Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Effects of Department of Energy Regulations on America's Job Creators (House Small Business Committee hearing, November 8, 2023)
Summary
Transcript of the House Committee on Small Business hearing Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Effects of Department of Energy Regulations on America's Job Creators, convened November 8, 2023 during the 118th Congress, First Session, published as Small Business Committee Document Number 118-029 (GPO 54-085). Chairman Roger Williams presided with Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez. Witnesses were Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Alicia Huey of AGH Homes, Inc., Jeff Bauman of National Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Products, Inc., and Professor Emily Hammond of The George Washington University, with appendix materials from the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the Manufactured Housing Institute. Testimony examined energy efficiency standards, commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning refrigerants.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Effects of Department of Energy Regulations on America's Job Creators (House Small Business Committee hearing, November 8, 2023).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/burdensome-regulations-examining-the-effects-of-department-of-energy-r-19b47311bf/
, SHA-256 80c1b26279a1f34504dd374f93916a02e599acdcd3d8cdb0dbe80ef10bcc65ac.Full text
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING THE
EFFECTS OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
REGULATIONS ON AMERICA’S JOB CREATORS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
HEARING HELD
NOVEMBER 8, 2024
Small Business Committee Document Number 118–029
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54–085 WASHINGTON : 2024
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
BEN JOHNSON, Majority Staff Director
MELISSA JUNG, Minority Staff Director
(II)
CONTENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams ................................................................................................ 1
Hon. Nydia Velázquez ............................................................................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Wash-
ington, DC ............................................................................................................. 4
Ms. Alicia Huey, President, AGH Homes, Inc., Birmingham, AL ....................... 6
Mr. Jeff Bauman, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, National Refrigeration &
Air Conditioning Products, Inc., Bensalem, PA ................................................. 7
Prof. Emily Hammond, Professor of Law, The George Washington University,
Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Wash-
ington, DC ..................................................................................................... 32
Ms. Alicia Huey, President, AGH Homes, Inc., Birmingham, AL ................ 35
Mr. Jeff Bauman, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, National Refrigeration
& Air Conditioning Products, Inc., Bensalem, PA ..................................... 43
Prof. Emily Hammond, Professor of Law, The George Washington Univer-
sity, Washington, DC .................................................................................... 46
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
Appliance Standards Awareness Project Letter ............................................. 52
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) ......................................................... 61
(III)
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING
THE EFFECTS OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
REGULATIONS ON AMERICA’S JOB
CREATORS
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams [chair-
man of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Stauber, Meuser, Van Duyne,
Mann, Molinaro, Alford, Bean, Velázquez, Golden, Landsman,
McGarvey, Gluesenkamp Perez, Scholten, Thanedar, and Chu.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Good morning, and I want to apologize
for being late to both my democratic colleagues and Republican col-
leagues.
Before we get started, I want to recognize Representative Bean
here to lead us in the pledge and prayer.
Okay. I will do that if you all stand, please.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, in-
divisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Please bow your heads.
Heavenly Father, God of all people, thank you for allowing us to
be here today to talk about the greatness of our country and how
both sides can do everything we can in your name to improve, but
we have the opportunity to do so with. We appreciate our witnesses
coming today. In your name we pray. Amen.
I now call the committee on small business to order. Without ob-
jection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee
at any time.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
Good morning to all of you again. Thank you for being here, and
welcome to today’s hearing which will focus on examining the detri-
mental effects of the Department of Energy’s regulations on our na-
tion’s job creators.
First I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I
know you traveled to be with us this morning. We appreciate,
again, all of you taking time to do so.
The Biden administration seemingly has it out for Main Street
America. Through their misguided economic policies and increased
(1)
2
regulatory requirements, small businesses are finding it harder to
make ends meet.
Rather than looking for growth opportunities, small businesses
are forced to play defense in order to deal with a whole host of new
regulations coming down the pipeline.
President Biden’s Energy Department has been especially active
in the past few years in passing new rules that have dramatic re-
percussions on small businesses. By implementing tighter energy-
efficient standards, manufacturers are being forced to change sig-
nificant portions of their operations.
This is increasing the cost of producing this equipment which is
ultimately passed along to businesses and the American people.
The actions are forcing Main Street America to foot the bill for this
administration’s radical climate agenda.
Inflation remains a top concern for job creators, yet the DOE’s
new regulations on gas stoves, ceiling fans, and transformers are
increasing costs for businesses and consumers alike.
Not only are these new standards forcing businesses to purchase
updated equipment, but they are reducing consumer choice in the
marketplace. Competition and consumer preference should be what
determines what is produced, not government mandates.
These policies provide minimal benefit to our small businesses
and only make it harder for them to operate. So while small busi-
nesses suffer under this administration, their concerns continue to
be ignored.
It is the job of this committee to be main street’s voice in Wash-
ington, and we are proud to have this hearing to shine a light on
the devastating effects of these new actions taken by the Biden ad-
ministration.
And if we want to ensure America continues to have a thriving
small business economy, our agencies must do better by listening
to main street—repeat, listening to main street—throughout the
rulemaking process and limit the negative impacts of new regula-
tions.
The government should be in the business of ensuring the econ-
omy works for Americans and guaranteeing regulations aren’t
hamstringing job creators. This committee’s goal is to ensure Main
Street America is given a fair shot at the American Dream.
Our nation’s job creators have been forced to endure profound
challenges over the past—last couple of years, and I hope this hear-
ing helps spotlight some of the detrimental consequences of this ad-
ministration’s regulatory policies and will help us come up with so-
lutions to support our nation’s small businesses.
Again, I want to thank you all for being here today with us. I
am looking forward to today’s conversation.
With that, I want to yield to our distinguished Ranking Member
from New York, Ms. Velázquez, for her opening remarks.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Williams. As Members
of the Small Business Committee, we understand that complying
with federal, state, and local regulations can be burdensome for
small business owners, and that is why Congress created the Office
of Advocacy to ensure that federal agencies are taking the views of
small businesses into consideration throughout the rule-writing
process.
3
In our oversight role, we can send letters, hold hearings, and re-
quest meetings in an effort to hold agencies accountable to the Reg-
ulatory Flexibility Act.
The Department of Energy is required, under the bipartisan En-
ergy Policy and Conservation Act, to establish energy conservation
standards for approximately 60 consumer products and reevaluate
them every 6 years.
Unfortunately, the previous administration violated the law and
missed 26 deadlines, including one for distribution transformers.
Don’t be fooled by some of the rhetoric you may hear today. The
Trump DOE was sued, and as part of a court settlement, the Biden
administration is required to review these long overdue standards.
This isn’t a case of federal overreach.
The reality is, the Trump delays hurt small businesses, costing
them more to do business. Since taking office, the Biden adminis-
tration has issued efficiency standards for more than 20 product
categories, saving Americans $570 billion and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions by more than 2.4 billion metric tons over 30 years.
That translates into significant energy savings for small busi-
nesses.
Today I hope to have a productive discussion about energy con-
servation standards that lower energy bills for small businesses,
and I would like also to learn more about the steps that the De-
partment of Energy is taking to consider small businesses through-
out the rule-writing process.
Maybe in the near future we can bring the federal agencies to
hear directly from them, and to give them an opportunity to ex-
plain their thinking.
I would like to request that the written testimony of Andrew
deLaski, the Executive Director of the Appliance Standards Aware-
ness Project be entered into the record.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So ordered.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. And I will now introduce our
witnesses. Unfortunately, our original witness, Mr. Ben Lieberman
is sick and unable to testify. So, Mr. Marlo Lewis, we have gone
to the bullpen and brought you out, and we appreciate you being
here today on such short notice.
So Mr. Lewis is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise In-
stitute located here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Lewis specializes in
energy and public policy issues, and previously he served as the di-
rector of external relations at the Reason Foundation Los Angeles
and the staff director of the House Government Reform Sub-
committee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and
Regulatory Affairs.
Mr. Lewis, thank you for being with us again today, and we look
forward to hearing your conversation with us.
Our next witness here today is Ms. Alicia Huey. Ms. Huey is
president of AGH Homes located in Birmingham, Alabama. AGH
Homes is a custom homebuilding company which specializes in
high-end custom homes for buyers on individual lots.
Ms. Huey has also been an active Member of the National Asso-
ciation of Home Builders and is currently serving as the Chairman
of the Board of Directors.
4
And while attending the University of Montevallo and volun-
teering for Habitat for Humanity, she decided to switch careers
from early childhood education to homebuilding.
Ms. Huey, thank you for being here today, and we look forward
to this important conversation ahead.
Our next witness here with us today is Mr. Jeff Bauman. Mr.
Bauman is manager of regulatory affairs at National Refrigeration
located in Pennsylvania. Mr. Bauman has been with National Re-
frigeration, a full-service HVAC and plumbing mechanical con-
tractor since 2008.
Prior to working at National Refrigeration, he spent 21 years as
director of the engineering at Victory Refrigeration. Mr. Bauman
attended Drexel University where he received his bachelor of
science in mechanical engineering.
Mr. Bauman, thank you for being here today, and we look for-
ward to your testimony.
And now I recognize the Ranking Member from New York, Ms.
Velázquez, to briefly introduce our last witness appearing before us
today.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. It is my pleasure to introduce Pro-
fessor Emily Hammond who is a nationally recognized expert in en-
ergy, environment, and administrative law. Professor Hammond’s
research on policy work has focused on transparency and public
participation in the regulatory processes. She has served as the
Deputy Counsel for litigation, regulations, and enforcement at the
Department of Energy as well.
Welcome, Professor, and thank you for being here with us today.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. And we appreciate, again, all
of you being with us on this date.
So before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to remind them
that their oral testimony is restricted to 5 minutes in length. If you
hear me do this, you need to shut it down. Okay?
And if you see the light turn red in front of you, it means your
5 minutes has concluded and you should wrap up your testimony.
So with that, I now recognize Mr. Lewis for his 5-minute opening
remarks.
STATEMENTS OF MARLO LEWIS, SENIOR FELLOW, COMPETI-
TIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; ALICIA HUEY, PRESIDENT,
AGH HOMES, INC.; JEFF BAUMAN, MANAGER OF REGU-
LATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL REFRIGERATION & AIR CONDI-
TIONING PRODUCTS, INC; AND EMILY HAMMOND, PRO-
FESSOR OF LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF MARLO LEWIS
Mr. LEWIS. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velázquez,
and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I am Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise In-
stitute, and as you have heard, I am filling in today for my col-
league, Ben Lieberman, who is ill and can’t be here, but he sends
his regrets, and I want to thank the committee for understanding
these last-minute circumstances.
Appliance overregulation has been a problem for years, and
things have gotten worse since January 2023. The year began with
5
the Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission telling the
media that a ban on gas stoves is a real possibility.
That sparked a powerful public backlash, followed by strenuous
denials from the Biden administration that any such ban was
under consideration.
And then only weeks later, the Department of Energy opened a
second regulatory front against gas stoves. While DOE did not pro-
pose an outright ban, compliance stoves would have to sacrifice
product features that have helped make gas the choice of 38 per-
cent of homeowners and the strong preference of many serious
cooks—and all for the energy savings that DOE estimated at $1.51
per year.
Other DOE efficiency rulemakings in 2023 target dishwashers,
water heaters, ceiling fans, furnaces, and washing machines.
Each proposed or final rule likely entails higher appliance prices,
compromised performance, and reduced choices.
With a regulatory agenda so out of touch with what most people
want, it is not surprising that Congress is pushing back with legis-
lative initiatives to repeal specific appliance regulations, defund
their implementation, or reform the entire program.
So far most of the attention has been on the adverse consumer
impacts. This hearing adds a much needed focus on the equally
concerning small business impacts. As with homeowners, small
businesses already face hardship and risk from high gasoline
prices, rising interest rates, and regulatory campaigns to transform
America’s motor vehicle electricity and financial sectors.
The last thing small businesses need is a bunch of new appliance
mandates that they didn’t ask for.
I would note that DOE efficiency standards need not target com-
mercial-grade equipment to hinder small businesses. For example,
many catering businesses operate out of people’s homes and use
consumer stoves.
Many home-based chefs depend on the high heat setting of gas
stoves for searing and stir-frying. So for them, an electrification
mandate is simply unacceptable.
I should also note that DOE’s stove and furnace rules are part
of the Biden administration’s climate policy plan to phase out nat-
ural gas usage and electrify everything. Yet DOE admits that elec-
tricity is three times more expensive than gas on a per-unit energy
basis.
The electrification agenda disfavors small businesses that rely on
natural gas for cooking, heating, and other purposes.
DOE’s efficiency standards also impose costs on small businesses
that manufacture appliances. That topic deserves more attention
and study.
And in general, I think we would all agree that small businesses
already incur a higher per-employee regulatory costs than do large
firms.
The best reform, it seems to me, is to sunset DOE’s standard-set-
ting authority entirely. Doing so would have no down side for small
businesses, only an up side. Any business owner that actually
wants to purchase or manufacture the kinds of appliances favored
by DOE will always be free to do so, with or without such regula-
tions.
6
The only thing that appliance efficiency mandates accomplish is
to force government’s particular preference on everyone, including
the businesses that don’t want them.
So we recommend—CEI recommends that Congress use the Con-
gressional Review Act and other authorities to take on each and
every rule that imposes hardships on small businesses.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.
I now recognize Ms. Huey for her 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF ALICIA HUEY
Ms. HUEY. Thank you, and I am pleased to appear before you
today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders to
share our views on how the Department of Energy regulations are
adding to the affordability crisis.
Access to safe, decent, and affordable housing is essential to the
well-being of all Americans. While today’s hearing is focused spe-
cifically on Department of Energy regulations, there are a vast
array of regulatory burdens imposed on the homebuilding industry.
On average, regulations imposed by all levels of government ac-
count for nearly 25 percent of the price of a single-family home and
over 40 percent of the cost of a typical multifamily development.
Government policies and regulations are making it harder for
homebuilders and multifamily developers to build housing that is
affordable. I would like to share three examples of how excessive
regulations originating from the Department of Energy worsen the
housing affordability.
Number one is the transformer standards. Soaring costs and
shortages of electrical distribution transfers are delaying housing
projects across the nation. Some projects face an 18- to 24-month
wait for a transformer.
The administration is well aware of the shortages of electrical
transformers, yet DOE is pursuing a regulatory change that will
make the situation much worse.
Specifically, DOE is seeking to increase the energy efficiency of
transformers by a mere one-tenth of a percentage point. This re-
quirement would force manufacturers to retool production lines and
worsen the historic backlog.
Transformers are an essential part of the electrical grid, and
homes cannot be sold unless a transformer is installed and work-
ing.
DOE’s proposal will have little impact on energy efficiency and
will exacerbate the current transformer shortage. This is why
NAHB supports the Protecting America’s Distribution Transformer
Supply Chain Act.
The legislation would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from
changing energy conservation standards for distribution trans-
formers for a period of 5 years, which would allow time for the
market to stabilize and so manufacturers could catch up with the
demand.
The next DOE regulation concerns gas stoves. DOE has proposed
a rule that would ban the sale of most current gas cook top models
sold in the United States.
7
Currently more than 187 million Americans use natural gas ap-
pliances, saving them an average of $1,068 each year.
Each American deserves to live in a home of their choice, in a
location of their choice, and fueled by the energy type of their
choice. Neither DOE, nor the administration, should take these op-
tions away.
And finally the Building Energy Codes. The Inflation Reduction
Act included $1 billion in grants to States that adopt updated En-
ergy Codes, specifically, the 2021 Energy Code.
Adoption of the 2021 Code adds as much as $31,000 to the price
of a new home.
NAHB understands the importance of energy efficiency, but the
savings from the 2021 Code can take a homeowner as long as 90
years to see payback. That is not a reasonable trade-off.
If you want to make a difference on energy efficiency, we must
focus on existing housing, particularly older homes built before the
introduction of modern Energy Codes.
According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, up-
grades to the existing housing stock could yield a projected reduc-
tion of 5.7 percent of the total annual U.S. electricity consumption
by 2030.
Given this potential, upgrading the existing housing stock must
be the primary focus if the nation is going to make measurable
progress.
That billion dollars could have been spent smarter by focusing on
upgrading older homes versus making new, already energy-efficient
housing unaffordable for many American families.
Improving the nation’s housing supply and easing housing afford-
ability challenges will take a coordinated and concerted effort at all
levels of government. Let’s begin by fixing the broken regulatory
process.
Congress should pass legislation such as the Small Business Reg-
ulatory Flexibility Improvement Act to ensure that all regulations
are designed with small businesses in mind, that regulatory rule-
making agencies are required to consider the true cost of regula-
tions on small businesses, and that agencies comply with the letter
and intent of the law in crafting new legislation.
Thank you again for the opportunity, and we look forward to
working with you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. Huey.
And now I want to recognize Mr. Bauman for his 5-minute open-
ing remarks.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BAUMAN
Mr. BAUMAN. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Mem-
ber Velázquez, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My
name is Jeffrey Bauman. I am the manager of regulatory affairs
for National Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Products, which
embodies Continental Refrigerator and National Comfort Products.
I am truly thankful and honored for the opportunity to discuss
the impact of Department of Energy regulations on small busi-
nesses like ours.
8
I have worked in the commercial, food service equipment indus-
try for over 34 years, including the past 15 years with Continental
where I previously held the position of engineering manager.
Approximately 2 years ago our company made the decision that
a new full-time position was needed to help manage the barrage of
multiple regulatory actions that continue to confront our compa-
nies, and I took over that role.
National Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Products is a small,
domestic manufacturer that represents approximately 250 high
quality manufacturing jobs in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
Continental Refrigerator is a leading manufacturer of commercial
refrigeration equipment, offering over 2,500 different model con-
figurations. We design, build, and certify all of our products to pro-
vide superior performance, to maintain safe food temperatures in
the harsh environments of commercial kitchens.
Our products must comply with numerous regulations for safety
and sanitation as well as DOE energy regulations. The refrigerants
and foam insulations that are critical components of these prod-
ucts, must comply with EPA global warming potential, or GWP,
limits.
Our company has made significant investments in research and
development, and production changes over the past 6 years to tran-
sition to extremely low GWP insulation and convert over 99 per-
cent of our products to self-contained R-290 refrigerant, with the
lowest GWP available for these types of products.
Multimillion dollar capital expenditures made for new production
equipment, including new temperature-controlled foam fixtures to
address flow issues with the new low-GWP foams, and new charg-
ing stations required for flammable refrigerants.
We also built in-house, state-of-the-art, laboratory-grade test
chambers. These labs continue to run around the clock 7 days a
week to evaluate product performance and manage the multitude
of energy testing required for regulatory compliance.
As a small manufacturer in a heavy regulated industry, Conti-
nental is particularly challenged by continual changes in regula-
tions while working to control rising costs and develop innovative
products in a highly competitive market.
In 2017, we discontinued a line of horizontal freezers that could
not economically meet new DOE energy standards. We compete
with numerous, low-cost, imported products from foreign manufac-
turers who benefit from government subsidies.
Despite our resource limitations, Continental is an active mem-
ber of industry associations, including AHRI, NAFEM, ASHRAE,
ASTM, and the NSF Standards Task Force. We hold positions on
numerous committees that are critical to developing robust and re-
liable industry test methods and standards.
Our company actively works to engage with the Department of
Energy and the EPA in rulemaking. We analyze and regularly sub-
mit comments in response to Requests for Information and pro-
posed rules.
This effort is critical to our business because compliance with ex-
cessive regulations significantly impedes our ability to develop new
products, which have been a keystone to the successful growth of
our business.
9
We also work with the Small Business Administration Office of
Advocacy and helped initiate a small business roundtable to dis-
cuss concerns in the commercial refrigeration industry that we par-
ticipated in last year with other stakeholders.
On October 10th of this year, DOE published a Notice of Pro-
posed Rulemaking in regards to energy conservation standards for
commercial refrigerators and freezers. Our company, along with
other manufacturers and industry associations, are extremely con-
cerned with DOE’s unrealistic proposals in this notice.
Analysis of the proposed standard level shows extremely exces-
sive reductions that are up to 60 percent lower than currently al-
lowed. We have been unable to identify any potential paths to
these types of extraordinary cuts.
DOE’s consultants conducted manufacturing interviews that we
participated prior to this proposed rule, but it appears the informa-
tion was not thoroughly evaluated for this rulemaking.
Technology options that DOE indicates would reduce energy con-
sumption in the near future, such as fan controls and high effi-
ciency fans motors, are already in use.
Other proposed technologies, such as microchannel condenser
coils, have so far proven to be impractical for many applications.
Proposed technologies, such as variable-speed compressors, have
shown some promise in reducing energy consumption but have not
proven to be economically viable options for many of our products
over the next few years.
Increasing our costs to adopt this technology would impede our
ability to compete against other products, particularly those from
foreign manufacturers.
A review of information in DOE’s Compliance Certification Data-
base indicates that more than 85 percent of self-contained products
currently certified would fail to meet the new standards.
Manufacturers would have to redesign almost every product to
significantly reduce energy consumption in a very short period of
time, using proposed technologies that are not proven.
Another example of what we believe is DOE overreach is DOE
adding refrigerated chef bases to the scope. There is no test proce-
dure for this product that has been proven to be tested, and DOE
is proposing new standards for products that have not been evalu-
ated properly.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share the information
about our company, and the significant burden presented by DOE
regulations on small businesses like ours. We look forward to work-
ing with Congress to address these concerns and will continue to
engage with regulatory agencies.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Bauman.
I now recognize Professor Hammond for her 5-minute opening re-
marks.
STATEMENT OF EMILY HAMMOND
Ms. HAMMOND. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Mem-
ber Velázquez, and distinguished Members of the Committee for
the opportunity to testify today.
I will be testifying concerning the Department of Energy’s ap-
proach to rulemaking for its Energy Conservation Standards Pro-
10
gram, how the process is structured to ensure that the voices of
small businesses are heard and how these standards benefit small
businesses.
As you noted, I am a professor of law, and I previously served
at the Department of Energy, but the testimony I offer today is my
own, and I don’t represent or speak for any party.
Before I speak about the legal requirements DOE must follow to
complete its standards, I want to emphasize that my experience
with the Agency revealed a committed group of professionals,
whether lawyers, engineers, or economists, who did not treat these
legal requirements as boxes to check but rather thoughtfully car-
ried out both the letter and the spirit of these laws in service of
good governance.
I will begin with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or
EPCA. As you know, Congress passed EPCA in 1975 at a time
when consumer energy costs were rising and there was a scarcity
of energy resources to meet rising demand.
Congress, itself, set the first energy efficiency standards, and it
directed DOE to periodically reassess those standards and update
them using a detailed set of criteria.
The standards must achieve the maximum improvement in en-
ergy efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically
justified, and the standards must result in a significant conserva-
tion of energy.
Congress explicitly instructed the agency to consider seven fac-
tors for this analysis, which include economic impact of the stand-
ards on manufacturers as well as consumers.
DOE always sets forth its methodology for evaluating these fac-
tors in its proposed and final rules, and that methodology allows
it to hone in on costs and benefits to small businesses.
In formulating these standards, DOE offers far more opportuni-
ties to participate than required by the Administrative Procedure
Act or EPCA, and indeed it will even interview small business own-
ers to ensure that it is fully considering their interests.
This process also helps the agency ensure that it complies with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the analysis for which is detailed in
every proposed rule. That offers further opportunities for engage-
ment with the Agency before the rule is final.
Once a standard is adopted, there is usually a 3- to 5-year time-
frame before compliance is expected, and under EPCA, small busi-
nesses can seek an additional 2-year exception.
Moreover, DOE offers guidance to small businesses in plain lan-
guage on the website, complete with real phone numbers to call,
and a searchable FAQ section. So small businesses can easily learn
how to seek an exception or to get assistance in understanding
their obligations.
It bears emphasis that this program brings concrete benefits on
householders, small businesses, and other commercial enterprises
in the form of real and meaningful savings.
For example, one recent study concluded that energy conserva-
tion standards saved businesses almost $23 billion nationwide.
Each proposed and final rule also documents these kinds of sav-
ings, like the $9 billion that consumers will save under the pro-
posed battery charger standards.
11
These consumers are small businesses themselves, and also the
owners and employees of these small businesses whose financial
pressures at home are diminished when their bills are lower.
There are other benefits too. By reducing energy use, these
standards reduce air pollution, which brings health benefits and
avoids lower worker productivity and lost work days.
Those kinds of disruptions are especially hard on small busi-
nesses, which are already feeling the strain of labor supply short-
ages.
And as climate disruption presents even more risks to the econ-
omy and worker well-being, this important program’s additional
benefits should not be understated.
Reduced energy reliance translates to grid resiliency, and of
course reduced cost to consumers alleviate the burdens of those
who are most impacted by climate disasters.
DOE values its avoided greenhouse gas emissions and the bil-
lions of dollars for its major rules, and these benefits extend to
small businesses too.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, and we will now
move to the Member questions under the 5-minute rule. I recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
The Department of Energy is not typically thought of as a regu-
latory entity. However, it appears the Biden administration is
working to undo these norms.
Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you highlight that you believe the
best thing that Congress could do to protect small business and
consumers is to take away DOE’s standard-setting authority en-
tirely.
So, question, can you expand on why you feel this is an impor-
tant step and why DOE should not be the one responsible for set-
ting these standards?
Mr. LEWIS. Well, these standards have been developed over dec-
ades——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Microphone.
Mr. LEWIS. Oh, I am sorry. DOE has been setting these stand-
ards ever since EPCA was adopted—and perhaps parts of the fed-
eral government even before that—and EPCA was enacted in 1975.
So we have had literally decades of mandatory increases in en-
ergy efficiency of appliances, and we have, I think, long passed the
point of capturing all the low-hanging fruit.
And so we had an example that was mentioned before of improv-
ing energy efficiency by one-tenth of 1 percent, and it is really hard
to believe that that translates into gigantic net savings to small
businesses or the economy.
At a certain point, you have to, I think, trust that there are—
that consumers are—have the primary interest in looking out for
what is best for them and that they can make their own choices,
and that DOE doesn’t need to continually put its thumb on the
scales.
So I think, you know, DOE should just declare a victory, say
that, yes, you know, mission accomplished and now it is up to com-
petitive forces and the economy to determine to what extent we
12
prioritize energy efficiency versus other product features, qualities,
and consumer choices.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Competition always works.
Ms. Huey, I am concerned that the Department of Energy is
prioritizing expensive and burdensome energy efficiency standards,
while providing meager efficiency benefits.
Distribution transformers you have talked about are a clear ex-
ample of this. The critical devices are already 99.5 percent efficient,
and they are hard to come by due to supply chain pressure.
So, question, please tell us how this new rule would impact
homebuilders and hurt your industry.
Ms. HUEY. We have several areas that have houses that are sit-
ting waiting on transformers. I believe in one area of the country,
we have over 4,000 homes that are ready, but—and also time is
money, so those houses are costing more. As they are sitting there,
builders and developers, are paying interest.
And then ultimately it comes down to the American consumer
having to wait to buy the American Dream.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Bad timing right now with interest,
right?
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Let me follow-up on that. Given the chal-
lenges you just outlined, do you think the Department of Energy
appropriately balanced consumer needs and energy efficiency when
drafting this rule?
Ms. HUEY. No, sir, I don’t think so. With the efficiency that
there already is, if we could just put a pause on increasing the effi-
ciency right now until we can narrow down the backlog, get rid of
the 18- to 24-month waiting period, and then look at the energy ef-
ficiency again.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. With what I have remaining, Mr.
Bauman, a few years ago, your company created a new position to
help manage the regulatory burden by the federal government.
Please share with us what led your company to make that decision.
Mr. BAUMAN. Our company primarily does commercial refrig-
eration equipment. We have had new standards that came out in
2014, additional new standards that have been—or first comes the
test procedures, and we—when we looked at what the test proce-
dures, as I mentioned in my testimony, that we are involved in,
which did not—not a lot of small businesses are able to do, that
we are involved in those many organizations that I mentioned be-
cause those are the organizations that write the test procedures.
And we have seen test standards that came out previously that
were excessive that just, when it came down to it, we had to shut
down production and development, we had to shut down other pro-
grams, and we realized a need to really dedicate a lot of resources
to that effort to get the regulations.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Quickly, regulatory compliance is
expensive, and can you describe quickly what endeavors your busi-
ness has had to forego so that you can keep up with changing regu-
latory standards.
Mr. BAUMAN. We had a line of freezers that we had to dis-
continue. We also have to annually recertify all of our products
with the Department of Energy.
13
We also have, as I mentioned, we built a new test lab, and that
was primarily because of the onslaught of numerous energy regula-
tions that we had to comply with, and that lab is running continu-
ously primarily doing energy testing.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. Thank you for that, and I now
recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bauman, I heard you mention that you have worked with
the Office of Advocacy. Is that true?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, we have.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Okay. How has that experience been?
Mr. BAUMAN. I would say we have had conversations. In all
honesty, we——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Good? Bad?
Mr. BAUMAN. Good conversations with some, I will say, some
of the previous staff. We have had less responses back in recent
months.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Okay. This week, we are debating the SBA
funding on the floor, and Republicans cut the Office of Advocacy
budget by $800 million, yet right now we are discussing how regu-
lations affect small firms.
Does it make sense to cut the budget of an office that exists to
monitor federal agency regulatory small business compliance, and
advocate for small firms? It seems disingenuous to me.
Professor Hammond, how many years does the Department of
Energy typically give small businesses to transition to new stand-
ards?
Ms. HAMMOND. It gives typically 3 to 5 years with the oppor-
tunity for an exception for up to an additional 2 more.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. So there is an extension allowed?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. And have small firms utilized this extension?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. And those are all published in the Federal
Register.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Is this enough time to comply, in your opin-
ion?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Do any standards apply retroactively?
Ms. HAMMOND. No. They all apply in the future.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Okay. Professor, the Energy Policy and Con-
servation Act allows DOE to adopt consensus standards that were
negotiated by the industry and energy efficiency experts. Could you
please discuss this option.
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. The agency convened a federal advisory
committee to enable negotiated rulemaking, which is an alternative
to typical notice-and-comment procedures that allows for a con-
sensus-based process, promoting deeper collaboration between the
Agency and stakeholders.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. So, the industry is part of the negotiations
and at the table?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. [Nonverbal response.]
14
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Lewis, CEI’s testimony failed to mention
that DOE was presented with a private consensus agreement for
a proposed final standard for gas stoves in September 2023. Yes or
no, are you aware of this agreement?
Mr. LEWIS. No, I am not.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Okay. Would you support it?
Mr. LEWIS. I would have to look at it first.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Okay. Professor Hammond, can you discuss
the previous administration’s failure to meet the statutory dead-
lines under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and why DOE
is issuing standards more frequently?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. Congress instructed the agency to recon-
sider these standards every 6 years, and the Trump administration
didn’t do what Congress instructed, and it got sued. So now DOE
is operating under a consent decree where it has to play catch-up,
and it has to maintain its regular rhythm of review that Congress
has set forth.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Professor, there is a tremendous amount of
misinformation circulating about DOE’s appliance standards. Can
you discuss the benefits of the new energy efficient standards for
small firms?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. Small firms save in a number of ways,
and a number of these ways are itemized in the rulemaking record.
They save on energy, and then of course they also save on the indi-
rect benefits like the health benefits from reduced air pollution.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. And knowing that small manufac-
turers may be disproportionately impacted by the new standards,
how does DOE seek out the input of the smallest of small firms?
Ms. HAMMOND. It does a significant amount of research on the
front end to make sure it has identified all of the small businesses
that might be impacted, and among other things, it reaches out to
them individually and offers the opportunity for a conversation.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
Ms. Huey, the DOE standards apply to new products and give
small firms 3 to 5 years to comply. Moreover, DOE’s process allows
small manufacturers, advocates, and states to work together to
jointly recommend regulations.
Given the flexibility built into the process, why doesn’t NAHB
work collaboratively with the agency rather than opposing regula-
tions that can lower energy bills for homeowners?
Ms. HUEY. I wouldn’t say that we were against the regulation.
We just have such a backlog now that we would like to catch up
before we implement any new energy efficiency standards for the
transformers.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Thank you very much.
And I now recognize Representative Stauber from the great State
of Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Velázquez, for holding this hearing today, and thank you
to our witnesses for taking time away from your busy schedules to
help shed light on this important topic.
15
Today we are here to talk about the devastating effects of the
DOE’s efficiency standards on small businesses and families in our
districts.
These standards are designed to reduce energy consumption in
our homes and businesses. However, they have had the unintended
consequence of making our homes less affordable and more expen-
sive to build.
Ms. Huey, you mentioned in your testimony that you think fed-
eral regulatory agencies should include the, quote, true, end quote,
cost of the regulations in the rulemaking process. Can you expand
a bit what you mean by the ‘‘true cost’’?
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. What I have
come to learn in the regulatory rulemaking process here in Wash-
ington is that agencies are only required to consider the direct cost
of crafting new regulations. They don’t take into consideration
sometimes just the waiting time. Time is money.
Time that I have to spend waiting for water taps to be installed,
waiting for zoning approval, waiting for permitting, all of those
sorts of things need to be taken into consideration as well.
Mr. STAUBER. So when we talk about gas furnaces, the Depart-
ment of Energy wants to get rid of gas furnaces or change the way
they operate.
Water heaters. A new water heater, their recommendation is to
get water heaters that reduce energy. To replace a water heater is
$2,800.
Ms. HUEY. And that is just the water heater. That doesn’t in-
clude installing the electrical plug for it.
Mr. STAUBER. Exactly right.
Dishwashers——
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir, same.
Mr. STAUBER.—$225 more.
Gas stoves, between $800 and $3,200 it is going to cost the Amer-
ican people. Light bulbs, $140 more. Washers, $200. Air condi-
tioners, pushing $2,000.
And would you believe our federal government wants to regulate
ceiling fans? Think about the overreach by this federal government.
Ms. Huey, these aren’t my numbers. These are administration’s
numbers. $320 billion—that is with a B—$320 billion of additional
regulations on American small businesses and manufacturers.
What do you—give us an estimate of the cost per household if
these changes were made. Can the American people afford this?
I mean, the government wants to be in every part of our lives—
ceiling fans, dishwashers, water heaters, light bulbs. It is unbeliev-
able. Give us a cost from the builders, and what is their sense?
Ms. HUEY. And, you know, we are talking about costs for small
businesses, but in my business it is ultimately passed down to the
consumer.
With the new Energy Codes, the 2021 Energy Codes, that is an
additional cost of $31,000 to a new home. That is something that
a teacher or a firefighter or a nurse cannot afford.
Mr. STAUBER. Or a police officer like myself?
Ms. HUEY. Or a police officer, yes, sir.
Mr. STAUBER. I just—Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, $31,000 these bu-
reaucrats put on somebody that wants to build a new home, not
16
through Congress, through these three-letter agencies, unaccount-
able, nonelected, to put on the American people.
And this is just what you are talking about—$31,000. The me-
dian income in the district that I represent is 60-ish-thousand dol-
lars. This is unbelievable.
And the interest rates right now, it is simply—it is simply unac-
ceptable. I can’t imagine what folks are thinking when the govern-
ment is telling us what type of water heaters we can use or gas
furnaces we need to change, gas stoves—banning gas stoves.
My 90-year-old father says, what am I going to cook at the hunt-
ing shack with? It is a gas stove. He has been doing it for 60 years.
This is overreach, Mr. Chair, by our federal government, in every
aspect of our lives, complete overreach, and it is unacceptable. I
think the American people have had it, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Representative Golden from the great State of
Maine for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Hammond, I really only have two questions, I believe.
I reserve the right for follow-ups, but by all means, take your time
and answer them as best you can.
You mentioned in your opening testimony that the Agency does
a good job of speaking in very plain terms to businesses to help
them understand new regulations and compliance, and I am hoping
you can treat the committee the same way here and not assume
that we are deep in the weeds.
If you were to hand us some kind of blueprint, like a one-pager,
that would tell us a little bit about the process that DOE conducts
to do outreach to small businesses as part of the rulemaking proc-
ess, what would it show us? What concrete steps? If you could be,
you know, detailed.
Ms. HAMMOND. It would show a very—a years’ long process to
not only develop the standards themselves but also the test proce-
dures that come before the standards.
These begin with Requests for Information—which are widely ex-
tended and as well as published in the Federal Register—the devel-
opment of technical support documents, webinars, and then specific
research to identify particular small businesses who may be im-
pacted, to seek them out directly. And that is all before a rule-
making is even proposed.
Once it is proposed, it goes through that process again. It works
with the Office of Advocacy as well to make sure that it is properly
considering the interests of small businesses, and again——
Mr. GOLDEN. You bring specific industry, small business own-
ers in and actually sit around the table with them?
Ms. HAMMOND. Well, yes. For example, I am aware that yester-
day DOE hosted a public meeting on the commercial refrigeration
standards.
Mr. GOLDEN. Okay. And how—could you describe, like, attend-
ance? What is the update?
Ms. HAMMOND. I haven’t checked on the attendance yesterday.
The ones that I previously participated in were very well attended.
Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you. So kind of moving on from there, how
often do you think that input is received and then acted upon such
17
that between a proposal and a final rule, changes are actually
made that incorporate what small businesses have given back to
DOE?
Ms. HAMMOND. Very often. It is extremely common for the
Agency to adjust its final rule in response to all of the input it re-
ceived during the proposed rule.
And I should note that a number of the standards we are talking
about today are proposed standards, so there is still an opportunity
for lots of engagement with the Agency, and it indeed will address
those comments.
Mr. GOLDEN. Are there any specific examples that you can re-
call in your own time in the Department where you saw that proc-
ess play out and changes made and incorporated?
Ms. HAMMOND. I—yes. And of course I was serving as counsel,
so I—I will maybe not be quite as detailed, but I will say an exam-
ple is for the general standard—the general service lamp, the light
bulb standard which, of course, Congress directed the agency to un-
dertake.
And the Agency considered all of the feedback of businesses, and
it developed a different enforcement timeline to provide even fur-
ther a glide path to make sure that people had a chance to be
ready for the standard going into effect.
Mr. GOLDEN. Sure. And finally in your testimony you men-
tioned Congress built in a relief valve for small businesses. Can
you talk a little bit about the flexibility that that affords the Agen-
cy and small businesses? And can you think of any examples where
that has actually been utilized?
Ms. HAMMOND. I don’t have a concrete example right at hand,
but essentially this is written into the statute, and the Department
has very clear guidance on its website about what a small business
would need to do.
Once a small business does present a request, then that is pub-
lished in the Federal Register, and assuming it is granted, that is
also published in the Federal Register. So it is——
Mr. GOLDEN. Is that like a specific waiver request from one
business or is it——
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Mr. GOLDEN. Okay. So it is not a broad waiver across an entire
industry?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right. A small business can take advan-
tage of that.
For the test procedures, there is also a waiver process available,
and that relates to the procedures themselves and the technology.
Mr. GOLDEN. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Alford from the great State of
Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking
Member Velázquez. Thank you to all of our witnesses here today.
I know you come here on your own dime and own time, and we
really appreciate that.
Hey, this is a very important hearing for us for a couple of rea-
sons. You know, the past few months, we have all seen the news
about the Department of Energy—or I think I am going to rename
18
it the department of encroachment now—and their new energy effi-
ciency rules.
And now we are really learning the impact that it is going to
have on our businesses and our American families.
The Biden-Harris administration time and time again, I think,
fails to consider the impact of these erroneous over-regulations,
what it is going to have on our homebuilders, our families, and our
businesses.
If we do not champion main street interests, then we will lose
the small businesses that are part of the fabric of America, and a
contributing factor to the closure of small business is the current
regulatory environment.
Ms. Huey, I want to start with you if I can, ma’am.
In your testimony you said regulatory burdens account for 25
percent of the cost of a typical newly built home. I just gave up my
real estate license, sold new homes actually in the Kansas City
area for many years.
The average or median price there for a home is $270,000. That
would bump it up to $337,500. And when you consider the interest
rates now that, especially younger folks, new families are trying to
get into homes, it seems like the Biden administration does not be-
lieve in the American Dream.
It is trying to kill the American Dream, the American Dream of
homeownership, moving our society from owners into renters.
I have had conversations with Will Ruder, the president of our
local Home Builders Association there in Kansas City. He says the
exact same thing, that this 25 percent increase is going to drive
people out of the Kansas City area and into places that are not
having to conduct, because of other regulations—the Kansas City
Council is imposing on Building Codes there, but it is a monstrous
really burden that people are having to pay to get into the Amer-
ican Dream of homeownership.
How do you see this playing out long-term for builders? How did
they keep building when the Biden administration keeps putting a
foot on their neck?
Ms. HUEY. It does make it extremely more difficult because we
have federal, state, and regulations all to follow.
It is noted that NAHB illustrates that for every $1,000 increase
in the price of a median home, which is about $425,700, that prices
out 140,436 households out of the market—for every $1,000 in-
crease in the price of a house.
Mr. ALFORD. Well, when you consider this—and this is getting
off into another topic, I realize it, but investment companies like
BlackRock that are also investing in build-to-rent communities—we
have seen that in the Kansas City area—where they are building
entire neighborhoods of rental homes that look like regular, single-
family homes, and they are, but they are like apartments.
And you know what else, it is a lot easier to get people into rent-
als and apartments especially. You can ballot harvest a lot easier
in an apartment than you can walking a single-family neighbor-
hood.
It is scary what is happening to the American Dream, and I ap-
plaud you and the homebuilders of America who are trying to make
19
that dream possible and affordable for the American people. I am
running out of time.
Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you mentioned the RFA’s and lack
of Agency’s willingness to take it seriously. Please talk about how
we can better utilize or improve the RFA so we can use it as effec-
tive tool rather than just a check box.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes. Well, one thing that—oh, sorry, the mike again.
Yeah. I mean, the agencies have flexibility—they get flexibility in
determining what is a significant impact or what is a substantial
number of small entities.
So I would think that maybe tightening up or clarifying those
definitions. Like I was just trying to think—I was talking to my
colleague on the way over here and kicking some ideas around, and
what is a significant impact, it seems to me, would be relative to
the profit margin of the business that is affected.
And so maybe there could be some standard that will be adopted
that would say, you know, for the industrywide average——
Mr. ALFORD. Sir, we are out of time. I am sorry.
Mr. LEWIS. Okay.
—the regulation cannot cost more than, say, 3 percent of your
profit margin. I mean, that might be an idea.
Mr. ALFORD. I like that idea.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative McGarvey from the great State
of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here today.
Thank you, Professor Hammond. I want to especially thank you
for highlighting some of the contributions of our civil servants who
do a really good job in trying to do the best they can for all of us
in this country.
I am going to repeat a little bit of myself from one of the previous
hearings we had in this committee, and that is, we are here to talk
about regulations. We care about how regulations impact people
and how they impact businesses.
And that well written and well executed regulations are impor-
tant—they save lives. They save money. They save money for our
government. They save money for our consumers. They also can
save our planet—and I want to go to these specific standards as an
example of that.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy esti-
mates that efficiency standards for appliances and lighting would
save the average Kentuckian, where I am from, an estimated 15
percent of their annual bill.
This isn’t surprising. I see in my own home, which was built in
the late 1920s, early 1930s, the importance of having energy-effi-
cient items.
The DOE estimates that by 2030, cumulative savings from all
standards in effect since 1987 will reach nearly $2 trillion.
So I want to go back and, Professor Hammond, I want to start
with you, in part because I am a recovering lawyer and I have al-
ways wanted to ask a law professor a question instead of having
them ask me a question.
20
But the administration is required by law to issue these regula-
tions, correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Mr. MCGARVEY. And it is a result of a court decision from the
Trump administration not issuing these regulations that is requir-
ing them to not just issue the regulations but to have to play catch-
up for what the Trump administration didn’t do in the 4 years it
was in office?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Okay. So these are required by law, and obvi-
ously this committee is not suggesting that the administration
break the law. So let’s talk about what these standards are doing.
And it has been shown that the standards we are examining
today will help benefit small businesses and save them money in
the long run.
Again, we care about small businesses. Small businesses are the
backbone of my community in Louisville, Kentucky. We want them
to succeed and thrive and do well.
So how do these standards benefit the broader economy and the
country, including small business, small business employees, and
those who do business with them?
Ms. HAMMOND. In a number of ways. There is, of course, the
direct benefit, which is lower energy bills, and I should note, lower
water bills too for some of the standards.
So that is a direct impact that is true for a business that is using
any of these appliances or equipment, as well as the homeowners
or householders who also use them in the house and also work at
small businesses.
Then of course there are the broader impacts, like the health
benefits and the climate benefits that I mentioned.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you. Okay. So kind of just reframing
this again, the court has said the administration has to issue these.
They have to issue more because the Trump administration didn’t
do it.
They can be helpful, but we want to make sure they are helpful
to small businesses. Is there a process by which the administration
is considering the needs of small businesses? Do they have commu-
nity engagement sessions? Must they take into consideration any
of these comments in the proposed rule?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. First of all, to answer your final question,
they are required by law to respond—not just consider but re-
spond—to significant comments raised, and of course the overall
process is very much designed to consider interests of all stake-
holders but particularly small businesses.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you. And when they find a legitimate
concern, how do they work to address it?
Ms. HAMMOND. They work first to just understand what it is
and make sure that they have thoroughly considered the issue.
They look to see whether there are adjustments to be made and
how those trade off against the other factors that Congress re-
quired the Agency to consider.
So it is very much a case-by-case decision, but those comments
do have an impact.
21
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Professor, I appreciate that be-
cause, again, we want to make sure that our small businesses are
being heard, that they are being represented, that these regula-
tions make sense for them. So I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Van Duyne from the great State
of Texas for 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing today is one of tremendous importance. With Amer-
icans suffering under 3 years of disastrous policies from the Biden
administration that have been painfully driving up cost of living.
It has made food, electricity, housing, and transportation impos-
sible to afford, and it has made new homeownership an impossibly
distant dream for many young Americans.
Now we need to deal with a reckless agenda from the Depart-
ment of Energy, pushing overreaching energy-efficiency rules that
will burden small manufacturers.
Earlier this year, this committee passed my bill, the Small Busi-
ness Regulatory Reduction Act, which requires the Small Business
Administration to ensure, for each fiscal year, the cost to small
businesses of the administration’s rulemaking is not greater than
zero, and while also requiring the SBA to issue a report on any reg-
ulations issued by other federal agencies that impact small busi-
nesses.
And I am looking to expand this to obviously the Department of
Energy now, and I think it is a perfect place to start.
This hearing is a great example of why my bill is necessary, and
which is to ensure Congress is reigning in the power of out-of-con-
trol, regulatory, glutton executive branch. And I look forward to
continuing to work with the committee to see my bill move forward
and to work to strengthen small businesses across the country.
We just heard testimony on, in answers to some of the questions,
that said that these regulations benefit small businesses.
Mr. Bauman, I want to ask you—you work for a small business—
how often do you guys Go, Oh, goody, we got more regulations,
these are going to benefit us?
Mr. BAUMAN. We don’t—it hurt us, as I said, from the product
side, our competitiveness and ability to offer—innovate products
and work along those lines versus we are taking time to address
regulations to meet with and—as Ms. Hammond mentioned, we
were in a meeting yesterday with DOE in regards to commercial
refrigeration equipment, and I was there. I was basically the only
small business. There were a few others, there were a handful, but
a lot of small businesses don’t have the opportunity like we have
invested in to do that. So it has absolutely been a burden. And the
other——
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So this is going to cost small businesses
money?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, yes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. But we just heard about all of these cost sav-
ings that they were going to have. Do you actually see that? I
mean, there is one thing to say that that is going to happen on
paper, but in reality do you see that that is happening?
22
Mr. BAUMAN. We do not see that happening. It continues to be
a burden on our sales and on our manufacturing.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So you have got increased inflation as well,
and that is being coupled with increased federal regulations. Has
that made it more difficult for your business to grow?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, it has. We are privately owned. We are very
short-term borrowers. We try to not do a lot of investments that
we can’t afford to invest ourselves. But, yeah, there is all different
types of capital expenditures that are harsh on our business.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. And, Ms. Huey, I am going to ask you the
same question. I mean, do your home builders—are they excited
with these new regulations? Do they see all of the cost savings that
we have heard are going to come? Are they actually seeing that in
reality?
Ms. HUEY. Yeah, no. Thank you for the question.
As I talked about earlier, one-quarter of the cost of new construc-
tion of a single-family home is government regulations, and that is
at all levels. For me I looked back at a house I built recently. I
spent $35,000 before I ever started building the house. That was
permit—building permit, land disturbance permit, water tap, sewer
tap, driveway permit, gravel, silt fence. All of those add up before
I ever really started building the house.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. What State?
Ms. HUEY. Alabama.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. In Alabama. So be happy that you are not
building in California because pre-pandemic it was 40 percent reg-
ulatory costs.
Ms. HUEY. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. But, you know, have you found that in your
increased inflation as well, coupled with increased regulations, has
that made it difficult for you to grow your business?
Ms. HUEY. It has. And it is difficult for the consumers. They
don’t understand that when I give them a price of what—that esti-
mate of what their house is going to be and then when those esti-
mates grow because of things like fuel surcharge, you know, in the
last couple of years that we have had. Now I understand the fuel
prices are down, but in the last couple of years they were up. So
it is things like that that added on to the top that we didn’t expect.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So you are saying that not only are these reg-
ulations overburdensome and harmful to small businesses, but you
are saying actually people who want to buy homes are also affected
negatively by this?
Ms. HUEY. Absolutely.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So how much more have homes cost in the
last 3 years, if you could, in Alabama or anywhere in the country?
Ms. HUEY. I know that in the last couple of years, one point of
reference I have is during the pandemic—and I know that we are
not talking about lumber prices, but our lumber package went from
$35,000 to $125,000, and it settled somewhere around $75,000.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Well, I would look forward to hearing if you
guys have any solutions. I know typically what I hear is we just
want the government to stay out of our business. That was the best
way to help it grow.
I appreciate you guys being here. And I yield back.
23
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Chu from the great State of Cali-
fornia for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. While those on the other side of the aisle are trying
to make it sound like the Biden administration decided to just do
rulemaking on its own, but let me emphasize this is the law. And
the Department of Energy is required by law to evaluate energy ef-
ficiency standards for various products and appliances every 6
years. Once an updated standard is published, small businesses get
3 years to comply and get an extra 2 years’ grace period before they
have to come into compliance. So that is 5 years total to do so. And
let’s not forget that these standards only apply to newly manufac-
tured products, not to existing products that consumers already
owned.
We also heard from Professor Hammond’s testimony that there
is ample opportunity for small businesses’ and small manufactur-
ers’ concerns to be considered at every step of the department’s
process when they decide how to update a particular standard.
And, in fact, she said that the department even goes further than
what is required, offering webinars and conducting other types of
direct outreach to small business stakeholders. So, actually, the
Biden administration is going above and beyond to consider small
business voices in the rulemaking.
Actually, we are in this situation because the previous adminis-
tration missed scores of deadlines violating the requirements in the
law. And, in addition, there was a lawsuit over the previous admin-
istration’s failure to meet the standards. It was settled, and the
settlement was that the DOE was required to review these regula-
tions.
So, Professor Hammond, can you explain why the Department of
Energy is being required to issue so many new standards now and
give an example of how this benefits small businesses?
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. As you described, it is required to do so
many now because it has its existing statutory obligations, plus the
backlog that now a court is enforcing that it has to comply with.
And then in terms of the kinds of benefits, these benefits can be
for all kinds of small businesses. We are not just talking about
manufacturers here. We are talking about all small businesses. It
is the convenience store owner. It is the person who has the res-
taurant or cooks out of their home. Any number of businesses who
use appliances are going to be saving on their bills because of these
standards.
Ms. CHU. Well, let’s talk about one particular appliance because
there is so much misinformation about the proposed gas stove
standards. The Department of Energy is not proposing to ban gas
cooking products any more than it is trying to ban light bulbs.
Does the DOE even have the authority to ban gas stoves?
Ms. HAMMOND. No, it doesn’t.
Ms. CHU. When would these proposed standards for gas stoves
go into effect? And, by the way, can you explain what the standard
is now?
Ms. HAMMOND. Well, I will mention that the proposed rules,
they are not even finalized yet, so they will still benefit from input,
the types of which we are hearing today. The proposed rules are
24
not just for gas stoves. They are for gas and electric stoves as the
department is required to do. And they will go into effect, I think
it is 3 to 5 years from when the rule is final. I just want to note,
those are future-looking for new stoves. It has nothing to say about
what happens for people who already have gas stoves.
Ms. CHU. And, in fact, the DOE does not have the authority to
take products out of consumers’ homes or small businesses. Is that
correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. Absolutely.
Ms. CHU. Now, can you also give us an example of where the
DOE did a review and maybe cite a standard that the DOE decided
not to update because it did not meet the criteria?
Ms. HAMMOND. One that comes to mind is space heaters. DOE
decided not to set efficiency standards for those. So it does look at
these and decide whether it is called for under the statutory re-
quirements.
Ms. CHU. So the process works, and the DOE is not over-
reaching. Correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Ms. CHU. And let me ask also about the particular savings that
the average American household is saving, because it is not just
small businesses. It is every American that is saving on their util-
ity bills. Can you talk more about that?
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. And that is true. All of these rules have
to be cost justified. That means the costs have to be outweighed by
the benefits, and DOE published those transparently for everyone
to see. The deLaski and Mauer study that I cite in my written tes-
timony provides State-by-State analyses of benefits not just to busi-
nesses but also to consumers.
Ms. CHU. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Meuser from the great State of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it very much.
Thank you very much to our witnesses.
So we just heard—and I say this in all due respect—how wonder-
ful the DOE’s regulations and rulemaking is and how positive it
must be for small business.
Mr. Lewis, do you find that from gas stoves to other rules being
made that that has been beneficial to the industry that you are fa-
miliar with?
Mr. LEWIS. Well, I don’t have much industry specific experience,
but I will say that—mike. Oh, sorry, the mike.
I can’t——
Mr. MEUSER. Well, Competitive Enterprise Institute, you
must—that deals with businesses. Right?
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, that’s right. But, in other words, we don’t—we
are not spokespersons for any particular industry. My colleague,
Ben Lieberman, who was supposed to testify, actually does have
much more contact with industry experts. I wish he were here.
Mr. MEUSER. And I will move on down the line. Ms. Huey.
Mr. LEWIS. But if I could——
Mr. MEUSER. Yeah, go ahead.
25
Mr. LEWIS. Yeah. But if I could mention, you know, some of
these costs are in the form of degraded performance. Like many
people complain that the dishwasher has to be run twice in order
to get the dishes clean, that clothes washers now, they are so effi-
cient in their use of, say, water that you have to wash the clothes
twice.
Mr. MEUSER. Right.
Mr. LEWIS. And we actually had an ad back a few years ago
which was billed ‘‘Send Your Underpants to the Undersecretary,’’
because a lot of people were complaining that they had to run the
same load twice.
So those are costs that the agency is really not terribly concerned
about.
Mr. MEUSER. Good. Great points.
And if they actually were to talk with stakeholders, as we are
hearing, that the overreach is just phenomenal—you know, I was
in business for nearly 25 years. And, Mr. Bauman, I want to ask
you, when you all have improved air-conditioners, when you make
air-conditioners more efficient, you make them less cost, you make
them utilize less energy, did any of that come from a mandate or
a rule from the government?
Mr. BAUMAN. No. We——
Mr. MEUSER. It is laughable. Right?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yeah. We look at what the regulations are, but
in the air-conditioning and on the refrigeration side, we are be-
cause of the competitive market——
Mr. MEUSER. You make it better?
Mr. BAUMAN. Right.
Mr. MEUSER. So your customers—so it costs them less, so they
are using less fuel, so as they are cooling the area in the best man-
ner and most effective way possible. It is called American innova-
tion. It is called entrepreneurship. Would you call it government
rulemaking and mandates?
Mr. BAUMAN. I would say the innovation is where we—not the
mandates, but having products that are innovative and, again, pri-
marily that are providing refrigeration for safe food or those that
really are providing safety and comfort.
Mr. MEUSER. And, Chairman, I am sorry I sound a little sar-
castic, but it is a little hard to take.
So, Ms. Huey, I would like to ask you a couple of questions on
the transformer issue that you spoke about in your testimony and
the shortage that exists and the Department of Energy now sub-
mitting that it needs to have some new standards for these trans-
formers, and yet they have gone through all kinds of efficiency
measures over the last several years.
Do you want to just speak on that a little bit further, please?
Ms. HUEY. Yes. So as we have talked about, they are already,
you know, like 97.9 percent energy efficient, and we are only in-
creasing the efficiency by 1/10 of a percent while we have an 18-
to 24-month backlog of people that need them, the houses that are
sitting. I think it is in the Houston area there is about 4,000
houses that are sitting. And then recently the tornadoes that
ripped through Mississippi, I think there was about 400 trans-
26
formers that were torn out there. So it only adds to the backlog and
the time.
Mr. MEUSER. Sure. Has your industry been in—has the DOE
been in contact with you folks and said, Hey, what do you think
about this action? Give us some input. We are very interested in
whether or not we should pursue this.
Ms. HUEY. We did participate in the SBA’s advocacy. We had
over 60 of our builders that were part of a round table discussion,
and they expressed all of their concerns. It will be very interesting
to see if the DOE will heed those concerns.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay. So you haven’t had a response yet?
Ms. HUEY. No.
Mr. MEUSER. You have only had the original rule, so nothing
has been affected or changed as of yet?
Ms. HUEY. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay. Well, maybe we can help you follow up on
that with them and see because, in the end, we are interested in
reasonable initiatives. However, at this point in time, you think the
current rule is quite unreasonable for your industry?
Ms. HUEY. Right now because we have a backlog I do believe
that it is, yes.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay.
Ms. HUEY. When you think about the energy efficiency that we
already have in homes right now and in the transformers, to go an-
other step when we have such a backlog and the American dream
is unaffordable and unattainable for so many.
Mr. MEUSER. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Scholten from the great State of
Michigan for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you
to all of our witnesses for coming here today. Your testimony is in-
credibly enlightening. This is such an important topic.
My district is home to a very large portion of the Grand River
Watershed, the largest river in the State of Michigan. And we also
represent miles of beautiful Lake Michigan shoreline, the Great
Lakes region multibillion dollar economy. I am very serious about
protecting these natural resources, not only for their inherent
worth, but what they contribute to our economy.
That being said, there is nothing more frustrating to a west
Michigan small business owner than regulations that do nothing
and just stand in their way, impede their business and don’t even
do what they purport to do.
My colleagues on this committee know that I have been the first
among Democrats many times to push back against unnecessary
regulations. But one of the things that I want to talk about today
is the process that the department goes through to make sure that
these regulations are doing what they intend to do.
And so I have two questions for you, Professor Hammond. I am
wondering if you can explain how the Department of Energy’s cur-
rent rulemaking process takes into consideration the priorities of
small businesses and consumers and what DOE does to ensure that
27
regulations are cost-effective and not overly burdensome for con-
sumers—or for businesses. Excuse me. Yeah, thank you.
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. So the process itself has that seven-factor
analysis that Congress required, and that looks at both costs and
benefits to consumers, to manufacturers. And then, of course, DOE
further evaluates specifically the interests of small businesses in
that process. It always has to be cost justified.
And then further—I am sorry. Could you just remind me of your
second question?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yeah. So how is the DOE ensuring that these
regulations are cost-effective and not overly burdensome for small
businesses? What is the process beyond maybe those seven steps?
Ms. HAMMOND. It also complies, of course, with Executive
Order 12866, and it does a cost-benefit analysis that is reviewed
both by OIRA. It collects interagency comments on, again, not just
the proposed rules but also the final rules, and for many of the
standards we are talking about today, they are still just proposed.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Okay. Thank you so much.
And what’s your impression of that process, the feedback loop
that happens and the consideration that is taken in? You know, are
small businesses being heard when they weigh in about how that
would impact their business?
Ms. HAMMOND. They are. My experience is that the agency
takes small business feedback very seriously and thinks long and
hard about how these standards will affect those businesses.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you.
My second question is, you know, I hear so much from constitu-
ents who regard regulations as unnecessary government interven-
tion in the market. Can you explain how regulations around energy
conservation standards actually serve to bolster innovation and
positively impact the economy?
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. And I want to say maybe two things
about the EPCA standards. The first is that these are national
standards to avoid additional costs that manufacturers would have
to comply with if they had to go State by State for various stand-
ards. So there is an efficiency built in right there. And they push
innovation. Typically the standards do apply in a way that already
there are existing products on the market, but it allows new en-
trants to the market and invites innovation to even push forward.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you so much.
Yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Molinaro from the great State of
New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLINARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although great
State of New York, it may not be the right moniker for the pur-
poses of this hearing as New York has created—made a science and
art form of overregulating even the most basic behaviors.
I came at the right moment. I take no—I don’t want to take
much issue, but, you know, uniformity of regulation is nice and ef-
ficiencies to achieve that. It might come out of uniformity of regula-
tion, but we live in a Republican democracy, and in that form of
government, the States have certain responsibilities, the federal
government has certain responsibilities. And we are not supposed
28
to tread on those. And small businesses in particular, they under-
stand the burden, the challenge of overregulation.
I have often said, having spent the last 30 years in both State
and local government, that when it comes to federal regulation or
federal government, not only doesn’t the federal government know
what the left—the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is
doing. In the federal government, sometimes the left hand doesn’t
even know there is a right hand.
And that overburdensome bureaucracy, if you will, that labyrinth
of regulation adds enormous burden, pressure, compliance con-
cerns, and costs to small businesses. And so I happen to think that
we ought to expect greater consolidation of regulation. We ought to
demand greater transparency, and there needs to be better under-
standing by the small business owners in particular as to what reg-
ulation they are to follow, when, how, and what the impact is to
them.
And so to that end, I joined in introducing the POST It Act which
requires federal agencies to post guidance on rules that will have
significant impact on small businesses. I represent small commu-
nities all across Upstate New York. Small business is, as it is
across America, the engine of economic opportunity in our commu-
nity. 70 percent of new jobs created by existing small business,
they are overburdened.
To that end, Mr. Marlo Lewis, I want to just get your take and
opinion on the necessity of the POST It Act, the benefit it might
provide, and how small businesses might be helped should it be
adopted.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes. This is a straight-up transparency and account-
ability reform. It is almost unbelievable that anyone would oppose
this or that the access to regulatory guidance wasn’t already read-
ily available. It was for a period under the Trump administration
that we have heard so much about, but the Biden administration,
one of its first moves in the regulatory sphere was to repeal the re-
quirement that every agency provide a portal with a database, a
searchable database so that businesses could find out what guid-
ance documents—and there are literally thousands of them—apply
to them and that they must know in order in turn to comply with
regulations.
So we are all behind your bill. We think it is great and it is long
overdue. And we are also flabbergasted that it is even necessary.
Mr. MOLINARO. Yeah, I thought you might say that. And not
only is it important for transparency purposes, but the lack of
transparency allows the federal government and, by extension,
State governments to enforce without either understanding or the
ability by small businesses to effectively react or even prevent such
enforcement.
Ms. Huey, I wanted to—because I only have a minute left. I just
wanted to acknowledge, in your testimony you talk a little bit
about recent efforts by the DOE to use the rulemaking process to
limit consumer access to residential gas stoves. New York has al-
ready taken such an action, which for me, you know, I come from
a part of the country where, by the way, the modern day environ-
mental movement was born in the Hudson River Valley. I get it.
We understand the value of both environmental protection and ad-
29
dressing climate change. However, the policy is misguided, and it
does focus a heavy bureaucracy on a fragile industry and overtaxed
individuals. And I did join in opposing Governor Hochul’s proposed
ban and requiring the federal government to evaluate the actual
costs of such a ban to small businesses.
Could you just speak quickly about how the DOE’s proposed rule
on gas stoves might affect your business and, by extension, cus-
tomers?
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
I recently built a home for a customer that cooked, loved to cook.
When we walked through the house at the rough-in, she said, I
guess we need to add an electrical plug because they are going to
come and take my gas stove. She really said that to me. And she
said, And I guess we need to put one upstairs for the hot water
heater too. And I said, No, ma’am, they are not going to come take
it out of your house.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I just would add, this is pre-
cisely why we need the transparency. I yield with we have con-
sumers that are unduly burdened and worried that the federal gov-
ernment is looking around their kitchen tables.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. The gentleman
yields back.
I now represent Representative Gluesenkamp from the great
State of Washington for 5 minutes.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I think I know the answer to this. And I want to say I sin-
cerely appreciate the witnesses. I know you all pay your own way
to be here. I really appreciate that you are here. But do any of
you—have any you of you—none of you currently work as techni-
cians fixing appliances. Correct? Have any of you been technicians?
Okay. Thank you to the committee staff who ensured that some-
one on the panel has worked actually fixing appliances, because I
think that is a critical piece that has been missing from this discus-
sion.
I want to say that I appreciate the department’s statutory obliga-
tion to review the standards, but I am deeply concerned why these
washing machines can play Tchaikovsky, but they only last 2 years
now. And it is something that—you know, they say there is lies,
damn lies, and statistics. And I am very concerned about the hori-
zon.
So, Professor Hammond, I don’t know if you know the answer to
this, but when they do these cost-benefit analysis, like, how do they
reflect back the durability of an appliance? And what’s the horizon
that they are expected to last?
Ms. HAMMOND. They do consider the lifetime of the appliance.
And, of course, that varies by appliance. I will say they also con-
sider the efficacy. I know they just did a test procedure for dish-
washers to ensure that there is a washability standard there too.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Do you know what the timeline—
like, how many years are they expected to last?
Ms. HAMMOND. I would have to go look for which specific appli-
ances we are talking about, but sometimes, you know, 10 to 12
years.
30
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Because every time I am driving
around I see these front-loading washing machines out on the
street, you know, and it is a huge environmental impact, and it is
a huge cost to consumers and small businesses to have appliances
that do not last anymore. Like, my washing machine is from 2003.
My fridge is from 1997. You know, like, the old stuff can last if we
support it. But often we are seeing a huge explosion in the number
of chips involved in any given appliance. Everything is made out
of plastic now. I, you know, work on cars. Right? Like, the quality
of parts is very, very concerning to me, of components within them.
And so that is what I am—you know, I think these standards can
be useful, but I am very, very concerned the horizon under which
they are considered.
So I had a question for Mr. Bauman. I understand that you have
an obligation to abide by these standards, and you have expressed
concerns today about this process and its impact on your business.
But I am also curious and thinking about how we make sure that
manufacturers, like, are prioritizing durability.
What is the thing—like, what can we do to put more pressure on
increasing the life cycle and the durability? Why do some brands,
like—you know, I probably shouldn’t say this—Speed Queen still
pretty good. Right? But a lot of these things have just gone through
the floor.
Mr. BAUMAN. Thank you for the question.
And I personally have very similar home appliances, our front-
loading washing machine, we have had to replace our refrigerator
where we had refrigerators that lasted, you know, 20 years. I think
trying to regulate that, I think that is really a market control
issue, because one of the things on our refrigeration side particu-
larly—and, again, we always talk about on that side of it—is that
in commercial refrigeration, those are the harshest. I mean, your
kitchen is harsh, but your commercial kitchen is many times even
more harsh. And, competitively, that is what we promote in our
products. That has always been our kind of baseline is making sure
we have safe temperatures. We use heavier gauged materials and
such than others. And I have to say that, unfortunately, with meet-
ing, again, very aggressive energy standards like the Department
of Energy is actually proposing actually hurts that because we have
to take out materials in other areas to try to——
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. But, like, any technician can look
at something and say what is trash and what is going to last, you
know. Like, you can—you know, mechanical engineers I don’t think
have that brain necessarily, but——
Mr. BAUMAN. I’m both.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. But do you see any way that you
can implement or is this going to be more regulation?
Mr. BAUMAN. Because of the complexity, again, as you get into
electronic controls, fan speeds, a number of the things I mentioned
as far as, again, talking about commercial refrigeration and also on
the air-conditioning side with the new refrigerants that are re-
quired, they all required a lot more electronics, a lot more things
that all—additional components that break down and reduce the
overall life of the product as it is used, again, in very harsh condi-
tions.
31
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Okay. Well, thank you sincerely
to all of our witnesses for being here today.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I would like to—we are right on time. I would like to thank our
witnesses for their testimony today and for appearing here.
Without objection, the Members have 5 legislative days to submit
additional materials and written requests, questions for the wit-
nesses to the Chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses. I ask
the witnesses to please respond promptly.
If there is no further objection, without objection, the committee
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
32
APPENDIX
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG-118hhrg54085.pdf
- Size
- 3,176,827 bytes
- SHA-256
- 80c1b26279a1f34504dd374f93916a02e599acdcd3d8cdb0dbe80ef10bcc65ac
- Our copy
- CHRG-118hhrg54085.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov