analysis has been prepared by the Department. I will have to
take that question for the record, but I would be more than
happy to respond.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you, sir. Can you explain why
requiring evaluations for mechanical insulation--installations
in Federal buildings saves taxpayer dollars and improves energy
efficiency?
Mr. Novak. So the statutory audits, the 4-year statutory
audits contemplated by NECPA, currently look at the envelope of
the building. But clearly, there are other sources or other
places where energy is lost.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Novak. So again, the legislation, what it aims to do is
just address that gap and to include that within the scope of
the statutory audit. So----
Mrs. Harshbarger. How many Federal buildings do we have you
have to do that with?
Mr. Novak. There are a lot, yes.
Mrs. Harshbarger. I would be curious to know.
I have heard from manufacturers in my district that
complying with the DOE's energy efficiency standards has been
very difficult for them, especially when previous
administrations changed their testing standard after they
changed their energy efficiency standards. So can you provide
an update of where DOE is at in the--updating the process rule?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question under--for the
record there, yes.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, that would be good. And really,
that is all I have for you today, sir. So you are getting off
easy from the lady from east Tennessee. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's 20th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I ask questions or
make comments here, let me thank you for all the discussion
about the Weatherization Act today. I appreciate the full
committee's leadership and the subcommittee's leadership,
echoing their sentiments to try and get something done on that
important bill. So I thank you.
Mr. Novak, earlier this year when Secretary Wright
testified before the subcommittee, I had asked him about the
status of previously appropriated funding going from DOE's
office to State and Community Energy Programs, to State
partners. This includes funding for programs like the State
Energy Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, and the
Weatherization Readiness Fund.
Secretary Wright stated that DOE was working to meet the
typical July 1 deadline and expected to have the money out
shortly thereafter. And to his and the Department's credit, on
July 8 DOE sent a press release celebrating the release of
these funds and acknowledging President Trump's leadership in
tackling energy affordability issues. I entered that press
release, this press release, into the hearing record at a
similar subcommittee hearing last week, so I won't belabor that
point. But I would like to ask you, Mr. Novak, for a status
update on these funds actually being accessible to States so
that our constituents may benefit from them.
At last week's hearing we heard testimony that
approximately only 6 of 56 States and territories have had
their State plans approved by DOE. So, sir, can you provide any
clarity on this? Are States being held up from accessing or
spending SCEP weatherization and weatherization readiness funds
because DOE has been slow to approve State plans?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question for the
record. I would be more than happy to follow up with the SCEP
team to figure out what the status of the funding is.
Mr. Tonko. OK, I appreciate that, but a number of
colleagues on this panel have sent letters to the agency for an
update, and I would like a commitment to get that ASAP from the
Department if--can we get that commitment, please?
Mr. Novak. Yes, and I will follow up also with our CI team
to ensure that we have responded to the correspondence.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Novak. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. If there are in fact States currently in this
situation, can you provide a timeline for when those States
should expect to have their plans approved?
Mr. Novak. I will take that question up with the SCEP team,
as well, and follow up on the record.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I know DOE has lost a lot of personnel in
the past 9 months, which I believe may include some positions
who have historically reviewed these plans or otherwise helped
administer these programs. Are you seeing the effects of the
loss of these full-time-equivalent positions in implementing
DOE programs?
Mr. Novak. I don't have a line of sight on there being a
human resource gap, for example, in regard to the
administration of community-based grants through the SCEP
program or other programs.
What I would say is, as a result of the DRP program, you
know, we have fewer people. We have fewer people. But a lot of
the effort at this point is just making sure we are allocating
people where people are needed to make sure that the work is
getting done.
I will be happy, when--in having the conversation with the
SCEP team about, you know, the press release and the release of
the funding and the status and timing--there was a conversation
I had earlier in response to a question--this bill that is
before the committee is the first time it would implement a
statutory framework for the administration of the program. So
one of the things that I am eager to ask and will follow up on
is how we plan to staff the implementation of that framework.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And finally, Mr. Novak, I would like
to take issue with some of your testimony about H.R. 1355. You
stated the bill, and I quote, ``mandates a new Government
program.'' I would like to ask you to clarify this. Has the
Department of Energy administered the Weatherization Readiness
Fund for the past several years?
Mr. Novak. It is. I think my--what I intended to say there,
I think, is we have a new statutory framework. And the
readiness program, I believe, is a new component, if I am not
mistaken. And if I have misspoken on that, my apologies. But
the readiness program, as I understand it, is intended to fund
site--the improvement of site conditions that would otherwise
preclude weatherization efforts.
So, for example, there is a safety issue at the site, there
is a hole in the roof, you know, it doesn't make any sense to
do insulation on the envelope if you have got a hole in the
roof. So my understanding is the readiness is sort of the
preparatory site work, if you will.
Mr. Tonko. Well, let me ask this, then: Has DOE previously
published guidance with program rules to support the
implementation of Weatherization Readiness Fund?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question for the
record.
Mr. Tonko. Because I think they have. While I agree this
bill will authorize the Readiness Fund for the first time, I
would like the record to show that this program already exists.
It is doing good work being celebrated by DOE press releases,
and it should be this committee's responsibility to make
certain that we are formally authorizing the program. And I
think it is essential. It has proven to be a benefit to
consumers.
So with that, I thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and
he yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Iowa's 1st District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking
Member Castor, for holding this hearing on building and
appliance standard legislative proposals.
At our earlier hearing, I raised serious questions about
the unintended consequences of efficiency mandates. When I
asked a witness about the environmental impact of replacing
appliances every 6 to 8 years rather than every 15 to 20
years--for example, landfill burden, critical mineral waste
from computerized components--she couldn't provide an answer.
Yet we are making these mandates supposedly for environmental
protection.
This epitomizes the problem: The Federal Government is
imposing costly regulations without understanding their real-
world impact. Iowa families shopping for new appliances
shouldn't be limited in their choices all for marginal
efficiency gains with increased costs and less longevity.
Today's legislation offers a path forward, and I am eager
to discuss it. We can restore consumer choice, eliminate
regulatory churn that produces diminishing returns, and reframe
our outlook to find significant energy savings. Let's
prioritize policies that work for families, not aspirational
energy savings.
Mr. Novak, when the DOE calculates the environmental
benefits of efficiency standards, are you aware if they account
for the increased landfill burden when appliances need to be
replaced two or three times more frequently, or for the
critical minerals that are lost or--and are dumped in
landfills?
And how do you weigh the short-term energy savings against
sending more computerized appliances with critical minerals, as
I mentioned, to landfills?
Mr. Novak. I don't believe that that is currently within
the scope of the assessment. I think it makes a lot of sense
that it would be, however. But, again, I will take that
question for the record, just to make sure I have spoken
correctly on that.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Well, thank you. That is valuable
information because if it is not one of the things considered,
then--as we go through, you know, replacing appliances, it is
something that should be considered.
Mr. Novak, my district has successfully balanced renewable
energy with reliable baseload power. How does the DOE account
for regional differences in energy costs and fuel availability?
A regulation that might make sense in California could be
economically devastating for Iowa families who rely on
affordable natural gas heating.
Mr. Novak. Well, again, this is the point I was trying to
hit in response to some prior questions that I fielded, namely
that choice--this is highly contextual. And again, what may
make sense in Iowa may not make sense in Florida or some part
of California, and that optionality here gives you the ability
to take into place, again, local--you know, what is available
locally. And, again, that is going to vary place to place.
Conditions are going to vary place to place. And the idea here
is that it is a smart policy to preserve some of that
flexibility.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. H.R. 4690 would repeal
section 433's requirement to eliminate fossil fuels from
Federal buildings. Even countries with aggressive climate
policies maintain fuel diversity for critical facilities,
prioritizing energy security through fuel diversity rather than
single-source mandates.
Given that our NATO allies are maintaining fuel flexibility
for critical infrastructure, especially after Europe's energy
crisis exposed the risks of overdependence on single sources,
how does DOE view section 433 forcing U.S. Federal facilities,
including military installations, onto an already strained
electric grid?
Shouldn't our energy security strategy align with our
allies' approach of maintaining backup generation capabilities?
Mr. Novak. Again, as a general matter we support fuel
flexibility.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Great. Thank you very much.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington's 8th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Counsel Novak, for being here today.
I just have to say that, like my colleagues, I am
incredibly disturbed and frustrated by the pattern of actions
that your Department has undertaken in the past year that seem
to just be taking us backwards. Specifically, canceling permits
like the one for Revolution Wind that my colleague,
Representative Peters, spoke about that was 80 percent done
employing hundreds, if not well over 1,000 people, and then had
the permit revoked, the kind of uncertainty this creates for
investors in the energy of the future.
And, you know, this pushing us back to reliance on
greenhouse gas-emitting oil and gas, opposing efficiency
standards, I don't even know why this is a controversial issue.
We should all be interested in conservation.
Today, though, while I have you here, I would like to
discuss the Hanford cleanup. As you know, this site in
Washington State was critical to our national security during
World War II and the Cold War for weapons manufacturing, but
that has now resulted in the most contaminated nuclear waste
site in the entire Nation. It is a huge challenge to clean up.
I am sure you are also aware that this administration and
the Department of Energy have legal and moral obligations, per
the Tri-Party Agreement that was created after decades of trust
building and painstaking negotiations between our State, the
Department of Energy, and the EPA.
So just a yes-or-no question, Counselor Novak: As acting
general counsel of the Department of Energy, do you reaffirm
DOE's commitment to fulfill all obligations under that Tri-
Party Agreement and the consent decree?
Mr. Novak. I do. Again, the topic here is a bit beyond the
scope of what I prepared for today. I am generally familiar
with Hanford, and we are committed----
Ms. Schrier. I----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. We are committed to that Tri-
Party--
Ms. Schrier. I appreciate that commitment because we have
been getting very mixed messages lately, and it sounds like
your boss may actually be wavering on that commitment when we
are just weeks away from implementation of vitrification, or
glass preserving--storing nuclear waste in a safe way.
Just last week Secretary Wright fired the top official
overseeing the Hanford cleanup because he said he wanted to
``go in a different direction.'' That sets off alarm bells in
Washington State. And so since then we haven't been able to get
a straight answer. One day DOE releases a public statement
saying that nothing has changed, and a day later Secretary
Wright tells Congress that DOE may delay commissioning of the
waste treatment plant. This would most certainly violate that
Tri-Party Agreement.
Again, we are weeks away. This has been in the works for
years after painstaking negotiation. And we need to deal, you
know, first with the low-activity waste and chemicals and then
with the high-activity waste. So I just want to know, will the
Department for sure meet its obligation in this agreement to
begin this first stage, the hot commissioning of the direct
feed, low-activity waste facility at Hanford by October 15?
Mr. Novak. Again, it is beyond the scope of what I am
prepared for today. However, I will say we are committed to the
Tri-Party Agreement. I am not currently aware of anything that
would necessitate a delay, which would, of course, require
consent. I would be happy to take the question for the record
to see whether there is anything else out there, but I am not
aware of anything as I sit here today.
Ms. Schrier. You know, what I would love is, since you are
in agreement that this needs to be honored, if you would take
that directly to the Secretary to make sure he is on board,
because our State is so tired of this whiplash back and forth.
The technology has been set, the contractors are there, $24
billion of taxpayer money has been spent on research and
development and the construction of this facility. We are so
ready to get rid of this nuclear waste before it intrudes into
the Columbia River that provides drinking water, that supports
endangered species. And we are feeling this urgency. And so to
hear that there is contemplation about taking a different
direction is incredibly alarming for Washingtonians, and we
fully expect that this will be honored. And I know that our
Governor is committing to pursuing legal action. So he would be
engaging with you if it is not honored.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina's 7th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being
here today, sir.
I think one of the biggest--the most frustrating things
that I hear from constituents often is that Washington is so
keen on creating rules for the rest of everybody to live under
that don't make a lot of sense. And we look at these--this
array of bills that you are testifying about today that
Washington seems to be micromanaging even appliances in
people's homes.
During the last administration, we saw mandates that
restricted consumer choice at really unbelievable levels and
raised costs while offering, really, no benefit. Thankfully, I
think we have a Congress and a President who understands that.
The President has talked about stoves, gas stoves. He has
talked about showerheads specifically. That is why I introduced
the SHOWER Act. And when I ran for Congress I never thought
that I would be dealing with this, but during the last
administration we just saw this complete war on energy
production, certainly, but also energy savings with these
really capricious and arbitrary regulations that were coming
out of Washington, DC.
The SHOWER Act restores common sense by clarifying the
definition of a showerhead to reflect established industry
standards, ensuring that families have access to products that
work while still maintaining efficiency where appropriate. This
is about protecting homeowners from bureaucratic overreach at
the--at its very core.
So Mr. Novak, the DOE has acknowledged that some past
appliance standards yielded little savings while raising costs.
Wouldn't codifying a clear, consistent showerhead definition
through the SHOWER Act give consumers more certainty than the
back-and-forth we have seen across administrations?
Mr. Novak. Yes, and it adopts the definition from the
Society of Mechanical Engineers, which seems like a sound
source.
Mr. Fry. Does this Act--and I know you have reviewed it--
does this Act go in line with what the President's agenda is
with his Executive order related to showerheads?
Mr. Novak. It does.
Mr. Fry. OK. DOE is charged with balancing efficiency with
consumer affordability and choice. Isn't a statutory fix like
the SHOWER Act a more direct, lower-cost way to provide that
clarity, compared to continual regulatory churn?
Mr. Novak. Yes, it would adopt the definition and you would
have a period where additional rules would be established
pursuant to that definition.
Mr. Fry. In what ways do you think that this would help
solve that issue?
Mr. Novak. Well, I think it just gives you clarity. You
know, it gives you a well-settled, engineered definition of
what a showerhead is, with the idea being that you ought to
have more--consumers ought to have more flexibility, that there
are tradeoffs. We can all think of the practical tradeoff. If,
you know, you have got a big head of hair and you don't get a
lot of pressure out of the thing, you spend more time in the
shower, and that is more time heating the water, that is more
energy consumed doing that, it is more water down the drain.
There are trades here. There are puts and takes around
this. And I think the view here is that this would enable some
more flexibility for manufacturers and more choice for
consumers.
Mr. Fry. And I think that is the underlying goal, is let
the consumers decide what works for them, right?
Mr. Novak. Correct.
Mr. Fry. This is why some people get solar panels on their
house, and others don't. This is why people elect to get
electric stoves, and some like gas. This is the same type of
model. Let the--educate the consumer, and let them make the
right choice. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Novak. I do.
Mr. Fry. From a regulatory--does regulatory clarity in the
industry--knowing that DOE can't redefine common appliances
arbitrarily, does that create more space for innovation than
maybe small, incremental subsidy programs?
Mr. Novak. I think so. I think so. The idea here is more
flexibility means more innovation.
Mr. Fry. Mr. Novak, you have--there is testimony out there
and commentary out there that repeated rounds of appliance
standards are now producing diminishing returns. Would you
share that sentiment?
And how would a statutory definition like in the SHOWER Act
or any of these other bills help manufacturers focusing--focus
on delivering the features consumers actually want, as opposed
to the ever-shifting goalposts coming out of Washington, DC?
Mr. Novak. Well, I think the objective, as I understand it,
and I--you know, I appreciate I am not the drafter of this
legislation, I am just here to testify to it, but I think the
intent here is to localize the cost-benefit analysis, to really
focus on the consumer and the consumer experience, to make sure
you have got a threshold in regard to what energy savings you
are chasing. If it is marginal savings but you are giving up a
lot of utility, that is something that doesn't make a lot of
sense.
So the idea here is, you know, you want flexibility for
manufacturers, you want choice for consumers, and you can do
that with an existing statutory framework that helps, you know,
if you will, kind of settle things, if you will, for
manufacturers, realizing that, you know, they have their own
reliance issues.
Mr. Fry. Absolutely. I think that consumer choice is
essential.
I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
He is running a tight ship today, so I am going to yield
back before he gets me with the gavel.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired, and he yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Texas's 33rd District for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And as
someone that is getting ready to kick off the start of the
outdoor sportsman's season, I really hate that something like
managing water has become so controversial, managing our
natural resources so we can continue to do things like enjoy
the great outdoors. This is really sad that we are here.
You know, energy efficiency is not about taking away
choices. It is about trying to lower bills, reducing strain on
the grid, and strengthening U.S. energy independence. And like
I said last week, energy efficiency has a long, bipartisan
tradition. Of course, Congress passed the EPCA in the 1970s to
reduce waste and support American innovation, and then you have
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, where you had
95 Republicans voting yes. And that created the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation block program, and that is when
President George W. Bush from my State was President of the
United States.
And so today, strong efficiency standards reduce demand at
peak hours, which helps keep the lights on and lowers the risk
of blackouts, especially in a fast-growing State like ours,
where it is a much bigger concern about how we use these
resources. Weatherization, stronger codes, updated standards
cut household costs month to month while improving comfort and
health. And so we want to make sure that we are obviously
cutting waste at home and in buildings, and so that also means
we have to make sure that we are making sure that it is not as
volatile of an energy market and more homegrown energy
independence.
And for low-income families especially, and renters that
have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on
energy, energy efficiency is one of the easiest ways to help
deliver relief and improve quality of life. That is one of the
reasons why I am a cosponsor of the reauthorization of the
EECBG program, and I support strengthening the Weatherization
Assistance Program to also help low-income households.
And like I said last week, American engineers and
manufacturers have been at the forefront of appliance
innovation for a century. And we don't want to walk back those
standards so we can let the Chinese take over the space. That
would be scary if the Chinese took over this space and they
were the ones that were doing all the innovation in this area.
And so let's be smart. Let's be clear. Let's be honest
about it, that efficiency and codes are not mandates. They are
smart cost savings investments that expand consumer choice and
give families healthier, more affordable homes. We don't want
to--we want to make sure not to gut DOE's authorities in ways
that create regulatory uncertainty and hurt manufacturers and
drive up costs for families.
And so, Mr. Novak, I wanted to ask you. Manufacturers have
said they want clear and consistent certification requirements.
Wouldn't gutting DOE's authority to set efficiency standards
create confusion and raise costs for businesses?
Mr. Novak. Manufacturers benefit, obviously, from
certainty. There are tooling costs, there are lead times to
retooling and, to be blunt, standards. And they have a--you
know, they have competitive effects, right? You know,
competitors have to meet a particular standard. The standard in
some ways becomes a bit of a competitive moat.
There are a lot of policy puts and takes around this,
around efficiency. And I think the proposed legislation, at
least as I read it, as I understand it, it isn't the
abandonment of efficiency. I think it is sharpening the
analysis that we undertake when we look at whether an
efficiency gain makes sense. If it is a marginal efficiency
gain that comes at the cost of significant utility, that is
something that doesn't seem like a wise policy choice.
Mr. Veasey. Yes.
Mr. Novak. So----
Mr. Veasey. Let me ask you this real quick, too, before my
time expires. I know that several of the bills would scale back
DOE's ability to set or update appliance standards. Wouldn't
that basically be giving the Chinese companies that are under
control of the Chinese Communist Party--wouldn't that be--that
are trying to aggressively move into this high efficiency
appliance market--wouldn't that give them an advantage over
American companies?
Why would we want to do that to the--why would we want to
give the Chinese an advantage?
Mr. Novak. I am not quite sure I understand the premise of
the question in regard to the competitive advantage that this
would give a geopolitical competitor in terms of access to our
market.
Again, my understanding of the intent of the bill, my read
of the bill, is that this is something that would focus, it
would localize, if you will, the analysis that we do to make
sure that the efficiency makes sense at the appliance level,
the appliance does what it is supposed to do, somebody not
having to do multiple cycles on something, that the energy
gains we are chasing with efficiency, that there is some
significance threshold there, that we are not getting into that
diminishing return issue.
But I think, you know, in a free marketplace such as ours,
people will meet that consumer need. They will meet that
consumer demand.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired----
Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. And he yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 12th District for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for being here. I will be brief. I am sorry I wasn't here when
Mr. Pfluger asked his questions, but I do want to thank you and
thank the Department of Energy. Please take down the street how
thankful we are in Texas that the next round of HALEU was
approved just a few weeks ago for the SMR being built in
Abilene, Texas. So thank, please, the Secretary and all
involved in that. It is very important as we progress in the
SMR race.
Can you describe, sir, how the Department of Energy has
adjusted to rulemaking processes to ensure that future
standards are more cost effective, particularly for the
appliances that impact small businesses and homeowners?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take for the record the question
of--as the rulemaking under the existing regime.
Mr. Goldman. Yes.
Mr. Novak. Again, in regard to the bills that are before
the committee, the idea here is to improve the focus, to
sharpen, if you will, the assessment of, basically, the puts
and takes around efficiency.
Mr. Goldman. And let me follow up on that. So let's discuss
that. The rulemaking that is now in place versus what was in
place prior to you all's arrival at the Department of Energy, I
mean, particularly the mandates that were put on appliance
makers, for example, versus what you all are doing now to
remove those mandates, and some laws that we are passing here
to remove those mandates, is that in the end not most cost
effective for the end game, the consumer, the American public?
Mr. Novak. I think, ultimately, that is the policy
objective here, is to ensure that, again, the analysis that is
done in regard to energy efficiency is one that is smart, that
is informed, that is, again, localized to that consumer
experience and the particular efficiency gain versus the
utility of the appliance that is at issue there.
I will have to take--again, take for the record the
question in regard to kind of how we are doing current
rulemaking. I will take that back to the team that manages
that, and I would be more than happy to get you a response.
Mr. Goldman. Perfect.
Mr. Novak. But again, that is the ultimate objective, is to
have sharp, focused, informed cost-benefit analysis on this.
Mr. Goldman. Perfect. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Texas's 7th District for 5
minutes for questions.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta and
Ranking Member Castor. This is sort of the Texans' row, I
guess, right now, a series of questions from Texans.
But I do thank you, Mr. Novak, for being here today, and I
definitely want to follow up on some of the things that I know
have already been raised this morning. But there was--earlier
there was a bit of discussion about all of the above, best of
the above, different ways that we can get our energy onto the
grid and into people's homes and help bring down the cost of
living, which--frankly, we are in a cost of living crisis right
now. We discussed it at last week's hearing, the--you know,
basic necessities for financial stability and--but the price of
home ownership, the cost of all sorts of essentials is just
going up and up. It continues to go up, and these are huge
challenges.
In Texas, arguably, we have done a great job of
diversifying our grid and bringing to the grid all sorts of
different kinds of generation, and it really is a model. A lot
of people have said that the way that we do things in Texas is
instructive. And of course, in Texas we do have an all-of-the-
above approach, and we have invested in not only the
infrastructure but also the technologies of today and tomorrow.
And one of the challenges we have right now is that Texas
does energy of all kinds, and we have really led not just the
country but the world in this energy innovation. But we know
that a lot of that can only come to market, can only reach kind
of scale to be implemented by partnering with the Department of
Energy in doing this critical research. And right now the
Department of Energy is illegally blocking funding for research
into the next generation of energy technologies, technologies
that would help reduce household bills.
The Office of Clean Energy Demonstration's work on hydrogen
and carbon capture promised to deliver lower emissions and less
expensive energy for years to come. On May 30 the DOE announced
the termination of 24 Office of Clean Energy Demonstration
Awards totaling $3.7 billion. And they included several
projects near my district in Houston and along the Gulf Coast.
And so that included $330 million for ExxonMobil's clean
hydrogen complex in Baytown, 270 million for Calpine's carbon
storage project in Baytown, 99 million for Orsted's clean
methanol project east of Houston, and $375 million for Eastman
Chemicals' plastics recycling project in Longview, just up the
road.
So Mr. Novak, I want to ask you, during Secretary Wright's
budget hearing before this committee earlier this year, he
mentioned that each project received an individualized review
before it was terminated. Can you just briefly answer which
official had the final signoff on the terminations of these 24
projects?
Mr. Novak. Yes. It is, again, a little bit beyond the scope
of what I am here for today, but I am happy to give you an
answer in regard to the portfolio review process, which got up
and running before I joined the Department, but I am obviously
involved in the throughput on this.
By design, the process starts in each of the program
offices where the program offices are tasked, pursuant to the
Secretary's policy memo, to assessing the----
Mrs. Fletcher. Right.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Project for economic, technical
feasibility, the compliance with the terms, various--you know,
these awards take different--they take different forms.
Mrs. Fletcher. Right.
Mr. Novak. Some of them----
Mrs. Fletcher. And I have got limited time----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Have--OK.
Mrs. Fletcher. So I just want to make sure we talk about
these 24 grants----
Mr. Novak. Oh, correct.
Mrs. Fletcher [continuing]. As opposed to the process
particularly.
Mr. Novak. Right.
Mrs. Fletcher. Why were these specific grants selected for
review, and what process has leadership set out for selecting
grants like these to review?
Mr. Novak. Yes, so the tasking here was that each of the
program offices would review the entirety of their financial
assistance award portfolio. And they would then present
proposed terminations, modifications, continuations even, to a
committee of cross-functional stakeholders who were just a
recommending body so you would get diverse points of view----
Mrs. Fletcher. Right, and I am familiar with the memo.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. In regard to that.
Mrs. Fletcher. So----
Mr. Novak. Right. So then, from there, the issue just
returns to the program offices to make a determination as to
what they want to do to----
Mrs. Fletcher. And so who made the decision that these are
not economically and financially sound projects, each of these
24 projects?
Mr. Novak. That would be the head of the OCED office.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. And do you know the specific
justification?
Look, I have got 10 seconds left, so I will say it this way
because I know the chairman doesn't want me to run over. I am
going to submit questions for the record for you to return in
writing about the basis or justification for terminating each
of these grants. These are hugely important to folks in my
district and to people across the country and around the world.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Novak. And I would be happy to respond to that for the
record.
I will mention I think each of these projects is still
working its way through the appeal process----
Mr. Latta. Well, if you can----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. In the Department.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. Answer those for the record, that
would be great.
Mr. Novak. Oh, I am----
Mr. Latta. Yes, thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from New York's 14th District for 5 minutes for
questions.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Novak, I am glad you are joining us today. And, you
know, this hearing is focused on several bills regarding energy
efficiency. And this committee has seen several rollbacks of
energy efficiency standards and proposals to that end. Are you
familiar with how many Americans are employed by the energy
efficiency sector nationally?
Mr. Novak. I am not.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It is about 2.3 million, 2.3 million
workers. About 2 out of every 5 energy jobs in the United
States are related to energy efficiency. Can you guess what is
the fastest-growing category of energy efficiency work in the
United States?
Mr. Novak. I am not particularly good at guessing.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. That is all right.
Mr. Novak. So--yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It is construction.
Mr. Novak. OK.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So these are construction jobs, energy
efficiency jobs or construction jobs, installation, production,
manufacturing, HVAC, building materials, all of it.
Now, do you know how many jobs have been threatened or lost
due to the Trump administration's closures of clean energy
projects in the last 6 months or so, the first half of this
year?
Mr. Novak. I am not aware of any such analysis.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Ninety-one thousand. The Trump
administration and Department of Energy policies have cost
Americans 91,000 jobs nationwide in rollbacks on efficiency.
And, you know, these large numbers are statistics. They are
hard to--I think, people to understand when they show up on a
white paper.
But in Colorado's 8th District, Amprius Technologies
canceled plans to construct a $190 million battery plant in
Brighton, Colorado. In that same district, actually, another
company, VSK Energy, canceled plans for--due to the Trump
administration, canceled their plans to build solar panels, and
they scratched a $250 million investment and up to 900 jobs in
that same district.
In Georgia 12, an EV plant was canceled due to the Trump
administration and DOE's freezing of the EV charging program.
Register, Georgia, has a population of 157 people. They lost
out on 166 jobs, more jobs--they lost more jobs than they have
people in that town because of the cancellation and war on
renewable energy and clean energy here. In that same district,
a copper foil manufacturing plant went bankrupt as a result of
these rollbacks, and Augusta, Georgia, lost out on 350 jobs.
And, I mean, the list goes on. In South Carolina, 250 jobs
when the construction of an EV plant in Florence was halted due
to DOE's freezing of funds. I mean, we could go on. In Michigan
10th, 167 jobs were lost after $50 million worth of investment.
These are all freezes in renewable and clean energy
construction and development projects. This is an industry that
has been a source of jobs and growth. This administration, the
Trump administration, is destroying the American economy,
destroying American jobs, 91,000 jobs in this sector alone.
I have one simple question: In these towns and areas, what
is the DOE's plan to replace those jobs in those affected
areas?
Mr. Novak. I will say this is beyond the scope of what I am
prepared to testify to today. I would be happy to take the
question for the record in regard to the analysis that you
cited here regarding job loss.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So in your view--you are the general
counsel for the Department of Energy, that is correct?
Mr. Novak. I am acting.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Acting. And in all that you have seen,
have you seen any effort to replace these jobs that are being
canceled by the administration?
Mr. Novak. I have not. I am not sure----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You have not.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. That would come my way, but--yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we are seeing a concerted effort,
91,000 jobs already gone. Now, this is after the administration
has already released a revised report saying we have a million
less jobs in this economy than was originally reported. We are
actively killing plants and projects in rural places across
this country, and I am hearing today that there is no effort to
replace them.
And my time is up. I will--I yield back.
Mr. Latta. And if you would, just in writing, answer the
lady's question----
Mr. Novak. I----
Mr. Latta [continuing]. The gentlelady's question. Thank
you.
Mr. Novak. Yes, can't answer the question because I haven't
seen the analysis----
Mr. Latta. Well----
Mr. Novak [continuing]. But I would be happy to take the
question for the record. Yes, yes.
Mr. Latta. The--well, thank you very much. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts's 4th District for
5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, before I
speak with Mr. Novak, I do feel compelled to respond to a
previous comment from the gentleman from Alabama who, as an
aside, said that, you know, our side doesn't care if China
wins, you know--the kind of underhanded, inappropriate comment
that I just don't think belongs on this committee.
I was a member of the Select Committee on China for 2 years
last Congress and worked in good faith with Republicans on a
long-term strategy to outcompete the Chinese Communist Party.
But since the gentleman from Alabama wanted to raise the
subject, let's talk about how this administration is doing on
China. Let's raise it.
So first, after Congress passed bipartisan legislation to
force the divestment of TikTok, this President illegally
refused to force the divestment of TikTok, and indeed opened up
a White House account on a platform that Xi Jinping has
described as his biggest weapon in the ``smokeless
battlefield'' of ideological warfare.
This President has gutted funding for Radio Free Asia so
that in Indonesia, where there used to be 1 hour of American
programing and 1 hour of CCP programing, now there is just 2
hours of CCP programing.
This President invited to the White House--can't make this
up--his meme coin investors, some of whom with explicit ties to
the Chinese Communist Party. Those are the people, by the way,
who actually attended the dinner and were willing to be seen
publicly. What about all of the Trump coin investors who want
to keep their influence secret until a time and place of their
choosing where they can buy the President's China policy?
This President has dismantled a huge part of our Indo-
Pacific maritime strategy by attacking the Australians and our
ability to work with them to build nuclear submarines, to
project force in the Indo-Pacific. He has also attacked the
Philippines, he has attacked our Southeast Asian allies. And
perhaps most devastatingly, he has attacked our Japanese and
South Korean allies. A major, major success of the Biden
administration was forging closer ties between Japan and South
Korea as a counterweight to the belligerence of the Chinese
Communist Party in the Indo-Pacific. This President has
undermined our bilateral alliances with both of those powerful
economies and militaries.
This President has thrown doubt on his willingness to
support Taiwan economically, militarily, ideologically as it
contests and fights for freedom against the Chinese Communist
Party.
This President has literally had American troops on their
knees roll out a red carpet for Vladimir Putin in Alaska just a
week before he then launched missile strikes against U.S. sites
in Ukraine, and then went to go watch a military parade with Xi
Jinping, signaling weakness against this alliance of autocrats
who seek to undermine U.S. strength in the Pacific.
This President has cut medical science and biotech funding
at a time when the Chinese Communist Party is vaulting over us
to become the world leader in biotechnology alongside, I should
say, quantum science and other initiatives.
So I do not want to hear from this side of the aisle that
we want China to win while this administration and this
President is the weakest president in modern American history
in standing up for American national security.
The final thing that has been a failure of this
administration regarding China has been nuclear power. And here
I want to turn to you, Mr. Novak, in the last 90 seconds. It
was the proposal of this administration to gut the Loan
Programs Office, which is vital for the construction of nuclear
power, including small modular reactors that the gentleman from
Alabama talked about.
In April I asked Mr.--Dr. Mike Goff about whether the
staffing levels of the LPO, which was facing a 60 percent
reduction in its workforce, were sufficient to actually finance
and help develop nuclear power, which I agree we should be
doing. He promised an answer. I have not gotten it.
Mr. Novak, can you respond to how the LPO is suited
administratively to actually deliver its function?
Mr. Novak. I am confident that it is resourced. I have had
the occasion to work with Greg Beard, who heads up our Loan
Programs Office. We have got a very good team of lawyers that I
have gotten to know that brings a tremendous amount of
commercial sophistication to support the LPO mission. I believe
that the LPO funding actually increased year over year, so I
would tell you as I sit here I am confident in the LPO mission
and the leadership----
Mr. Auchincloss. Could we get, though, a written response
about the staffing levels at the LPO and how that maps on to
their mandate?
Mr. Novak. Yes, I would be more than happy to get you that.
Mr. Auchincloss. OK, I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
the balance of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from North Dakota for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Novak, for being here with the committee
today.
In 2023 the Consumer Product Safety Commission proposed
banning gas stoves, alleging they caused childhood asthma. This
was based on a nine-paragraph paper in the International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Not only
was the paper deeply flawed, but two of the authors failed to
declare a conflict of interest. Both were employees of the
Rocky Mountain Institute's Carbon Free Buildings Initiative, a
nonprofit that advocates against fossil fuels in buildings. In
other words, nine paragraphs of activism disguised as science
was evidence enough for the Biden administration to consider
banning a product that 40 percent of American households use.
Your testimony discusses House Resolution 4626, the Don't
Mess With My Home's Appliance Act. Under President Biden, DOE
pushed rules to remove certain products from the markety, like
popular gas appliances. In your view, Mr. Novak, how would
consumers' costs compare to energy savings under efficiency
standards like those of the Biden DOE?
Mr. Novak. Well, I will first say in regard to health
effects science, my dad was a health effects scientist at FDA,
he was a bench chemist. He had a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and
went on to become a branch chief at EPA. I absolutely admire
the work that he did.
I am not aware of anything. For example, as we have looked
out at the localities that have adopted laws and ordinances
that have--with zero NOx emissions, for example, I am not aware
of any health effects research that would suggest that the
safety level around a NOx emission is zero, but that is, in
effect, what has been adopted, which in turn is, in effect, a
ban on gas appliances. Getting the science right on that, I
think, is very important.
I would say, in regard to the gas, we--you know, we--I have
seen studies where, you know, you pay significantly less over
the course of owning a gas range, for example, than with an
electric range. But again, that solution might not make sense
in a particular place. I mentioned where I live. I live in a
very old neighborhood where, you know, propane is the option
there. I prefer propane to electric, but that is not
everybody's choice.
So, you know, again, I think, as a policy matter, we
generally prefer the idea of a range of choice. That permits
some flexibility in regard to innovation. It is what consumers
want. It is--it matches our free market. And I think this is
something that is readily achievable, as well as gaining, you
know, efficiency.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you for that. And speaking of choice,
the EPCA has that intent to support consumer choice. Can you
talk about how the Biden DOE's efficiency standards either
supported that or contradicted the goal of consumer choice?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take that question for the record
in regard to the past administration's approach to----
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. EPCA.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Cool. Under Secretary Wright, what are the
goals of the standards being set through the EPCA?
Mr. Novak. Well, again, I think the big objection--
objective is to make sure that the assessment here is
localized, smart, informed, that we are looking at the
efficiency gains, making sure that there is actually a
significant energy savings to be accomplished, that that is
balanced against the utility of the appliance.
You know, the aim here is for it to be smart, for it to
make sense for the consumer. And one of the challenges is, you
know, when you have attached sort of broader things like social
cost of carbon, that is a bit nebulous. That is a little bit
different than how much would a consumer expect to spend using
this appliance over the course of its working life, what is the
payback period in regard to the efficiency gain off the
appliance. That is a localized inquiry that, by the way, helps
a consumer make an informed choice. And we would hope it would
sort of, you know, result in a market that sees, you know,
appliances improve over time.
But I think right now it is a little bit opaque. The
analysis leads to, you know, some opacity for consumers.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Novak, appreciate
your time.
Mr. Novak. Thank you.
Mrs. Fedorchak. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the
balance of her time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania's 13th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member
Castor, for holding this hearing, and Mr. Novak, thank you for
being here today to testify.
The United States is fortunate to have abundant and varied
energy resources, including a large amount of natural gas in my
home State of Pennsylvania. Under the Trump administration we
have seen these resources leveraged to increase American
competitiveness and to add to energy security. However, the
previous administration, as well as some local and State
jurisdictions, have taken actions to disadvantage some forms of
energy over others, ultimately crippling our energy section--
sector in the process.
While the establishment of some minimal energy efficiency
standards can benefit consumers and help provide certainty for
manufacturers, we saw the Department of Energy under Biden
misuse their authority to create standards that failed to meet
statutory requirements of providing significant energy savings
in a cost-efficient manner. Instead, the Biden DOE hijacked the
process and used flawed calculations to set efficiency
standards that limit choice and across America drastically
raised the cost for the consumers.
There is a need to reconsider and reverse some of the most
unrealistic appliance regulations to protect consumer choice.
However, maintaining stable and predictable standards is
important for companies that design and manufacture these
appliances.
Mr. Novak, how can we balance these two interests to ensure
that both consumers and the appliance market are not
overburdened by flawed regulations?
Mr. Novak. I would say first my sister is a Johnstowner, so
I appreciate the----
Mr. Joyce. Glad to have a constituent's sibling testifying.
Mr. Novak. I think the first key to this is making sure
that we are talking candidly about what the tradeoffs are here
and, as I mentioned in response to an earlier question, to be
sure there are equities here in regard to tooling and reliance
costs by manufacturers, and stability in terms of meeting a
marketplace.
We also want to make sure that we are being candid in terms
of talking about exactly what the tradeoffs are for a consumer,
exactly what they are getting in terms of the return on the
efficiency gain relative to potential loss in utility or even
working life of an appliance.
And I think this is how we get the balancing right, is
making sure that we are having an open and candid discussion
about what exactly the tradeoffs are. And I think the more
concrete we are about the tradeoffs, I think the smarter we
will be in the tradeoffs we accept.
Mr. Joyce. I think you recognizing and talking about
Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where there is abundant natural gas--
there are abundant resources, but it is consumer choice that
must really guide that decision. So thank you for acknowledging
that.
In your opinion, does the change to the look-back period
made by H.R. 4626, the Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act,
does that achieve the proper balance?
Mr. Novak. This is an area where we would really invite
technical assistance. I feel like to connect, you know, the
committee with the technical resource within Energy to talk
about some of the challenges in implementing look-back will get
us a smarter approach to look-back in regard to both its scope
as well as its periodicity. So we would invite that
conversation.
Mr. Joyce. So as we come to the end of a long morning of
our first panel, you being the witness, is there anything that
you, Mr. Novak, would like to reiterate or clarify from earlier
testimony or earlier questioning?
Mr. Novak. Well, first I want to make sure I have got my
response right in regard to the readiness under the
Weatherization Program. And if I misspoke on that, I want to
make sure that we get it right.
Mr. Joyce. This is an opportunity to clarify that.
Mr. Novak. Yes, yes, the readiness is--that is an important
thing. And, you know, clearly, the objective of the readiness
program is to ensure that you remove barriers to the
weatherization, right, that, you know, you meet a need there.
I will just add that, you know, the--as the conversation
has evolved with this panel, I think, you know, there are
pretty stark policy choices here that--and here is my wish. I
have got five children, right? I have got five children. And as
I think about the future that they have got ahead, I recognize
all of you have just an awesome responsibility to set policy
for this country.
We were all born here. We take this as--we take it for
granted. It is an amazing, amazing place. My mother's family
has been here as long as people have been here, at least
Europeans have been here. And I love this place. I have got a
son in the Army, I have got kids in public service. I have
got--you know, my in-laws were in public service, my parents
were public servants. This is an amazing place. And you all are
stewards of it and the policy choices that are made.
And what I promise to you is, although I am new in my job--
I am all of 3 months, I think, and 2 weeks into my job, so I am
still learning a lot, and apologies for the number of things
that means I have to take for the record--but I promise you
this, which is I want a candid, open discussion about these
policy choices. It doesn't mean we will always agree, but I
really want that conversation. I will tell you----
Mr. Latta. And--
Mr. Novak [continuing]. Having gotten to know our Secretary
a little bit, having----
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Novak [continuing]. He welcomes the same thing.
Mr. Latta. I hate to interrupt, but the gentleman's time
has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Indiana's 9th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to speak this afternoon, and thank you to Mr. Novak for being
here.
As reflected in my bill, which will be considered--or is
being considered in today's hearing, H.R. 5184, the Affordable
Homes Act, I support the committee's effort to protect consumer
choice in appliance purchases and to prevent unnecessary
regulations from driving up costs.
Mr. Novak, earlier this month DOE issued an RFI for public
input regarding energy conservation standards for manufactured
housing. I am worried that DOE energy efficiency standards for
manufactured housing could create compliance confusion for our
manufacturers. Could you provide an update on the RFI?
Mr. Novak. I will have to take the update on the RFI for
the record there, and I will be happy to get you a response on
that.
I do know one of the bills that we are addressing today
would simplify, or streamline, if you will, a conversation
about energy, the tradeoffs, frankly, between the cost of
complying with efficiency standards and mobile homes relative
to what a purchaser is going to pay, whether upfront or through
financing. And the aim there is to--simply to streamline it, to
move it from one regulator to two. It would move everything to
HUD.
Mrs. Houchin. Is it--and I assume you don't--you can't tell
me today what DOE's next steps will be, but that will be part
of a response that you will get to us later.
Mr. Novak. It will be.
Mrs. Houchin. Is it your understanding also that HUD
maintains varying standards currently for manufactured housing?
Mr. Novak. It is my understanding.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you. That is why today I do want to
highlight the Affordable Homes Act, which I introduced with
Congressman Mike Flood of Nebraska. This legislation
consolidates authority under HUD, reduces overlapping
regulations, and ensures that manufactured housing remains the
most affordable path to home ownership.
By cutting red tape and streamlining oversight, we can keep
costs down, preserve consumer choice, and help hard-working
families achieve the American dream of owning a home. So I do
hope to continue to work with DOE to make sure that we are
streamlining regulations and cutting red tape to make home
ownership readily available to everyday working Americans.
Mr. Novak. We would welcome that engagement.
Mrs. Houchin. Also included in today's hearing is the
SHOWER Act. And while DOE is working to update its regulatory
framework on faucet flow rates, I do want to ensure that any
changes don't undermine the competitiveness of American
manufacturers. Redesigning U.S. facilities could take years and
require major investment, while foreign competitors could
quickly move to supply higher-flow products, which may be
counterintuitive to the mission of America First.
Mr. Novak, can you provide an update of DOE's regulatory
process as it relates to maximum flow rate for showerheads?
Mr. Novak. Well, they--currently it is a bit of a morass,
and I think that is why we are supportive of the idea of
clarifying this by adopting the Society of Mechanical
Engineers' definition of showerhead, and then having a period
where you would adopt specific regulation in regard to that
definition.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
Mr. Novak. It just gives you clarity--
Mrs. Houchin. As the--thank you. As the regulatory process
does move forward, I urge the DOE to work closely with our
manufacturers to ensure that the rules don't open the door for
cheap foreign products that would undermine and flood the
market, particularly including those that are in my own
district. Delta Faucet Company, which has a facility in
Greensburg, Indiana, within the district, has been making
faucets and showerheads since 1954.
And I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a
statement regarding today's legislative hearing from Delta
Faucets, the industry trade association, the Plumbing
Manufacturers International, as well as their public comments
submitted to the Department of Energy on its proposed faucet
rule.
Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you. I do want to ensure--and I
appreciate, Mr. Novak, that you have just been on the job for a
few short months, and we will look forward to the responses
that you will return to our offices. I hope that that will be
timely.
I just, in my final closing comments, want to ensure
American competitiveness and that our companies are being put
in the best position to be competitive and not undermined by
foreign entities, particularly China.
I want to thank our witness for the time and testimony on
these important issues.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee's work in
considering these bills, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and she
yields back. The Chair--seeing no other Members wishing to ask
questions of the witness, the Chair thanks our witness for
appearing before us today.
Members may have additional questions for you in writing. I
remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record, and I ask that our witness
does his best to submit the responses within 10 business days
upon receipt of those questions.
We are now moving to the second panel of our witnesses
today, and we will begin their testimony shortly. So thank you
very much for coming, Mr. Novak.
Mr. Novak. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Mr. Latta. Well, good afternoon. We have Members that will
be coming back because I think they thought the first panel was
going to go a little bit longer, but they will be coming back
in. But again, good afternoon. We want to thank our witnesses
for being here today and taking the time to testify before our
subcommittee.
Each witness will have the opportunity to give an opening
statement followed by a round of questions from our Members.
Our witnesses today are Ms. Jennifer Cleary, the vice
president of regulatory affairs and deputy general counsel at
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Mr. Brian--
``Tebben-kahmp''--is that--am I correctly pronouncing your
name? I just want to make sure.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. ``Tebben-kamp.''
Mr. Latta. Tebbenkamp, the president and owner of Patriot
Homes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Andrew deLaski, the executive director at the Appliance
Standards Awareness Project, and Mr. George Lowe, the vice
president of government affairs and public policy at the
American Gas Association.
We appreciate you being here, and you might have already
got the instructions on the box, but when your time is up you
see a little red light appear. And if you would finish your
statement, we would appreciate it.
And with that, Ms. Cleary, you are represented--or you are
recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF JENNIFER CLEARY, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS; BRIAN
TEBBENKAMP, PRESIDENT AND OWNER, PATRIOT HOMES, INC.; ANDREW
deLASKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APPLIANCE STANDARDS AWARENESS
PROJECT; AND GEORGE LOWE, VICE PRESIDENT,GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
AND PUBLIC POLICY, AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER CLEARY
Ms. Cleary. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers, or AHAM, regarding improvements to the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. I am Jennifer Cleary, vice
president of regulatory affairs and deputy general counsel at
AHAM.
Our goal is to improve EPCA to ensure American families
continue to have access to a range of affordable products with
the performance and features they want. AHAM's scope includes
products like refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers,
dishwashers, window air conditioners, air cleaners, and cooking
products. We don't cover things like light bulbs, equipment
that is built into your home like water heaters, HVAC, or
plumbing.
We appreciate the subcommittee's attention to EPCA. This
isn't a law that people generally sit around the kitchen table
and talk about, but it impacts every home every day. From the
time we wake up in the morning to cook breakfast for our
families, people are using appliances until we load dishes at
the end of the day. Home appliances make our lives easier,
safer, and healthier.
Since President Reagan signed EPCA into law, there have
been many changes in how we live and work: the Berlin Wall
fell; we have personal computers, email, video calls, and
smartphones. This law was written when we were using wired
telephones. EPCA needs to be updated to remain relevant.
Home appliances are a success story. Our products have
undergone continual improvements in energy and water efficiency
over the last almost four decades. No other consumer product
sector's efficiency has been more often regulated. Some
appliances have been subject to as many as seven rounds of
standards. The energy and water efficiency gains for home
appliances are dramatic.
For example, the average dishwasher made today uses 50
percent less water and 37 percent less energy than models made
in 1998. That means you would have to hand wash a full load of
dishes in only 1 minute to use less water than your dishwasher.
The average refrigerator made today uses nearly 58 percent less
energy than refrigerators built in 1980, with nearly 32 percent
greater capacity. If the automotive industry achieves similar
efficiency gains as appliances have, the average minivan would
get about 80 miles to the gallon and have 3 extra seats.
AHAM and our members support maintaining a system of
Federal standards. A national program benefits consumers by
displacing costly, conflicting State requirements that
interfere with interstate commerce and make it hard to sell a
full range of products across the Nation. In fact, this is the
central balance EPCA strikes. Improvements in efficiency are
more achievable on a national scale.
Because home appliances have undergone so many standard
changes, there are diminishing returns from further tightening
standards. Additional changes using existing technology may not
be possible without sacrificing product performance, features,
or affordability. AHAM hopes that today's hearing will provide
momentum toward much-needed improvements in the Appliance
Standards program. AHAM has been testifying before this
subcommittee since the early 2000s seeking modernization and
reform to this law. We believe now is the time to get it done
and bring this home for consumers.
The Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act makes strides at
assessing and addressing several key issues. Most importantly,
AHAM strongly supports the bill's elimination of the provision
in EPCA known as the 6-year look-back. EPCA requires DOE to
review standards every 6 years, resulting in a never-ending
regulatory churn, regardless of who is in the White House.
Regulations should be based on the opportunity to conserve
energy in a cost-effective way that preserves consumer choice,
not on a ticking clock.
Removing this requirement will allow DOE to prioritize its
rulemakings based on opportunities for energy, water, and cost
savings for consumers. Importantly, removing it will not
prevent DOE from continuing to advance efficiency when it is
justified to do so.
There are some changes outlined in my written testimony
that we suggest to make the bill stronger, including, for
example: first, protect national consistency by strengthening
preemption to maintain a national marketplace and avoid States
becoming de facto Federal legislators; second, make DOE
accountable to follow its own rules and require DOE to
affirmatively demonstrate that its actions will not harm
consumers; third, lower costs for consumers and reduce
regulatory burden by providing enough time to comply with new
requirements and enough time between regulations.
Changing EPCA is the best way to achieve continued savings
while also addressing the realities of limited opportunities
for further energy and water savings that are justified and
preserve product features and performance.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cleary follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And Mr. Tebbenkamp, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN TEBBENKAMP
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and
members of the subcommittee, my name is Brian Tebbenkamp, and I
am a home builder from Kansas City, Missouri.
Where I come from, safe and affordable housing isn't just a
talking point, it is the foundation of strong families and
strong communities, and it is the foundation of what the KCHBA
stands behind. I am a proud member of the KCHBA, and our motto
there is ``home ownership for all.'' It is what drives us. We
want every family, whether they are looking to buy their first
home or rent an apartment, to have options that fit their needs
and their budgets.
But right now one of the biggest hurdles we face in Kansas
City is a shortage of attainable housing. A big part of that
problem is the new energy code and the complexities and the
costs that it adds to the cost of our projects.
I support cost-effective building codes that create safe
and efficient homes. I have built my career around that,
delivering high-performance homes long before performance
testing was required in KC. I would hire third-party energy
raters to verify and test our homes to make sure that they were
delivering what we wanted to our clients, to make sure that
they were saving over the average home that was being built in
our area. It was something that was important to us.
We wanted our clients to have their families' largest
investment that they were probably ever going to make be
efficient for them, safe, and keep them comfortable all year
long. But lately things have gone too far. We have hit a point
of diminishing returns, and now families are on the hook for
thousands of additional dollars in construction costs, but they
are seeing very little in the way of additional returns and
savings on their utility bills.
In Kansas City, new homes were already being built well
past the point where adding more insulation or other
prescriptive measures makes much of a difference. Yet under the
new code these costly mandates keep stacking up. In 2021 the
IECC was supposed to be a model for State and local governments
to adapt to their circumstances. That flexibility has always
been very important because what works in New York or works in
California may not work in Kansas, Missouri, or Texas.
Back in 2022 the Kansas City, Missouri, City Council was
looking at adopting the 2021 IECC. Builders, community leaders,
policymakers, we were all working together to make amendments
to the code that would make it more practical for our region.
But after the Inflation Reduction Act passed and section 50131
was set up with a $1 billion grant fund, suddenly the message
that they heard was don't change a thing or you won't receive
any of the money.
When Congress ties State and local government grant money
to adopting unamended codes, local officials don't have a
choice in order to receive those funds. That is exactly what we
saw play out in Kansas City. When the code took effect in
October of 2023, home building in Kansas City nearly stopped.
For over 3\1/2\ months, the city did not issue one single
family building permit. Before that, the average was 66 permits
a month. The number of builders active in the city plummeted
from 98 in 2023 to just 22 in 2024. That is a 78 percent
decline. These numbers come straight out of the city's own
permitting system, and I can tell you what that looks like on
the ground.
In April of 2024, my company applied for what should have
been a simple basement finish permit. That process would
normally take a few days. This time it took an agonizing 39
days, 17 emails, and a final plea to city management and
leadership for help. Meanwhile, our crews sat at home without
any work to do. And the costs for that family were just as
frustrating. That particular home was already HERS-rated with a
score of 62, meaning that it would save that family about
$2,500 over the average American home at that time. But they
had to comply with the new energy code, and they spent over
10,000 additional construction dollars to comply with that code
for that basement.
What did they get for that money? They got a single point
improvement on their HERS rating, which equates to about $2 in
savings on utility costs in a year. That doesn't add up for the
families I serve, and I certainly don't think it adds up for
your families either. That is why I commend Congressman Goldman
for introducing the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act to repeal
section 50131. This program has distorted local decision
making, driven up costs, and reducing housing production, all
while delivering little in the way of energy savings through
the cost of utility bills.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tebbenkamp follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, and I am sorry, your time has expired and
we will go to Mr. deLaski for 5 minutes for his opening
statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW deLASKI
Mr. deLaski. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking
Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Andrew deLaski, and I am the executive director of the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project based at the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a leading efficiency
nonprofit organization.
Guided by a broadly representative steering committee, ASAP
carries out research, analysis, and advocacy in support of
standards that cost-effectively save energy and water, reduce
utility bills and pollution. I would like to focus my remarks
on how appliance and equipment standards have saved consumers
money and bolstered the electric grid but would be threatened
by H.R. 4626, and then I will offer my support for H.R. 1355,
the Weatherization Enhancement and Readiness Act.
The U.S. Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
established and updated numerous times on a bipartisan basis
protects U.S. families and small business owners from needless
energy waste. Less energy waste means lower utility bills month
after month, year after year for families. It means preserving
electric grid capacity for growing electric loads so we can win
the race to lead the world in artificial intelligence and
manufacturing. These standards ensure that manufacturers and
importers include cost-effective, energy-saving innovations
throughout the wide variety of choices they offer in the
marketplace, not just in the top-of-the-line or specialty
products.
Let me put some numbers to this. According to DOE, existing
efficiency standards helped the typical U.S. household spend
$576 less on utility bills in 2024. Standards scheduled to take
effect will boost annual savings to roughly $700 per year for
the typical family. That is real money, especially for families
on tight budgets stressed by rising electricity prices.
While some cite diminishing returns for certain products,
the overall picture for future efficiency gains is promising.
Technology innovation keeps opening new opportunities for
cutting energy waste and saving families money. We estimate
that stronger standards, which could be issued over the next
decade or so, could lower family utility bills by another $150
a year, driving total annual savings to about $850 from this
important energy saving and energy waste reduction program. And
they could cut peak electricity demand by 32 gigawatts.
Thirty-two gigawatts. That is about the equivalent of 100
large power plants. We need that capacity. We can't afford not
to go forward with improved efficiency.
I want to take a moment to address some inaccurate claims
we have heard in some of these conversations.
First, some argue that applying standards restrict choice.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Visit any big box
appliance seller. They can look online. Buyers have a dizzying
array of options, more than 11,000 refrigerator models on the
market today, more than 1,400 models of clothes washers and
dishwashers. Efficiency standards ensure that all of these
choices, models at any available price point, include energy
innovations that save people money.
Second, some have suddenly started blaming efficiency for
products that fail early. Now, there have always been lemons,
and it is frustrating when products break before they should.
But it is just not accurate to blame the efficiency standards.
Rather, problems can be traced to manufacturers, some
manufacturers who cut corners like using plastic parts rather
than metal parts. In other cases manufacturers include features
or gizmos--some of which consumers want, some of which they
don't--that are unrelated to efficiency but are prone to
failure.
And finally, some manufacturers make it hard to fix their
products by limiting access to diagnostic information and
charging high prices for replacement parts.
H.R. 4626 would severely weaken the appliance standards
statute. It would hand the executive branch new powers to
attack existing efficiency standards. It would weaken States'
rights by blocking them from setting efficiency standards even
when no Federal standards are applied. It would eliminate
accountability for DOE to review standards from time to time.
And it would set additional roadblocks designed to stymie
future progress.
Proponents of the bill claim it would protect consumer
choices, but existing law already ensures that consumers have
access to product features they value and prohibits DOE from
eliminating categories of products that use a particular fuel
type like gas.
So at a time when utility bills are already outpacing
inflation, this bill would mean even higher costs for American
families and businesses. It will lead to increases in
electricity demand when that capacity is needed for AI and
manufacturing, and it would create a treacherous regulatory
landscape for domestic manufacturers, potentially allowing
importers to undercut them after they have already invested to
comply with pending standards.
I urge you to reject this bill.
In contrast, the weatherization bill before you is sorely
needed. This program provides essential help to households
struggling to stay safe and pay their energy bills. This bill
would reauthorize the program and ensure that more homes can be
made ready for weatherization improvements and have access to
adequate resources to carry out upgrades.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. deLaski follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Lowe, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
statement.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE LOWE
Mr. Lowe. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, members of
the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I am
George Lowe, vice president of government affairs and public
policy----
Mr. Latta. I am sorry, could you pull your mic just a
little bit closer up there, please? Thank you.
Mr. Lowe. Vice president of public affairs and government
policy at the American Gas Association.
AGA, founded in 1918, represents more than 200 local energy
companies that deliver clean, domestic, and reliable natural
gas throughout the United States. More than 79 million
residential, commercial, and industrial natural gas customers
in the U.S., 94 percent of which are our member companies, and
more than 74 million homes in that receive their gas from AGA.
Natural gas remains popular among consumers, with more than
1 new residential customer signing up every minute of every
day, along with 60 businesses joining them. Nearly 189 million
Americans in total use natural gas because it is affordable,
reliable, safe, and essential to improving our environment. A
typical new home that uses natural gas for heating, cooking,
and drying clothes saves an average of $1,132 per year,
compared to a home using electricity with those appliances.
Lower fuel prices and investments in energy efficiency for
customers within our 1.2 million miles of pipes continue to
drive consumer savings.
I am testifying today in support of legislation being
considered, but I would be remiss if I didn't take this
opportunity to correct the record of the role of natural gas
utilities in energy efficiency and appliance standards. Natural
gas utilities spend $1.5 billion on energy efficiency programs
every year, saving 1.7 million metric tons of carbon, the
equivalent of removing 424,000 cars from the road.
There are hundreds of natural gas utility energy efficiency
programs across the United States providing guidance, funding
for weatherization, technical assessments, training, and
programs for equipment replacements and upgrades. These
programs have resulted in a 50 percent decline in the
residential natural gas use per customer since 1970. Even as
the system has grown steadily to support more customers,
natural gas utilities' efforts to upgrade the Nation's pipeline
networks have driven a 70 percent decline in emissions from
natural gas distribution systems since 1990.
Even before the United States Department of Energy was
formed, AGA and its member companies supported and promoted
minimum appliance efficiency requirements developed through a
consensus process. AGA and the industry have played a positive
and active role in supporting energy efficiency requirements
for natural gas appliances and model codes for more than 50
years. This commitment is one of the many reasons why our
utilities are serving more customers than ever before while
using less natural gas to do it.
Despite the broad support for natural gas, communities have
been inundated with State, local, and Federal laws and
regulations that prohibit or eliminate access to the direct use
of natural gas. More than 100 communities in several States
have enacted policies to prevent consumer access to gas or
natural gas appliances.
Current Federal appliance standards have been promulgated
without sufficient cost or energy savings. In the last, DOE
pushed model building codes that would effectively prohibit
natural gas installation in new homes and commercial buildings.
A 2007 law banning the use of fossil fuels in certain Federal
facilities beginning in 2030--these actions serve as a barrier
to consumer access to natural gas and should be removed.
Further, in recent years DOE has unfortunately shifted its
emphasis away from establishing rules that focus on energy
efficiency to a process focused on eliminating consumer access
to gas appliances. This included an attempt to eliminate up to
96 percent of gas cooktops from the market that failed after
public outcry. Other products were not so lucky. DOE then
issued final rules to eliminate natural gas water heaters and
furnaces from the market. This Congress, in a bipartisan
fashion along with President Trump, had to step in and overturn
that harmful water rule heater via a Congressional Review Act.
The onerous furnace rule, unfortunately, is still in
effect, and it will raise costs on 30 percent of impacted
senior-only households and 20 percent of impacted low-income
households. These actions illustrate the need for legislation
to ensure that consumers are not harmed by regulatory actions,
that the consumers have accessibility to a variety of
appliances.
Today's hearing features several pieces of legislation
which will repair the broken efficiency rulemaking process,
help ensure consumer choice, and enable the Federal Government
to access reliable and affordable fuels. AGA supports swift
passage of the bills to return our Nation's energy markets and
allow natural gas to continue to drive national economic
growth, energy security, and affordability reliability for
consumers and the Government.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowe follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. That concludes our witnesses'
opening statements, and we will move into the question-and-
answer portion of the hearing. I am going to begin with
questions. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lowe, as we heard last week, everyone on this committee
is supportive of balanced energy efficiency measures. Do
natural gas restrictions reduce energy consumption?
Mr. Lowe. Do natural gas restrictions reduce energy
consumption? No, I would say, in fact, in the case of section
433, it is likely to increase energy consumption for the
Federal Government. The direct use of natural gas is about 91
percent efficient, and electricity is about 34 percent. So you
have that 34 percent line loss.
Using direct use of natural gas into a Federal building is
the most efficient use for it. It is also the most reliable way
for that energy source to be delivered.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
Ms. Cleary, the look-back provisions in EPCA are a poor
mechanism to initiate energy efficiency standards in home
appliances, as you mentioned in your testimony. How difficult
is the 6-year timeline for a company's supply chain?
Ms. Cleary. Thank you for the question.
Certainly, having the constant churn of regulations is
challenging, but it is also challenging for DOE. Regardless of
who is in the White House, what we have seen is that DOE rarely
meets its deadlines. And this is not actually helpful toward
efficiency savings either, because it means that the rules
aren't getting done on the timeline that EPCA is setting forth.
So that is why we are looking for changes to this provision, so
that manufacturers will have the time that is needed, consumers
will be able to retain choice, and DOE will be able to focus
its efforts where there are opportunities for savings.
Mr. Latta. And are companies and consumers consistently
able to realize benefits within that 6-year period?
Ms. Cleary. The 6-year period is actually the period during
which DOE cannot look at additional changes. So it is actually
a longer period that manufacturers do have and consumers have
to realize those benefits.
That said, that review is often taking place at a time
before products that meet the standard before are on the
market. So it is challenging for DOE to even know what those
improvements were when they are setting the next round of
standards. It is hard to know the impact on consumers when
setting the next round of standards.
Mr. Latta. OK, well, thank you very much.
Mr. Tebbenkamp, in your testimony when you were talking
about building codes, a couple of questions right off the bat.
You know, when you were talking about especially the IECC is
designed as a model for State and local governments to
consider, how often are they really looking at the local--you
know, are we looking at a model that everyone in the country is
supposed to live by? Or is it--do they ever take into
consideration what is happening out there in the real world, in
the local communities?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. That is a great question, and the code book
is about that thick, and it comes out every 3 years. So for a
municipality to adopt that code every 3 years is--it is just
not possible. It takes time for stakeholders and everybody to
review that and analyze it and see what is fit for their area,
and to amend or strengthen certain parts to make it work for
their area.
I think we can all agree that American families deserve
safe, strong, and efficient homes, but we need a better pathway
forward that gives local control, encourages innovation, and
keeps homes within the reach of Americans. That is why, you
know, I would urge Congress to let builders build and let local
governments work together with their builders to make sure that
those codes are accurate for their area, rather than have the
Federal Government incentivize them to adopt something that is
supposed to be a one-size-fits-all.
Mr. Latta. Yes, in my last 40 seconds, when you are talking
about what happened in your--in the Kansas City area, you know,
you said that Kansas City has not received a single dollar from
the Department of Energy for adopting the code, yet the local
housing production has been--or housing production has been
severe. Is it also a situation out there--and I have, like,
about 20--about 15 seconds left--is it another situation out
there that it is harder for builders out there just to be able
to understand what the code is, so they--just to comply with
it?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. I don't think it is understanding it, I
think it is just there is so much complexity to it to make sure
that you can comply with it. You can either go prescriptive or
performance, and most go with a performance method to comply
with that code.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. My time is expired,
and I yield to the gentlelady----
Ms. Castor. Here we go.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. The gentlelady from Florida, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for
questions.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
Preparing for this hearing, I pulled up a Department of
Energy report from the beginning of the year from one of our
national laboratories, and they had looked at energy efficiency
standards and said here by 2024 the improvement over the
decades now is resulting in savings for the average household
of about $576 annually. So energy efficiency over time now has
saved people a lot of money. It has also cut pollution. It has
cut consumption.
And we are really worried about consumption right now and
demand. We know that all the projections are we are going to
need more energy. So it is very important that we keep on track
with conservation and savings that helps with people's--the
affordability squeeze, but also we are going to need more
energy. And while the administration has been, you know,
killing all of these clean energy projects and all the clean
energy coming onto the grid, let's hold on to our savings on
energy efficiency.
Mr. deLaski, will any of the Republican bills that have
been noticed for today--will they help us meet rising load
growth that is driven in part by AI data centers?
Mr. deLaski. Not to my understanding, no.
Ms. Castor. And we heard last week when we had a hearing
that there are important tools to use all of this incredible
innovation to connect buildings and smart systems that can
reduce energy use during peak demand and can be deployed very
quickly over the next few months. Could you elaborate about--on
how these virtual or distributed power plants can help us meet
our growth and load challenge?
Mr. deLaski. Yes, absolutely. Low growth is a huge
challenge. ICF recently put out an analysis showing about 25
percent growth by 2030, 78 percent by 2050. So we need to
allocate all of our energy resources, including efficiency and
a way to meet that demand.
Innovative virtual and distributed power plants are an
emerging tool to help us do just that. This is, of course, in
addition to the baseline you get from efficiency standards and
other efficiency policies.
Just to give you a couple of examples, you know, would be
like a home with an HVAC system being connected to a thermal
energy storage solution, enabling that home to optimize how and
when it pulls power from the grid throughout the day. Other
relatively new solutions include HVAC systems that can respond
to peak demand by adjusting how much power it uses without
turning off the resident's heating or cooling. Then, of course,
you have distributed solar and also storage solutions.
Now, this is all voluntary, mind you. Consumers can opt in
or opt out, but that is a value consumers can offer back to the
grid and the--and be paid for. So consumers can capture that
value, and we as a country can meet our energy needs in a way
that lowers costs for consumers rather than putting up new,
expensive infrastructure.
Ms. Castor. That is right. Some of the discussion over
appliances is really funny. There is a lot of nostalgia for
kind of the old--your old fridge or something. And there is
this--you know, it is so specific on your appliance, but there
is something of a canard that has developed that it used to be
appliances would last forever.
Now, we have asked--all of the products, the manufacturers
have done a great job responding to consumer demand. I know
there's often problems with your ice dispenser, but can you
point to anything that demonstrates that energy efficiency
standards are the cause, or are causing appliances not to last
as long?
Mr. deLaski. No, I can't. There is no evidence that we are
aware of that it is the efficiency standards that cause
products to last less long. Certainly, it is frustrating when
your products break, but to blame efficiency is just not
accurate. There are other causes. There are other reasons why
things might be breaking, and that has always been a problem.
Ms. Castor. It is that ice dispenser, the water dispenser
on the front, often times.
Mr. deLaski. It tends to be those other gadgets, yes.
Ms. Castor. Yes, yes. Congress directed the Department of
Energy to update energy usage in Federal buildings back in 2007
to ultimately save taxpayers money. So one piece of that
Federal procurement is Energy Star and other products. DOE has
estimated that energy-efficient project--product purchases
could save the Federal Government and taxpayers half a billion
dollars' worth of energy each year.
Can you elaborate on that? And why would we ever want to go
backwards on those kind of savings?
Mr. deLaski. Absolutely. Buying efficient products in
Federal facilities is a great way to save taxpayers money.
Also, the Federal Government should be leading when it comes to
energy efficiency. So it is money--saving for the taxpayers,
but also paving the way for consumers to have greater access to
affordable, efficient products.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired,
and she yields back. The Chair now recognizes the chair of the
full committee for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I appreciate it very much, and
agree with my friend from Florida. As you look at--that we
haven't really had an increase in demand of electricity over
the last several years is because, one, that--unfortunately, I
am not agreeing with her there--is that we have
deindustrialized to some extent, but the other is we got more
efficient. Things have gotten more efficient with the use of
electricity we have.
Unfortunately, we have gotten to the area where demand is
rising to the point where just pure squeezing out efficiencies
aren't going to work. And, you know, one of the things I know
we were talking about where people are more efficient at home--
don't run your dryer at 2:00 in the afternoon in August, don't
run--you know, wash your clothes in the middle of the night.
And a lot of people are doing that and being smart about it.
And I know you have talked about there are optional items.
People can do their--have their house set up where they are--
like, if they are not home in the afternoon, the electricity
goes off--down automatically.
We had a power company, a c came up with this peak hour
pricing because they wanted to get ahead of everybody else. And
I remember asking--a lady who was probably a millennial saying,
``Oh, this is great, I have everything on my phone, all my
appliances. I watch my work.'' The problem was you had 92-year-
olds sitting at home, turning their power off because they were
afraid they were going to get caught on the peak power. So we
have got to look at what is smart and what has unintended
consequences and what you force people to do.
You know, one of them, Mr. Lowe, is that, you know, we
have--we are getting rid of gas stoves, which means we are
going to use more on the electric grid. I know gas powers the
electric grid if you have a combined natural gas plant, but
also gas is a substitute for electricity in stoves. Correct?
Mr. Lowe. That is correct.
Mr. Guthrie. So----
Mr. Lowe. And right now about 40 percent of our electricity
is generated from natural gas. It is----
Mr. Guthrie. But if you are using the natural gas stove in
your house, you are not drawing off the grid for that cooking
purpose.
Mr. Lowe. Absolutely correct. And under the previous
administration, you know, 90 percent--96 percent of stoves
would have been eliminated for about $1.21 savings per year, or
about $19 over the life of that stove.
Another thing that they did in that was they took out a
number of consumer-friendly pieces that people wanted. They
wanted to have a grate over the stove; that was taken out.
There is no energy efficiency savings in taking that out. It is
much like the ranking member mentioned, you know, it is an
added benefit, but there is no energy savings in that by
removing that. It was something to do to disincentivize folks
from wanting to continue to have their gas stove.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. Do you think that this--a standard
that effectively bans gas products in favor of electric
products is a technically feasible standard? They have--EPCA
has to have a technically feasible standard, just----
Mr. Lowe. Absolutely not.
Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. Because I am going to go to
someone--all right.
Ms. Cleary, in order for consumers to realize both energy
and cost savings, standards must prioritize reasonable payback
periods. Do you agree that this aspect of DOE's Appliance
Standard Program requires reform? Do you think that that allows
for reasonable payback--is a reasonable payback period?
Ms. Cleary. You are asking about today's?
Mr. Guthrie. Yes, so the DOE's Appliance Standard Program,
does it need reforms? Is it a reasonable payback period?
I didn't ask that question well, I guess. But it requires a
reasonable payback period, a period that--do you think that the
compliance standard gives you a reasonable payback period? Does
it make sense?
Ms. Cleary. I will answer your question in a way that makes
sense. How about that?
Mr. Guthrie. OK, yes.
Ms. Cleary. So I think----
Mr. Guthrie. Perfect.
Ms. Cleary. I think you are asking if we have seen
reasonable payback periods, and I think it depends on the
product category. I think there are--payback periods are
starting to get longer in some cases, and really looking at the
savings that consumers are seeing.
For example, a microwave oven rulemaking under the last
administration would have saved--would--is expected to save
consumers 7 cents a month. That is less than a dollar a year.
And yet DOE was required to prioritize and review that rule
when it could have been spending its time on opportunities
for--where there are real opportunities for savings that
consumers could realize in a reasonable period of time.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thanks. So I have got about a minute left.
Mr. Tebbenkamp, you operate in both Kansas and Missouri.
Could you talk about the difference in the two States, and how
operating in the two States----
Mr. Tebbenkamp. So I operate in Missouri only.
Mr. Guthrie. Oh.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. And in Kansas City, Missouri, in particular
is the big place that we work in.
Since the 2021 code has been put into effect there, there
has been ongoing debate on how long it takes for these
efficiencies to pay back. And if you go back to the DOE report
that was referenced earlier, you know, they show that payback
in a couple of different ways. The simple payback method is the
easiest, and it says ``simple'' in its name, yet it is the last
one the DOE uses to show the consumer of how quick they can
recoup their costs on you spend this much, you save this much
on utility. It takes you, in our area, 8.3 years to recoup the
hard cost.
The thing that DOE does with that is they take out other
factors like financing that cost. They take all that away from
it, and they give you that so it looks really good. But there
are other methods they calculate----
Mr. Guthrie. Yes, my time is expired on that. Thanks for--
we get your--thank you for your answer. I appreciate it.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired, and he yields back.
And just to let everybody know, the gentleman from New
Jersey will be our last before we have to go vote. They have
called a vote, and we have about 11 minutes left. And so the
gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Menendez. So I can use 11 minutes instead of 5?
Mr. Latta. Pardon me?
Mr. Menendez. I can use 11 minutes instead of 5?
Mr. Latta. No, you get 5 minutes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for being
here today.
I know the topic is appliances and building policies and
how this impacts Americans' ability to purchase homes and deal
with the affordability crisis that so many families are dealing
with, and we hear about it every single day. I represent New
Jersey's 8th Congressional District. The affordability
challenge is something that we have been trying to tackle from
day one of taking office. But I think this is just misguided.
Like, for instance, I think if you talk to the average
American or any industry right now, whether it is appliance
standards or tariffs that are raising costs and making home
ownership less achievable, I think tariffs would take the day,
not appliances and their energy efficiency standards. So I
think we are sort of missing the bigger picture in how we are
going to deal with this challenge, especially because the
President and Republicans who control the House and the Senate
have talked about affordability, and we are here talking about,
in my opinion, a very niche issue in the spectrum of things
that we need to deal with as a country.
So, first question in terms of those bigger pictures, can
any of our witnesses tell me what the current unemployment rate
is in the United States?
[No response.]
Mr. Menendez. OK. So according to Reuters, the unemployment
rate increased to a nearly 4-year high of 4.3 percent. The
Labor Department's employment report also showed that the
economy lost jobs in June, and that job growth has slowed since
April.
Another big thing in terms of how people can address the
affordability challenge is wages. Do any of our witnesses know
what current wage trends look like in the United States?
[No response.]
Mr. Menendez. OK, 21 States and DC have no measurable
change in household income, according to an Economic Policy
Institute analysis of census data. Overall, economists agree
that the most recent jobs report was weak, showing slowed
growth and rising unemployment. Economists also agree that
Trump's policies will undermine any recent progress, especially
for low-income households.
So let's say we have more choice on the appliance front.
Wouldn't we need employment to be as high as possible and wage
growth to be as high as possible to afford any appliances,
given how prices have also increased because of tariffs? That
seems to me to be a bigger issue that we have to tackle as a
country.
Also, no matter what appliances we have, we have seen
energy prices go up, right? That is--you have heard that, you
have seen that trend. Yet this administration is rolling back
the progress that we made on clean, renewable energy. So my
understanding of energy production and energy costs is that the
more energy that we can produce, the better able we are to
lower costs.
Now, I have said this numerous times, and my colleagues, I
am sure, are tired of hearing of it, but Texas--right, not a--
doesn't come to mind as a blue State--30 percent of their
energy production comes from clean, renewable energy. Texas, I
believe, is one of two States where consumers have seen lower
prices.
So if we want to lower prices, we can talk about
appliances--by the way, I have a gas stove, so this idea that
Democrats are taking away gas stoves and choice is just
fundamentally flawed. Having more efficient appliances when we
already have a strain on our energy demand seems like pretty
good policy to me, but I digress.
We have talked about reliability when it comes to planning
for our energy needs. It is incredibly difficult to plan for
the long term when there is such a stark policy contrast
between administrations going back to the clean, renewable
energy. Biden was for it. Trump is opposed to it. That is fine.
Elections have consequences. But now we are rolling back all
the progress that we have made. We are pulling permits on
offshore wind that are already almost three-fourths of the way
complete. It makes absolutely no sense.
But going back to this idea of administrations and changing
policies, Mr. deLaski, can you talk about what it means for the
appliance industry when there are stark changes in standards
between administrations?
Mr. deLaski. I think it can be a big problem. In fact, this
administration, the current administration, proposed to roll
back 17 standards and the--and throughout that docket there's
30 comments from manufacturers and their associations opposing
going backwards. So manufacturers, as far as we can see, don't
support going back.
Mr. Menendez. As part of--part of capital-intensive
industry is planning and the ability to plan. And in a pro-
growth, pro-economy agenda, you want capital-intensive
industries to have the certainty that if one administration
provides a set of tax credits, those will be honored by the
next administration. You want predictability in what tariffs
will be at any given moment, but that changes. That is a bad
business environment.
So when I think about the costs that all of our
constituents are facing, I think about this erratic
administration and how Republicans here in the legislative
branch who could push back stay silent while all of our
constituents are suffering. We need to take on the
affordability challenge. Democrats are ready to, and I hope
that one day Republicans join us.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and as I
mentioned, votes have been called.
So the subcommittee is going to reconvene immediately after
the third vote is called. And if--and we will also let the
other subcommittee members know that. So the subcommittee is
now in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Latta. The subcommittee will come to order.
[Pause.]
Mr. Weber [presiding]. OK, thank you for being here. The
Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. You are all in your
places with sunshiny faces. Good.
Ms. Cleary, I am going to come to you first. You said in
your comments that there is not much room for further decreases
without sacrificing efficiency or performance. When you talk
about those things, are you talking about household appliances?
You are talking about the whole gamut from dishwashers to
stoves to air conditioning to furnaces?
Ms. Cleary. Thanks for the question. I am talking about
many home appliances.
So many of the products that are under AHAM's scope have
seen standards, you know, four, five, six, as many as seven
tightening of standards for--so for some of those products, if
we are using technologies that are existing today, our concern
is that future tightening of standards could have----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Cleary [continuing]. Negative consequences.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Tebbenkamp--is that how you say that?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Yes.
Mr. Weber. You are a builder. I was an air conditioning
contractor for 35 years. So you are building houses there in
Kansas, if I read right.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Kansas City, Missouri.
Mr. Weber. Oh, Missouri?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Kansas City, Missouri? OK. So you are probably
aware that the houses get a breaker box, the main breaker box
outside. Now, I am 72 years old. My parents had a rental
property growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, we still
have rental property. You could have built an old house back
then for--with a 100-amp breaker on the system. Now they are
200 amp and more. So what does that do to the price of
electricity, when you have to double the size of the electrical
service?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. It adds to it. And, you know, the house I
gave as an example earlier, we--actually, the client wanted to
do a lot of electric appliances in that home. Due to the size
of the home--they wanted to do an EV charger. In a 200-amp
service there wasn't enough. And during that time there was an
unavailability of 400-amp meters from our local utility, so we
had to stick with 200. So they had to sacrifice doing that,
because they wanted to, but it all comes at a higher cost,
obviously.
Mr. Weber. Sure. And you have watched, probably, the
ratings--you were involved in HVAC stuff, but the ratings on
the furnaces, for example, AFUE ratings on the furnaces as they
were increasing, going up because they wanted to have more and
more fuel-efficient furnaces, but that did nothing but drive
the price up. You had to have a separate venting system, now
you have got PVC with a drip line. All the things that were
mandated to be energy efficiency was doing nothing but driving
the cost of the house up.
I think you said--and I am trying to read my hand scratch--
that--I think that there was, like, $2 savings per month per
year.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. On that home it was $2 over the course of
the year.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. And one of those examples you just gave of
furnaces and the ratings on those--everybody knows about the
new refrigerant change we just went through. That single change
on most of our homes, depending on how many tons the system is,
it is anywhere from a 13 to 17-hundred-dollar cost increase
just for that refrigerant change, and that refrigerant change
is--it is supposed to be--the equipment is supposed to be more
efficient, it is supposed to be better for the environment. We
are now having to install leak detection systems in the units
because that refrigerant is mildly flammable.
Mr. Weber. Yes, we used to sell R22--I am sorry, folks, I
am getting down in the weeds a little bit--for $8 a pound when
I started my air conditioning company in 1981. And, of course,
as you know, 22, then it was 410, 410A, and so there is a whole
lot of refrigerant that went--did nothing but go sky high. And
who pays for that? The homeowner.
Let me see, if I can--was it you, Mr. Lowe? I think you
said about--it was 1,132 annual savings over electric. Now, let
me make that distinction for our--for the folks here, for the
committee. A gas furnace is extremely more efficient than an
electric furnace, is--because we already talked about having to
double the size of the breaker box in your home. That also
increases the size of the wiring. When you are running an
electric furnace, partner, you better have probably anywhere
from a 4-gauge to a 6-gauge feed to that thing instead of a 12-
gauge feed to a regular gas furnace.
So I think you said that there was a 1,132 savings over
electric if you had a furnace. Do I remember that correctly?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. That is correct, yes, if you are using gas
appliances to heat your home----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Mr. Tebbenkamp [continuing]. Cook your food, take your
showers.
Mr. Weber. And one thing we didn't say was during the
wintertime, if you had a gas--you know, if you had a fireplace,
as long as it was vented, the house was properly vented, you
could lose your electricity and not have any heat, but you
could have a gas fireplace that was providing heat.
So my time is going to expire, and Mr. Tonko, you are up
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Weatherization
Assistance Program has helped millions of Americans reduce
their energy bills over the past 50 years. It is a tried-and-
true program that deserves our continued support.
Mr. deLaski, there has been a lot of discussion at this
hearing about rising utility bills and how many of our
constituents are struggling with energy affordability. How
important is it that the Weatherization Assistance Program
provides some relief to low-income Americans?
Mr. deLaski. It is extremely important.
Mr. Tonko. It is obviously something worth addressing in a
bipartisan fashion also.
Mr. Lowe, I also want to acknowledge and thank AGA for
supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program. Can you talk
about why this program is important to your members' customers,
and what is the value in supporting a fuel-neutral program like
Weatherization?
Mr. Lowe. Well, I think there are several values in that,
starting off with, you know, a lower-income family spending 16
to 18 percent of their income on energy bills because of a poor
envelope of the house or less insulation, any of those things.
Anything you can do to tighten the envelope means less money is
being spent on the energy in that building, so incredibly
important. We are very supportive of it, along with the LIHEAP
program.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I want to highlight a couple of
important reforms included in the bipartisan H.R. 1355
legislation, which, in addition to reauthorizing the program,
will help ensure that we are maximizing the benefits of the
program to our constituents.
One of the biggest issues facing the program is that
material and labor costs must be under an average-cost-per-
dwelling unit limit, which currently stands at about $8,500.
This limit has not kept pace with inflation, meaning there is a
real risk that homes are receiving fewer weatherization
measures than in the past. So Mr. deLaski, how would raising
the average cost per unit, as proposed in H.R. 1355, improve
not just the health of the weatherization program but also the
services it provides to our constituents?
Mr. deLaski. I think raising the limit is very important.
It will help ensure that more homes can benefit, more
homeowners can benefit from the Weatherization Program. It is
essential.
Mr. Tonko. And the bill also formally authorizes the
Weatherization Readiness Fund. Mr. deLaski, is it accurate that
this program has existed at the Department of Energy for the
past several years based on program direction and annual
funding and appropriations bills?
Mr. deLaski. That is accurate, yes.
Mr. Tonko. So it is fair to say that H.R. 1315--1355 isn't
proposing a new program. Is that correct?
Mr. deLaski. That is correct.
Mr. Tonko. We had some discussion about that earlier today.
But this bill would formally authorize the program, which I
believe is an important duty of this committee. So again, Mr.
deLaski, why are these readiness dollars a valuable complement
to the traditional Weatherization Assistance Program?
And based on the experience of readiness funding from the
past few years, have these dollars been proven to be effective
at reducing the number of homes deferred for weatherization?
Mr. deLaski. You know, readiness dollars are essential for
the program. If a home has rot, if it is--if contractors can't
enter the home safely, or if you have a hole in the roof or a
mold problem, you have to remediate that problem before you can
do, you know, proper weatherization. So the readiness program
is essential for this program to reach those folks who really
need it the most.
Mr. Tonko. And I assume there is a great number of homes
that are ineligible without this sort of reform.
Mr. deLaski. That is accurate, yes.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The Readiness Fund isn't intended to address
a one-off issue but to fix a systematic gap that is preventing
many of the households most in need of weatherization from
indeed participating in the program. With the many cost-of-
living challenges facing Americans, it would be wise, I
believe, for Congress to continue supporting this program to
enable more eligible families to be able to live in healthier,
safer, and weatherized homes with a much-improved environment
all around.
So with that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is for you, Mr. Lowe, Ms. Cleary, and Mr. Tebbenkamp.
I want to go back to something that Mr. Weber was talking
about, the Federal Mechanical Installation Act, some of the
issues that he has raised with that. It is a bipartisan
proposal to amend the National Energy Compensation Act to allow
the installation of mechanical insulation as a means to improve
energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings. It would not
mandate the use of mechanical insulation or--nor would it apply
to privately owned buildings. The purpose for this is to save
taxpayer money to promote practical, cost-effective energy
efficiency.
Over the past week, we have been discussing where
efficiency standards may have missed the mark. With that in
mind, can you speak to--can you guys speak to how targeted,
industry-supported, and achievable measures such as the one
outlined in Mr. Weber's bill can and should be promoted?
Mr. Tebbenkamp?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Could you rephrase the question on exactly
what you are asking us to address?
Mr. Palmer. Well, he is asking if we have a bipartisan
bill, we have a consensus, doesn't it make sense to implement
legislation like this that would allow us to have a standard
for mechanical insulation for any new installations? Because
over time it is going to save us a good bit of money. Doesn't
that make sense?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Yes. And again, that goes back to us, you
know, being in favor of reasonable building codes. But there is
a point at which, you know, putting too much in, you are
putting more in than you are getting back. So setting a
standard that works for whatever goal you are trying to achieve
in different parts of the country, we support that. But trying
to put something together that is a one-size-fits-all, that
is----
Mr. Palmer. Well, that leads me to another question for
you, and that is local conditions because, you know, weather is
different in different parts of the country, and you have got
to have some flexibility in your coding, wouldn't you?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. I agree. And so that is one of the biggest
reasons why we have tried to educate lawmakers on the problems
with the 2021 IECC. Again, it was put together as a model to
allow local agencies and municipalities to set up their codes.
When the Inflation Reduction Act put this grant out there,
it basically said don't amend it, don't do anything, adopt it
as is. Well, when that is done, that basically says that we
can't make it fit for our area as we see----
Mr. Palmer. Now, Alabama is a little different than
Minnesota.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. I agree. I agree, so that is the one reason
that I would ask----
Mr. Palmer. Let me----
Mr. Tebbenkamp [continuing]. That Congress, you know, let
builders build and enact policies that reduce some of these
burdens on us to be able to make what works in our area most
efficiently.
Mr. Palmer. One of the issues I have is some of these codes
trying to exclude natural gas. And I think your local codes,
Federal codes, your international codes should include natural
gas.
I introduced and got passed a resolution, H.R. 20, to
allow--to overturn a Biden regulation that would have basically
eliminated natural gas tankless-condensing water heaters. And I
mean, it is--was going to cost a significant amount of money
for about 40 percent of consumers.
Mr. Novak, how can--can you speak to--not Novak, I am
sorry, that was the previous one--Mr. Lowe, can you speak to
how the DoD is working to make sure that rules are submitted--
that--how they ought to be making sure that these rules are
submitted are for the benefit of the American people?
Mr. Lowe. Absolutely. Energy codes ought to be based on
energy efficiency and the reductions around the energy
efficiency. Energy efficiency does not equate to
electrification. You can have energy savings through the
process of codes. And like I have said, we have been very
supportive for more than 50 years. In fact, the original
voluntary standards that AGA and our members instituted around
appliances were the ANSI standards that were then taken over by
EPCA and the Department of Education when it was brought into
existence. We have a long history of it.
But when you are moving policy to eliminate a fuel source
rather than remaining fuel neutral, that is where we have a
problem, and that is where we will step up to defend the direct
use of natural gas and ensure that Americans have that
opportunity to have that fuel choice.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Lowe.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for holding
this important second panel with stakeholders to discuss
appliance and building policy.
As I mentioned during the first panel, I introduced the
Don't Mess With My Home Appliances Act to modernize energy
policy and conservation. EPCA, which is Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, EPCA, to protect consumer choice in
appliances--and my wife is who really insisted on this because
she has a new gas stove and she wants to keep it. In fact, I
never thought in my wildest imagination I would testify on the
House floor during a debate trying to save my wife's gas stove,
but, you know, these are different times.
The Biden-Harris administration waged a 4-year war on
domestic energy and consumer choice, and American families have
paid the price. This bill makes necessary reforms to EPCA to
ensure no future administration can implement regulations to
drive up costs for consumers. You know, back home in August the
question I got is, Why does my--replacing my air conditioning
system cost 3 times more today than it did 5 years ago? That is
what the American people are asking.
Ms. Cleary, you said AHAM has been testifying since the
early 2000s seeking EPCA reform. What are the top one or two
most important reforms you would like to see accomplished?
Ms. Cleary. Well, we are thrilled that we are here today
talking about this issue. Like I said, we have been wanting it
for a long time, so thank you for initiating it with your bill.
We really believe that, as your bill does, it is time to shift
the focus at DOE from endless rulemaking cycles to meaningful
energy savings. So that is the top priority, to do that, and
your bill does that.
We also support maintaining and strengthening Federal
preemption, because efficiency standards work best when they
are on a national scale, so that is really important.
And if I could put in a third one, we want to make sure
that DOE is following EPCA so that it is not resulting in
reduced choice to consumers.
Mr. Allen. OK, thank you. I hope to get--Mr. Lowe, my bill
is aimed at ensuring that efficiency standards are economically
justified with a payback period of 3 years. Can you explain how
this provision would--will ensure consumer affordability for
appliances?
Mr. Lowe. Well, first of all, thank you for introducing the
legislation. We look forward to working with you on it, and
there are a couple of areas we would love to add to the bill,
including the inclusion of some--two product-class legislation.
The previous administration tried to eliminate natural gas
furnaces, condensing versus noncondensing. I would love to talk
to your staff----
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. About the opportunities there.
Mr. Allen. Yes, do that.
Mr. Lowe. The payback period is incredibly important. You
know, it--there were a number of times during the original
furnace rule that DOE said a 900-year payback period was
appropriate for a furnace. If I am in a house 900 years from
now and that is still paying off, I will take my words back.
Mr. Allen. Yes, yes.
Mr. Lowe. But, you know, we have got to have reasonable
payback periods----
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. For it to make sense----
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. For the customer to purchase that
model.
Mr. Allen. Yes, it sounds like they are talking about
biblical times, Old Testament times there. And thank you for
that because, yes, we are going to mark the bill up and amend
it, so we need to get that information from you, and I
appreciate that feedback. That is why we, by the way, why we
have these hearings before we mark up a bill, so we can do this
thing right from the bottom up rather than the top down like we
have seen the last 4 years before this administration.
Mr. Tebbenkamp--did I get that correct?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Yes.
Mr. Allen. Close? OK, Good. Thank you.
Housing affordability is an issue for too many Americans,
and we must focus on policies that expand housing
accessibility. We have a big housing shortage in this country,
and an affordability crisis. Obviously, it would help if
interest rates--hopefully they came down, I think, today or
tomorrow, whenever the Fed meets.
But, you know, things like the changes in transformers and
things like that, we couldn't get transformers to develop. But
can you share real quickly--I got about 20 seconds--how energy
efficiency standards that phase out natural gas appliances can
impact the ability to build affordable homes?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. So you are asking me how that would--
phasing out natural gas?
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. The house I talked about earlier, the
customer wanted to put an EV charger in it but he insisted on
having dual electric water heaters.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Because of the 200-amp total that we could
have on the house at the time, that made that impossible. So we
tried to get him to go with a high-performing direct-vent gas
water heater so that he could do that.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Tebbenkamp. He didn't want to do that, and put that
cost in there, so----
Mr. Allen. Yes, the customer comes first, right?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Yes.
Mr. Allen. I am out of time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Balderson.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here this afternoon. I apologize for the running around.
My first question is for Mr. Lowe.
Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act
requires the elimination of onsite fossil fuel use from new and
renovated buildings by 2030. As you note in your testimony, the
Federal facilities such as hospitals, military housing,
national labs, and computing facilities depend on onsite backup
systems and direct-use fuels for resilience. Can you discuss
the impact section 433 would have on these facilities, if left
in place?
Mr. Lowe. It is impossible to achieve, first of all. You
know, and I was a Senate staffer in 2007 when this passed,
preshale revolution, before directional drilling and hydraulic
fracturing became--helped us become dominant in the gas space.
And I think that there was a lot of hope and prayer behind that
we would get to 2030 and have energy solutions that simply
aren't there yet.
It endangers our troops, it endangers our veterans. If you
are going through cancer treatment in a hospital, you have got
to have reliable generation and reliable backup generation. If
we are suddenly taking away that reliability and going to less
reliable sources, that is not what our veterans deserve, that
is not what our troops deserve, that is not what the American
taxpayer deserves. And the Biden administration's own rule in
2024 showed that it was likely to produce another 200--or, I am
sorry, 28 million MMBtu of fuel use in additional costs not
only in energy but in emission costs, as well.
So while this rule may have been good intended in the
beginning, in 2007 it has outlived its purpose. It has outlived
its value and needs to be repealed.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Do you believe section 433's ban
on natural gas and fossil fuels--you basically answered that.
My followup to you would be--is on the issue I raised
during last week's subcommittee hearing. In your testimony you
mentioned 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. Lowe. I appreciate the question, and the difference in
this is condensing versus noncondensing. If you think about it,
a traditional furnace that most people--probably 60 to 70
percent of the market right now have it vented out, and it goes
out your roof, goes out your chimney, goes out where it may be.
Very good technology.
A noncondensing furnace does not have that same attribute.
It does not exhaust out the top. It has got to go out a side
vent. So think of older, you know, Philadelphia, here in
Washington, DC, New York City, where you have rowhouses. You
may be able to vent straight out the top right now. You can't
vent out a neighbor's sidewall at all, and that becomes an
issue. Cost also becomes an issue because you are repiping the
entire house, so you are looking at a couple of thousand
dollars of additional cost around that.
There are clearly two very separate products, should be
treated very separately. The previous DOE viewed them as one
product class as a way to eliminate what is 40 to 50 percent of
the market today and is reliable and affordable, especially for
those in low-income neighborhoods. They simply could not afford
to replace it, if you are even allowed to by statute.
Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you.
Ms. Cleary, we have a minute left, but do--I think many on
this committee, myself included, have deep concerns 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?
Ms. Cleary. Well, certainly, DOE finalized those standards
and made that determination. And I think our concern is making
sure that all standards in the future are justified for
consumers.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thanks, Chair, and I appreciate the
panel's testimony today. I want to talk about the manufactured
housing bill.
Housing is usually the single largest expense for American
households, and I think the cost of housing is the single most
pressing economic challenge in the United States today. We have
got to build 5 million new units of housing over the next
decade, and we are lagging behind.
I think off-site construction of housing is a really
important way to help deliver the units that we need, and I
have seen firsthand in my district and also in speaking to
developers and experts how much progress has been made on off-
site construction. I know this has been an industry that has
been doing this in some form for, like, 70, 80 years, but in
the last decade there has been pretty significant progress,
which is exciting to see.
And so I understand the intent of the Affordable Housing
Over Mandating Efficiency Standards Act. I am sort of concerned
that the bill would take authority for manufactured housing
energy standards away from Energy and grant it to HUD, because
it doesn't--it is not clear that HUD has the experience with
energy standards. But I understand the intent of the bill. Can
any of you speak to why we should assume that HUD can do this
instead of Department of Energy?
Mr. Tebbenkamp?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. Could you rephrase the question of what you
are asking there?
Mr. Auchincloss. Well, so this bill, the Affordable Homes
Act, it would repeal the authority for the Department of Energy
to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured
housing and vest that authority solely with HUD, with Housing
and Urban Development. And it looks like the intent here was
that HUD previously had this authority, and I think in 2007 it
was moved to the Department of Energy. And the standards since
have gotten much tighter and more stringent.
And I can totally believe that maybe the standards have
inhibited the production of manufactured homes, which is a
shame, we need more of it. But why would we, instead of telling
Department of Energy maybe, you know, scope down the standards
to a place that works, why would we give it to HUD, which
probably doesn't really have the in-house expertise to do
energy conservation standards?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. I don't know that I could answer that
question for you, but I would be willing to try and find out.
Mr. Auchincloss. Anybody?
Mr. deLaski. I think it is accurate that the Department has
the expertise when it comes to energy efficiency standards.
Mr. Auchincloss. That Energy Department does?
Mr. deLaski. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes, but this bill is taking it from
Department of Energy and giving it to HUD.
[Pause.]
Mr. Auchincloss. Does the Chair want to weigh in? It is a
genuine question about the bill. I am serious. I want to vote
for this bill, I just--why would HUD know how to do this?
Mr. Weber. Restate your question.
Mr. Auchincloss. This bill, the Affordable Homes Act, it is
actually Representative Houchin's, and, you know, maybe she can
weigh in on it. But it would repeal the authority for the
Department of Energy to establish energy conservation standards
for manufactured housing and give it to HUD, the idea being
that Department of Energy standards were too stringent, HUD
will be more lax----
Mr. Weber. Yes----
Mr. Auchincloss [continuing]. Which I can--I--maybe they
are too stringent and we should just pare them back, but why
give it to HUD?
Mr. Weber. Well, I am not going to comment right now. I am
going to ask that you direct your questions to the witnesses
that we invited.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes. None of the witnesses seemed to know
either why we would give it to Energy----
Mr. Weber. Yes----
Mr. Auchincloss [continuing]. Or give it to HUD, rather.
Mr. Weber. Now, let me say this. Like she is saying, the
committee staff can follow up with your staff.
Mr. Auchincloss. OK.
Mr. Weber. But for right now, let's direct our attention to
the witnesses.
Mr. Auchincloss. OK. Well, I yield back.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Langworthy, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to begin by thanking the Energy Subcommittee for considering
these two important bills in today's hearings, especially the
Energy Choice Act and the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act,
which I introduced earlier this year. These two bills are
connected by a simple principle that--protecting the freedom of
Americans to make their own energy choices, and ensuring that
the infrastructure we build is reliable, affordable, and
resilient.
In my home State of New York, families and businesses are
being crushed under the weight of Albany's reckless energy
mandates. Beginning January 1 of next year, a statewide ban on
natural gas hookups in new construction goes into effect, the
first of its kind in the entire Nation. State leaders have
declared war on natural gas and propane, stripping away
consumer choice and driving up costs at a time that people can
absolutely least afford it. These policies aren't just
misguided, they are downright dangerous.
During Winter Storm Elliot, more than 60--almost 70--New
Yorkers froze to death, many of which in their own homes when
the power went out. If this mandate had been in place, forcing
families to rely only on the electrical grid, we wouldn't have
been looking at dozens of deaths, we would be into the hundreds
if not the thousands.
Mr. Tebbenkamp, from your perspective as a homebuilder,
what are the real-world consequences of forcing new homes to
rely solely on electricity both for construction costs and for
resident safety during power outages during extreme weather?
Mr. Tebbenkamp. I would say it is extremely dangerous.
Going all-electric raises the cost and limits efficient heating
in certain areas of the country. In the homes that we build, it
was mentioned earlier, I mean, we put a fireplace in that runs
on a D battery. So if there is no power in the house, they can
put a D battery in there, and they can turn the fireplace on,
and they can heat their house with gas during a power outage.
As long as they light that one time, it will continue to
produce heat.
If they were completely reliant on electricity for their
home, then as the house cools over a few days, then, I mean,
there is nothing else they can do. And then you are going to
see people probably doing things that are not the smartest in
order to try and keep their families warm that will end up most
likely costing families their lives.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much. And at the same time,
we have to take a hard look at how the Federal Government
itself is approaching energy. We spend taxpayer dollars to
maintain Federal buildings, and we can't waste these dollars
building unreliable and inefficient infrastructure. Under
section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act,
Federal buildings are required to eliminate onsite fossil fuel
use by 2030. It ties the hands of agencies, it drives up
construction costs, and it is forcing the taxpayers to foot the
bill for mandates that don't even guarantee lower emissions.
The men and women who rely on VA hospitals, military bases,
and research facilities, they deserve infrastructure that is
reliable and affordable and not subject to the latest political
fad. If anything, our Federal buildings should be leading by
example and prioritizing resilience and affordability and
predictability so they can continue their critical missions
without disruption.
Mr. Lowe, section 433 intends to ensure Federal Government
buildings can run on clean energy. Can you tell us why AGA is
concerned with section 433, and why we need the Reliable
Federal Infrastructure Act?
Mr. Lowe. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for your
work around these issues. It is incredibly important.
Let me say consumers, including the U.S. Government, should
have choices when it comes to the energy they use and the best
solutions that they have. What may be a solution for upstate
New York may be very different in Florida. My home State of
Alaska, I can tell you, building a Federal courthouse in
Fairbanks, Alaska, that uses just wind or solar may be a very
difficult option to achieve, whereas having the gas line
running down, having that right there, using it makes a lot of
sense.
We ought to have the flexibility as a Federal Government,
just like every American should have the flexibility, to choose
the fuel source that makes the most sense for them.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much. And taken together,
these two bills are putting Americans first. Whether it is
giving families the freedom to choose how to heat their home or
ensuring Federal projects are built reliably and resiliently,
these bills reject costly mandates that put ideology over
common sense. Energy policy should serve the people, keeping
homes warm, people safe, businesses running, and critical
infrastructure strong, not advancing woke political agendas.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no other
Members, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
Members may have additional written questions for you, and
I will remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record, and I ask that the
witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10 days of
receipt of those questions.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Weber. Without objection, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]