[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2295-S2296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SECRETARY PENA'S NOMINATION

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to 
express my concern with the Department of Energy's handling of the 
appliance energy efficiency standards regulations. My concerns 
regarding this matter are well known. In the last Congress, I authored 
an amendment to impose a 1-year moratorium on new DOE appliance 
standards rulemaking activities. That action became necessary because 
it was clear that DOE's energy efficiency standards program was placing 
jobs and investment in the manufacturing industry at risk, not just in 
Kentucky, but in other States around the Nation.
  DOE's response to the moratorium was an interpretive rule that was 
designed to institutionalize a variety of reforms. While I commend DOE 
for identifying and correcting their own shortcomings, DOE's first test 
is before us now in the form of new energy efficiency standards for 
refrigerators. In my estimation, DOE deserves a failing grade.
  I have raised the refrigerator standards issue with Secretary Pena 
during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy Committee, but 
I have not received a satisfactory answer to my questions. While I 
realize Secretary Pena did not create this controversy,

[[Page S2296]]

Congress will hold Secretary Pena responsible for the outcome and the 
consequences of this rulemaking.
  Mr. President, I am disturbed by the fact that DOE has changed its 
position outlined in the August 1996, notice of proposed rulemaking, 
which established a 2003 standard as its preferred option. This option 
was supported by manufacturers. DOE has since changed its position and 
now supports implementing the new standards for refrigerators in the 
year 2000. As a result of this flip-flop, manufacturers will be 
required to make costly investments twice--once to comply with the DOE 
energy standards in 2000, and again when regulations mandate the 
elimination of HCFC insulation as required in the year 2003.
  Mr. President, it is important to note that these burdensome and 
duplicative regulations are not necessary. Once it was determined that 
DOE was not going to abide by its preferred option, manufacturers 
offered a good-faith compromise that would set a more stringent level 
of energy savings than proposed by DOE to be implemented in 2003. This 
proposal would save more energy while minimizing the reengineering and 
regulatory burden, which will add unnecessary costs to manufacturers 
and consumers.
  What is more disturbing is that DOE has ignored its own contractor's 
analysis in setting these standards. I am informed that the analysis by 
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories confirms that the energy savings 
attributable to the 2003 standard would exceed the benefits of the 2000 
standards. Unfortunately, DOE has chosen to ignore this analysis and 
not include it in establishing these standards.
  Mr. President, this is not the only procedural defect in DOE's 
proposed rule. The Department has failed to comply with the 
requirements of law regarding the Department of Justice's role in this 
rulemaking. DOE has failed to obtain an updated competitive impact 
determination from the Department of Justice that takes into account 
new evidence of the potential impact of the proposed rule. I believe 
such analysis is essential to maintaining a competitive marketplace.
  Mr. President, considering the latest analysis by DOE's own 
contractor, it has become apparent to me that this battle is no longer 
about securing the greatest energy savings. Rather, it seems this is 
about punishing manufacturers more than a legitimate or responsible 
basis for regulation. The only regulation that makes sense is one that 
takes effect in 2003.
  This controversy raises fundamental questions about whether DOE will 
faithfully administer the appliance standards program as currently 
authorized. I will continue to follow this matter very closely and keep 
my legislative option open.
  I urge Secretary Pena to assume responsibility for assuring that the 
law is properly applied and the correct decision reached.

                          ____________________