Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)

[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2279-H2285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

(1420)
DON'T MESS WITH MY HOME APPLIANCES ACT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1075, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4626) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended
energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically
feasible and economically justified, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of West Virginia). Pursuant to
House Resolution 1075, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce printed
in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of
the text of Rules Committee Print 119-20 is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 4626

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Home Appliance Protection
and Affordability Act''.

SEC. 2. PRESCRIBING NEW OR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS.

(a) Amendment of Standards.--
(1) In general.--Section 325(m)(1) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, for any product,
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking including new
proposed standards for such product based on the criteria
established under subsection (o) and the procedures
established under subsection (p).''.
(2) Amendment of standard.--Section 325(m)(3) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) Amendment of standard.--Not later than 2 years after
a notice is issued under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
publish a final rule amending the standard for the
product.''.
(3) Application to products.--Section 325(m)(4) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(4) Application to products.--An amendment prescribed
under this subsection shall apply to a product that is
manufactured after the date that is 5 years after publication
of the final rule establishing an applicable standard.''.
(b) Petition for Amended Standard.--Section 325(n) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``an Amended
Standard'' and inserting ``Amendment or Revocation of
Standard'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or revoked'' after
``should be amended'';
(3) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) The Secretary shall grant a petition to determine if
standards for a covered product should be amended or revoked
if the Secretary finds that such petition contains evidence,
assuming no other evidence were considered, that such
standards--
``(A) result in additional costs to consumers;
``(B) do not result in significant conservation of energy
or water;
``(C) are not technologically feasible; and
``(D) result in such covered product not being commercially
available in the United States to all consumers.'';
(4) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``New or amended standards.'' and inserting
``New, amended, or revoked standards.'';
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively (and by conforming the margins
accordingly);
(C) by striking ``Not later than 3 years'' and inserting
the following:
``(A) Not later than 3 years''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Not later than 180 days after the date of granting a
petition to revoke standards, the Secretary shall publish in
the Federal Register--
``(i) a final rule revoking the standards; or
``(ii) a determination that it is not necessary to revoke
the standards.
``(C) The grant of a petition by the Secretary under this
subsection creates no presumption with respect to the
Secretary's determination of any of the criteria in a
rulemaking under this section.
``(D) Standards that have been revoked pursuant to
subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in effect for
purposes of section 327.''; and
(5) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking ``3 years (for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, room air
conditioners, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers,
fluorescent lamp ballasts, general service fluorescent lamps,
incandescent reflector lamps, and kitchen ranges and ovens)
or 5 years (for central air conditioners and heat pumps,
water heaters, pool heaters, direct heating equipment and
furnaces)'' and inserting ``5 years'';
(c) Criteria.--Section 325(o) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) is amended by amending
paragraphs (2) and (3) to read as follows:
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) Design.--Any new or amended energy conservation
standard prescribed by the Secretary under this section for
any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in, as applicable, energy
efficiency or water efficiency, which the Secretary
determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified.
``(B) Test procedures.--If the Secretary determines that a
test procedure should be prescribed or amended in accordance
with section 323 for a type (or class) of covered product,
the Secretary may not prescribe a new or amended energy
conservation standard under this section for such type (or
class) of covered product unless the Secretary has prescribed
or amended (and published in the Federal Register) a test
procedure for such type (or class) of covered product at
least 180 days before publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking with respect to the new or amended energy
conservation standard.
``(C) Significant conservation.--The Secretary may not
prescribe a new or amended energy conservation standard under
this section for a type (or class) of covered product if the
Secretary determines that the establishment and imposition of
such energy conservation standard will not result in
significant conservation of, as applicable, energy or water.
``(D) Technologically feasible and economically
justified.--The Secretary may not prescribe a new or amended
energy conservation standard under this section for a type
(or class) of covered product unless the Secretary determines
that the establishment and imposition of such energy
conservation standard is technologically feasible and
economically justified.
``(E) Disclosure.--The Secretary may not prescribe a new or
amended energy conservation standard under this section for a
type (or class) of covered product unless the Secretary, not
later than the date on which the standard is prescribed,
publicly discloses each meeting held by the Secretary, during
the 5-year period preceding such date, with any entity that--

[[Page H2280]]

``(i) has ties to the People's Republic of China or the
Chinese Communist Party;
``(ii) has produced studies regarding, or advocated for,
regulations or policy to limit, restrict, or ban the use of
any type of energy; and
``(iii) has applied for or received Federal funds.
``(3) Factors for determination.--
``(A) Economic analysis.--
``(i) Determination.--Prior to prescribing any new or
amended energy conservation standard under this section for
any type (or class) of covered product, the Secretary shall
conduct a quantitative economic impact analysis of imposition
of the energy conservation standard that determines the
predicted--

``(I) effects of imposition of the energy conservation
standard on costs and monetary benefits to consumers of the
products subject to such energy conservation standard,
including--

``(aa) costs to low-income households; and
``(bb) variations in costs to consumers based on
differences in regions, including rural populations, cost of
living comparisons, and climatic differences;

``(II) effects of imposition of the energy conservation
standard on employment; and
``(III) lifecycle costs for the covered product, including
costs associated with the purchase, installation,
maintenance, disposal, and replacement of the covered
product.

``(ii) Notice and comment.--The Secretary shall provide
public notice in the Federal Register and at least 60 days
for public comment on the quantitative economic impact
analysis conducted under clause (i).
``(B) Prohibition on additional costs to the consumer.--The
Secretary may not determine that imposition of an energy
conservation standard is economically justified unless the
Secretary, based on an economic analysis under subparagraph
(A), determines that--
``(i) imposition of such energy conservation standard is
not likely to result in additional net costs to the consumer,
including any increase in net costs associated with the
purchase, installation, maintenance, disposal, and
replacement of the covered product; and
``(ii) the monetary value of the energy savings and, as
applicable, water savings, that the consumer will receive as
a result of such energy conservation standard during the
first 3 years after purchasing and installing a covered
product complying with such energy conservation standard, as
calculated under the applicable test procedure, will be
greater than any increased costs to the consumer of the
covered product due to imposition of such energy conservation
standard, including increased costs associated with the
purchase, installation, maintenance, disposal, and
replacement of the covered product.
``(C) Required energy or water savings.--The Secretary may
not determine that imposition of an energy conservation
standard is economically justified unless the Secretary
determines that compliance with such energy conservation
standard will result in--
``(i) a reduction of at least 0.3 quads of site energy over
30 years; or
``(ii) at least a 10 percent reduction in energy or water
use of the covered product.
``(D) Criteria related to performance.--The Secretary may
not determine that imposition of an energy conservation
standard is economically justified unless the Secretary
determines that imposition of such energy conservation
standard will not result in any lessening of the utility or
the performance of the applicable covered product, taking
into consideration the effects of such energy conservation
standard on--
``(i) the compatibility of the covered product with
existing systems;
``(ii) the life span of the covered product;
``(iii) the operating conditions of the covered product;
``(iv) the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the
covered product, as applicable;
``(v) the maintenance requirements of the covered product;
and
``(vi) the replacement and disposal requirements for the
covered product.
``(E) Technological innovation.--The Secretary may not
determine that imposition of an energy conservation standard
is economically justified unless the Secretary determines
that imposition of such energy conservation standard is not
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States
of a type (or class) of products based on what type of fuel
the product consumes.
``(F) Other considerations.--
``(i) In general.--In determining whether imposition of an
energy conservation standard is economically justified, the
Secretary--

``(I) shall prioritize the interests of consumers;
``(II) may not consider estimates of the social costs or
social benefits associated with incremental greenhouse gas
emissions; and
``(III) shall consider--

``(aa) the economic impact, including any regulatory
burden, of the standard on the manufacturers and on the
consumers of the products subject to such standard;
``(bb) the savings in operating costs, including consumer
fuel costs, throughout the estimated average life of the
covered product in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are
likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
``(cc) the total projected amount of energy, or, as
applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the
imposition of the standard;
``(dd) the need for national energy and water conservation;
``(ee) the impact of any lessening of market competition,
as determined in writing by the Attorney General under clause
(ii), that is likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
``(ff) whether the imposition of the energy conservation
standard is likely to result price discrimination; and
``(gg) other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
``(ii) Attorney general determination.--For purposes of
clause (i)(III)(ee), the Attorney General shall make a
determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of
market competition likely to result from such standard and
shall transmit such determination, not later than 60 days
after the publication of a proposed rule prescribing or
amending an energy conservation standard, in writing to the
Secretary, together with an analysis of the nature and extent
of such impact. Any such determination and analysis shall be
published by the Secretary in the Federal Register.
``(G) Regulatory review.--
``(i) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the
issuance of any final rule prescribing a new or amended
energy conservation standard under this section for any type
(or class) of covered product, the Secretary shall evaluate
the rule to determine whether such energy conservation
standard is technologically feasible and economically
justified and whether the regulatory impact analysis for such
rule remains accurate.
``(ii) Effect.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
part, if the Secretary determines, based on an evaluation
under clause (i), that an energy conservation standard is not
technologically feasible or economically justified--
``(I) the Secretary shall publish such determination and
such energy conservation standard shall have no force or
effect (except that such energy conservation standard shall
be considered to be in effect for purposes of section 327);
and
``(II) the Secretary may publish a final rule amending the
energy conservation standard for the type (or class) of
covered product to be technologically feasible and
economically justified in accordance with this subsection,
which amendment shall apply to such a product that is
manufactured after the date that is 3 years after publication
of such final rule.''.
(d) Applicability of Regional Standards.--Section
325(o)(6)(E)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(6)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ``shall
apply to any such product installed on or after the effective
date of the standard in States in which the Secretary has
designated the standard to apply'' and inserting ``shall
apply, in States in which the Secretary has designated the
standard to apply, to any such product that is manufactured
or imported into the United States on or after the effective
date of the standard''.
(e) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Definitions.--
(A) Consumer product.--Section 321(1)(A) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(A)) is amended
by striking ``, with respect to showerheads, faucets, water
closets, and urinals, water'' and inserting ``water, as
applicable''.
(B) Energy conservation standard.--Section 321(6)(A) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(A)) is
amended by striking ``, or, in the case of showerheads,
faucets, water closets, and urinals, water use,'' and
inserting ``or water use, as applicable,''.
(C) Estimated annual operating cost.--Section 321(7) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291(7)) is
amended by striking ``in the case of showerheads, faucets,
water closets, and urinals'' and inserting ``, as
applicable''.
(2) Test procedures.--
(A) Design of test procedures.--Section 323(b)(3) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) is
amended by striking ``energy efficiency, energy use, water
use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and
urinals)'' and inserting ``, as applicable, energy
efficiency, energy use, water use''.
(B) Calculation of costs.--Section 323(b)(4) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) is amended
by--
(i) by striking ``or, in the case of showerheads, faucets,
water closets, or urinals,'' and inserting ``or, as
applicable,''; and
(ii) by striking ``or in the case of showerheads, faucets,
water closets, or urinals,'' and inserting ``or, as
applicable,''.
(C) Restriction on certain representations.--Section 323(c)
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)
is amended--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `` or, in the case of
showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals,'' and
inserting ``or, as applicable,''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `` or, in the case of
showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals,'' and
inserting ``or, as applicable,''.
(3) Criteria for prescribing new or amended standards.--
Section 325(o)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
is amended by striking ``, or, in the case of showerheads,
faucets, water closets, or urinals,'' and inserting ``, or,
as applicable,''.
(4) Regional standards.--Section 325(o)(6)(D)(i)(II) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(6)(D)(i)(II)) is amended by striking ``this
paragraph'' and inserting ``this subsection''.
(5) Procedure for prescribing new or amended standards.--
Section 325(p)(2)(A) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``taking
into account those factors which the Secretary must consider
under subsection (o)(2)'' and inserting ``as determined in
accordance with subsection (o)''.
(6) Information requirements.--Section 326(d)(1) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by striking
``or, in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets, and
urinals,'' and inserting ``or, as applicable,''.

[[Page H2281]]

(7) Energy conservation standards for high-intensity
discharge lamps, distribution transformers, and small
electric motors.--Section 346 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6317) is amended by striking
subsection (c).

SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS.

Section 346 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6317) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) No New or Revised Standards for Distribution
Transformers.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date of enactment of
this subsection, the Secretary may not prescribe any new or
amended energy conservation standard under part B or this
part for distribution transformers, including those
distribution transformers for which the Secretary prescribed
testing requirements under subsection (a)(1) and low-voltage
dry-type distribution transformers.
``(2) Effect on existing standards.--Paragraph (1) does not
affect any energy conservation standards prescribed under
part B or this part before the date of enactment of this
subsection.''.

SEC. 4. DISHWASHERS; CLOTHES WASHERS.

Section 325(g) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6295(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9)(B), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Other amendments to standards.--The Secretary may
prescribe a new or amended energy conservation standard for
clothes washers in accordance with this section, including--

``(I) a design requirement; and
``(II) a performance standard which prescribes one of the
following:

``(aa) A minimum level of energy efficiency.
``(bb) A maximum quantity of energy use.
``(cc) A minimum level of water efficiency.
``(dd) A maximum quantity of water use.
``(ee) A minimum level of energy efficiency and a minimum
level of water efficiency.
``(ff) A maximum quantity of energy use and a maximum
quantity of water use.''; and
(2) in paragraph (10)(B), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Other amendments to standards.--The Secretary may
prescribe a new or amended energy conservation standard for
dishwashers in accordance with this section, including--

``(I) a design requirement; and
``(II) a performance standard which prescribes one of the
following:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

General Leave

Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 4626.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4626, the Home
Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, sponsored by my colleague
from Georgia's 12th District. This legislation modernizes energy
efficiency authorities to lower costs for households and protects
consumer choice.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA, was established in
1975 amidst the oil crisis of the 1970s. EPCA gave statutory authority
to the Department of Energy to regulate and set minimum efficiency
standards for a list of covered products, including stoves, water
heaters, and dishwashers, as well as certain commercial equipment.
At the time, Americans were dealing with the aftermath of the oil
embargoes that led to mile-long gas lines and fuel rationing. The
initial establishment of energy efficiency regulations was a matter of
energy security.
By reducing consumption through the use of innovative technologies,
we can insulate families from the harm caused by adversarial nations
restricting access to critical energy resources.
Madam Speaker, 50 years later, EPCA has remained largely unchanged,
but under Democratic administrations, the focus of conservation efforts
shifted from energy security to green policies that advance the far-
left agenda.
During the same period, the United States has become the premier
energy-producing nation, while home appliances have simultaneously
become vastly more efficient.
During the 4 long years of the Biden-Harris administration, however,
the Department of Energy used EPCA authorities to regulate a host of
everyday products like dishwashers, freezers, and dryers. But these
regulations were neither based on what consumers need or focused on
affordability. They were rooted in ambitious climate goals.
While EPCA requires regulation to be economically justified and cost
effective, the Biden-Harris administration bent the rules so that
households and businesses may not see any efficient savings for
decades.
In fact, the Biden-Harris Department of Energy regulations on dryers
could take up to 46 years to see efficiency benefits, even though
household appliances are replaced every 8 to 9 years on average.
Americans are already paying 34 percent more for their energy bills
than they were in 2010. Households simply cannot afford more expensive
mandates coming out of Washington.
At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills because of
inflation caused by the Biden-Harris administration's spending spree,
the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act takes important
steps to provide necessary relief to hardworking families. Decisions
about home appliance should be left to American families, not
bureaucrats in Washington.
The Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act institutes
commonsense accountability at DOE to protect consumers from
overregulation. Importantly, this bill will foster continued innovation
in energy efficiency technologies. Refocusing EPCA's authorities on
cost-effective efficiency standards will lower costs while continuing
to improve household appliance performance.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R.
4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act to protect
consumer choice, to modernize EPCA authorities, and to lower costs for
American families.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, we all know that American families are struggling to
make ends meet. President Trump promised to cut energy bills in half in
his first year, but that has not happened. In fact, electricity prices
are up by 13 percent across the Nation and 80 million Americans are
struggling to pay their utility bills.
These increases did not just happen. They were a direct result of the
Trump administration's disastrous policies, policies that have been
rubber-stamped by House Republicans.
It is bad enough that Trump and congressional Republicans have
ignored the affordability crisis and have instead done everything they
can to help out their rich and big corporate interest buddies, but
House Republicans are bringing up a bill today that will actually
increase your monthly energy bill and make the appliances in your home
more expensive to operate. It is hard to imagine being more out of
touch with the needs of everyday Americans.
First, I have to mention that H.R. 4626 would make the appliances in
your home more expensive to operate, sending your already high
electricity bill even higher. Like all other appliance-related debates,
this bill is just another way to kill floor time for Republicans who
seem to only be able to garner enough Republican votes for bills to
help their corporate polluter friends.
This bill guts the appliance energy conservation standards program at
the Department of Energy. This program is credited with helping
American households save $6,000 on their energy bills over the last
decade. The standards are projected to help reduce peak demand by 32
gigawatts by 2040. In a world where data centers are popping up all
over the country, driving up costs and demand, we can't ignore the
benefits from appliance efficiency.
Instead of recognizing energy efficiency as a helpful tool against
rising costs and increasing electricity demand, House Republicans have
made it the enemy. This bill gives the Trump

[[Page H2282]]

administration the power to eliminate efficiency standards, and it even
prevents States from setting their own standards when the Federal
Government fails to act. It creates arbitrary thresholds for new
efficiency standards and eliminates the system of periodic reviews to
examine if more savings are possible for certain products.
Together, these changes to the program will ensure that new energy
efficiency standards get caught in a confusing and arbitrary process
that delays finalization of new efficiency standards and allows for the
roll back of existing standards. Basically, this bill guts the program
and makes it unworkable.

{time} 1430

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy already has a robust process
for finalizing energy efficiency standards. New standards must be
technologically feasible and economically justified. The current
process already has the buy-in and participation from a wide range of
stakeholders, including consumer advocates, manufacturers, and energy
efficiency advocates.
In fact, many of the efficiency standards that were finalized over
the last few years are the result of a consensus agreement between
these parties.
Rather than recognizing that the current process is successful at
bringing everyone to the table, House Republicans have chosen to
villainize it. Rather than celebrating the savings that Americans see
as a result of efficiency standards, House Republicans mislead the
public by misrepresenting how these standards work and how consumers
save money.
With this bill, House Republicans are making the affordability crisis
worse. They are gutting a successful and established program that saves
Americans money.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Energy
Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
4626. I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here at a time when later today we are going to
hear the State of the Union Address. Based upon everything we know with
the state of the Union, things are very expensive. Our neighbors back
home are suffering a real affordability squeeze.
Especially when we are talking about energy, we know that 80 million
Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills right now. Look at
our home State of Florida, Mr. Speaker, where FPL and TECO were just
granted the largest rate hikes in history. That is $6 billion that
Floridians are going to have to pay, higher costs at a time when they
are really struggling with groceries and housing and hurricane repair
at the same time.
Across America, electric utility rate hikes are at about 13 percent,
much higher in some places. We know that manufacturing jobs decreased
last year in 2025. Much of that is because of these arbitrary tariffs,
the highest import taxes in about 100 years that Americans are paying
for. Even the Supreme Court said we can't do that. They are arbitrary.
They are illegal. People really deserve to get some money back from the
illegal tariffs.
Then when we add on top the impact of the big, ugly bill. It is
anticipated that due to the big, ugly bill passed by Republicans last
summer, hardworking Americans are going to pay about 61 percent more on
their electric bills over the next decade. Of course, there are
healthcare costs, too, because of that big, ugly bill.
My guest for the State of the Union Address tonight is a small
business owner from Tampa, Linda Misner. She and her husband own a
healthcare business, a wellness business, in Tampa. With the benefit of
the Affordable Care Act tax credits, they were paying about $300 per
month. Just like a lot of Florida families, they are hardworking
Americans, small business owners.
As they are too young for Medicare, healthcare costs are just killing
them. Without the tax credit, their health insurance premium will go
from about $320 per month to $3,000 per month. That is outrageous.
Republicans ripping away that healthcare tax credit means that Linda
and her husband now have had to go to an insurance plan that does not
provide the same coverage. It doesn't provide prescription care. They
are really at their wits' end, like a lot of Americans.
Things are too expensive. Everything the Republicans and the
President have done has made life harder. It has made going to the
grocery store like a military exercise. We are trying to figure out
what we can buy.
To add insult to injury, we should be working together on legislation
that will help our neighbors back home. What bills do the Republicans
bring to the floor of the House today, the day of the State of the
Union Address? They bring a bill that is going to make things more
expensive. They are going to make electricity bills more expensive.
Energy efficiency standards are very popular. They are some of the
most important tools that we have in helping to keep the pressure on
lower electric bills. They have been a success.
Energy efficiency standards used to be bipartisan for refrigerators
and air conditioners and dishwashers, but that has gone by the wayside.
I don't know why. Mr. Pallone kind of shined a light on that. High-
powered corporations with all too much influence here in Washington,
D.C., are calling the shots.
Utility companies and oil and gas companies want us to use more
energy. They want us to consume more. They don't want us to be energy
efficient. People really deserve better these days.
What does H.R. 4626 do? It guts those efficiency standards that have
saved the average American household about $6,000 over the last 10
years. In fact, Consumer Reports, a very well-respected and trusted
organization, the Consumer Federation of America, writes:
``Appliance efficiency standards ensure that any of the huge array of
product choices available to consumers incorporate energy-saving
designs and technology that help limit energy consumption and utility
bills.''
``Energy efficiency doesn't just directly save money but also puts
downward pressure on utility rates. Energy efficiency gains have helped
create a downward trend in household energy consumption over the past
20 years, reducing the amount of investments utilities have had to
make, preventing costs that they would have otherwise passed on to
consumers. While energy efficiency alone can't solve all energy
affordability challenges, it plays an important role in helping to
counterbalance rising electricity prices.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from Consumer
Reports and Consumer Federation of America.

February 23, 2026.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brett Guthrie,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank Pallone,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Chairman Guthrie,
and Ranking Member Pallone: The undersigned groups write in
strong opposition to H.R. 4626, which would grant new powers
to the executive branch to weaken or remove appliance and
equipment efficiency standards and set roadblocks to future
improvements. If enacted, this bill would raise costs for
households across America.
Appliance standards ensure consumers and businesses have
access to cost-saving technologies that help reduce their
utility bills. Without existing standards, the typical US
household would have spent an additional $6,000 on utility
bills over the past decade, according to a recent report.
With these savings, it's not surprising that these
standards have broad public support. Surveys conducted in
2025 by Consumer Reports showed that an overwhelming majority
(87 percent) of consumers across the political spectrum (82
percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats) believe,
that new home appliances for sale in the U.S. should be
required to achieve at least a minimum level of efficiency.''
Respondents say that their top motivation for wanting a more
efficient large home appliance is lower energy bills.
Appliance efficiency standards ensure that any of the huge
array of product choices available to consumers incorporate
energy-

[[Page H2283]]

saving designs and technology that help limit energy
consumption and utility bills. Even with potentially higher
upfront costs, energy efficient appliances still provide much
more than adequate bill savings for consumers across the
country. Existing efficiency standards deliver a 3x to 5x
return on investment for buyers. Minimum efficiency standards
are especially valuable for the ∼44 million American
households who rent, and typically have no direct control
over the appliances within their homes.
Energy efficiency doesn't just directly save money but also
puts downward pressure on utility rates. Energy efficiency
gains have helped create a downward trend in household energy
consumption over the past 20 years, reducing the amount of
investments utilities have had to make, preventing costs that
they would have otherwise passed on to consumers. While
energy efficiency alone can't solve all energy affordability
challenges, it plays an important role in helping to
counterbalancing rising electricity prices.
By potentially enabling the executive branch to roll back
efficiency standards, H.R. 4626 would increase costs for
consumers. H.R. 4626 would add needless steps to an already
lengthy rulemaking process and set arbitrary minimum savings
thresholds and payback periods that would put future
improvements to many standards out of reach.
For the above reasons, the undersigned consumer
organizations respectfully oppose H.R. 4626. Thank you for
this opportunity to address these policy measures. The
undersigned groups welcome the opportunity to discuss how
Congress can improve affordability for consumers, but this
bill takes us in the wrong direction.
Sincerely,
Chris Harto,
Manager, Sustainability Policy, Consumer Reports, Washington,
DC.
Karim Marshall,
Director, Climate and Energy, Consumer Federation of America,
Washington, DC.
Berneta Haynes,
Senior Attorney, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of
our low-income clients, Boston, MA.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the bill also says it would gut
the ability of manufacturers, consumer groups, and others to arrive at
consensus.
Most of what happens when the Department of Energy goes to update
energy efficiency standards is that everyone gets together and they
work out a consensus. It is a consensus that helps consumers save money
but ensures that there is not a burden on business. Over time,
technology has improved time and time again.
Some of us are old enough to reflect on the very limited choices we
had decades ago on our household appliances. Now we go shopping. We
have wide consumer choice.
I know my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say this is
a mandate. They are telling us what to buy. People are smart. They know
better than that.
When consumers go shopping, it is up to them to decide: Do I want the
energy efficient model? Do I want the midsize model? What benefits us?
What really applies and helps my family? They have the choice to make.
Over time, through this important energy efficiency initiative at the
Department of Energy, people have really saved a lot of money. It has
allowed our manufacturers to do well.
To gut these energy efficiency standards would be a gift to China.
People are already suffering, paying more because of tariffs on some
household appliances and supplies. If we really want to help consumers
save money, why don't we do something to get the tariff revenue back to
hardworking Americans?
A lot of the big businesses now are saying to the Trump
administration that they want that tariff money back. What would really
be fair is to get that tariff money back to the hardworking Americans
who paid those import taxes, those illegal tariffs and arbitrary
tariffs, imposed by a President who would like to wield them for
retribution, creating--let's get back to the state of the Union--
creating chaos and instability at a time when American families really
need policymakers looking out for them and their wallets.
In the end, Mr. Speaker, energy conservation programs have been a
very critical and valuable tool to our neighbors back home to help them
save trillions of dollars over the past decades. It saves hardworking
Americans thousands of dollars per year. It helps businesses save
money.
Why in the world, especially on the day of the State of the Union
Address, in the middle of an affordability squeeze, would the
Republicans bring another bill to the floor that is going to increase
the cost of living for our neighbors back home? It is not right. I
think Mr. Pallone is absolutely correct. People are out of touch in
Washington, D.C.
They listen too often to the loud voices of the powerful special
interests and not to the hardworking Americans who are really suffering
with higher costs.
Mr. Speaker, people deserve a whole lot better. I hope they will vote
this bill down and get back to work serving the people whom we
represent.

{time} 1440

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend, the sponsor of this piece of
legislation, and an important member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Guthrie for yielding the
time and for his support of my bill, the Home Appliance Protection and
Affordability Act.
Mr. Speaker, I will set the stage on exactly why this bill is
necessary. In 1975, Congress established the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, or EPCA, to increase American energy production,
encourage efficient energy use, and bolster national security.
Under EPCA, the Department of Energy sets efficiency standards for 60
product categories. These standards must be cost-effective,
significantly save energy, and be technologically feasible.
However, under the Biden administration, the EPCA language was
persistently misinterpreted to impose more stringent standards on the
use of conventional home appliances and force the costly rush-to-green
agenda on the American people in their outright war on the fossil fuel
industry.
All of this was done with the stroke of a pen and threatened the
affordability and availability of reliable appliances that Americans
rely on every day. I can tell you firsthand. I was in my district last
week. My constituents in the 12th District of Georgia do not need the
Federal Government to tell them which household appliances will best
meet the needs of their families, period.
One example is that I have a small business in my district, and they
have warehouses and whatnot that they rent. The owner of that small
business explained that he has a 5-year-old HVAC unit, heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning. He had a problem with it, and the
contractor came out and said that they had a little problem. The unit
is 5 years old, and he can't get the part to fix it.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you the end of the story. He has to replace
the entire unit, and it is going to cost three times as much as it cost
5 years ago. Are you telling me that this is going to save money? You
have to be kidding.
The second example is the gas stove. They want to do away with our
gas stoves. They said that you can't cook with gas anymore, and there
was such an uproar that we didn't hear about that anymore.
In the third example, I have a little place up here that is about
1,400 square feet, and the unit went out. Of course, it couldn't keep
it warm anyway because it is an electric heat pump, mandated by this
city, and I have a gas line right in front of my house. I told the
contractor that I want to put in gas heat, like I have back home in
Georgia. He said that you can't do it.
A heat pump will not work below 32 degrees. Plus, you have a total
electrical system when the heat pump shuts down.
Why are we running short of electricity? Because they aimed
everything at electricity. There was a war on our gas industry, or
fossil fuel industry, and that is the very industry that reduced our
carbon footprint by 1,400 tons. The nearest nation to us is 200 tons.
Mr. Speaker, they are trying to put the very people who put us in
this position out of business.
The Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act is a necessary
measure to prevent future administrations, like the past one, from
issuing burdensome standards on household appliances that would drive
up costs and reduce availability. It is that simple.
The naysayers, or those who will vote in opposition to this bill
today, will stand here and tell you that this bill isn't necessary.
They will question

[[Page H2284]]

why this is what we are voting on this week. To that, I say that they
can thank the previous administration.
The egregious appliance standards like those issued under President
Biden's Department of Energy have caused homeowners to spend 34 percent
more on appliances than they did 15 years ago, while also having to
replace them at a faster rate, like the story I told about my
constituent. Even more, these standards were neither economically
justifiable nor significantly more efficient.
I would challenge anyone in this Chamber to find someone who wants
the Federal Government to tilt the scales on what appliances they can
and cannot buy while also increasing costs and reducing reliability.
Mr. Speaker, no amount of fear-mongering on energy efficiency and
climate standards will justify the 4-year war waged on domestic energy,
the use of natural gas, and consumer choice under the Biden-Harris
Presidency. From gas stoves, refrigerators, and freezers to washers,
dryers, dishwashers, and air-conditioners, no household appliance was
off-limits in their pursuit of the green new scam.
We cannot allow that to happen again, and I have been proud to work
closely with House Republicans this last year to right the ship and
undo the many regulatory burdens that have caused the cost of living to
skyrocket.
That is why we are here today: to protect consumer choice, lower
costs, and ensure that American families have the freedom to decide
what suits the needs of their families.
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairmen
Guthrie and Latta for their support of this bill, House Republican
leadership for bringing it to the floor, and all of my colleagues who
have offered their support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4626.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to clear up a few
things.
Mr. Speaker, I will say, first of all, that energy conservation
standards are not bans. We have to keep repeating this over and over
because Republicans are adamant about misleading the public.
Energy conservation standards improve the efficiency of new
appliances. They do not mandate the removal of existing appliances, and
they do not mandate the removal of an appliance based on its fuel
source. It is also important to note that, by law, the Department of
Energy is prohibited from setting standards that would eliminate a
product based on fuel type, such as gas appliances.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Suozzi).
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, here are three simple facts. Number one, the cost of
living in America today is the number one concern on the minds of
Americans. Number two, increasing energy prices are a major factor
causing an increase in American families' cost of living. Number three,
energy-efficient appliances and appliance standards save Americans more
than $500 in energy bills per year. They are also good for our
environment.
More efficient appliances will not only save money, but they conserve
water, conserve energy, and reduce overall emissions that are killing
our planet. This bill, without an amendment, would gut the program that
sets these standards and pave the way for the administration to repeal
existing standards.
It is bad for our wallets. It is bad for our planet. It is just bad
policy. I cannot vote for the proposed bill as written, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, at the appropriate time, I will offer a
motion to recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules
permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment
to this bill.
My amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to certify that
revoking existing energy standards will not negatively impact
consumers. It simply requires that the Secretary of Energy certify that
getting rid of standards such as these would not increase costs or
increase greenhouse gas emissions. This ensures that we are protecting
American families from further harm to their wallets and to the air
they breathe.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Patronis). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to this bill.
Tonight, President Trump will be in this very Chamber to deliver his
State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress. We will
continue to hear a series of mistruths, empty promises, and
gaslighting, I would say, to the American public, so just let me
provide a dose of reality here on the issue at hand.

{time} 1450

Electricity prices are up 12 percent across the Nation, a far cry
from President Trump's promise of cutting electricity costs in half in
his first year. Residential natural gas prices are up 20 percent since
the President's inauguration. When families struggle to pay their
utility bills, they often fall into debt.
Since December 2023, household utility debt has risen over 30
percent, climbing to a whopping $23 billion. Families are having to
choose between keeping the lights on or paying for food or medicine.
That is because President Trump and congressional Republicans have been
more focused on lining the pockets of their corporate polluter friends
instead of providing relief to the American people.
The affordability crisis is real. It is quite literally hitting homes
as well, as the cost of buying a home feels out of reach for far too
many and rent is increasingly unaffordable. Families are struggling to
afford childcare and groceries. As the American public knows all too
well, President Trump and Republicans have caused their healthcare
costs to rise too.
Let's also not forget about the President's disastrous tariffs, which
cost the average American household nearly $1,200 in 2025. Apparently,
the affordability crisis isn't real. The President says it is not
happening, or sometimes he says he fixed it. However, the American
people know when they are not being told the truth.
As much as I wish it did, it doesn't stop there. With the help of his
Republican colleagues, President Trump has eliminated more than 172,000
clean-energy jobs, shuttering factories and projects across the
country, and canceled enough renewable energy. As we know, renewable
energy is cheap. It is clean. It helps American families.
People would think that Republicans would be prioritizing legislation
to address affordability, but that is not the case. Look at what is
happening here today. Right now, this bill that we have before us is a
retread from last Congress. It is the same bill that we voted on in the
last Congress. It says it is about affordability, but it is only in
name. In actuality, this bill will raise household utility bills.
In case my Republican colleagues haven't been listening, the American
people can't afford any more price hikes. The American people have been
crystal clear. They are in need of help. I hear from my constituents
all the time about the rising cost of living, and it is time that
Republicans stand up to President Trump and actually do something about
it. I don't see it happening, but I hope we will see it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are working on affordability. This whole bill is
about affordability. If we look, because of the current Biden-Harris
appliance policies, there is a 28 percent increase for refrigerators, a
25 percent increase for air-conditioners, and a 28 percent increase for
dishwashers.
The argument is they are going to pay more up front, but they are
going

[[Page H2285]]

to make it back in efficiency over time. A refrigerator takes 6 years
and sometimes, depending on which model you buy, 46 years to recoup the
increase in the value. These are Department of Energy numbers. It is up
to 10 years on refrigerators.
The question is: Do people want to pay a fourth more for a
refrigerator in the hopes that over the next 10 years they will get
that money back? It is just not realistic, and that is why we are
fighting for affordability.
When we look at the energy prices being up, we can look at a map of
the United States and see in which States they are up. They are higher.
They are higher in States that have policies like this. They come
particularly from blue States in our country. Local governments have
put the affordability crisis in their cities. State governments have
put the affordability crisis in their States.
I remember being in California just last year and putting gas in a
rental car. I looked over and I think I was paying well over $5 there
when I was paying about $2.50 in Kentucky. I remember looking over at
the guy next to me, and I said: Do you guys have any idea what the rest
of the country pays for gasoline?
It is just astounding. The policies have increased affordability, and
they come here and say we are causing the affordability crisis. With
the energy crisis, we are trying to keep power online, to keep it from
going offline so we can have affordability.
This is all about affordability. It is not about just having an
affordable product to buy. It is about buying a product of your choice.
I don't think we ever argued that anything in the Biden-Harris
administration meant that people were going to go in and take their
appliances out. When appliances only last 7 to 10 years and then they
are replaced, people are going to pay a fourth more. That is what we
are trying to fight. People are going to pay a fourth more and recoup
it in probably a longer time than that appliance has a useful life. It
is just not a good investment. It just doesn't make sense.
We think that EPCA should be reformed so that they do make decisions
based on what is affordable and what gives the best choice to the
consumers in America.
I proudly support this bill. I thank Mr. Allen for sponsoring it. I
encourage its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1075, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Suozzi of New York moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4626
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Suozzi is as follows:

Mr. SUOZZI moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4626 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:

SEC. 5. CERTIFICATION.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
take effect until the date on which the Secretary of Energy
publishes a certification that the effects of revoking
existing energy conservation standards on costs, monetary
benefits, and greenhouse gas emissions will not negatively
impact consumers.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________