▶ 0:12:23I'd like to call the subcommittee on energy to order. And the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. Welcome to today's legislative hearing. Appliance and buildings policies restoring the american dream of home ownership and consumer choice.
▶ 0:12:39Today, we will hear from the department of energy and industry stakeholders as we consider eight bills seeking to address consumer choice, appliance and home affordability, reckless federal building policies, and duplicative regulatory structures. Many policies pushed over the last several years have raised prices for all consumers, strained our nation's grid, and yield little to no benefit for americans.
▶ 0:13:04That is why the subcommittee will discuss legislation that would have a massive impact on the day to day necessities, on which american families and businesses rely. During last week's hearing of the washington gas said it was it. Well, when discussing gas bans, the idea that we're going to push the gas back down the power line and use it in a less efficient manner than you would use it at your home, is absolutely going to raise prices.
▶ 0:13:29Importantly, one of the bills we have on the docket, the bipartisan energy choice act, will prohibit state or local governments from adopting policies that ban access to an energy service that's based on the fuel that is sold. This includes building performance standards and codes that act as de facto gas bans. The home owner energy freedom act will repeal the funding included in the ira, which prohibited states to adopt the 2021 I cc model code.
▶ 0:13:56Today, we'll hear firsthand testimony of the chilling effect that has had on home building in those states. Duplicative standards for manufactured housing have also increased production of affordable new housing, as home ownership continues to be a top concern for millions of americans, we must remove regulatory red tape that has restricted options for families. The anti-fossil fuel agenda is not stopped at the state or local laws.
▶ 0:14:23Federal policies, like the required phase out of fossil fuel in federal building, could jeopardize our national security. The reliable federal infrastructure act will repeal this inappropriate policy, and the bipartisan federal mechanical insulation act will refocus evaluations for federal buildings on the potential for implementing true energy efficiency measures, like the installation of mechanical insulation.
▶ 0:14:49The legislation before us today is focused on restoring consumer choice, especially for america's working families. Misguided and redundant policies for the previous administration hit them the hardest because they number one, price out first time homeowners. Two destroy appliance affordability through steep upfront and installation costs, or three discourage the production of affordable manufactured homes through regulatory morass.
▶ 0:15:13The don't mess with my home appliances act will make much needed statutory reforms to energy efficiency and standards for appliances, which have increased costs while deteriorating in performance because of overregulation. Lastly, the act will codify a common sense definition of a shower head, removing water pressure for those who desire that choice.
▶ 0:15:35We've also included, at our democratic colleagues request, legislation by the gentleman from new york's 20th district on doe's weatherization assistance program. While I have concerns with the bill as introduced, we're willing to work with our friends on the democratic side to reach compromise all together. The majority of the bills before us today represent an opportunity for this committee to refocus energy efficiency policies on true energy savings, whether reflected in the cost of an appliance or the utility bills for hardworking american families.
▶ 0:16:04I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today. And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from florida's 14th district, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for five minutes for an opening statement. Thank you. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman. Good morning everyone. Here we are, nine months into the trump administration and republicans in congress have done nothing to lower energy costs. In fact, energy costs keep going up, up and up, and the gop policies are making it worse.
▶ 0:16:33You know, americans deserve better. Household electricity prices are up 10% this year. 1 in 3 households is cutting back on basic necessities like groceries to afford their electric bills. 3 in 4 americans are concerned with their utility bills increasing, and they should be over 100. Gas and electric utilities have either raised or proposed higher rates that will go into effect next year.
▶ 0:16:58And in florida, florida's largest utility earlier this year filed a petition for a rate increase across 43 counties to increase rates by nearly $10 billion over the next four years. And customers are already paying $400 more annually than they were five years ago. So what do house republicans do?
▶ 0:17:19They bring bills today that will heap higher costs on americans, trapped families without dated and expensive technologies, undermine american manufacturers, and force us to use more energy at a time when I data centers need all the electricity that they can get. So I want to dispel some misinformation we'll hear today. So let's be clear. Energy efficiency saves money.
▶ 0:17:44Uh, reduces consumer costs and it increases household comfort, reliability and resilience. Appliance standards have saved households more than $500 in energy bills each year. Homeowners will save $15,000 for homes built using the 2021 building code, compared to the old ones.
▶ 0:18:09So I urge my colleagues on the other side to join us in working to tackle the affordability squeeze. And one way to do that would be to stand up to the trump tariffs that are inflicting financial pain on working families and are estimated to cost american households at least $2,300. You know, tariffs are also a factor in increased energy bills due to higher prices for imported goods, including those used in energy production, construction and maintenance of power plants.
▶ 0:18:39That would be an important step to help soften the pain of the big ugly bill, which is broadly unpopular, partly because of the increases in electric bills as the republicans ax the clean energy tax credits that lower costs for consumers in order to provide huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Since passage of the big ugly bill in july, the average cost of U.S. wind and solar power purchase agreements has increased by 4%.
▶ 0:19:06So republicans have managed to take one of the cheapest and fastest growing sources of energy in the us and make it more expensive. And that's on top of the trump administration killing numerous cleaner, cheaper energy projects domestic manufacturing plants that would help lower bills. You know, before republicans killed the clean energy tax credits, I toured a large solar inverter manufacturing plant back in pinellas county, three shifts, 400 workers.
▶ 0:19:36Republicans, essentially, and repealing those tax credits now shut down that factory and more across the united states, costing jobs at a time when witnesses across the political spectrum have appeared here to advise us that america should expect significant rising electricity demand, and that we need all the solar, wind and storage energy conservation that we can get because we cannot win the competition of the 21st century with energy policies from the 20th century.
▶ 0:20:07Unfortunately, house republicans have not been able to meet this moment. So today we're rehashing old messaging bills, most of which they know will never become law, to try to gaslight the american people into believing that it's your washing machine and your light bulbs that are causing higher prices. Um, people are looking for for sanity in washington right now, and I regret you're probably not going to find it here. With a war on appliances and energy efficiency. But there is one good bill.
▶ 0:20:37I really appreciate you bringing, uh, congressman tonko's weatherization enhancement and readiness act. That's a bipartisan proposal to reauthorize and update weatherization assistance. I'm proud to co-sponsor this bill and support the savings for our neighbors back home at a time they need it to make their homes more resilient to dangerous heat waves and hurricanes. I hope my republican colleagues will consider this bill seriously and advance it through to the full committee.
▶ 0:21:05After all, our neighbors back home are counting on us to make their lives more affordable. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, the chair of the full committee for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you. Thank you, chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here. Witnesses for being here today. Um, today we will. And witnesses later today. Today we will examine legislation to restore consumer choice in the appliance and home.
▶ 0:21:32Americans purchase reverse federal building policies that put our nation's security at risk, and restrict activist states from localities for implementing policies that ban energy services based on the fuel source. Uh, as many of the subcommittee members stated last week, we all support energy efficiency gains, but affordability must be at the forefront of the conversation.
▶ 0:21:54As my friend was just discussing, bad building codes have decreased housing production and can add up to $31,000 to the price of a new home. Uh, egregious appliance standards have caused homeowners to spend 34% more on appliances than they did 15 years ago, while having to replace them in a faster rate. And anti-fossil fuel agendas have raised energy prices and jeopardize reliability for millions of customers. Furthermore, many policies put forth in the name of energy efficiency don't result in substantial energy gains.
▶ 0:22:23Some, like natural gas bans, actually increase energy use in consumer prices. In kentucky, homeowners using gas for heating saved $610 annually as compared to electric only alternatives, and this data is protected energy choice and statute. All americans deserve to make that same choice based on what works best for their families and their pocketbooks. Today, republicans bring solutions to the table.
▶ 0:22:48The pieces of legislation being discussed today will reform the broken statutory process for energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, repeal fossil fuel phase outs and bans, and reduce regulatory confusion and nullify our programs across states. Adopt rigid building codes. As chair latta mentioned, the subcommittee will also discuss a bill for representative tonko on the department of energy's weatherization program.
▶ 0:23:13We're willing to work with our democratic colleagues to see if we can reach a compromise on that bill. I look forward to hearing today, and I just want to say that we do have rising demand of energy. And so if if the previous four years hadn't done what they did, if if it was still the same, the rising demand of energy, if we don't produce more energy is going to have an increase in energy prices. It's just the supply and demand. And so we have to make it more affordable.
▶ 0:23:41We have to make it more abundant, and it has to be all the above. Um, but, you know, wind and solar is subsidized because it's expensive. It's not because it's cheaper. I mean, it's because it's expensive. If it was cheaper, it wouldn't have to be subsidized. And sometimes the subsidies distort the investment where you get non-dispatchable power. That's what we're talking about today. So it has to be all the above. It has to be all of the sources, but it also has to be where it makes economic sense to do so.
▶ 0:24:12Um, and we have to reform the system. Uh, there's a new word that's coming from, uh, I've heard from progressives that it's called abundance, the abundance strategy. And we need abundance. We you know, there was a $42 billion fund for broadband that after three and a half years, spent, not a single inch of fiber was laid and three and a half years because of all the procedures that people had to go through to try to do broadband. It was a noble exercise.
▶ 0:24:39But think $42 billion appropriation or authorization and appropriation set there because you couldn't get through the process. And so what we want to do and I, I know I actually didn't even vote for that 42 billion, but I know that people that did and they wanted that money spent, but the whole system, the whole it's become a procedure system, a process system. And so what I would like to look at as chairman of the full committee and this subcommittee and others and both sides of the aisle, we're working with Mr.
▶ 0:25:08Tonko today to get the weatherization bill that we figure out how to get the procedures in place that protect the. I went to school in the hudson river. You couldn't swim in it in the 1980s. We do not. Matter of fact, robert kennedy junior was leading the the riverkeeper program to try to clean up the hudson river. We don't want that. That's that. We want to make sure we have processes in place to prevent that. But now, almost 40 years later, when I was in college, we got to the point where we you can't build hardly anything. It california.
▶ 0:25:39The reason the abundance is come out because housing prices are so expensive in california because building codes make it prohibitively expensive to build. And so that's that's what hopefully we can do as a committee together is I know that we have different views. We have different, um, energy sources that are preferable. But in the end, we have to do things at work. And I think all of us, I think 435, I think it's 432 members now want to beat china. All of us do.
▶ 0:26:07And so we have to figure out how we work together to make sure we have the energy, we have the infrastructure, we have the processes in place where we're successful protecting ourselves, but also successful in beating china. And I will yield back. >> well thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you. Chairman lateef.
▶ 0:26:33Chairman guthrie, you can tell everybody that you went to west point. I know you're very proud of it, and I think it's great. So you don't have to say it's on the hudson river. >> I guess there are several other colleges on the hudson river. I didn't go to columbia, so I did go to west point. Yeah. >> anyway, at a time when. >> american at columbia. Anyway.
▶ 0:26:54>> so at a time when american families are struggling with rising energy bills, thanks to the policies of president trump and congressional republicans today, committee republicans are doubling down on legislative proposals that will further raise energy bills and threaten america's power grid. These partizan bills are meant to prop up expensive fossil fuels so republicans can score points with their billionaire buddies. It's just part of their agenda to serve their corporate interests. Friends, not everyday, hard working americans.
▶ 0:27:22Most of the bills we're discussing today, gut efficiency programs, make buildings use more energy and raise costs for americans. These bills don't just drive up energy costs for americans. They also threaten our ability to compete with china. We have had numerous hearings, this congress, about data centers, artificial intelligence and the increasing energy demand from these technologies. In these hearings, witnesses have made clear that we need more energy available on the grid in order to scale rapidly, meet this growing energy demand, and remain globally competitive.
▶ 0:27:53Everyone knows that to meet growing demand, two things must happen. First, you need more energy on the grid. But in their big ugly bill, republicans eliminated incentives that get cheaper clean energy on the grid quickly. This was a reckless action that will result in household energy bills increasing, as well as significant delays in getting new energy on the grid. And clean energy is fast to deploy and is crucial for meeting our growing energy demand and competing with china.
▶ 0:28:18Second, you need to decrease energy consumption wherever possible, and that's where energy efficiency can play a critical role by decreasing the energy consumption of households and businesses, more energy is available to meet greater demands, which is why it's baffling to me that republicans, after slashing incentives to get energy on the grid quickly, are now pursuing policies to make our homes and buildings less energy efficient, all while they claim to support american energy dominance and want to compete with china in
▶ 0:28:48The ai race. The republican led bills target the department of energy's due his ability to keep appliances efficient and affordable. They rip away appliance rebates, building codes, funding and workforce funding. They go after federal building efficiency and attack efficiency standards for manufactured housing. Taken together, these bills will dramatically increase household energy expenses. Now, I said this at last week's hearing, but it bears repeating.
▶ 0:29:14Congressional republicans and the trump administration spent the first eight months of the year targeting efficiency standards through numerous congressional review act resolutions, gutting clean energy initiatives, keeping expensive fossil fuel plants online, and imposing costly tariffs that are supercharging inflation. These actions directly result in rising costs for americans. Republicans don't care about lowering costs. All they care about is rewarding the oil and gas friends, punishing clean energy, and keeping president trump happy.
▶ 0:29:41Now, there are a couple of bipartisan bills that I do support on the agenda, including congressman tonko's weatherization enhancement and readiness act and this bipartisan bill, reauthorizes the weatherization assistance program, and raises the average cost per household so that more families can receive assistance that better matches their need. It also reauthorizes weatherization readiness program to help households pursue structural repairs so they can receive weatherization assistance. And this is an important and timely bill.
▶ 0:30:10But I really do hope that the bipartisan bills on today's agenda receive the support they deserve, and I hope we can turn a corner on discussions about energy efficiency and recognize that it really is one of our best tools for keeping costs low and and also for remaining competitive. And so I thank the witnesses for being here today and yield back the balance of my time. Chairman latta. >> well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time and the chair. This now concludes our members opening statements.
▶ 0:30:40The chair likes would like to remind members that pursuant to committee rules, all members opening statements were made part of the record. Also, I'd like to also remind members that we do have two panels today and votes are at 130. So and also somehow environments supposed to meet in here at 2:00 since we're offline on the third floor office or our committee hearing room upstairs.
▶ 0:31:03So the chair just wants to remind members that at five minutes into your questions, I will bring down the gavel so we can keep things moving. Again, I want to thank our witness for being with us today and taking the time to testify before our subcommittee. You're going to have five minutes for an opening statement and followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witness today is jeff novak, the acting general counsel and principal deputy general counsel at the us department of energy. And again, Mr.
▶ 0:31:31Novak, we appreciate you being here today, and you are being recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. So if you press that button and pull up the mic close and we'll like to hear your testimony. Thank you. >> thank you. Chairman. Members of this committee, um, I'd say thanks for being here, but I'm told this is bumpy sometimes, so maybe I'll just say I'm honored to be here. I've been in my role for just a little over three months. Um, as the chair said, the principal deputy general counsel.
▶ 0:31:57And I've been the acting general counsel pending the confirmation of the president's nominee. And I'm here at the subcommittee's invitation to talk about the aid energy related bills under consideration. Two of these bills, the energy choice act and the reliable federal infrastructure act, are responses to categorical prohibitions or mandates to reduce or ultimately eliminate fossil fuel generated energy.
▶ 0:32:21At last count, 149 jurisdictions have adopted laws or ordinances effectively banning natural gas consumption and, by extension, gas appliances. Some do this directly by mandating all electric energy supply for newly constructed or renovating residential and commercial buildings.
▶ 0:32:38Some do this indirectly by mandating net zero energy standards or zero emission standards for natural gas fired furnaces and water heaters, whether done directly or indirectly.
▶ 0:32:51These laws and ordinances deny residents and commercial tenants access to energy solutions, like tankless water heaters that are demonstrably more efficient, gas water heaters that can provide significant long term savings to owners, gas ranges that can perform better and be 10 to 30% cheaper to operate than their electric counterparts.
▶ 0:33:09Two of these bans were mandates, and the question of whether they fall within the broad preemptive provision of the energy policy and conservation act of 1975, or the subject of ongoing litigation in the second and ninth circuits. The energy choice act, the first of these bills, would bar states and localities from prohibiting or limiting energy service based on the type or source of energy to be delivered.
▶ 0:33:33This legislation would enable a broader range of energy solutions that would, in turn, both preserve and expand consumer choice in regard to the appliances that they depend on to heat their homes, to heat their showers, to wash their clothes and dishes, and to cook their food, while also yielding significant savings to us households.
▶ 0:33:52I'll add that access to natural gas or propane can be more fundamental than energy and efficiency or cost, as we saw in events like the christmas blizzard of 2022, when people with all electric heat froze to death inside their homes during extended power outages.
▶ 0:34:07The reliable federal infrastructure act would amend section 305 a3 of epca to strike the requirement that the secretary of energy promulgate energy performance standards for federal buildings, mandating the reduction and eventual elimination of fossil fuel generated energy.
▶ 0:34:24The bill enables a broader range of energy solutions at federal buildings that can help reduce construction and operating costs, as well as accelerating construction timelines by positioning decision makers to balance local energy delivery options against cost parameters and mission readiness needs. The third bill, the don't mess with my home appliances act, presents a similar set of policy issues.
▶ 0:34:46The bill proposes several changes to the appliances standard program that the department administers under epca, and this includes the implementation of a mechanism for revoking prior energy conservation standards, revised criteria for determining the economic justification of a standard, a provision to address the fuel neutrality issues I mentioned in connection with the first two bills.
▶ 0:35:08A new test to address the utility or performance of an appliance, adoption of a significant energy savings threshold, and the localization of standard setting criteria to particular appliances, rather than broad factors such as greenhouse gas emissions and social costs. This legislation broadens choice and refocuses the cost benefit analysis of the appliance standards program to consumer impacts and significant economic benefits.
▶ 0:35:34The fourth bill, the federal mechanical insulation act, aims to address a gap in how regulators assess insulation and efficiencies in federal buildings under necpa. Current assessments focus on insulation of building envelopes, walls and roofs. This bill recognizes that there are other insulation efficiencies gained by insulating, piping, ductwork, hvac, etc. And as bill clarifies that those efficiencies are properly included within statutory audits.
▶ 0:36:00The fifth bill, the shower act, would adopt the american society of mechanical engineers definition of shower head and require the secretary to update federal regulations based on this definition, with the aim of increasing manufacturing flexibility and, by extension, consumer choice. The sixth bill, the affordable homes act, streamlines the assessment of potential savings from energy standards imposed on manufactured housing and whether those savings offset costs to consumers from two regulators.
▶ 0:36:27Currently, the departments of energy and housing and urban development to one hud. The seventh bill, the homeowner energy freedom act, repeals three state and community or skip programs or sending unobligated funds that were appropriated for high efficiency electric home rebate program, as well as the funds that were appropriated to provide assistance to states and localities adopting energy conservation. Building codes.
▶ 0:36:54As the chairman mentioned earlier, according to the national association of home builders, these compliance as much as 31,000. >> wrap up real quickly. If you could, please. >> $31,000 in additional cost with a payback period as long as 90 years. And the bill, as we mentioned, is the weatherization enhancement and readiness act. Um, the department would welcome the opportunity to provide technical assistance on these bills. >> well, thank you very much for your statement this morning.
▶ 0:37:22And the chair now will move to our questions from the members. And I will begin with my questions. Recognize myself for five minutes. When congress reauthorized the weatherization program in 2020, we also required doe to study the effectiveness of a program that includes grants to make homes ready for weatherization. Uh, doe has not completed that evaluation. Is that correct? >> that is correct, chairman.
▶ 0:37:53>> thank you. When you perform this evaluation, will you evaluate whether some types of entities are more effective than others in implementing the innovation enhancement program and weatherization in general? >> yes, sure. >> and will you also look at how states safeguard against waste and abuse? >> yes. >> okay. Let me let's back up to my second question on the you know, when you're looking at evaluating what types of entities are more effective than others. Any idea what those might be right now?
▶ 0:38:23What's more effective than others, or is it something you're going to have to look at when you do the study? >> I'm sorry, Mr. chairman, that the acoustics are a bit off. Can I ask you to restate the question? >> uh, again. Again? Ah. When you do the study and maybe it's a little bit early, maybe you're into the study right now. But when you're looking at the effectiveness of the implementing the innovations and enhancements in the program and also in weatherization, what do you know what you're specifically looking for right now? >> uh, Mr.
▶ 0:38:51Chairman, I'll have to take that question up with staff in terms of the scope of the assessment. >> okay. What about on the waste and abuse? Uh, any. Are you still looking at formulating that at the staff level? And how are you doing that? Okay, Mr. chairman, billions of taxpayer funds have been obligated and expended on weatherization over the past four years, including $3.5 billion in infrastructure investment and jobs act.
▶ 0:39:14Do doe has not done a full assessment of the of the broader weatherization program since 2014. You know, do you know what doe's plans are to conduct a full assessment of the broader weatherization program at this time? >> if I can, chairman, I'll take that question for the record and provide a follow up to this. >> okay. Appreciate that.
▶ 0:39:36Uh, do you also believe that americans should have, you know, do you believe americans, consumers should pay more for a dishwasher, for example, to offset the social cost of carbon emissions? >> um, the policy position, uh, there is no, we do not. At a personal level, I would say I don't either. Just having bought a dishwasher that doesn't do what I'd like it to do. >> well, let me ask another question from doe's perspective. How does limiting natural gas impact grid reliability?
▶ 0:40:08>> well, fewer choices, uh, put more strain on the existing grid. Um, there's some really interesting developments that are going on now. For example, co-located gas generation facilities at data centers. It's a it's a fascinating area of development. Uh, and the idea here is that energy intensive uses. And one of the problems we're trying to solve for is that most everybody got it wrong in terms of the forecasting. Nobody anticipated the nvidia chip, the energy demands of the nvidia chip, much less the cooling demands of chips that run hotter.
▶ 0:40:37Um, this is something that, um, uh, we've got innovation. The idea here is to have more choice. A broader range of choice means more opportunity for innovation. Uh, and I'm familiar with others who are developing business models around, again, co-located gas fired plant at a data center with the idea that it would it would draw on the grid at all. In fact, it might push excess electricity onto the grid rather than drawing from it. So it would be neutral in regard to and maybe positive benefits to ratepayers.
▶ 0:41:07>> well, you brought up you know, you're talking about the data centers in particular, because we know that you're going to have your primary source. You're going to have to have two backups going into that data center. So you're in because there can never be a glitch in a power source when you're doing that. So it's that's very, very important when you're talking about the reliability of the grid. I'm going to yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes for questions. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr. novak, welcome. Thank you.
▶ 0:41:34Um, last week, secretary wright and the department of energy claimed online that wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside and the wind is not blowing. Why is the secretary in the department ignoring batteries? And because that's been such a long time research and deployment priority of the department of energy.
▶ 0:42:00>> um, I'll say, uh, member kaster, I'm a lawyer, not a policymaker. Um, what I would say is that, uh, one of the things that I'm still sort of getting up to speed on is intermittent energy. >> all right. So here's here's one where one source you can go to the us energy information, uh, agency is predicting that battery storage will practically double from 2020 24 to 2026.
▶ 0:42:29Up to 65gw of storage capacity. But I think part of the answer, uh, you can look at what secretary wright was doing last week in europe. Uh, he was shilling for gas companies and exports of american gas. Has the department of energy done any analysis on what consumers in america will see in higher cost due to exports of our domestic energy?
▶ 0:43:00>> uh, I have to take that question. For the record, I'd be happy to provide a follow up for that. I do know that one of the issues that I'm aware of just, you know, by virtue of being in conversations, is, um, the subsidy aspect of intermittent generation, even with the battery, is something that, uh, frankly, people are struggling to get the math to work out on that. Um, so absent the subsidy, it's something that doesn't, you. >> know. How much, how much, uh, the us taxpayers subsidize oil and gas and fossil fuels.
▶ 0:43:28Are you going to take that for the record? >> I can. >> take that. Please do. Okay. Uh, in july, doe released a deeply flawed draft report. Picked by five are written by five hand-picked climate skeptics, which severely downplayed the negative impacts and the threats from the heating climate. What a backlash.
▶ 0:43:51Because at that point, uh, more than 85 scientists got together to point out errors and misrepresent representations of climate science in that report. Mr. novak, what review process did the report go through at doe? Did career staff or doe scientists provide any input? >> uh, my understanding is that, uh, there was review done within the research labs. Um, I'll say as to the.
▶ 0:44:21>> well, we're going to need that in detail because that is not, uh, that certainly hasn't been provided by these, uh, this working group, doe, so-called climate working group did not issue any public notice, uh, for its meetings or attempt to balance the points of view of its members. Do you believe the group violated the provisions of the federal advisory committee act? >> I'm sorry. Was that a question? >> yes. You're, uh, acting general counsel? >> no. Uh, no, I do not.
▶ 0:44:49Um, this group which which, I'll add, included the former chair of georgia tech's school of earth and atmospheric sciences, who was part of the national research council's climate research committee, a theoretical physicist who served in the obama administration as undersecretary for science at the department. Uh, the professors who were the first ones to successfully develop a satellite temperature record. This was a distinguished group. >> did they try to write that report out of public view?
▶ 0:45:20>> um, again, I think the the the point of this and I'll, I'll say at the outset, I'm here to testify on the eight bills before the committee. So this is a bit of field of what I prepared for today. Um, but but I'll add that the, the purpose of this group was, frankly, to enlarge. >> undermine the science that has been a hallmark of previous administrations and now under under the trump administration.
▶ 0:45:48They discount the science, they discount the experts. They try to take us off on these tangents that are really hurting people. They're raising costs on consumers, whether it's the tariffs, the big ugly bill, all of these policies. And you know what? We need the science. My community back home is, is recovering from the two worst hurricanes in our lifetimes.
▶ 0:46:12We need to know what the impact of the heating climate is going to be so we can prepare. And we need to to save energy. And we need we don't need to go across the pond to shill for for oil and gas companies. And that's also going to raise prices. So everything the administration is doing is really hurting the bottom line of hardworking americans. And I appreciate your appearance here today. So we can ask you questions and hold you accountable. Thank you I yield back. >> thank you very much.
▶ 0:46:41The gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the full committee chair for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. Uh, thanks for thanks for being here, Mr. novak. And I've had my my good friend from new jersey, um, talk about billionaires who invest in oil and gas. They're billionaires. Invest in wind and solar. Uh, so we can compare. And matter of fact, some of them are the same, same billionaires invest in both.
▶ 0:47:05And I would guess, and I absolutely hope somebody invests and creates a sustainable battery that's affordable, that can store wind energy, that can compete with all the others. And I hope somebody can do that. And I guess if somebody figures that out, they will be a billionaire, because it'll be valuable to the world to have a battery that's affordable, sustainable and have wind and solar that works and is dispatchable. So and I hope that comes to pass. So but uh, so getting back to the bills before us.
▶ 0:47:31So, so the committee, um, is talking about home appliances and, and some of the costs that have been incurred with the last administration. So, Mr. novak, is doe ensuring that any new amended energy efficiency standards are truly cost effective, yielding significant energy savings and technologically technologically feasible. >> that that is the aim.
▶ 0:47:51That is, the aim is to ensure that the, uh, the analysis that's done around this is, again, localized to the efficacy of the appliance, the cost efficiency of the unit, and again, preserving the policy choice that consumers should have a range of choices available to them. >> so they so under epa, doe is required to review energy efficiency standards for cover products no later than six years after the issuance of final rule, with an option to decline.
▶ 0:48:19Setting a new standard if it would be inappropriate has. How has this six year look back requirement in nepa resulted in never ending regulation for certain covered products? >> um, I will say in regard to the six year look period, I had conversations with staff in advance of being here today, and I understand that it is a challenge. The six year look back is a challenge, and the two year look back may be a challenge. Again, we would invite technical assistance and how we could best satisfy any look back requirement in a bill.
▶ 0:48:50Um, but again, my understanding is that there are some challenges in regard to these look back requirements. >> so so switching gears a little bit, some states and localities have implemented natural gas bans, driving prices up for consumers and straining our nation's electric grid. How important is redundancy in our energy networks? >> uh, it is important. Reliability and adequacy are key policy aims of the department.
▶ 0:49:14Uh, so ensuring that, uh, we, you know, we don't create, um, shortfalls by, uh, for example, by retiring in advance of their, you know, the expiration of their service life units. Um, this ensures that we have enough dispatchable power on the grid. And again, the policy choice here that's been made by policy makers is one of addition. It's the idea of adding additional. We want additional power to the on the grid. And we want a variety again a variety of choices that make sense.
▶ 0:49:45>> thank you. And before I yield back, we I'm in all the above. And I'm going to just say it all the above. But it needs to be sustainable and affordable. And and the subsidies can't displace. So you subsidize one. And so people don't build the other which is dispatchable and there and available. So we, we need to want us all to everybody on both sides of the aisle in this committee think through this is that, you know, you have to have permits to build.
▶ 0:50:11Like we talked about, there was $42 billion held up because they couldn't get approval to build fiber in the in the inflation reduction act, you need permits to build wind. You need permits to build solar. You need to move those electrons. If you create electrons in wind and solar, you got to move those through transmission lines. Uh, for in all the above, you have natural gas, you have clean coal. You've got to move some of that through the pipeline.
▶ 0:50:36So we have to move the energy sources to where it's turned into electrons, and we have to take the electricity and move it to where people use it, consume it. And so that's behind we're behind china in doing that. And we I know that I always say there's four and 32 of us, I think still in in congress right now. Uh, and 432 of us, I think without I can think of a person that doesn't want to make sure we win the battle for the economic future over china.
▶ 0:51:02And the big part of it is energy having the right mix and having the ability to move it. And hopefully this committee will dedicate ourselves, both sides of the aisle to getting to the right mix at the sustainable, affordable and be able to move it to where people need it to use it. So that's what our focus is going to be, and hopefully we can all do it together and I will yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, the ranking member, for five minutes for questions.
▶ 0:51:32>> thank you, Mr. chairman. You know, I listened to chairman guthrie say he's for all of the above. And it sounds like. Mr. novak, you're saying you're for all of the above. But when secretary rice was here in june, we specifically asked him if he was for an all of the above energy policy. And he said, no, he's not. So I mean, it's very nice that you and the chairman are saying that you want to consider renewables and that you're for, you know, all different types of energy.
▶ 0:51:58But secretary made it quite clear that he's not and neither is the president. And you know, we have three bills on the floor this week that are clearly not for all of the above, and that clearly make it that say pretty emphatically that, uh, you know, they want to eliminate or pretty much eliminate renewables and put all the emphasis on, uh, on fossil fuels.
▶ 0:52:22So, uh, you know, forgive me if I, if I, uh, say that I don't think you're really speaking for the secretary, frankly. Uh, but I wanted to follow up on a letter I sent to secretary rice last month. As you know, the doe staff have been sent to doe.
▶ 0:52:41Staff have been sent to the nuclear regulatory commission, and they're operating without nrc supervisors in an apparent contravention of the energy reorganization act, which explicitly separated doe and nrc. So my question at one point in july, david taggart was listed as simultaneously being both the nrc chief counsel and doe's deputy general counsel for litigation. Can you confirm if Mr. taggart is still employed by the department?
▶ 0:53:10>> uh, he has he is not employed by the department and hasn't been since he went to nrc. >> all right. So when did Mr. taggart actually cease being a doe employee? Approximately. >> uh, I'll. I'll get I'll take, uh, take that for the record, but I believe it's two months that he's been at nrc. >> and on that day when he ceased to be a doe employee who was his supervisor at that point, you know. >> uh, would have been me. >> it would have been you. >> so, yeah, I joined may 22nd.
▶ 0:53:41David had been, at that point, the acting general counsel when I joined, uh, he slid into the deputy general counsel role and then subsequently moved to nrc. >> well, I'm. >> saying this. >> because my concern is that the department administration have broken the law when it comes to separating, uh, our doe, uh, or separating out, I should say, doe's function of supporting the nuclear industry and the nrc's job of regulating it. And I feel like we're getting a runaround here.
▶ 0:54:09So maybe that's why they sent you as a general counsel here today. Because, you know, they broken the law. And, you know, they want to deal with this from a legal point of view. But I think it's important that the republican majority finally begin to hold some oversight hearings of this administration, rather than hearings on bills that will raise prices for americans. But let me turn to the bills before us, because I only have two minutes.
▶ 0:54:34According to section 342 of the energy policy and conservation act, the secretary may not prescribe any amended standard, which increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product, unquote. However, in may of this year, doe proposed to weaken or eliminate standards for 17 products. And secretary wright was asked about this when he was before us in june, and he couldn't give us a straight answer.
▶ 0:55:02So maybe you can. Uh. So, Mr. novak, can you explain how doe decided it? Need not comply with section 342 and judicial precedent the way I described, if you will? >> uh, I have to take that question for the. For the record, I'd be happy to provide a detailed response. >> well, I would appreciate that. And, you know, I think it's clear that the doe is breaking the law here.
▶ 0:55:24And american homeowners are going to pay the price when you when your monthly energy bills keep going up because your home appliances use more energy. You know, I just hope that everyone remembers that the trump administration, uh, is to blame here. Um, I just think that what what the department is doing is, you know, not only in terms of what they're doing that the nrc, but also what they're doing with energy efficiency. It's totally contrary to the statute.
▶ 0:55:52And, um, you know, I don't know if you, as the general counsel, can answer that question now, it's kind of unfortunate, but I appreciate if you would get back to me. But I'm going to reiterate, reiterate again, uh, you know, you come here and and the chairman keeps talking about all the above, and I appreciate all that. But if you look at the bills that are on the floor today and what this trump administration is doing, they clearly don't want anything to do with renewable energy. They want to prioritize oil and natural gas.
▶ 0:56:21And that's all because they want to help their oil and gas friends. And anybody who thinks contrary I think is just kidding themselves. So thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from texas for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> Mr. novak, thank you for being here.
▶ 0:56:43According to a december 2022 government accountability office gao report, the federal government is the the largest energy consumer in the united states with about 350,000 federal buildings, which are using over 344 trillion with a t btus of energy and 119 billion gallons of water in 2021 alone.
▶ 0:57:12Gao also found that only one out of 27 government agencies, only one actually using their compliance tracking system, doe's compliance tracking system. Only one agency actually met the energy and water use evaluation requirement, meaning, bottom line, that taxpayers dollars are being wasted.
▶ 0:57:40Even with all those plans for all those agencies. Uh, have you ever heard the term the best laid plans of mice and men? I have you have. That's quoted from, uh, robert burns's 1785 scottish poem. You know that. And and $7 will get you a cup of coffee at starbucks. Now that you know that my question is my legislation, the federal mechanical insulation act, which means that when you're, you know, as a company owner for 35 years.
▶ 0:58:07So I've watched all this, your ratings change and all the energy requirements change for years and years and years, which means that when you're evaluating the crc energy efficiency rating of an air conditioning or heating system, both actually, you need to take into effect the loss of energy, the energy loss on the duct system. They've never done that. They looked at the condensing unit. They looked at the gas furnace. They looked the evaporator coil.
▶ 0:58:32So they never had never actually looked at the mechanical insulation on the ductwork part. So this legislation, we aim at increasing energy efficiency in federal buildings while saving taxpayer money section. And so do you agree with that? That would be a noble, uh, thing for us to want to do. >> I do it is a gap in the current nepa right? Auditing scope? >> you betcha.
▶ 0:59:00And so section 433 of the energy independence and security act establishes a time frame. Also, this is another gotcha for the consumers, establishes a time line to phase out fossil fuel in federal buildings. Now, you said earlier comments that people who had electric heat in the north east when the winter winter was so secure and they lost power, they froze to death. If they had natural gas, they could at least could.
▶ 0:59:28They could run a, for example, you know, fireplace or something in there if they needed to crack a window. We always tell everybody so that you carbon monoxide doesn't build up. So without intervention, uh, if we don't get this bill passed where we figure in all the requirements, uh, without intervention, what might be the potential impacts on grid reliability, if that 344 trillion btus currently supplied by fossil fuel was
▶ 1:00:00Entirely shifted to the federal grid, what do you think the outcome of that would be? >> well, we clearly have benefits for the grid. >> oh, it would absolutely do that. So I appreciate that answer. Uh, I appreciate you taking notes to be able to get back with everybody. I appreciate your appearance here today. So, uh, thank you for being here and for bearing my history lesson. And, Mr. chairman, I'm going to yield back. >> thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
▶ 1:00:26The chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey's eighth district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. Chairman. Mr. novak, just quickly, um, do we need more energy production in this country? Just yes or no? >> uh, yes. >> thank you. And is ensuring that consumers energy bills are affordable a priority for this administration? Just yes or no? >> uh, it is it is one of the objectives. Affordable, secure, reliable, abundant. >> appreciate that.
▶ 1:00:54Is it a priority of this administration to ensure that the united states continues to compete with china with respect to energy production? It is. Thank you. In a hearing yesterday with chairman latta, he described a large part of china's energy production comes from coal plants inside. This is a justification on why this administration is prioritizing the revival of coal energy. Would you say this is an accurate characterization, yes or no? >> um, I. >> compete with china.
▶ 1:01:22They they utilize coal, and therefore we should revitalize coal in the united states to compete with china. Is that a fair assessment? Yes or no? >> um, coal is clearly part of how we generate a lot of dispatchable baseload in this country. >> I'm just curious if you know how china is meeting their electricity demand growth. >> um, I've seen charts, uh, nuclear, coal, uh, they have a mix, a. >> mix, and that mix would include solar and wind. Correct.
▶ 1:01:51According to the new york times, china met 84% of its electricity demand growth with solar and wind power. And china is well known to be the world's top electricity producer from renewable energy sources. In 2024, china installed over 373gw of renewables, and their goal is to meet 80% of its total energy mix from non-fossil fuel sources by 2016.
▶ 1:02:13So if the goal here is to maintain american energy dominance over china, why are we completely abandoning renewables and allowing china to become the world leader in renewable energy production? >> um, I think the answer there, it's not all of the above. It's best of the above, and the best of the above is always context dependent.
▶ 1:02:35There are certain contexts in which particular generation makes a lot of sense, and there are other contexts in which it doesn't. And that's again, very fact specific, very site specific. >> but you also stated earlier in your testimony that I believe your quote was fewer choices, put more strain on the grid, do you? Was that was that your statement earlier? Something along those lines, fewer choices, put more strain on the grid. >> depending on what the range of choices is. Again.
▶ 1:03:06>> well. >> states. >> are deciding, right, that they want to, uh, advance offshore wind. And the president pauses those projects. Wouldn't that be fewer choices on the grid? And would therefore, that put more strain on the grid and make prices more expensive for our residents? Just yes or no? >> again, contextually dependent. The answer is yes. >> and the trump administration, republicans in congress, are actively making policy choices that inhibit our ability to quickly bring more energy sources online.
▶ 1:03:32So far this congress, their focus has been on undoing biden era policies, including going after energy efficiency standards. They've also imposed tariffs that will dramatically increase the cost of equipment necessary to build out energy projects, and completely abandoning renewables such as solar and wind. So I'm I'm struggling to see what the play here is, because it almost seems like this administration and what they're doing with offshore wind is retribution for the obama administration's decision on the keystone pipeline.
▶ 1:04:02Would you say that's accurate? This feels like obama administration made a decision with keystone pipeline. So now the trump administration is going to make a decision with offshore wind, despite the fact that most people here agree that we need an all of the above strategy, including wind and solar. >> let me say first, again, I'm a lawyer, not a policymaker, and I can't speak to the context of keystone, but I'm not aware of anything that, uh, at least in my experience, it would suggest that there's some retribution. But it may.
▶ 1:04:32>> not be a policymaker, but as the is as the acting general counsel, you're involved in a lot of these decisions that go into the policies, yes or no. >> I advise policymakers on the law. >> and are you aware of any policy that the administration is considering that will help reduce the cost being borne by consumers? With respect to the increase in ai data centers? Just yes or no. Have you has anything come across your desk that shows the administration is dealing with the increase in demand caused by data centers? >> yes.
▶ 1:05:00For example, I mentioned earlier the idea of co-located gas fired facilities. Very attractive idea to have a point source solution for for generating. Okay. >> and and you are general counsel. We've had witnesses here from the department of energy who cannot acknowledge the benefit of clean, renewable energy. I am curious if there's a doe policy that prohibits employees, its employees and officials from speaking to the benefits of clean energy? >> none that I'm aware of. >> okay.
▶ 1:05:29Do you are you aware of anyone left at the department of energy who still believes in clean, renewable energy? >> oh, I would say we've got a range of people with a range of viewpoints on policy, and those get full throated expression when people are talking about. >> and then presumably shut down by this administration. Thank you. I'm out of time, I yield back. >> thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama's sixth district for five minutes for questions. >> Mr.
▶ 1:05:59Novak, are you aware that we're in an arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing with china? >> I am, sir. >> are you aware that we're going to have to double our base load capacity in order to power the data centers that will need to win that arms race? >> I am, sir. >> do you believe, um, based on your knowledge of what the department of energy is doing, that we can do that with renewables? >> no. No, sir. >> the physics don't work, do they? >> they don't.
▶ 1:06:28>> um, I keep hearing my colleagues talk about what china is doing. I, I know they're big fans of china, but I think we're in a existential competition with china. It's going to determine who is the dominant power in the world. Whoever, uh, masters ai and quantum computing, they will not be a superpower. They will be the superpower. And we need to do what it takes to be able to to meet that challenge and win that that arms race.
▶ 1:06:54As I said, um, you know, china's built a lot of renewables, but they're basically forcing renewable power generation on the general population in order to preserve their fossil assets, fossil fuel assets. Would you agree with that? >> uh, I'm not familiar, uh, sir, with the policy choices that are being made by the prc. Um, it's a different economic system. Um.
▶ 1:07:20>> it's also more part of their national strategy because they're putting more and more into their military. They realize that they have limited resources. They have huge amounts of coal, limited access to natural gas. They're also, uh, they're ahead of us in small modular reactors. They've got one online already. They've got four in the queue.
▶ 1:07:40Um, one of the things that I think we we that everybody on this committee ought to be focused on is small modular nuclear reactors, because it addresses the whole issue of emissions. It also will help us meet that, that, um, increase baseload demand. Uh, are you, uh, have you been informed on on that effort?
▶ 1:08:02>> I have, I've had several conversations with, um, tagaris, who's our nominee for the assistant secretary for nuclear energy about, uh, the objectives in regard to small modular reactors and microreactors, uh, very promising solutions, something we're committed to. >> well, there's one of the things that I think we can do in over the last several years, we've closed about 300 hydrocarbon power generation facilities. Most of them are coal.
▶ 1:08:27Uh, I know there's some concerns that that, uh, the administration may be open to reopening some of those using coal, but, uh, I've been really pushing, uh, putting small modular reactors on those sites. That helps deal with the not in my backyard issue, but also the transmission lines are still there.
▶ 1:08:50Uh, we could place small modular reactors, uh, based on the design capacity of the transmission lines, which would, I think, help increase the baseload available to make sure that the power utility rates didn't go up for households and for businesses, but also help us meet the increased demand that we're going to have. The other thing, are you aware of how dependent we are on china for, uh, refined critical minerals and rare earth elements? >> I am.
▶ 1:09:19>> are you aware that there's not a single major refinery for rare earth elements in the entire western hemisphere? >> I am. >> uh, are you aware that it's going to be a tremendous, uh, additional demand for power to build processing and refining capabilities and capacity here in the united states? I am can we do that with renewables? Yes. Do you think we can meet that power demand with renewables? >> uh, no, sir. No, sir.
▶ 1:09:46>> you cannot have a power source that does not give you a consistent baseload. Correct. Thank you. Um, I just think that we're in a situation right now that we're no longer talking about economics. We shouldn't even be talking about politics. We ought to be talking about national security. We have a window that's going to close. If we don't meet this, this challenge, we're going to find ourselves in a really bad place, and the future of the country will be in the balance.
▶ 1:10:16That's my opinion. It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of many, many others. So that's one of the reasons why this committee, under the leadership of chairman guthrie and and latta and some of the others have made it a top priority to meet that demand, to win that competition. So I just want to make, uh, make the statement for the record, we cannot do it with renewables.
▶ 1:10:39We're going to have to do it with the resources that that I think that we can lead the world in, in that small modular reactors to meet that power demand, to be able to refine the rare earth elements that we need to build the, the, the microchips and semiconductors in order to win that arms race for artificial intelligence, quantum computing. Mister chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from virginia's fourth district. Five minutes for questions. >> thank you.
▶ 1:11:08Thank you, chairman and ranking member castor, for holding this very important legislative hearing. Um, we can't afford to turn away from energy efficiency at this critical moment. We need to meet rapidly growing energy demand, as we have heard. And we need to do it in a way that is affordable for households. And households across the country are already struggling with rising energy bills while facing more extreme weather exacerbated by climate change.
▶ 1:11:35Whether that's increasingly severe storms and flooding, record heat waves, dangerous winter freezes, and that's why I'm grateful that we have included ranking member tonko's, uh, weatherization enhancement and readiness act in our discussion today.
▶ 1:11:51This bill makes necessary investments to help more low income families weatherize their homes by fixing structural, plumbing, roofing, and electrical, uh, issues and programs like weatherization assistance program, cut costs, improve energy efficiency, and make communities more resilient.
▶ 1:12:09And according to the department of energy itself, the program supports 8500 jobs, provides weatherization services to approximately 32,000 homes every year, saving those homes on average $372 or more every year.
▶ 1:12:27And this is important because studies suggest that 35 to 60% of energy consumption in us homes is wasted through air leaks, outdated systems, phantom load from devices in standby mode, and we can't meet our exploding energy demand if we continue to waste 35 to 60% of energy in our homes from things that are fixable.
▶ 1:12:51So weatherization and energy efficiency goals are things that this committee should be focused on, and not attacks on popular standards that are cost saving and common sense. Now, Mr.
▶ 1:13:06Novak, my office has learned that the team from the department of energy, responsible for the weatherization assistance program, has lost nearly 70% of its staff since president trump took office and that now only 11 people manage 54 grammy formula grants. And on top of that, the doe is no longer allowing the remaining staff to travel, which makes it harder for them to oversee the program and ensure that funds go towards weatherizing homes. Mr.
▶ 1:13:37Novak, how are doe staff supposed to effectively conduct their outreach and oversight of this program without leaving their desks? >> uh, it's a very good question. Um, one of the objectives of this administration, and it's something I came in, I wasn't involved in architecting it, but I'm I am involved. And obviously managing a team of lawyers now is the idea of, uh, of a lighter, more efficient, more nimble federal workforce.
▶ 1:14:04Um, so I will tell you, even within my department, I'm managing, um, a lot of demand with fewer lawyers. And we're doing that by, frankly, trying to figure out how to get the balance right in terms of the work that lawyers are doing, prioritizing the work and putting, frankly, more human resource where there's, uh, more work being done and more emphasis on policy priorities. Um, the bill here, I note that, you know, this the bill that's before this committee would increase the average cost per unit.
▶ 1:14:33That's something that reflects increases in labor costs, materials. Um, and I'm not sure one of the, one of the things I'd like to, uh, to, to take for the record, is, uh, to go back to staff and to talk to staff about how they're going to manage, recognizing that there's going to be more money in the program to, again, account for increases in labor and increases in material. And we're going to stand up a new readiness program. There's, you know, a new statutory implementation framework.
▶ 1:15:00And one of the questions I'd just like to take back to the record is how we're going to how we're going to meet that statutory implementation framework with the headcount we've got. >> okay, I think you need more headcount. Um, in fiscal year 25, doe illegally shifted funds between programs, particularly within the energy efficiency and renewable energy account. The building and technologies office lost over $180 million, which is 50% of the funding that congress intended.
▶ 1:15:27Um, and doe's decision to pull that funding directly ignored the specific levels appropriated by congress and signed into law by president trump. Uh, Mr. novak, you would agree that congress holds the congressional authority to appropriate funds, right? >> correct. Constitution commits appropriations to congress. >> did doe move fiscal year 25 funds away from the building technologies office? Despite what congress intended?
▶ 1:15:54>> I'll have to take that question under, um, for the record. >> I would appreciate that because it is a completely unacceptable for an agency to ignore the law and redirect congressionally mandated funding to support the secretary's personal agenda. Um, and I think as general counsel, you would agree with that I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia's 12th district for five minutes for questions.
▶ 1:16:22>> thank you, chair, for holding this important legislative hearing to discuss, uh, appliance and building policies. I think, Mr. novak, for being here today from the department of energy to testify. Uh, last week, we had a background hearing where I discussed my bill.
▶ 1:16:39Uh, don't mess with my appliances act, which implements necessary reforms to the energy policy conservation act or epa to prevent future administrations from issuing burdensome standards on household appliances that would drive up costs and reduce availability. Uh, let's be clear, folks back home want to know why?
▶ 1:17:01Why the cost of replacing their air conditioning has increased more than three times in less than five years. And that includes appliances that don't work. And, uh, obviously, uh, my wife, uh, wants to keep her gas stove.
▶ 1:17:24Um, so, um, I'm glad that we're here to discuss the provisions in my bill. Uh, in my bill, the statutory look back requiring the doe to evaluate standards is repealed. Can you share the department of energy's thoughts on this provision? >> uh. >> as I as I mentioned earlier, Mr.
▶ 1:17:47Allen, we, um, I had a conversation with staff about, uh, look back, uh, and what staff relayed is that the six year look back is it's just challenging. It's something challenging for staff to do. And that's that's not based on headcount. It's just the exercise itself is a bit challenging. Uh, and the view was that, you know, a more frequent look back thing just basically means, you know, more challenges over a shorter period of time. This is an area where we would invite, um, technical assistance.
▶ 1:18:15We'd love to, to work with this committee, um, to figure out how we can address some of those challenges and performing look backs if this bill should become law. >> my bill also requires a payback period of three years. Can you share with department of energy's view on that? >> um, payback periods are significant. As I mentioned earlier, the, you know, the national home builders estimates, for example, you know, a $31,000 increase to to most homebuyers, um, but a payback period of 90 years.
▶ 1:18:45Um, while the national association of home builders doesn't provide a working life of a, of a home, they do provide working life of elements. And that is basically the working life of the elements of a home, the foundation walls, etc. Um, so in terms of consumers being able to have a range of choice and for those choices to be informed, um, knowing the payback period and having a reasonable payback period significant to wait for a 90 year payback is not, uh, that's you're not getting your money back in 90 years.
▶ 1:19:15>> as the department currently prioritizing consumer savings in the rule making process. >> I'll have to take that question back to staff that handles the rulemaking. This area. >> uh, can you share any other insights on how my bill would will protect consumer choice and affordability for appliances? >> well, so the idea, at least as I understand the bill, sir, is that you would localize the assessment, you would look at the utility of the appliances, the appliance.
▶ 1:19:41Doing what it's supposed to do is the is it actually yielding a significant energy savings. And instead of looking at something broad social cost of carbon, that sort of thing, again, you would be having a localized inquiry about the efficiency of this particular appliance, measuring that against the utility of the appliance itself. I can share, you know, my personal anecdote. We had 15 people under roof at thanksgiving last year. We killed our dishwasher.
▶ 1:20:08We bought a new dishwasher, went to, you know, the store I bought, the nicest dishwasher I could find with the best consumer reports rating. It doesn't dry the dishes, right? We, you know, we drive it to, you know, we open it up, we leave it open for a day, or, you know, we towel down the dishes. Um, this is something we think, you know, a sensible analysis of, of an appliance should take this into account. Is it doing what you ask?
▶ 1:20:31We have a dryer, clothes dryer where we routinely run three cycles because the moisture sensing thing, it doesn't give us anything other than wet laundry. So, you know, typically we hang the laundry around the house. Again, this, you know, a smarter analysis, I think is going to pay a little bit more attention to the utility of the appliance, to the consumer, and then making sure that if you're going to have some trades there in regard to energy efficiency, that again, that's a localized that's a localized assessment.
▶ 1:20:58Um, you want it to be a significant savings and not to give up significant utility to yield marginal savings. >> it sounds like we're going back to the old days. We're going to all have the clotheslines in the backyard. >> I've suggested as much to my wife. I do most of the laundry and the cooking in our house. And I share your passion for I cook over propane and, uh, I. >> yeah, well, I grew up without air conditioning, so somehow I made it. Yeah. Thank you sir, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:21:25And the chair now recognizes gentleman from california's 50th district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman. Uh. >> one of the biggest. >> crises facing my constituents in san diego is the threat of rapidly rising energy costs, uh, which I believe we should be addressing through every solution available. President trump promised in his campaign he would lower. He would, uh, cut the the energy costs of my constituents in half by within. >> a year. >> uh, we're going the. >> other way. They're up 5.5% from a year ago.
▶ 1:21:53And unfortunately, the majority passed the reconciliation bill. That's going to eliminate a lot of energy source and energy production. Um, I do believe we should be adopting all of the above energy strategy that brings more power into the grid, lowers cost for consumers. Um, you indicated that you're an attorney, though, so I maybe some questions about that because I, I used to be an attorney and, um, would love to hear your thoughts about the revolution wind project.
▶ 1:22:18So revolution wind is a project that's 80% complete off the coast of, um, new england. It's, uh, about to bring 704mw, 400mw to rhode island, 304 to connecticut. They've invested $4 billion already. They've completed, um, 45 out of 65 turbines and 1200 jobs. And president trump, um, and secretary reich pulled the permit.
▶ 1:22:46Does the secretary of the authority to pull a permit that's already been issued without any reason? >> um, I'll have to take that question for the for the record, I'm not familiar with the with the project or the permit, but I'll be more than happy to look into it and get a response to you. >> generally, once a permit issued, you need a reason to pull it though, right? I mean, just under you're the you're the general counsel of the energy department. I can't imagine you wouldn't you would think that you wouldn't need a reason to pull a permit.
▶ 1:23:17>> I'm not sure the, the the nature of the permit, whether it's a conditional permit. Again, I'd like to look at the particulars of this project you mentioned. It's the revolution wind. >> project wind? Yeah. >> I'm happy to take a look at the particulars of that. >> I you know, I also I would actually maybe ask you for the record if there is a reason. What's the reason that that project was canceled? Uh, and maybe you could find that out for us. And also, are we liable for damages because there's a reliance here. 15 years review, permitting and development.
▶ 1:23:42I think all of us on the on the committee, so many of us are frustrated with the time it takes to get through this process. They got through this process. They're 80% complete and they got their permit, I believe, cancel because the president doesn't like offshore wind. And um, obviously I think that's a that's a there's a lot of issues with that that put us at risk. One is, um, first of all, it's not competitive. China installed 80gw of wind last year.
▶ 1:24:08We we installed it as a country, 60gw of wind total. China is not doing it because they're climate warriors. They're installing wind because it's available. It's fast to get to and it's it's reliable energy. It's important part of their mix. And we've turned away from that in the big big beautiful bill. We undercut a lot of the incentives that we put in there to get that developed.
▶ 1:24:32Also, the message it sends to investors when you do things like that, we cancel a permit that's already been issued is that you can't rely on the on the rule of law. That's always been a foundation of the entrepreneurial spirit here, the willingness to invest the united states, the willingness of foreign governments, uh, foreign foreign companies to invest in the united states depends on that reliability, and we've undercut that.
▶ 1:24:54And so one energy investor told me that they view now, um, investing in energy, renewable energy in the united states as if they're investing in vietnam or brazil. That's the kind of security they feel, given what we've seen here. So I think it's a very serious concern. It's a legal concern.
▶ 1:25:11Uh, and, um, I would ask you to, to see if you could respond to me because, um, I heard also, you know, I've heard all this, this, um, this talk about keystone pipeline and the allegation about keystone pipeline is that president obama and president biden turned their backs on keystone pipeline for ideological reasons. Uh, and that upset a lot of people, particularly the workers who wanted to build it. Well, now, we sent 1200 workers home because of ideological reasons.
▶ 1:25:38I think this is president trump's keystone pipeline, and I think he needs to answer for it. So if you can help me, um, if there are any answers to these questions, I'd love to know what they are. But to me, uh, we're really turning the country backward, uh, for ideological reasons. While we watch our competitor china. 80gw of wind last year, 227gw of solar. Again, not because they're tree huggers, because they know that's the fastest way to get energy on, on, on board.
▶ 1:26:04Meanwhile, we did, um, since 2000, since 2014, we've done in north america seven gigawatts of inter-regional, uh, transmission, high voltage transmission, um, about half that in the united states. In south america, the number is 22 and europe's number is 44. China has done 260gw of this. So I think we're when we when we revoke permits that are already issued on viable energy sources were released setting the cost backward. And I'd love to have answers to those questions. Mr.
▶ 1:26:34Chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio's 12th district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. novak. Um, I would also like to thank you for your work that you and the department of doing to support the development of affordable, reliable energy in ohio and across the nation. Mr. novak, the department of energy and secretary wright have placed an emphasis on winning the ai race.
▶ 1:27:04How do natural gas bans at the state and local level threaten us competitiveness in that space? >> well. >> as I mentioned, one of the promising solutions we recognize that, um, uh, data centers running nvidia ai chips consume a lot more power. They run hotter, they consume a lot more power to keep those facilities cool. One of the more promising solutions out there will be co-located gas fired generation.
▶ 1:27:28As I mentioned, this is something that will be neutral, maybe even beneficial to ratepayers because you have the capacity to not draw from the grid. In fact, to put surplus generation onto it. And again, to to remove the natural gas as an option. As you know, 150 some jurisdictions have done that, that um, um, that's something that impedes that sort of solution. And that's not the only sort of solution. But appreciate that.
▶ 1:27:55As I mentioned earlier, the best of the above is really a highly contextual assessment of what works. What what pencils out, if you will, is an engineering matter. As a financial matter, what what can survive without subsidy? Um, this is very fact dependent. And again, sort of removing the choice, if you will, um, is something that stifles innovation. And this innovation is going to be absolutely key to the the ai race. >> right. Thank you.
▶ 1:28:23Well, force electric will force electrification raise electricity prices for consumers. >> think it will. >> in that what are you seeing in areas like new england. >> well um. >> so for example in new england, as I mentioned earlier, with the, you know, the christmas storm from a few years ago, extended power outage in an all electric home. That's a that's a big issue. Uh, we depend in our home, for example, on propane, not just to cook, but that's what heats our home.
▶ 1:28:53Also, it's what eats our water. All of our neighbors are like this. I'm in a neighborhood that's been there since 1890. Um, you know, that's our best option, frankly. Um, so, you know, in places where you have, uh, exposure to, you know, cold winters, long, cold winters, um, you know, to remove, uh, one of the options and to insist upon electrification. It comes at a cost, and it comes with risk. >> thank you. My next question is about h.r.
▶ 1:29:194690, the reliable federal infrastructure act, introduced by my friend, congressman langworthy from new york. If left in place, the energy independence and security act would require the elimination of on site fossil fuel use from new and renovated federal facilities beginning in 2030. Can you discuss the department's efforts this year to rein in the previous administration's rulemaking on section 433?
▶ 1:29:45And as a follow up, can you discuss why it's important for congress to pass the reliable federal infrastructure act? >> I'll have to take, for the record, the question about the rulemaking. I'll be happy to meet with staff and get you a response. For the record, on on the status of the rulemaking efforts there.
▶ 1:30:02Um, I will mention in regard to the legislation, again, as with as with homeowners to remove the option there, um, regardless of the context is something we think is a bad it's a bad policy outcome. Um, federal facilities ought to have flexibility in the same way that homeowners ought to. There are certain things that will make sense in particular contexts or certain things that won't, uh, but to remove, uh, gas and coal fire, for example, from, you know, across the federal footprint, um, really hamstrings several things.
▶ 1:30:32You know, there's, uh, not just cost of operation, um, in terms of the utility bills that the government's going to pay over time. It also affects the way you're going to engineer the buildings. This is also going to, you know, affect delivery timelines. That in turn is going to affect mission readiness. So again, the view here is by having a suite of options there that gives you flexibility, technical flexibility, financial flexibility to do what makes sense in a particular context. >> okay. Thank you.
▶ 1:30:58Um, another bill I'm excited we are discussing today is h.r. 4626 that don't mess with my home appliances act. This bill prohibits the secretary from prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified. Mr. novak, we saw the previous administration finalize a number of conservation and efficiency, excuse me, standards that covered a range of home appliance products.
▶ 1:31:27Do you believe these standards, finalized by the previous administration, were technologically and feasible or economically justified? And you have eight seconds, sir, please. >> um, again, we'll take that question. For the record, I know that a been working with the team that's been working on the rules around this to assess the rules. One of the things that this legislation aims to do, again, is to localize some of the assessment here of the the, um, efficiency standards around appliances.
▶ 1:31:55And again, I think by refocusing this on significant, significant benefit, significant savings, looking at the utility, again, does it work for the consumer and what are the trade offs there in regard to utility versus energy efficiency. >> pardon me. The gentleman's time has expired. And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from colorado's first district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you so much, Mr. chairman. Mr. novak, I've got a couple questions for you.
▶ 1:32:22The, um, are you aware of the doe estimate that the average american wastes as much as $400 or up to 20% of their annual utility bill on energy leaks, drafts, and outdated hearing and cooling systems? >> um, I am not familiar with that. >> you're not aware of that? Okay. >> um.
▶ 1:32:49>> do you are you aware that that, um, that many americans are having leaks to their systems? >> I actually I take that back. I do believe I have read about this. Yes. >> so you are aware of that? Yes. Thank you. Are you are you familiar with the organization, the international energy conservation code? >> I'm familiar with the code. Correct.
▶ 1:33:12>> uh, I are you aware that they recommend tackling those issues by adjusting airtightness in the building envelope and requiring better sealing to reduce uncontrolled air movement in a building? >> correct. I'm generally familiar. Yeah, with the conservation code. >> um, are you aware that doe determined that the 2024 ipcc reduced would reduce or reduce energy costs by 6.6%?
▶ 1:33:43>> uh, I'm not sure I'm familiar with that statistic. >> okay, would you. But you're not you wouldn't question that statistic if. I mean, I'm telling you, that's what they said, okay. Um, would you question that statistic? >> I don't have any reason as I sit here to question that statistic. >> okay. Now, doe in fact, estimated the cumulative savings from installing modern energy codes between 2010 and 2040 at $182 billion annually. Were you aware of that?
▶ 1:34:12>> not familiar with that statistic? >> okay, well, I'll tell you that was what they said. So, um, so so what those energy codes mean for an average home, I'd like to offer for a record, a study from the pacific northwest national laboratory, Mr. chairman, that found the average homeowner could save almost $3,000 annually for single family homes with the 2024 ipcc. And I ask unanimous consent to put that in the record. >> without objection. So ordered.
▶ 1:34:42>> okay, so, um, Mr. novak, in the budget proposal that secretary wright proposed for doe, that would cut the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy by 74%, is that correct? >> um, I I'd have to take that question for the record. >> really? You don't know the answer to that question. You don't know that the budget proposal said that it would be cut by 74%.
▶ 1:35:12>> um, I you know, I don't work in that program office. >> so right here, I've got it. And guess what? I'll have my staff give you a copy of it. Mr. chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put that in the record, too. >> without objection. >> so ordered. Thank you. So I'll tell you, that's what it says. 74%. Now, maybe you don't know this either, but I'm going to ask you.
▶ 1:35:35Isn't it true that president trump's budget would cut $4.25 billion from the low income home energy assistance program, which helps low income families meet the cost of heating and cooling their homes. >> uh, again, this is. >> you don't know that either. >> well. What what I'll say is, it's actually quite a distance from the eight bills that I'm here to testify to today.
▶ 1:36:01>> okay, well, I know, but you're here, but you're supposedly an energy expert, so I will tell you, um, I've got the budget right here. And it says that. Mr. chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent to put that in the record to. >> without objection. >> so thank you. Now, maybe you know, this, um, that there about the reports that keep fossil fired power plants running could cost consumers 3 to $6 billion a year.
▶ 1:36:26And last month, doe issued an emergency order to keep a michigan power plant online past its entire intended retirement account. Were you aware of that? >> uh, I'm aware of the campbell plant and the emergency order. Um, and I'm aware. >> of the intended retirement date. You're aware of that? >> um, I'm aware that the, uh, any additional costs go through a ferc rate making. >> no, you're not answering my question.
▶ 1:36:55They told him to keep it on past the intended retirement date. Yes or no? >> um, I actually believe the facts with the. Campbell plant were it was it was being retired before its the end of its scheduled working life. It was an accelerated retirement according to the plan. >> you think it's not past the entire intended retirement date? >> um, I believe the campbell plant was a retirement prior to the ended right or scheduled. Right. >> Mr.
▶ 1:37:22Chairman, we'd love to work with you on these issues, but we can't do it when the administration is cutting all of the funding for people to retrofit their and improve their homes, and I yield back. >> thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas 11th district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And almost 80 million americans voted for a new energy policy because the last administration failed at theirs. So, Mr. novak, thank you for being here, and you're doing a good job.
▶ 1:37:51Uh, and we appreciate the fact that you're trying to provide affordable, reliable energy to every american, um, and, uh, and direct opposition of what we saw the previous four years. Uh, natural gas plays a huge role in this equation, and not not just in, uh, homes, but also in managing costs for businesses. So, um, I want to look at what epa has required doe to do to ensure that any new standards, both technologically feasible as well as economically justified.
▶ 1:38:19So my first question, which I know you've touched on a little bit, but I'll give you some time to expand. How does doe weigh the projected energy savings against the upfront costs that consumers will bear, when these savings might be modest or indistinguishable? Well. >> I think that points out why the bill is before the committee, which is the idea to sharpen the assessment of that, that trade off there between utility and the energy efficiency gained to the consumer.
▶ 1:38:44Um, it's something that, at least in a lot of people's experience, seems to be a bit off. Part of it is that the calculus now includes some things that are quite broad social cost of carbon, for example, greenhouse gases, uh, which is something a little bit broader and different than what is the energy consumption compared to the usage of this particular device? And what's the utility of the device?
▶ 1:39:07>> so, um, when a proposed standard only offers a very small amount of savings, what process does doe use to decide whether it's worth moving forward on that? And what input do you gather to. >> um, I'll have to take that question back to staff. Um, that's involved in the project office that actually performs the assessment here. >> um.
▶ 1:39:27>> I'll move to federal facilities in section 433 implementation, um, of the the energy independence security act, which requires phasing out fossil fuel use and new or newly renovated federal buildings by 2030. So how is doe approaching this requirement while ensuring that critical facilities, whether they be federal courthouses or va facilities or military bases, that they can continue to operate reliably? Number one, but also, um, in a cost efficient manner?
▶ 1:39:58>> uh, it is a challenge, to be blunt, and it's a challenge just not in regard to the existing federal footprint, but the addition of any new federal facilities. Um, where the requirement here is, is to basically be all electric. Um, so this is one of the things, again, that points up, you know, the the you know, what's motivating the bill here is to, again, get some flexibility here so that the energy solution, both for the existing footprint as well as any new facilities, is something that takes into account local delivery options as well as
▶ 1:40:28Design specs, delivery timeframes, etc. >> the mandate of electrification, a lot of these facilities was one of the reasons that millions of americans came out and said, that's just not realistic, it's not feasible. It's not realistic. Um, have you assessed the cost implications for agencies that would need to replace natural gas systems? What does that look like if if we were to go forward, and would it even be possible to do that by 2030? >> um, I have to take that question back for the record to see if we have a particular cost estimate. What about.
▶ 1:40:59>> what about the feasibility? I mean, just from your experience? Hey. >> it's a challenge. It's a challenge. >> which types of federal buildings, agencies and entities would, would suffer the most and and which americans and which populations would, uh, demographics would suffer. >> I'll have to take that question back for the record, to see if we've heat map that against sort of location and community. >> I'm worried about.
▶ 1:41:19Um, again, military bases, va hospitals, the facilities that are providing care and, um, help to people that you mandate a switch to electrification, which is not not feasible. Um, would doe support clarifying or updating section 433 to provide flexibility for installations when natural gas remains the most reliable option. >> we would. >> very good.
▶ 1:41:47Um, is there anything else that, uh, you previously were asked that didn't have time to answer that you'd like to expand on in the next 45 seconds? >> I think a lot of questions, but we'll we'll keep moving ahead. Thank you, though, for the opportunity. Yeah. >> thanks, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california's seventh district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:42:15I want to thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing today. Um, Mr. novak, the constitution gives congress the authority to set spending levels. Is that correct? >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question. >> the constitution gives congress the authority set spending levels. Is that correct? >> appropriations. Correct. >> so why does doe's 2025 spending plan completely disregard the spending level set by congress?
▶ 1:42:46>> uh. >> congress enacted $318 million for solar energy, but doe is illegally using that funding for other purposes. Congress enacted $137 million for wind energy, but doe has illegally reallocated 78% of that funding. This is illegal, plain and simple, and it demonstrates a shocking and unprecedented disregard for congressional authority and the law. Do you disagree?
▶ 1:43:16>> um, again, that question is quite a ways from the the bills that I'm here to talk to today. But I'd be happy to take that question for the record. >> okay. Well, let me just say that the general counsel was explicitly responsible for determining the department's authoritative position on any question of law. Now, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> okay. Okay.
▶ 1:43:37Now I'm looking at this and realizing that the fy 24 appropriations bill, okay, section 301 d of the 2024 spending bill clearly states that the spending tables in the explanatory statement are legally binding.
▶ 1:43:53And section one 1105 of the 2025 spending bill states that the terms and conditions of the 2024 spending bill remain in force, including the requirement that doe must follow the spending tables and explanatory statement. Now, let me just say this the department of energy is clearly and plainly not quite understanding what is legal here. And it's this committee's responsibility to hold doe accountable. Mr.
▶ 1:44:26Novak, if congress passes a continuing resolution on september 30th, will you commit to spend the full appropriations enacted by congress? >> uh. Again, that's, uh. >> it's outside of your purview, even though you're the general counsel. And. >> well, it's outside of the subjects on which I was asked to, uh, to be here today to testify on these eight bills.
▶ 1:44:53Um, what I'll commit to is, uh, you know, it's it's my job to advise the department. And the program element leads in regard to what the law requires. >> so you won't commit to spending the amounts for each office and program and specifically required in the law. So would you, as general counsel, look into this? >> I'm sorry, what was your question. >> as general counsel? I believe that is one of your responsibilities, is it not?
▶ 1:45:21>> it is to advise on what the law requires. The regulations require. >> okay. Mr. novak, um, I authored a healthier and greener schools act, and that bill was enacted as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law and created the renewal america's schools grant program, the renewal america's schools program provides funding to schools to install upgrades that improve air quality and student health, and save energy.
▶ 1:45:48Unfortunately, since president trump took the office, doe has withheld that funding, denying children across our country access to cleaner air. Recently, the nonpartisan gao found that doe has violated the law by withholding the funding. So what's your response to the finding? >> um, I'm familiar with the gao report.
▶ 1:46:12I've read that, and I'd be, um, be happy to take, for the record, a response to the question of the department's, uh, throughput in regard to the gao report. >> okay. >> well, the empowerment act issues. >> well, doe must obligate congressional appropriations during their period of availability. And so I'm looking at this, trying to figure out how we actually go through this process. Does the department intend to cancel funding for the renew america's school program?
▶ 1:46:41>> uh, I'll have to take that question for the record. >> okay. But I'll just say, are you aware that omb proposed canceling the renew america's school program in the 2026 budget? Do you have to take that back? Also. >> I will again, just beyond the scope of what I've prepared for today. >> okay. So do you recognize that only congress has the authority to cancel this funding? Is that that's part of the law? Is not. >> my understanding. >> okay.
▶ 1:47:09So if congress does not cancel this funding, would doe follow the law and resume awards under this program? >> uh, again, beyond the scope of what I prepared for today, would be happy to take the question for the record. >> okay, I will continue to follow up on that. Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee's first district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, Mr. novak.
▶ 1:47:40>> for being here today. Um, in my district and throughout the east tennessee region, we're seeing significant advances, um, in nuclear innovation, driven in large part by the president's leadership in the work of this committee. That's one of the reasons why, um, I'm glad that the energy choice act includes all sources of energy, such as nuclear and other emerging technologies.
▶ 1:48:01I guess my question is, you mentioned the department is supportive of the reliable federal infrastructure act, which ensures energy neutrality for federal facilities. Can you explain the cost to the taxpayer to transition a federal facility from oil and gas to other sources, and how that transition might impact reliability?
▶ 1:48:23>> um, I'll have to take it in terms of the whatever analysis has been prepared by the department, we'll have to take that question for the record, but be more than happy to respond. >> okay. Thank you. Sir. Uh, can you explain why requiring evaluations for mechanical insulation installations in federal buildings saves taxpayer dollars and improves energy efficiency. >> so the the statutory audits, the four year statutory audits contemplated by nepa currently look at the envelope of the building.
▶ 1:48:51But clearly there are other sources or other places where energy is lost. Yeah. So again, the legislation, what it aims to do is just address that gap. Uh, and to include that within the scope of the statutory audit. >> so many federal buildings do we have you have to do that with. >> there are a lot yes. >> I'd be curious to know. Um, I've heard from manufacturers in my district, uh, that complying with the doe's energy efficiency standards has been very difficult for them.
▶ 1:49:18Uh, especially when previous administrations changed their testing standard after they changed their energy efficiency standards. So can you provide an update of where doe is, uh, is at in the updating the process rule? >> I'll have to take that question under for the record there. >> yeah, that would be good. Um, and really that's that's all I have for you today, sir. So you're getting off easy from the lady from east tennessee. Thank you, sir. Mr.
▶ 1:49:46Chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york's 20th district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Before I ask questions or make comments here, let me thank you for all the discussion about the weatherization act today. I appreciate the the full committee's leadership and the subcommittee's leadership, uh, echoing their sentiments to try and get something done on that important bill. So I thank you. Um, Mr.
▶ 1:50:14Novak, earlier this year, when secretary wright testified before the subcommittee, I had asked him about the status of previously appropriated funding going from doe's office to state and community energy programs to state partners. This includes funding for programs like the state energy program, the weatherization assistance program, and the weatherization readiness fund.
▶ 1:50:34Secretary rice stated that doe was working to meet the typical july 1st deadline, and expected to have the money out shortly thereafter, and to his and the department's credit. On july 8th, doe sent a press release celebrating the release of these funds and acknowledging president trump's leadership in tackling energy affordability issues. I entered that press release, this press release, into the hearing record at a subcommittee hearing last week, so I won't belabor that point, but I'd like to ask you, Mr.
▶ 1:51:05Novak, for a status update on these funds actually being accessible to states so that our constituents may benefit from them. Um, at last week's hearing, we heard testimony that approximately only six of 56 states and territories have had their state plans approved by doe. So, sir, can you provide any clarity on this? Are states being held up from accessing or spending cep weatherization and weatherization readiness funds? Because doe has been slow to approve state plans?
▶ 1:51:37>> um, I'll have to take that question. For the record, I'd be more than happy to follow up with the team to figure out what the status of the funding is. >> okay, I appreciate that, but a number of of colleagues on this panel have sent letters to the agency for an update, and I would like a commitment to get that asap. Uh, from the department, if can we get that commitment? >> yes.
▶ 1:52:03And I will follow up also with our ci team to ensure that we responded to the correspondence. >> thank you. If there are in fact states currently in this situation, can you provide a timeline for, uh, when those states should expect to have their plans approved? >> uh, I'll take that question up with the team as well. And follow up on the record. >> I know doe has lost a lot of personnel in the past nine months, which I believe may include some positions. You have historically reviewed these plans or otherwise helped administer these programs.
▶ 1:52:32Are you seeing the effects of the loss of these full time equivalent positions in implementing doe programs? >> um, I don't have a line of sight on there being a human resource gap. For example, in regard to the administration of community based grants through this program or other programs. Um, what I would say is that as a result of the drp program, um, you know, we have fewer people, we have fewer people.
▶ 1:53:01But a lot of the the effort at this point is just making sure we're allocating people where people are needed to make sure that the work is getting done. Um, I'd be happy when and having the conversation with the team about the, you know, the press release and the release of the funding and the starting status and timing. Uh, there was a conversation I had earlier in response to a question, um, this bill that's before the committee is the first time it would implement a statutory framework for the administration of the program.
▶ 1:53:29So one of the things that I'm eager to ask and will follow up on is how we plan to staff the the implementation of that framework. >> thank you. And finally, Mr. novak, I'd like to take issue with some of your testimony about h.r. 1355. You stated, uh, the bill and I quote, mandates a new government program. I'd like to ask you to clarify this. Has the department of energy administered the weatherization readiness fund for the past several years?
▶ 1:53:57>> it is, I think, my what I intended to say there, I think, is we have a new statutory framework. And the readiness program, I believe, is a is a new component, if I'm not mistaken. And if I misspoken on that, my apologies. But the readiness program, as I understand it, is intended to fund site the improvement of site conditions that would otherwise preclude weatherization efforts. So, for example, there's a safety issue at the site. There's a hole in the roof.
▶ 1:54:26You know, it doesn't make any sense to do insulation on the envelope if you've got a hole in the roof. So my understanding is the readiness is sort of the preparatory site work, if you will. >> well, let me ask this. And has doe previously published guidance with program rules to support the implementation of the weatherization readiness fund? >> uh, I'll have to take that question. For the record. >> I think they have. While I agree this bill will authorize the readiness fund for the first time, I would like to record to show that this program already exists.
▶ 1:54:52It is doing good work being celebrated by doe press releases, and it should be this committee's responsibility to make certain that we're formally authorizing the program. And I think it's essential it's proven to be, uh, a benefit to consumers. So with that, I thank you. And I yield back, Mr. chair. >> thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from iowa's first district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you.
▶ 1:55:20Chairman and ranking member, for holding this hearing on building and appliance standard legislative proposals. At our earlier hearing, I raised serious questions about the unintended consequences of efficiency mandates. When I ask a witness about the environmental impact of replacing appliances every 6 to 8 years, rather than every 15 to 20 years, for example, landfill burden, critical mineral waste from computerized components. She couldn't provide an answer yet.
▶ 1:55:48We're making these mandates, supposedly for environmental protection. This epitomizes the problem. The federal government is imposing costly regulations without understanding their real world impact. Iowa families shopping for new appliances shouldn't be limited in their choices, all for marginal efficiency gains with increased costs and less longevity. Today's legislation offers a path forward, and I'm eager to discuss it.
▶ 1:56:13We can restore consumer choice, eliminate regulatory churn that produces diminishing returns, and reframe our outlook to find significant energy savings. This prioritize policies that work for families, not aspirational energy savings. Mr.
▶ 1:56:28Novak, when the doe calculates the environmental benefits of efficiency standards, are you aware if they account for the increased landfill burden when appliances need to be replaced 2 or 3 times more frequently, or for the critical minerals that are lost or and are dumped in landfills? And how do you weigh the short term energy savings against sending more computerized appliances with critical minerals? As I mentioned to landfills.
▶ 1:56:57>> I don't believe that that's currently within the scope of the assessment. I think it makes a lot of sense that it would be. However, um, but again, I'll take that question for the record, just to make sure I've spoken correctly on that. >> well, uh, thank you. That's valuable information because of it's not one of the things considered. Uh, then, uh, as we go through, you know, replacing appliances, it's something that should be considered. Um, um, Mr.
▶ 1:57:22Novak, my district has six successfully balanced renewable energy with reliable baseload power. How does the doe account for regional differences in energy cost and fuel availability? A regulation that might make sense in california could be economically devastating for iowa families who rely on affordable natural gas heating. >> um, well, again, this is the point I was trying to hit in response to some prior questions that I fielded, namely that, um, choice.
▶ 1:57:50Um, this is highly contextual. And again, what may make sense in iowa may not make sense in florida or some part of california. And that optionality here, uh, gives you the ability to take into place again, local, you know, what's available local, uh, locally. And again, that's going to vary place to place. Conditions are going to vary place to place. Uh, and the idea here is that it's smart policy to preserve some of that flexibility. >> thank you. Um, h.r.
▶ 1:58:164690 would repeal section 4343 three requirement to eliminate fossil fuels from federal buildings. Even countries with aggressive climate policies maintain fuel diversity for critical facilities, prioritizing energy security through fuel diversity rather than single source mandates.
▶ 1:58:38Given that our nato allies are maintaining fuel flexibility for critical infrastructure, especially after europe's energy crisis exposed the risks of overdependence on single sources, how does doe view section 433 forcing us federal facilities, including military installations, onto an already strained electric grid? Shouldn't our energy security strategy align with our allies approach of maintaining backup generation capabilities?
▶ 1:59:05>> um, again, as a general matter, we support fuel flexibility. >> great. Thank you very much. Uh, with that, Mr. chair, I yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from washington's eighth district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you, counsel novak, for being here today.
▶ 1:59:28I just have to say that, like my colleagues, I am incredibly disturbed and frustrated by the pattern of actions that your department has undertaken in the past year that seem to just be taking us backwards, uh, specifically canceling permits like the one for revolution wind that my colleague representative peters spoke about.
▶ 1:59:47That was 80% done employing, uh, hundreds, if not well over a thousand people, and then had the permit revoked, the kind of, uh, uncertainty this creates for investors in the energy of the future. And, um, you know, this pushing us back to reliance on greenhouse gas, emitting oil and gas, opposing efficiency standards. I don't even know why this is a controversial issue. We should all be interested in conservation.
▶ 2:00:15Um, today, though, while I have you here, I'd like to discuss the hanford cleanup. As you know, this site in washington state was critical to our national security during world war two and the cold war for weapons manufacturing, but that has now resulted in the most contaminated, contaminated nuclear waste site in the entire nation. It is a huge challenge to clean up.
▶ 2:00:38Uh, I am sure you are also aware that this administration and the department of energy have legal and moral obligations per the tri-party agreement that was created after decades of trust building and painstaking negotiations between our state, the department of energy and the epa. Uh, so just a yes or no question.
▶ 2:01:03Uh, counselor novak, as acting general counsel of department of energy, do you reaffirm doe's commitment to fulfill all obligations under that tri-party agreement and the consent decree? >> um, I do again, the topic here is a bit beyond the scope of what I prepared for today. I'm generally familiar with hanford, and we are committed. We are committed to that tripartite. >> I appreciate that commitment because we've been getting very mixed messages lately.
▶ 2:01:28Um, and it sounds like your boss may actually be wavering on that commitment when we are just weeks away from implementation of vitrification or glass, uh, preserving storing nuclear waste in a safe way. Just last week, secretary rice fired the top official overseeing the hanford cleanup because he said he wanted to, quote, go in a different direction. That sets off alarm bells in washington state.
▶ 2:01:56And so since then, we haven't been able to get a straight answer. Uh, one day, doe releases a public statement saying that nothing has changed. And a day later, secretary wright tells congress that doe may delay commissioning of the waste treatment plant. Um, this would most certainly violate that tri-party agreement. Uh, again, we're weeks away. This has been, uh, in the works for years.
▶ 2:02:25After painstaking negotiation. And, um, we need to deal first with the low activity waste and and chemicals and then with the high activity waste. So I just, um, want to know, will the department for sure meet its obligation in this agreement to begin this first stage? Uh, the commissioning of the direct feed, low activity waste facility at hanford by october 15th?
▶ 2:02:51>> um, again, beyond the scope of what I'm prepared for today, however, I will say we're committed to the tri-party agreement. I'm not currently aware of anything that would necessitate a delay, which would, of course, require consent. Um, be happy to take the question for the record to see whether there's anything else out there, but I'm not aware of anything. As I sit here today.
▶ 2:03:12>> you know, what I would love is, since you are in agreement that this needs to be honored, if you would take that directly to the secretary to make sure he is on board, because the state is so tired of this whiplash back and forth. The technology has been set. The contractors are there, uh, $24 billion of taxpayer money has been spent on research and development. And the construction of this facility.
▶ 2:03:38We are so ready to get rid of this nuclear waste before it intrudes into the columbia river that provides drinking water, that supports endangered species. And we are feeling this urgency. And so to hear that there's contemplation about taking a different direction is incredibly alarming for washingtonians. And we fully expect, um, that this will be honored. And I know that our governor is committing to pursuing legal action, so he would be engaging with you if it is not honored.
▶ 2:04:10Uh, with that, I'll yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, seventh district, for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you. >> for being here today, sir. Um, I think one of the biggest, the most frustrating things that I hear from constituents often, uh, is that washington is so keen on creating rules for the rest of everybody to live under. Uh, that don't make a lot of sense.
▶ 2:04:39And we look at these, this array of bills that you're testifying about today, uh, that washington seems to be micromanaging. Even appliances in people's homes. Um, during the last administration, we saw mandates that restricted consumer choice. It really unbelievable levels, uh, and raise costs while offering. Really? No, uh, benefit. Uh, thankfully, I think we have a congress and a president who understands that the president's talked about, um, stoves, gas stoves.
▶ 2:05:06He's talked about showerheads, uh, specifically. Uh, that's why I introduced the shower act. Uh, and when I ran for congress, I never thought that I'd be dealing with this. But during the last administration, we just saw this complete war on energy production. Certainly, but also energy savings with these really, uh, capricious and arbitrary regulations that were coming out of washington, dc.
▶ 2:05:29Um, the shower act restores common sense by clarifying the definition of a shower head to reflect established industry standards, ensuring that families have access to products that work uh while still maintaining efficiency where appropriate. Um, this is about protecting homeowners from bureaucratic overreach at the at its at its very core. Uh, so, Mr. novak, um, the doe has acknowledged that some past appliance standards yielded little savings while raising costs.
▶ 2:05:58Wouldn't codifying a clear, consistent showerhead definition through the shower act give consumers more certainty, uh, than the back and forth we've seen across administrations? >> yes. And it adopts the definition from the society of mechanical engineers, which seems like a sound source. >> does this, does this act? Uh, and I know you've reviewed it. Does this act, uh, go in line with what the president's agenda is, uh, with his executive order related to showerheads? >> it does.
▶ 2:06:29>> okay. Doe is charged with balancing efficiency, uh, with consumer affordability and choice. Uh, isn't a statutory fix like the shower act a more direct, lower cost way to provide that clarity compared to continual regulatory churn? >> yes. I would adopt the definition and you would have a period where, uh, additional rules would be would be established pursuant to that definition. >> in what ways do you think that this would help solve that issue?
▶ 2:06:58>> well, I think it just gives you clarity. Uh, you know, it gives you a well settled, engineered definition of what a shower head is. Um, with the idea being that you ought to have more flexibility, consumers ought to have more flexibility, that there are trade offs. Um, we can all think of the practical trade off if, uh, you know, you got a big head of hair and you don't get a lot of pressure out of the out of the thing, you spend more time in the shower and that's more time heating the water. That's more energy consumed doing that. It's more water down the drain. Um, there are trades here.
▶ 2:07:28There are puts and takes around this. And I think the view here is that this would enable some more flexibility for manufacturers and more choice for consumers. >> and I think that's the underlying goal is let the consumers let the consumers decide what works for them. Right? Correct. This is why some people get solar panels, panels on their house and others don't. This is why people elect to get electric stoves or in some like gas. This is the same type of of model. Let the educate the consumer and let them make the right choice. Do you agree with that?
▶ 2:07:55I do, um, from a regulatory does, does regulatory clarity, uh, in the industry, knowing that doe can't redefine, um, common appliances arbitrarily, does that create more space for innovation than maybe a small incremental subsidy programs? >> I think so, I think so the idea here is, um, more flexibility, um, means more innovation. >> Mr.
▶ 2:08:22Novak, you've, um, there's testimony out there and common commentary out there that, uh, repeated rounds of appliance standards are now producing diminishing returns. Would you share that sentiment? And, um, how would a statutory definition, like in the shower act or any of these other bills help manufacturers focusing focus on delivering the features consumers actually want, as opposed to, uh, the ever shifting goalposts coming out of washington, dc?
▶ 2:08:52>> well, I think the objective, as I understand it and I, you know, I appreciate I'm not the drafter of this legislation. I'm just here to testify to it. But I think the intent here, uh, is to localize the cost benefit analysis, to really focus on the consumer and the consumer experience, to make sure you've got a threshold in regard to what energy savings you're chasing, if it's marginal savings, but you're giving up a lot of utility, that's something that doesn't make a lot of sense.
▶ 2:09:18Um, so the idea here is, you know, you want flexibility for manufacturers, you want choice for consumers. Uh, and you can do that with an existing statutory framework that helps, you know, if you will kind of settle things, if you will, for for manufacturers realizing that, you know, they have their own reliance issues. >> absolutely. I think that consumer choice is essential. I see my time has expired, Mr. chairman. He's running a tight ship today, so I yield back. >> thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back.
▶ 2:09:45The chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas is 33rd district for five minutes for questions. >> Mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> and as someone. >> that is getting ready. >> to kick off the start of the outdoor sportsman season, I really hate that something like managing water has become so controversial, managing our natural resources so we can continue to do things like enjoy the great outdoors. Um, it's just really sad that we're here.
▶ 2:10:12Uh, you know, energy efficiency is not about taking away choices. It's about trying to lower bills, reducing strain on the grid, and strengthening us energy independence. And like I said last week, energy efficiency has a long bipartisan tradition. Uh, of course, uh, congress passed the epa in the 1970s to reduce waste and support american innovation.
▶ 2:10:34And then you have the, uh, the, uh, the energy independence and security act of 2007, where you had 95 republicans voting. Uh, yes. And that created the energy efficiency and conservation block program. That's when president george w bush from my state was president of the united states.
▶ 2:10:52Uh, and so today, uh, strong efficiency standards reduce demand at peak hours, uh, which helps keep the lights on and lowers the risk of blackouts, especially in a fast growing state like ours, where it's a much bigger concern about how we use these resources. Uh, weatherization, stronger codes, uh, updated standards, cut household costs months, a month, uh, while improving, uh, comfort and health.
▶ 2:11:18And so we want to make sure that we're obviously cutting waste at home and in buildings. Uh, and so that also means we have to make sure that, um, uh, that we're, uh, making sure that it's not as volatile of, of, of an energy market and more home grown energy independence.
▶ 2:11:36And for low income families, especially in renters that have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy, uh, energy efficiency is one of the easiest ways to help deliver, uh, relief and improve quality of life. Uh, that's one of the reasons why I'm co-sponsor, uh, of the reauthorization of the e cdbg program. And I support strengthening the weatherization assistance program to also help low income households.
▶ 2:12:04And like I said last week, american engineers and manufacturers have been at the forefront of appliance innovation for a century. And we don't want to walk back those standards so we can let the chinese take over the space. That would be scary if the chinese took over this, over this space, and they were the ones that were doing all the innovation, uh, in this area. And so let's be smart. Let's be clear, let's be, uh, honest about it, that efficiency and codes are not mandates.
▶ 2:12:30Uh, they're smart cost savings investments that expand consumer choice and give families healthier, more affordable homes. Um, we don't want to we want to make sure, uh, not to get doze authorities in ways that create regulatory uncertainty and hurts manufacturers and drive up costs for families. And so, Mr. novak, I wanted to ask you, manufacturers have said they want clear and consistent certification requirements.
▶ 2:12:58Wouldn't gutting doi's authority to set efficiency standards create confusion and raise costs for businesses? >> yeah. Uh. Manufacturers benefit obviously, from certainty. There are tooling costs. There are lead times to retooling. Um, and to be blunt, uh, standards. And, uh, they have a, you know, they have competitive effects, right? You know, competitors have to meet a particular standard.
▶ 2:13:27The standard in some ways becomes a bit of a competitive moat. There are a lot of policy puts and takes around this around efficiency. And I think the proposed legislation, at least as I read it, as I understand it, it isn't the abandonment of efficiency. I think it's sharpening the analysis that we we undertake when we look at whether, uh, an efficiency gain makes sense, if it's a marginal efficiency gain that comes at the cost of significant utility.
▶ 2:13:57Um, that's something that doesn't seem like a wise policy choice. Yeah. >> so let me ask you this real quick before my time expires, I know that several of the bills would scale back doi's ability to set or update appliance standards. Wouldn't that basically be given the the the chinese companies that are under control of the chinese communist party? Wouldn't that be, uh, that are trying to aggressively move into this high efficiency appliance market? Wouldn't that give them an advantage over american companies?
▶ 2:14:26Why would we want to do that to the what? We want to give the chinese an advantage? >> um, I'm not quite sure I understand the premise of the question in regard to the competitive advantage that this would give a geopolitical competitor in terms of access to our market. Again, my my understanding of the intent of the bill, my read of the bill is that this would something that would would focus, it would localize, if you will, the analysis that we do to make sure that efficiency makes sense at the appliance level, the appliance does what it's supposed to do.
▶ 2:14:53Um, somebody not having to do multiple cycles on something that the energy gains were chasing with efficiency, that there's some significance threshold there that we're not getting into that diminishing return issue. Um, but I think, you know, in a, in a free marketplace such as ours, people will meet that consumer need. They'll meet that consumer demand. >> the gentleman's time has expired and, uh, yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas.
▶ 2:15:2112th district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, thank you very much for being here. I'll be brief. Um, I sorry I wasn't here when Mr. pfluger asked his questions, but I do want to thank you and thank the department of energy.. Uh, that the next round of halo was approved just a few weeks ago for the. Are being built in abilene, texas. So, uh, thank please, the secretary and all involved in that.
▶ 2:15:50Very important as we progress in the smr race. Um, can you describe, sir, how the department of energy has adjusted, uh, to rule making processes to ensure that future standards are more cost effective, particularly for the appliances that impact small businesses and homeowners. >> I'll have to take, for the record, the question of rule as the rulemaking under the existing regime. Yes.
▶ 2:16:16And in regard to the bills that are before the committee, the idea here is to improve the focus, to sharpen, if you will, the assessment of basically the puts and takes around efficiency. >> and let me follow up on that. So let's discuss that.
▶ 2:16:31The rule making that is now in place versus what was in place prior to y'all's arrival at the department of energy, I mean, particularly the mandates that were put on appliance makers, for example, um, versus what y'all are doing now to remove those mandates and some laws that we're passing here to remove those mandates, is that in the end, not most cost effective for the end game, the consumer, the american public?
▶ 2:16:59>> I think ultimately that's the policy objective here is to ensure that, again, the analysis that's done in regard to energy efficiency is one that's smart, that's informed, that's again, localized to that consumer experience. And the particular efficiency gain versus the utility of the appliance that's at issue there. Uh, I'll have to take again, take for the record, the question in regard to kind of how we're doing current rulemaking, I'll take that back to the team that manages that would be more than happy to get your response perfect.
▶ 2:17:27But again, that that is the ultimate objective is to have sharp, focused, informed cost benefit analysis on this. >> perfect. Thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I yield back the rest of my time. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas seventh district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you so much. Chairman and ranking member castor, this is sort of the texans row, I guess right now. Um, series of questions from texans. Uh, but I do thank you, Mr. novak, for for being here today.
▶ 2:17:56Um, and definitely want to follow up on some of the things that I know have already been raised this this morning. But there was earlier there was a bit of discussion about all of the above. Best of the above, uh, different ways that we can get, um, get our energy onto the grid and into people's homes and help bring down the cost of living, which, frankly, we are in a cost of living crisis right now.
▶ 2:18:24We discussed it at last week's hearing, uh, you know, basic necessities for financial stability, um, and the price of home ownership, the cost of, um, all sorts of essentials is just going up and up. It continues to go up. Um, and these are huge challenges in texas, arguably, uh, we have done a great job of diversifying our grid and bringing to the grid all sorts of different kinds of, um, generation.
▶ 2:18:52And, uh, it really is a model. A lot of people have said that the way that we do things in texas, um, is instructive. And of course, in texas, we do have an all of the above approach, and we have invested in not only the infrastructure, but also the technologies of today and tomorrow. And one of the challenges we have right now is that texas does energy of all kinds.
▶ 2:19:17Um, and we, uh, have really led not just the country, but the world in this energy innovation. But we know that a lot of that can only come to market, can only reach kind of scale, um, to be implemented by partnering with the department of energy and doing this critical research.
▶ 2:19:37And right now, the department of energy is illegally blocking funding for research into the next generation of energy technologies, technologies that would help reduce household bills. The office of clean energy demonstrations, work on hydrogen and carbon capture promised to deliver lower emissions and less expensive energy for years to come.
▶ 2:19:58On may 30th, the doe announced the termination of 24 office of clean energy demonstration awards totaling $3.7 billion, and they included several projects near my district in houston and along the gulf coast.
▶ 2:20:14And so that included $330 million for exxonmobil's clean hydrogen compact complex in baytown, 270 million for calpine's carbon storage project in baytown, 99 million for orsted's clean methanol project east of houston, and $375 million for eastman chemicals plastics recycling project in longview, just up the road. So, Mr.
▶ 2:20:37Novak, I want to ask you, during secretary wright's budget hearing before this committee earlier this year, he mentioned that each project received an individualized review before it was terminated. Can you just briefly answer, uh, which official had the final sign off on the terminations of these 24 projects? >> yes. Uh, again, a little bit beyond the scope of what I'm here for today.
▶ 2:21:02But happy to give you an answer in regard to the portfolio review, um, process, which got up and running before I joined the department, but I'm obviously involved in the throughput on this by design. The, um, the process starts in each of the program offices where the program offices are tasked, pursuant to the secretary's policy memo to assessing the project for economic technical feasibility, compliance with the terms various you know, these these awards take different, uh, they take
▶ 2:21:33Different forms. A lot of them have. >> limited time. So I just want to make sure I talk about these 24 grants as opposed to the process, particularly, why were these specific grants selected for review? And what process has leadership set out for selecting grants like these to review? >> so the tasking here was that each of the program offices would review the entirety of their financial assistance award portfolio.
▶ 2:21:52And, um, they would then present proposed uh, terminations, modifications, continuations, even to a committee of cross-functional stakeholders who were just a recommending body. So you would get diverse points of view. >> right. And I'm familiar with the memo. So. >> right. So then from there, the issue just returns to the program offices to make a determination as to what they want to do. Um.
▶ 2:22:20>> and so who made the decision that these are not economically and financially sound projects. Each of these 24 projects. >> would be the head of the office. >> okay. And um, and do you know the specific justification? Look, I've got 10s left, so I'll say it this way because I know the chairman doesn't want me to run over. I'm going to submit questions for the record for you to return in writing about the basis or justification for terminating each of these grants.
▶ 2:22:47These are hugely important, uh, to folks in my district and to people across the country and around the world. So with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. Thank you. >> I'd be happy to respond to that. For the record, I'll mention I think each of these projects is still working its way through the appeal process. >> well, if you can answer those for the record, great. Thank you. Uh, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york's 14th district. Five minutes for questions. >> thank you so much, Mr. chairman. Um, Mr.
▶ 2:23:16Novak, I'm glad you are joining us today. And, you know, this hearing is focused on several bills regarding energy efficiency. And this committee has seen several rollbacks of energy efficiency standards and proposals. To that end. Um, are you familiar with how many americans are employed by the energy efficiency sector nationally? >> I am not.
▶ 2:23:44>> it's about 2.3 million, 2.3 million workers. Um, about two out of every five energy jobs in the united states are related to energy efficiency. Um. Can you guess what is the fastest growing category of energy efficiency work in the united states? >> I'm not particularly good at guessing. Right. >> yeah. Construction. Okay, so these are construction jobs. Energy efficiency, energy efficiency.
▶ 2:24:12Efficiency jobs are construction jobs, installation, production, manufacturing, hvac, building materials, all of it. Um, now. Do you know how many jobs have been threatened or lost due to the trump administration's closures of clean energy projects in the last six months or so? The first half of this year? >> um, I'm not aware of any such analysis.
▶ 2:24:41>> 91,000 trump administration and department of energy policies have cost americans 91,000 jobs nationwide in rollbacks on efficiency. And, you know, these large numbers are statistics. Uh, they're hard to, I think, people to understand when they show up on a white paper.
▶ 2:25:04But in colorado's eighth district, amprius technology canceled plans to construct a $190 million battery plant in brighton, colorado, in that same district. Actually, another company, vfc energy, canceled plans due to the trump administration.
▶ 2:25:24Um, canceled their plans to build solar panels, and they scratched a $250 million investment and up to 900 jobs in that same district in georgia, 12 and ev plant was canceled due to the trump administration and doe's freezing of the ev charging program. Uh, registered georgia, uh, has a population of 157 people. They lost out on 166 jobs. More jobs.
▶ 2:25:53They lost more jobs than they have people in that town. Um, because of the cancellation and war on renewable energy and clean energy here in that same district, a copper foil manufacturing plant went bankrupt as a result of these rollbacks, and augusta, georgia, lost out on 350 jobs. And I mean, the list goes on in south carolina, 250 jobs.
▶ 2:26:20Uh, when a construction of an ev plant in florence was halted due to doe's freezing of funds. I mean, we could go on. In michigan 10th, 167 jobs were lost after $50 million worth of investment. These are all freezes in renewable and clean energy construction and development projects. This is an industry that has been a source of jobs and growth.
▶ 2:26:46This administration, the trump administration, is destroying the american economy, destroying american jobs, 91,000 jobs in this sector alone. I have one simple question in these towns and areas, what is the doe's plan to replace those jobs in those affected areas? >> um. >> I'll say this.
▶ 2:27:14This is beyond the scope of what I'm prepared to testify to today. I'd be happy to take the question. Um, the record in regard to the analysis that you cited here with job loss. >> so in your. View, uh, you're the general counsel for the department of energy? That's correct. >> um, acting. >> acting. And in all that you've seen, have you seen any effort to replace these jobs that are being canceled by the administration?
▶ 2:27:44>> um, I have not I'm not sure that would come my way, but. >> so we're seeing a concerted effort, 91,000 jobs already gone. Now, this is after the administration has also already released a revised report saying we have a million less jobs in this economy than there was originally reported, we're actively killing plants and projects in rural places across this country.
▶ 2:28:10And I'm hearing today that there's no effort to replace them. And my time is up. I'll I yield back. >> and if you would just in writing answer the lady's question, the gentleman's question. Thank you. >> yes. I can't can't answer the question because I haven't seen the analysis, but I'd be happy to take the question for the record. Yeah, yeah. >> the well, thank you very much.
▶ 2:28:36The chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts fourth district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. Chairman, chairman, before I speak with Mr. novak, um, I do feel compelled to respond to a previous comment from the gentleman from alabama who, as an aside, said that, you know, our side doesn't care if china wins. Um, you know, the kind of underhanded, inappropriate comment that I just don't think belongs on this committee.
▶ 2:29:05I was a member of the select committee on china for two years last congress, and worked in good faith with republicans on a long term strategy to outcompete the chinese communist party. Uh, but since the gentleman from alabama wanted to raise the subject, let's talk about how this administration is doing on china. Let's let's raise it.
▶ 2:29:22So first, after congress passed bipartisan legislation to force the divestment of tiktok, this president illegally refused to force the divestment of tiktok and indeed opened up a white house account on a platform that xi jinping has described as his biggest weapon in the smokeless battlefield of ideological warfare.
▶ 2:29:41This president has gutted funding for radio free asia so that in indonesia, where there used to be one hour of american programing and one hour of ccp programing, now there's just two hours of ccp programing. This president invited to the white house can't make this up. His meme coin investors, some of whom with explicit ties to the chinese communist party. Those are the people, by the way, who actually attended the dinner and were willing to be seen publicly.
▶ 2:30:11What about all of the trump coin investors who want to keep their influence secret until a time and place of their choosing, where they can buy the president's china policy? This president has dismantled a huge part of our indo-pacific maritime strategy by attacking the australians and our ability to work with them to build nuclear submarines, to project force in the indo-pacific. He's also attacked the philippines. He's attacked our southeast asian allies.
▶ 2:30:36And perhaps most devastatingly, he has attacked our japanese and south korean allies and a major, a major success of the biden administration was forging closer ties between japan and south korea as a counterweight to the belligerence of the chinese communist party in the indo-pacific. This president has undermined our bilateral alliances with both of those powerful economies and militaries.
▶ 2:31:00Um, this president has thrown doubt on his willingness to support taiwan economically, militarily, ideologically, as it contests and fights for freedom against the chinese communist party. This president has literally had american troops on their knees roll out a red carpet for vladimir putin in alaska just a week before.
▶ 2:31:22He then launched missile strikes against us sites in ukraine, and then went to go watch a military parade with xi jinping signaling weakness against this alliance of autocrats who seek to undermine us strength in the pacific. This president has cut medical science and biotech funding at a time when the chinese communist party is vaulting over us to become the world leader in biotechnology alongside, I should say, uh, quantum science and other initiatives.
▶ 2:31:49So I do not want to hear from this side of the aisle that we want china to win while this administration and this president is the weakest president in modern american history in standing up for american national security, the final thing that has been a failure of this administration regarding china has been nuclear power. And here I want to turn to you, Mr.
▶ 2:32:10Novak, in the last 90s, um, it was the proposal of this administration to gut the loan programs office, which is vital for the construction of nuclear power, including small modular reactors that the gentleman from alabama talked about. Um, in april, I asked Mr. uh, doctor mike goff about whether the staffing levels of the lpo, which was facing a 60% reduction in its workforce, were sufficient to actually finance and help develop nuclear power, which I agree we should be doing. He promised an answer. I have not gotten it.
▶ 2:32:42Uh, Mr. novak, can you respond to how the lpo is suited, suited, uh, administratively to actually deliver its function? >> I'm confident that it is resourced. Um, I've had the occasion to work with greg beard, who heads up our loan programs office. Um, we've got a very good team of lawyers that have gotten to know it. That brings a tremendous amount of commercial sophistication to support the lpo mission. Uh, I believe that the lpo funding actually increased, um, year over year.
▶ 2:33:09Um, so I would tell you, as I, as I sit here, I'm confident in the lpo mission. >> can we get though, a written response about the staffing levels at the lpo and how that maps on to their to their mandate? >> yeah, I'd be more than happy to to to get you that. >> okay. I'll yield back. >> thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from north dakota for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 2:33:36Novak, for being here with the committee today in 2023, the consumer product safety commission proposed proposed banning gas stoves, alleging they caused childhood asthma. This was based on a nine paragraph paper in the international journal of environmental research and public health. Not only was the paper deeply flawed, but two of the authors failed to declare a conflict of interest.
▶ 2:34:02Both were employees of the rocky mountain institute's carbon free buildings initiative, a nonprofit that advocates against fossil fuels and buildings. In other words, nine paragraphs of activism disguised as science was evidence enough for the biden administration to consider banning a product that 40% of american households use.
▶ 2:34:24Your testimony discusses house resolution 4626 that don't mess with my home's appliance act. Under president biden, doe pushed rules to remove certain products from the market like popular gas appliances. In your view, Mr. novak, how would consumers costs compare to energy savings under efficiency standards like those at the biden doe?
▶ 2:34:55>> well, I'll first say in regard to health effects science, my dad was a was a health effects science at fda. He was a bench chemist at a phd in organic chemistry, and went on to become a branch chief at epa. I absolutely admire the work that he did. Um, I'm not aware of anything.
▶ 2:35:11For example, as we've looked out at the localities that have adopted laws and ordinances that have with zero nox emissions, for example, I'm not aware of any health effects, uh, research that would suggest that the safety level around an emission is zero, but that's in effect what's been adopted, which in turn is in effect a ban on gas appliances. Um, getting the science right on that, I think is very important.
▶ 2:35:36Um, I would say in regard to the gas, we, you know, we've I've seen studies where, um, you know, you pay significantly less over the course of owning a gas range, for example, than with an electric range. But again, that solution might not make sense in a particular place. I mentioned where I live, I live in a very old neighborhood where, you know, propane is the option there. Um, I prefer propane to electric. Um, but that's not everybody's choice.
▶ 2:36:05So, um, you know, again, I think as a policy matter, we generally prefer the idea of a range of choice that that permits flexibility in regard to innovation. It's what consumers want. It's it matches our free market. Um, and I think this is something that's readily achievable as well as gaining, um, you know, efficiency. >> thank you for that.
▶ 2:36:27And speaking of choice, uh, uh, has that intent to support compute, uh, how the biden doe's efficiency standards either supported that or contradicted the goal of consumer choice. >> um, I will have to take that question for the record, in regard to the past administration's approach to, um. >> okay, cool. Um, under secretary, under secretary.
▶ 2:36:58Right. Um, what are the goals of the standards, uh, being set through the spca? >> well, again, I think the big objection objective is to make sure that the the assessment here is localized, smart, informed, um, that we're looking at the efficiency gains, making sure that there's actually a significant energy savings to be accomplished, that that's balanced against the utility of the appliance. Um, uh, you know, the the aim here is for it to be smart, for it to make sense for the consumer.
▶ 2:37:27And one of the challenges is, you know, when you've when you've attached sort of broader things like social cost of carbon that's a bit nebulous, that's a little bit different than how much would a consumer expect to spend using this appliance over the course of its working life? What's the payback period in regard to the efficiency gain off the appliance? That's a localized inquiry that, by the way, helps the consumer make an informed choice. And we would hope we would sort of, you know, result in a market that sees appliances improve over time.
▶ 2:37:56Uh, but I think right now it's a little bit opaque. The analysis leads to, you know, some opacity for consumers. >> excellent. Thank you, Mr. novak. Appreciate your time I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania's 13th district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. Chairman and ranking member, for holding this hearing. And Mr. novak, thank you for being here today to testify.
▶ 2:38:22The united states is fortunate to have abundant and varied energy resources, including a large amount of natural gas, in my home state of pennsylvania under the trump administration. We have seen these resources leveraged to increase american competitiveness and to add to energy security.
▶ 2:38:42However, the previous administration, as well as some local and state jurisdictions, have taken actions to disadvantage some forms of energy over others, ultimately crippling our energy sector in the process.
▶ 2:38:57While the establishment of some minimal energy efficiency standards can benefit consumers and help provide certainty for manufacturers, we saw the department of energy, under biden, misuse their authority to create standards that failed to meet statutory requirements of providing significant energy savings in a cost efficient manner.
▶ 2:39:22Instead, the biden doe the process and used flawed calculations to set efficiency standards that limit choice and across america, drastically raise the cost for the consumers. There is a need to reconsider and reverse some of the most unrealistic appliance regulations to protect consumer choice.
▶ 2:39:46However, maintaining stable and predictable standards is important for companies that design and manufacture these appliances. Mr. novak, how can we balance these two interests to ensure that both consumers and the appliance market are not overburdened by flawed regulations? >> um, I would say first, my sister is a johnstown. So appreciate. >> glad to have a constituent sibling in the testifying.
▶ 2:40:15>> um, I think the first key to this is making sure that we're talking candidly about what the trade offs are here. Um, and as I mentioned in response to an earlier question, to be sure, there are equities here in regard to tooling and reliance costs by manufacturers and stability in terms of meeting a marketplace.
▶ 2:40:31We also want to make sure that we're being candid in terms of talking about exactly what the trade offs are for a consumer, exactly what they're getting in terms of the return on the efficiency gain relative to potential loss in utility or even working life of an appliance. And I think this is how we get the balance right, is making sure that we're having an open and candid discussion about what exactly the trade offs are. And I think the more concrete we are about the trade offs, I think the smarter we'll be in the trade offs we accept.
▶ 2:41:00>> I think you recognizing and talking about johnstown, pennsylvania, where there is abundant natural gas, there are abundant resources, but it is consumer choice that must really guide that decision. So thank you for acknowledging that. In your opinion, does the change to the lookback period made by h.r. 4626, the don't mess with my home appliances act? Does that achieve the proper balance? >> this is an area where we would really invite technical assistance.
▶ 2:41:28I feel like to connect, uh, you know, the committee with the technical resource within energy to talk about some of the challenges and implementing look back. We'll get us a smarter approach to look back in regard to both its scope as well as its periodicity. So we would invite that conversation. >> so as we come to the end of a long morning of our first panel, you being the witness, is there anything that you, Mr. novak, would like to reiterate or clarify from earlier testimony or earlier questioning?
▶ 2:41:59>> um, well, first I want to make sure I've got my response right in regard to the readiness under the weatherization program. And if I misspoke on that, I want to make sure that we get it right. >> this is an opportunity to clarify that. >> yeah, yeah, the readiness is it's an important thing. And, you know, clearly, clearly, the objective of the readiness program is to ensure that you remove barriers to to weatherization, that, you know, you meet you meet a need there.
▶ 2:42:23Um, I'll just add that, you know, as the conversation has evolved with this panel, I think, you know, they're pretty stark policy choices here. That and here's my wish. I've got five children, right? I've got five children. And, uh, as I think about the future that they've got ahead, I recognize all of you who have just awesome responsibility to set policy for this country. We were all born here. We take this as this. We take it for granted. It's an amazing, amazing place.
▶ 2:42:51My mother's family has been here as long as people have been here. At least europeans have been here. And I love this place. I've got a son in the army. I've got kids in public service. I've got, you know, my in-laws were in public service. My my parents were public servants. This is an amazing place. And you all are stewards of it and the policy choices that are made. And what I promise to you is, although I'm new in my job, I'm all of three months, I think, and two weeks into my job, so I'm still learning a lot.
▶ 2:43:18And apologies for the number of things that means I have to take for the record. But I promise you this, which is I want a candid, open discussion about these policy choices, doesn't mean we'll always agree, but I really want that conversation. I will tell, you know, our secretary a little bit, having. >> to thank you. I hate to interrupt, but the gentleman's time has expired. Uh, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from indiana's ninth district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. And thank you to Mr.
▶ 2:43:49Novak for being here. Um, as reflected in my bill, which will be considered or is being considered in today's hearing. Uh, air 5184, the affordable homes act. Uh, I support the committee's effort to protect consumer choice in appliance purchases and to prevent unnecessary regulations from driving up costs, Mr. novak earlier this month, doe issued an rfi for public input regarding energy conservation standards for manufactured housing.
▶ 2:44:19I'm worried that doe energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing could create compliance confusion for our manufacturers. Could you provide an update on the rfi? >> um, I'll have to take the update on the rfi for the record there, and I'll be happy to get you a response on that.
▶ 2:44:38I do know one of the bills that we're we're addressing today, um, would simplify or streamline, if you will, a conversation about energy, the trade offs, frankly, between the cost of complying with efficiency standards in mobile homes relative to what a purchaser is going to pay, whether upfront or through financing. And the aim there is to simply to streamline it, to move it from one regulator to two, it would move everything to hud. >> is it? And I assume you don't.
▶ 2:45:05You can't tell me today what doe's next steps will be, but that will be part of a response that you'll get to us later. Um, is it your understanding also that hud maintains varying standards currently for manufactured housing? >> it's my understanding. >> uh. Thank you. That's why today I do want to highlight the affordable homes act, which I introduced with congressman mike flood of nebraska.
▶ 2:45:25This legislation consolidates authority under hud, reduces overlapping regulations, and ensures that manufactured housing remains the most affordable path to home ownership. By cutting red tape and streamlining oversight, we can keep costs down, preserve consumer choice, and help hardworking families achieve the american dream of owning a home.
▶ 2:45:48Um, so I do hope to continue to work with doe, um, to make sure that we're streamlining regulations and cutting red tape to make homeownership, um, readily available to everyday working americans. >> we would welcome that engagement. >> also included in today's hearing is the shower act. Uh, and while doe is working to update its regulatory framework on faucet flow rates, I do want to ensure that any changes don't undermine the competitiveness of american manufacturers.
▶ 2:46:17Redesigning us facilities could take years and require major investment, while foreign competitors could quickly move to supply higher flow products, which may be counterintuitive to the mission of america. First. Mr. novak, can you provide an update of doe's regulatory process as it relates to maximum flow rate for showerheads?
▶ 2:46:38>> well, that currently it's a bit of a morass, and I think that's why we're supportive of the idea of clarifying this by adopting the society of mechanical engineers definition of shower head, and then having a period where you would adopt specific regulation in regard to that definition. >> thank you. Thank you.
▶ 2:46:55As the regulatory process does move forward, I urge the doe to work closely with our manufacturers to ensure that the rules don't open the door for cheap foreign products that would undermine and flood the market, particularly including those that are in my own district. Um, uh, delta faucet company, which has a facility in greensburg, indiana, within the district, has been making, uh, faucets and showerheads since 1954.
▶ 2:47:22Um, and I would like to submit for the record, Mr. chairman, um, a statement regarding today's legislative hearing from delta faucets, uh, the industry trade association, the plumbing manufacturers international, as well as their public comments submitted to the department of energy on its proposed faucet rule. >> without objection. So ordered. >> thank you. Um, I do want to ensure. And I appreciate, Mr.
▶ 2:47:48Novak, that you've just been on the job for a few short months, and, uh, we'll look forward to, uh, the responses that you will return to our offices. I hope that that will be timely. I just, um, in my final closing comments, want to ensure american competitiveness, uh, and that that our companies are being put in the best position to be competitive and not undermined by, by foreign entities, um, particularly china.
▶ 2:48:14Uh, I want to thank our witnesses, witness, for the time and testimony on these important issues. Uh, Mr. chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee's work in considering these bills, and I yield back. >> gentleman, gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. Chair. Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions of the witness. The chair. Thank our witnesses for appearing before us today. Members may have additional questions for you in writing.
▶ 2:48:40I remind members that they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that our witness does his best to submit the responses within ten business days. Upon receipt of those questions, we're now moving to the second panel of our witnesses today, and we'll begin their testimony shortly. So thank you very much for coming, Mr. novak. >> thank you.
▶ 2:49:50>> for.
▶ 2:50:26Your. Well.
▶ 2:53:21How are you? Good to see you. It's going okay. >> I know, I know. >> well, good afternoon. Uh, we have members that are be coming back because I think they thought the first panel was going to go a little bit longer, but they'll be coming back in. But again, good afternoon. We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before our subcommittee. Each witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from our members.
▶ 2:53:51Our witnesses today are miss jennifer cleary, the vice president of regulatory affairs and deputy general counsel at the association of home appliance manufacturers. Mr. brian tobin, is that am I correct, just pronouncing your name? I just want to make sure. Camp. Kevin camp. Kevin camp, the president and owner of patriot homes. Thank you very much. Mr.
▶ 2:54:15Andrew delaski, the executive director at the appliance standards awareness project, and Mr. george lowe, the vice president of government affairs and public policy at the american gas association. We appreciate you being here. And you might have already got the instructions on the box, but when your time's up, you'll see a little red light appear. And if you would finish your statement, we'd appreciate it. And with that, miss cleary, you are representative.
▶ 2:54:45You are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> chairman, ranking member castor and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the association of home appliance manufacturers or ahem, regarding improvements to the energy policy and conservation act of 1975. I'm jennifer cleary, vice president of regulatory affairs and deputy general counsel at ahem.
▶ 2:55:10Our goal is to improve epca to ensure american families continue to have access to a range of affordable products with the performance and features they want. Ahem. Scope includes products like refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, window air conditioners, air cleaners, and cooking products. We don't cover things like light bulbs, equipment that is built into your home like water heaters, hvac, or plumbing. We appreciate the subcommittee's attention to epca.
▶ 2:55:36This isn't a law that people generally sit around the kitchen table and talk about, but it impacts every home, every day from the time we wake up in the morning to cook breakfast for our families. People are using appliances until we load dishes. At the end of the day, home appliances make our lives easier, safer, and healthier. Since president reagan signed into law, there have been many changes in how we live and work. The berlin wall fell. We have personal computers, email, video calls, and smartphones.
▶ 2:56:07This law was written when we were using wired telephones. Epa needs to be updated to remain relevant. Home appliances are a success story. Our products have undergone continual improvements in energy and water efficiency over the last almost four decades. No other consumer product sectors efficiency has been more often regulated. Some appliances have been subject to as many as seven rounds of standards. The energy and water efficiency gains for home appliances are dramatic.
▶ 2:56:34For example, the average dishwasher made today uses 50% less water and 30% 7% less energy than models made in 1998. That means you would have to hand wash a full load of dishes in only one minute to use less water than your dishwasher. The average refrigerator made today uses nearly 58% less energy than refrigerators built in 1980, with nearly 32% greater capacity.
▶ 2:56:59If the automotive industry achieves similar efficiency gains as appliances have, the average minivan would get about 80 miles to the gallon and have three extra seats. Ahem. And our members support maintaining a system of federal standards. A national program benefits consumers by displacing costly, conflicting state requirements that interfere with interstate commerce and make it hard to sell a full range of products across the nation. In fact, this is the central balance. Epa strikes.
▶ 2:57:28Improvements in efficiency are more achievable on a national scale because home appliances have undergone so many standard changes, there are diminishing returns from further tightening standards, additional changes using existing technology may not be possible without sacrificing product performance, features or affordability. Ahem hopes that today's hearing will provide momentum toward much needed improvements in the appliance standards program.
▶ 2:57:54Ahem has been testifying before this subcommittee since the early 2000, seeking modernization and reform to this law. We believe now is the time to get it done and bring this home for consumers. The don't mess with my home appliances act makes strides at assessing and addressing several key issues.
▶ 2:58:10Most importantly, ahem, strongly supports the bill's elimination of the provision in epcot, known as the six year look back, epcot requires doe to review standards every six years, resulting in a never ending regulatory churn, regardless of who is in the white house, regulations should be based on the opportunity to conserve energy in a cost effective way that preserves consumer choice, not on a ticking clock.
▶ 2:58:36Removing this requirement will allow doe to prioritize its rulemakings based on opportunities for energy, water, and cost savings for consumers. Importantly, removing it will not prevent doe from continuing to advance efficiency when it is justified to do so. There are some changes outlined in my written testimony that we suggest to make the bill stronger, including, for example, first, protect national consistency by strengthening preemption to maintain a national marketplace and avoid states becoming de facto federal legislators.
▶ 2:59:06Second, make doe accountable to follow its own rules and require doe to affirmatively demonstrate that its actions will not harm consumers. Third, lower costs for consumers and reduce regulatory burden by providing enough time to comply with new requirements and enough time between regulations. Changing epa is the best way to achieve continued savings, while also addressing the realities of limited opportunities for further energy and water savings that are justified and preserved.
▶ 2:59:35Product features and performance. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. >> thank you very much for your testimony and Mr. kevin camp. You are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. >> chairman, ranking member, castor and members of the subcommittee. My name is brian camp and I am a home builder from kansas city, missouri, where I come from. Safe and affordable housing isn't just a talking point. It's the foundation of strong families and strong communities.
▶ 3:00:04And it's the foundation of what the kc hba stands behind. I'm a proud member of the kc, hba, and our motto there is home ownership for all. It's what drives us. We want every family, whether they are looking to buy their first home, rent an apartment to have options that fit their needs and their budgets.
▶ 3:00:31But right now, one of the biggest hurdles we face in kansas city is a shortage of attainable housing. A big part of that problem is the new energy code and the complexities and the costs that it adds to the cost of our projects. I support cost effective building codes that create safe and efficient homes.
▶ 3:00:53I've built my career around that, delivering high performance homes long before performance testing was required in kc, I would hire third party energy raters to verify and test our homes to make sure that they were delivering what we wanted to our clients, to make sure that they were saving over the average home that was being built in our area. It was something that was important to us.
▶ 3:01:20We wanted our clients to have their families largest investment that they were probably ever going to make, be efficient for them safe and keep them comfortable all year long. But lately, things have gone too far. We've hit a point of diminishing returns, and now families are on the hook for thousands of additional dollars in construction costs. But they're seeing very little in the way of additional returns and savings on their utility bills.
▶ 3:01:49In kansas city, new homes were already being built well past the point where adding more insulation or other prescriptive measures makes much of a difference. Yet under the new code, these costly mandates keep stacking up. In 2021, the iecc was supposed to be a model for state and local governments to adapt to their circumstances.
▶ 3:02:13That flexibility has always been very important because what works in new york or works in california may not work in kansas, missouri or texas. Back in 2022, the kansas city, missouri city council was looking at adopting the 2021 iecc builders. Community leaders, policy makers. We were all working together to make amendments to the code that would make it more practical for our region.
▶ 3:02:42But after the inflation reduction act passed in section 501, three one was set up with $1 billion grant fund. Suddenly, the message that they heard was don't change a thing or you won't receive any of the money. When congress ties state and local government, grant money to adopting unamended codes, local officials don't have a choice in order to receive those funds.
▶ 3:03:08That's exactly what we saw play out in kansas city when the code took effect in october of 2023. Home building in kansas city nearly stopped for over three and a half months. The city did not issue one single family building permit. Before that, the average was 66 permits a month. The number of builders active in the city plummeted from 98 and 2023 to just 22 and 2024.
▶ 3:03:36That's a 78% decline. These numbers come straight out of the city's own permitting system, and I can tell you what that looks like on the ground. In april of 24, my company applied for what should have been a simple basement finish permit. That process would normally take a few days. This time it took an agonizing 39 days, 17 emails, and a final plea to city management and leadership for help.
▶ 3:04:04Meanwhile, our crews sat at home without any work to do and the cost for that family where they are just as frustrating. That particular home was already hers rated with a score of 62, meaning that it would save that family about $2,500 over the average american home at that time.
▶ 3:04:24But they had to comply with the new energy code, and they spent over 10,000 additional construction dollars to comply with that code for that basement. What did they get for that money? They got a single point improvement on their hers rating, which equates to about $2 in savings on utility costs in a year. That doesn't add up for the families I serve, and I certainly don't think it adds up for your families either.
▶ 3:04:55That's why I commend congressman goldman for introducing the homeowner energy freedom act to repeal section 50131. This program has distorted local decision making, driven up costs and reducing housing production, all while delivering little in the way of energy savings through the cost of utility bills. >> and I'm sorry your your time is expired and we will go to Mr.
▶ 3:05:23Delaski for five minutes for his opening statement. Thank you. >> thank you, thank you. Chairman, ranking member castor and members of the subcommittee. My name is andrew delaski and I am the executive director of the appliance standards awareness project, based at the american council for an energy-efficient economy, a leading efficiency nonprofit organization. Guided by a broadly representative steering committee, asap carries out research, analysis and advocacy in support of standards that cost effectively save energy and water, reduce utility bills and pollution.
▶ 3:05:53I'd like to focus my remarks on how appliance and equipment standards have saved consumers money and bolster the electric grid, but would be threatened by h.r. 4626. Then I'll offer my support for h.r. 1355, the weatherization enhancement and readiness act, the us appliance and equipment standards program established an updated numerous times on a bipartisan basis, protects us families and small business owners from needless energy waste.
▶ 3:06:21Less energy waste means lower utility bills month after month, year after year. For families, it means preserving electric grid capacity for growing electric loads so we can win the race to lead the world in artificial intelligence and manufacturing.
▶ 3:06:37These standards ensure that manufacturers and importers include cost effective, energy saving innovations throughout the wide variety of choices they offer in the marketplace, not just in the top of the line or specialty products. Let me put some numbers to this. According to doe, existing efficiency standards help the typical us household spend $576 less on utility bills in 2024.
▶ 3:07:04Standards scheduled to take effect will boost annual savings to roughly $700 per year. For the typical family. That's real money, especially for families on tight budgets stressed by rising electricity prices. While some cite diminishing returns for certain products, the overall picture for future efficiency gains is promising. Technology innovation keeps opening new opportunities for cutting energy waste and saving families money.
▶ 3:07:31We estimate that stronger standards, which could be issued over the next decade or so, could lower utility bills by another 150 bucks a year, driving total annual savings to about $850 from this important energy saving and energy waste reduction program. And they could cut peak electricity demand by 32gw, 32gw. That's about the equivalent of 100 large power plants. We need that capacity.
▶ 3:07:59We can't afford not to go forward with improved efficiency. I want to take a moment to address some inaccurate claims. We've heard in some of these conversations. First, some argue that applying standards restrict choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Visit any big box appliance seller they can look online. Buyers have a dizzying array of options. More than 11,000 refrigerator models on the market today.
▶ 3:08:26More than 1400 models on clothes washers and dishwashers. Efficiency standards ensure that all of these choices and models at any available price point include energy and innovations that save people money. Second, some have suddenly started blaming efficiency for products that fail early. Now, there have always been lemons, and it's frustrating when products break where they should, but it's just not accurate to blame the efficiency standards.
▶ 3:08:55Rather, problems can be traced to manufacturers. Some manufacturers who cut corners like using plastic parts rather than metal parts, and other cases manufacturers include features or gizmos, some of which consumers want, some of which they don't, that are unrelated to efficiency but are prone to failure. And finally, some manufacturers make it hard to fix their products by limiting access to diagnostic information and charging high prices for replacement parts.
▶ 3:09:25H.r. 4626 would severely weaken the appliance standards statute. It would hand the executive branch new powers to attack existing efficiency standards. It would weaken states rights by blocking them from setting efficiency standards. Even when no federal standards are applied, it would eliminate accountability for doe to review standards from time to time, and it would set additional roadblocks designed to stymie future progress.
▶ 3:09:52Proponents of the bill claim it would protect consumer choices, but existing law already ensures that consumers have access to product features they value, and prohibits doe from eliminating categories or products that use a particular fuel type, like gas. So at a time when utility bills are already outpacing inflation, this bill would mean even higher costs for american families and businesses.
▶ 3:10:14It will lead to increases in electricity demand when that capacity is needed for ai and manufacturing, and would create treacherous regulatory regulatory landscape for domestic manufacturers, potentially allowing importers to undercut them after they've already invested to comply with pending standards. I urge you to reject this bill. In contrast, the weatherization bill before you is sorely needed. This program provides essential help to households struggling to stay safe and pay their energy bills.
▶ 3:10:44This bill would reauthorize the program and ensure that more homes can be made ready for weatherization improvements, and have access to adequate resources to carry out upgrades. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you very much. And, Mr. lowe, you're recognized for five minutes for your statement. >> chairman, ranking member castor, members of. >> the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. George lowe, vice president of government affairs and public policy. >> I'm sorry. Could you pull your mic just a little bit closer up there, please?
▶ 3:11:13Thank you. >> vice president, public affairs and government policy at the american gas association. Aga, founded in 1918, represents more than 200 local energy companies that deliver clean, domestic and reliable natural gas throughout the united states. More than 79 million residential, commercial and industrial natural gas customers in the us, 94% of which are our member companies, and more than 74 million homes in that receive their gas from aga.
▶ 3:11:41Natural gas remains popular among consumers, with more than one new residential customer signing up every minute of every day, along with 60 businesses joining them. Nearly 189 million americans in total use natural gas because it's affordable, reliable, safe and essential to improving our environment. Typical new home that uses natural gas for heating, cooking and drying clothes saves an average of $1,132 per year compared to a home using electricity.
▶ 3:12:10With those appliances, lower fuel prices and investments in energy efficiency for customers within our 1.2 million miles of pipes continue to drive consumer savings. I'm testifying today in support of legislation being considered, but I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to correct the record of the role of natural gas utilities in energy efficiency and appliance standards.
▶ 3:12:32Natural gas utilities spend $1.5 billion on energy efficiency programs every year, saving 1.7 million metric tons of carbon, the equivalent of removing 424,000 cars from the road. There are hundreds of natural gas utility energy efficiency programs across the united states, providing guidance, funding for weatherization, technical assessments, training and programs for equipment replacements and upgrades.
▶ 3:12:59These programs have resulted in a 50% decline in the residential natural gas use per customer since 1970, even as the system has grown steadily to support more customers. Natural gas utilities.
▶ 3:13:13Efforts to upgrade the nation's pipeline networks have driven a 70% decline in emissions from natural gas distribution systems since 1990, even before the united states department of energy was formed, aga and its member companies supported and promoted minimum appliance efficiency requirements developed through a consensus process, aga and the industry have played a positive and active role in supporting energy efficiency requirements for natural gas appliances and
▶ 3:13:43Model codes. For more than 50 years. This commitment is one of the many reasons why our utilities are serving more customers than ever before, while using less natural gas to do it. Despite the broad support for natural gas, communities have been inundated with state, local and federal laws and regulations that prohibit or eliminate access to the draft use. Natural gas. More than 100 communities and several states have enacted policies to prevent consumer access to gas or natural gas appliances.
▶ 3:14:12Current federal appliance standards have been promulgated without sufficient cost or energy savings. In the last eo pushed model building codes that would effectively prohibit natural gas installation in new homes and commercial buildings. Two seven 2007 law banning the use of fossil fuels in certain federal facilities beginning in 2030. These actions serve as a barrier to consumer access to natural gas and should be removed further.
▶ 3:14:37In recent years, doe has unfortunately shifted its emphasis away from establishing rules that focus focus on energy efficiency to a process focused on eliminating consumer access to gas appliances. This included an attempt to eliminate up to 96% of gas cooktops from the market that failed after public outcry. Other products were not so lucky. Doe issued final rules to eliminate natural gas, water heaters and furnaces from the market.
▶ 3:15:06This congress, in a bipartisan fashion along with president trump, had to step in and overturn that harmful water rule heater via congressional review act. The onerous furnace rule, unfortunately, is still in effect, and it will raise costs on 30% of impacted senior households and 20% of impacted low income households.
▶ 3:15:26These actions illustrate the need for legislation to ensure that consumers are not harmed by regulatory actions that consumers have accessibility to a variety of appliances. Today's hearing features several pieces of legislation which will repair the broken efficiency rulemaking process, help ensure consumer choice and enable the federal government to access reliable and affordable fuels. Ajga supports swift passage of the bill's return.
▶ 3:15:54Our nation's energy markets, and allow natural gas to continue to drive national economic growth, energy security and affordability. Reliability for consumers and the government. Thank you again. I look forward to your questions. >> well, thank you. That concludes our witnesses opening statements. And we'll move into the question and answer portion of the hearing. I'm going to begin with questions. Recognize myself for five minutes. Mr.
▶ 3:16:23Lowe, as we heard last week, everyone on this committee is supportive of balanced energy efficiency measures. Do natural gas restrictions reduce energy consumption? >> do natural gas restrictions reduce energy consumption? No, I would say in fact, in the in the case of section 433, it is likely to increase energy consumption for the federal government. The direct use of natural gas is about 91% efficient.
▶ 3:16:52Electricity is about 34%. So you have that 34% line loss, uh, using direct use of natural gas into a federal building is the most efficient use for it. It is also the most reliable way for that energy source to be delivered. >> thank you, miss cleary. The lookback provisions in epca are a poor mechanism to initiate energy efficiency standards in home appliances. You mentioned your testimony.
▶ 3:17:19How difficult is the six year timeline for a company's supply chain? >> thank you for the question. Uh, certainly having the constant churn of regulations is challenging, but it's also challenging for doe.
▶ 3:17:36Regardless of who's in the white house, what we've seen is that doe rarely meets its deadlines, and this is not actually helpful toward efficiency savings, either, because it means that the rules aren't getting done on the timeline that that epa is setting forth. So that's why we're looking for, uh, changes to this provision so that manufacturers will have the time that's needed. Consumers will be able to retain choice, and doe will be able to focus its efforts where there are opportunities for savings.
▶ 3:18:08>> in our companies and consumers, consistent, consistently able to realize benefits within that six year period. >> the six year period is actually the period during which doe cannot look at additional changes. So it's actually a longer period that manufacturers do have, and consumers have to realize those benefits.
▶ 3:18:32Uh, that said, that review is often taking place at a time before products that meet the standard, uh, before are on the market. So it's challenging for doe to even know what those improvements were. When they're setting the next round of standards, it's hard to know the impact on consumers when setting the next round of standards. >> okay. Well, thank you very much. Uh, Mr. chairman camp, um, in your testimony, you're talking about building codes and questions.
▶ 3:19:02A couple of questions right off the bat. You know, when you're talking about, um, especially the iec, designed as a model for state and local governments to consider, uh, how often are they really looking at the local, you know, are we looking at a model that everyone in the country is supposed to live by, or is it do they ever take into consideration what's happening out there in the real world, in the local communities? >> that's a great question.
▶ 3:19:31And the code book is about that thick and it comes out every three years. So for a municipality to adopt that code every three years is it's just not possible. It takes time for stakeholders and everybody to review that and analyze it and see what is fit for their area, and to amend or strengthen certain parts to make it work for their area.
▶ 3:19:56Um, I think we can all agree that american families deserve safe, strong and efficient homes, but we need a better pathway forward that gives local control, encourages innovation, and keeps homes within the reach of americans.
▶ 3:20:16Um, that's why, you know, I would urge congress to let builders build and let local governments work together with their builders to make sure that those codes are accurate for their area, rather than have the federal government incentivize them to adopt something that's supposed to be a one size fits all. >> yeah.
▶ 3:20:43My my last 40s, um, when you're talking about what happened, um, in, in your, in the kansas city area, uh, you know, you said that kansas city is not received a single dollar from the department of energy for adopting code, yet the local housing production has been, uh, housing production has been severe. Uh, is it also a situation out there? And I'm, like about 20, about 15 seconds left.
▶ 3:21:09Is that, uh, another situation out there that, uh, it's harder for builders out there just to be able to understand what the code is. So they have to just to comply with it. >> um, I don't think it's, uh, understanding it. I think it's just there is so much complexity to it, um, to make sure that you can comply with it, you can either go prescriptive or performance, and most go with a performance, um, method to comply with that code. >> well, thank you very much.
▶ 3:21:41My time is expired and I yield to the gentleman. Up there. Here we are. The gentlelady from florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for five minutes for questions. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
▶ 3:21:57Um, preparing for this hearing, I pulled up a department of energy, uh, report from the beginning of the year from one of our national laboratories, and they had looked at energy efficiency standards, uh, and said here, uh, by 2024, the improvement over the decades now is resulting in savings for the average household of about $576 annually. So energy efficiency over time now has has saved people a lot of money. It's also cut pollution.
▶ 3:22:26It's cut consumption. And we're really worried about consumption right now. And demand um, we know that all the projections are we're going to need more energy. So it's very important that we keep on track with conservation and savings. That helps with people's the affordability squeeze. But also we're going to need more energy.
▶ 3:22:48And while the administration's been, you know, killing all of these clean energy projects and all the clean energy coming onto the grid, let's hold on to to our savings on energy efficiency. Mr. delaski, will any of the republican bills, uh, that have been noticed for today, will they help us meet rising load growth? That's that's driven in part by ai data centers? >> uh. >> not to my understanding, no.
▶ 3:23:14>> and we heard last week when we had a hearing that there are important tools to, to to use all of this incredible innovation, uh, to connect buildings and smart systems that can reduce energy use during peak demand, uh, and can be deployed very quickly over the next few months. Could you elaborate about on how these virtual or distributed power plants can help us meet our, uh, growth and load challenge?
▶ 3:23:44>> yeah, absolutely. Um, low growth is a huge challenge. Um, I recently put out an analysis showing about 25% growth by 2030, 78% by 2050. So we need to allocate all of our energy resources, including efficiency, in a way to meet that demand. Um, innovative virtual and distributed power plants are an emerging tool to help us do just that. And this is, of course, in addition to the baseline you get from efficiency standards and other efficiency policies.
▶ 3:24:14Just to give you a couple of examples, um, you know, would be like a home with an hvac system being connected to a thermal energy storage solution, enabling that home to optimize how and when it pulls power from the grid. Um, throughout the day, other relatively new solutions include hvac systems that can respond to peak demand by adjusting how much power it uses without turning off the heating or cooling. And of course, you have distributed solar and also storage solutions.
▶ 3:24:44Now, this is all voluntary, mind you. Um, consumers can opt in or opt out, but that's a value consumers can offer back to the grid and in the end be paid for. So consumers can can capture that value. And we as a country can meet our energy needs, um, in a way that lowers costs for consumers rather than putting up new, expensive infrastructure. >> that's right. Um, some of the discussion over, uh, appliances is, is really is really funny.
▶ 3:25:11There's a lot of nostalgia for kind of the old your old fridge or something. And, and there's this, um, you know, it's so specific on your appliance, but there's something of a canard that has developed that, that it used to be appliances would last forever. Now, we've asked, uh, all of the products. The manufacturers have done a great job responding to consumer demand.
▶ 3:25:38Um, I know there's often problems with your ice dispenser, but can you point to anything that that demonstrates that energy efficiency standards are the cause, uh, or causing, uh, appliances not to last as long? >> uh, no, I can't um, there is no evidence that we're aware of that is the efficiency standards that cause products to last less long. Certainly it's frustrating when your products break, but to blame efficiency is just not accurate.
▶ 3:26:08There are other causes. There are other reasons. While things might be breaking, um, and that's always been a. >> it's that ice dispenser, the water dispenser on the front. >> oftentimes it tends to be those other gadgets. Yes. >> yeah, yeah. Uh, congress directed the department of energy to update, uh, energy usage in federal buildings back in 2007 to ultimately save taxpayers money. So one piece of that federal procurement is energy star and other products.
▶ 3:26:36Doe has estimated that energy efficient project product purchases could save the federal government and taxpayers half $1 billion worth of energy each year. Can you elaborate on that? And why would we ever want to go backwards on those kind of savings? >> absolutely. Um, buying efficient products in federal facilities is a great way to save taxpayers money. Also, the federal government should be leading when it comes to energy efficiency.
▶ 3:27:00So it's money saving for taxpayers, but also paving the way for consumers to have greater access to affordable, efficient products. >> thank you very much I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. I appreciate it very much. And I agree with my friend from florida.
▶ 3:27:20As you look at that, we haven't really had an increase in demand of electricity over the last several years is because the one that unfortunately, I'm not I'm not agreeing with you there is that we've had de-industrialized to some extent, but the other is we got more efficient and things have gotten more efficient with the use of electricity. We have unfortunately, we've gotten to the area where demand is rising to the point where just pure squeezing out efficiencies aren't aren't going to to work.
▶ 3:27:48And, you know, one of the things I know we were talking about where people are more efficient at home, don't run your dryer at 2:00 in the afternoon in august. Don't run, you know, wash your clothes in the middle of the night. And a lot of people are doing that and being smart about it. And I know you talked about their optional items. People can do their have their house set up where they're like, if they're not home in the afternoon, they the electricity goes off on down automatically.
▶ 3:28:11We had a, a power company, a glasgow power plant board, and kentucky came up with this peak hour pricing because they wanted to get ahead of everybody else. And and I remember asking a lady who's probably a millennial saying, oh, this is great. I have everything on my phone, all my appliances. I watch my work. The problem was you had 92 year olds sitting at home turning their power off because they were afraid they were going to get caught on the peak power. So we got to look at what's smart and what has unintended consequences and what you force people to do.
▶ 3:28:41You know, one of them, um, mister lowe, is that, you know, we have we're getting rid of gas stoves, which means we're going to use more on the electric grid. I'm no gas powers the electric grid. If you have a combined natural gas plant, but also gas is is a substitute for electricity and stoves. Correct? >> that's correct. And right now, about 40% of our electricity is generated from natural gas. Uh. >> if you're using the natural gas stove in your house, you're not drawing off the grid for that cooking purpose. >> absolutely correct.
▶ 3:29:10And under the previous administration, 90%, 96% of stoves would have been eliminated, uh, for about $1.21 savings per year, or about $19 over the life of that stove. Other thing that they did in that was they took out a number of consumer friendly pieces that people wanted. They they wanted to have a, a grate over the stove that was taken out. There's no energy efficiency savings in taking that out.
▶ 3:29:40It's it's much like the ranking member mentioned, you know, it's an added benefit, but there's no energy savings in that. By removing that, there's something to do to disincentivize folks from wanting to continue to have their gas stove. >> thanks. You think that this a standard that effectively bans gas products in favor of electric products is technically feasible? Standard. They have epcot. Epcot has to have a technically feasible standard, just absolutely not to go somewhere.
▶ 3:30:05All right, miss cleary, uh, in order for consumers to realize both energy and cost savings, standards must prioritize reasonable payback periods, do you agree that this aspect of appliance standard program requires reform? Do you think that it allows for reasonable payback is a reasonable payback period? >> you're asking about today's. >> yeah. So so the doe's appliance standard program does it does it need reforms? Is it a reasonable payback period? I didn't ask that question. Well, I guess what.
▶ 3:30:34But it requires a reasonable payback period. It appears that you think that the the appliance standard gives you a reasonable payback period. Does it make sense? >> I'll answer your question in a way that makes sense. How about that? Okay, so I think I think you're asking if we've seen reasonable payback periods. And I think it depends on the product category. I think there are payback periods are starting to get longer in some cases.
▶ 3:30:56And and really looking at the savings that consumers are seeing, for example, uh, microwave oven rule making, uh, under the last administration would have saved would is expected to save consumers $0.07 a month. That's less than a dollar a year. And yet doe was required to prioritize and review that rule when it could have been spending its time on opportunities for where there are real opportunities for savings that consumers could realize in a reasonable period of time. >> okay, thanks. So I got about a minute left, Mr.
▶ 3:31:26Kemp, uh, you operate in both kansas and missouri. Could you talk about the difference in those two states and how operating the two states? >> so I operate in missouri only, um, and in kansas city, missouri in particular, is the big place that we work in. Um, since the 2021 code has been put into effect there. Um, there's been ongoing debate on how long it takes for these efficiencies to pay back.
▶ 3:31:50And if you go back to the doe report that was referenced earlier, um, you know, they show that payback in a couple of different ways. Um, the simple payback method is the easiest and it says simple in its name, yet it's the last one that doe uses to show the consumer of how quick they can recoup their costs on you spend this much, you save this much on utility.
▶ 3:32:17It takes you in our area 8.3 years to recoup the hard cost. The thing that doe does with that is they take out other factors like financing that cost. Um, they take all that away from it and they give you that. So it looks really good. But on their other methods, they. >> my time's expired on that. Thanks. Right. We get your thank you for your answer. >> appreciate it. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back.
▶ 3:32:46And just to let everybody know, the gentleman from new jersey will be our last before we have to go vote the call. Vote. And we have about 11 minutes left. And so the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for. >> 11 minutes instead of five. I can use 11 minutes instead of five. >> no, you get five minutes. >> thank you. Chairman. Uh, thank you all for being here today.
▶ 3:33:07I know the topic is, uh, appliances and building policies and how this impacts americans ability to purchase homes and, uh, deal with the affordability crisis that so many families are dealing with. And we hear about every single day. I represent new jersey's eighth congressional district. The affordability challenge is something that we've been trying to tackle from day one of taking office. Uh, but I think this is just misguided.
▶ 3:33:30Uh, like, for instance, I think if you talk to the average american or any industry right now, whether it's appliance standards or tariffs that are raising costs and making home ownership, uh, less achievable, I think tariffs would take the day, not appliances and their energy efficiency standards. So I think we're sort of missing the bigger picture. Um, and how we're going to deal with this challenge, especially because the president and republicans who control the house and the senate have talked about affordability.
▶ 3:33:59And we're here talking about, in my opinion, very niche issue in the spectrum of things that we need to deal with as a country. So first question, in terms of those bigger pictures, can any of our witnesses tell me what the current unemployment rate is in the united states? Okay, so according to reuters, the unemployment rate increased to a nearly four year high of 4.3%. The labor department's employment report also showed that the economy lost jobs in june, and that job growth has slowed since april.
▶ 3:34:28Um, another big thing in terms of how people can address the affordability challenge is wages. Um, do any of our witnesses know what current wage trends look like in the united states? Okay. Um, 21 states and dc have no measurable change in household income. According to an economic policy institute analysis of census data. Overall, economists agree that the most recent jobs report was weak, showing slowed growth and rising unemployment.
▶ 3:34:57Economists also agree that trump's policies will undermine any recent progress, especially for low income households. So let's say we have more choice on the appliance front. Wouldn't we need employment to be as high as possible and wage growth to be as high as possible to afford any appliances? Um, given how how prices have also increased because of tariffs, that seems to me to be a bigger issue that we have to tackle as a country.
▶ 3:35:27Um, also, no matter what appliances we have, we've seen energy prices go up. Right? That's you've heard that you've seen that trend yet this administration is is rolling back the progress that we made on clean renewable energy. So my understanding of energy production and energy costs is that the more energy that we can produce, the better able we are to lower costs. Now, I've said this numerous times in my colleagues I'm sure are tired of hearing of it. But texas, right?
▶ 3:35:55Not a doesn't come to mind as a blue state, 30% of their energy production comes from clean, renewable energy. Texas, I believe, is one of two states where consumers have seen lower prices. So if we want to lower prices, we can talk about appliances. By the way, I have a gas stove. So this idea that democrats are taking away gas stoves and choice is just fundamentally flawed. Having more efficient appliances when we already have a strain on our energy demand seems like pretty good policy to me. Um, but I digress.
▶ 3:36:23Um, we've talked about reliability when it comes to planning for our energy needs. Uh, it is incredibly difficult to plan for the long term when there is such a stark policy contrast between administrations going back to the clean, renewable energy. Biden was for it. Trump is opposed to it. That's fine. Elections have consequences. But now we're rolling back all the progress that we've made. We're pulling permits on offshore wind that are already almost three fourths of the way complete. It makes absolutely no sense.
▶ 3:36:53But going back to this idea of administrations and changing policies, Mr. lacey, can you talk about what it means for the appliance appliance industry? Excuse me? When there are stark changes in standards between administrations? >> I think it can be a big problem. In fact, um, this administration, the current administration, proposed to roll back 17 standards and, and the and throughout that docket, there's 30 comments from manufacturers and their associations opposing going backwards.
▶ 3:37:20So manufacturers as far as we can see don't support going back. >> part of capital intensive industry is planning and the ability to plan. And in a pro growth pro economy agenda, you want capital intensive industries to have the certainty that if one administration provides a set of tax credits, those will be honored by the next administration. You want predictability in what tariffs will be at any given moment, but that changes. That is a bad business environment.
▶ 3:37:48So when I think about the costs that all of our constituents are facing, I think about this administration and how republicans here in the legislative branch who could push back, stay silent while all of our constituents are suffering. We need to take on the affordability challenge. Democrats are ready to, and I hope that one day republicans join us. With that, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. And as I mentioned, votes have been called. So the subcommittee is going to reconvene immediately after the third vote is called.
▶ 3:38:18And if and we'll also let the other subcommittee members know that. So the subcommittee is now in recess.
▶ 4:52:14To order. >> okay. Thank you for being here. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
▶ 4:52:41All in your places with sunshiny faces. Good. Mr. crane, I'm going to come to you first. Uh, you said in your comments that there's not much room for further decreases without sacrificing efficiency or performance. When you talk about those things, are you talking about household appliances? You're talking about the whole gamut from dishwashers to stoves to air conditioning to furnaces. >> thanks for the question.
▶ 4:53:09Uh, I'm talking about many home appliances. So many of the products that are under, ahem, scope have seen standards, you know, four, five, six, as many as seven, uh, tightening of standards for so for some of those products, if we are using technologies that are existing today, our concern is that future tightening of standards could have negative consequences. >> thank you. I want to clarify that, um, Mr. kemp, is that how you say that? Yes.
▶ 4:53:39You're a builder and air conditioning contractor for 35 years. So you're building houses there in kansas? If I read right. >> uh, kansas city, missouri. >> uh, missouri, kansas city, missouri. Okay. So you are probably aware that the houses get an a breaker box, the main breaker box outside. Now, I'm 72 years old. My parents had a rental property growing up in the 50s and 60s. In fact, we still have rental property.
▶ 4:54:08You could have built an old house back then for with a 100 amp breaker on the system. Now there are 200 amp and more. So what does that do to the price of electricity when you have to double the size of the electrical service? Uh. >> it adds to it.
▶ 4:54:23And, um, you know, the house I gave as an example earlier, um, we actually the client wanted to do a lot of electric appliances in that home, uh, due to the size of the home, uh, they wanted to do an ev charger, uh, in a 200 amp service. There wasn't enough. And during that time, there was an unavailability of 400 amp meters from our local utility. So we had to stick with 200.
▶ 4:54:51So they had to sacrifice, uh, doing that because they wanted to. But it all comes at a higher cost, obviously. >> sure. And you've watched probably the ratings or how intriguingly you were involved in hvac stuff, but the ratings on the furnaces, for example, afue ratings on the furnaces as they were increasing going up because they wanted to have more and more fuel efficient furnaces, that that did nothing but drive the price up. You had to have a separate bidding system.
▶ 4:55:20Now you got p.v.c with a drip line. All the things that were mandated to be energy efficiency was doing nothing but driving the cost of of the house up. Um, I think you said, and I'm trying to read my hen. Scratch that. Um. I think there was like $2 savings per month per, per year. >> on that home. It was $2, uh, over the course of the year. Right.
▶ 4:55:48Um, and one of those examples you just gave of the furnaces and the ratings on those everybody knows about the new refrigerant change. We just went through that single change on most of our homes, depending on how many tons the system is. It's anywhere from 13 to $1700 cost increase just for that refrigerant change. And that refrigerant change is it's supposed to be the equipment's supposed to be more efficient. It's supposed to be better for the environment.
▶ 4:56:17Um, we're now having to install leak detection systems in the units because that refrigerant is mildly flammable. >> yeah, we used to sell our 22. I'm sorry, folks, I'm getting down in the weeds a little bit for $8 a pound. When I started my company in 81. And of course, as you know, 22 then it was for ten for ten a and so there's a whole lot of refrigerant that did nothing but go sky high. And who pays for that? The homeowner. Um, let me see if I can. Was it you, Mr. lowe?
▶ 4:56:47I think you said about a if you a if you the it was 1132 annual savings over electric. Now let me make that distinction for our for the folks here for the committee, a gas furnace is extremely more efficient than an electric furnace is because we already talked about having to double the size of the breaker box in your home. That also increases the size of the wiring.
▶ 4:57:17When you're running an electric furnace partner, you better have probably anywhere from a four gauge to six gauge feed to that thing, instead of a 12 gauge feed to a regular gas furnace. So I think you said that there was 1132 savings over electric if you had a furnace. Do I remember that correctly? >> that's correct. Yes. If you're using gas appliances to heat your home, cook your food, take your showers.
▶ 4:57:43>> and one thing we didn't say was during during the wintertime, if you had a gas, you know, if you had a fireplace, uh, as long as it was vented, the house was properly vented. You could lose your electricity and not have any heat, but you could have a gas fireplace that was providing heat. So my time is going to expire. And. Mr. Mr. tonko, you are up for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Uh, the weatherization assistance program has helped millions of americans reduce their energy bills over the past 15 years.
▶ 4:58:15It is a tried and true program that deserves our continued support. Mr. delaski, there's been a lot of discussion at this hearing about rising utility bills and how many of our constituents are struggling with energy affordability. How important is it that the weatherization assistance program provides some relief to low income americans? >> it's extremely important. >> it is obviously something worth addressing in a bipartisan fashion. Also, Mr.
▶ 4:58:44Low, I also want to acknowledge and thank aiga for supporting the weatherization assistance program. Can you talk about why this program is important to your members, um, customers? And what's the value in supporting a fuel neutral program like weatherization? >> well, I think there are several values in that.
▶ 4:59:04Starting off with that, you know, a lower income family spending 16 to 18% of their income on energy bills because of a poor envelope of the house or less insulation. Any of those things, anything you can do to tighten the envelope means less money is being spent on the energy in that building. So incredibly important, very supportive of it. Along with the liheap program. >> thank you.
▶ 4:59:28And I want to highlight a couple of important reforms included in the bipartisan h.r. 1355 legislation, which, in addition to reauthorizing the program, will help ensure that we are maximizing the benefits of the program to our constituents. One of the biggest issues facing the program is that material and labor costs must be under an average cost per dwelling unit limit, which currently stands at about $8,500.
▶ 4:59:54This limit has not kept pace with inflation, meaning there's a real risk that homes are receiving fewer weatherization measures than in the past. So, Mr. delaski, how would raising the average cost per unit, as proposed in h.r. 1355, improve not just the health of the weatherization program, but also the services it provides to our constituents? >> I think raising the limit is is very important.
▶ 5:00:19It will help ensure that more homes can benefit, more homeowners can benefit from the can benefit from the weatherization program. It's essential. >> and the bill also formally authorizes the weatherization readiness fund. Mr. delaski, is it accurate that this program has existed at the department of energy for the past several years based on program direction and annual funding and appropriations bills? >> that's accurate. Yes. >> so it is fair to say that h.r.
▶ 5:00:481315 1355 isn't proposing a new program. Is that correct? >> that's correct. >> we had some discussion about that earlier today, but this bill would formally authorize the program, which I believe is an important duty of this committee. So, again, Mr. delaski, why are these readiness dollars a valuable complement to the traditional weatherization assistance program?
▶ 5:01:11And based on the experience of readiness funding from the past few years, have these dollars been proven to be effective at reducing the number of homes deferred for weatherization? >> yeah. Readiness dollars are essential for the program. Um, if a home has rot, if it's if contractors can't enter the home safely, or if you have a hole in the roof or a mold problem, you have to remediate that problem before you can. Do, you know, proper weatherization.
▶ 5:01:38So the readiness program is essential for this program to reach those folks who really need it the most. >> and I assume there's a great number of homes that are ineligible, uh, without this sort of reform. >> that's accurate. Yes. >> okay. The readiness fund isn't intended to address a one off issue, but to fix a systematic gap that is preventing many of the households most in need of weatherization from indeed participating in the program.
▶ 5:02:04With the many cost of living challenges facing americans, it would be wise, I believe, for congress to continue supporting this program, to enable more eligible families to be able to live in healthier, safer and weatherized homes with a much improved environment all around. So with that, I thank you, Mr. chair, and I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman.
▶ 5:02:31The gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, this is, um, for you, Mr. lowe. Mr. clear. Mr. kevin camp, I want to go back to something that Mr. weber was talking about, the federal mechanical insulation act, some of the issues that he's raised with that it's a bipartisan proposal to amend the national energy compensation act to allow the installation of mechanical insulation as a means to improve energy and water efficiency in federal buildings.
▶ 5:03:03Um would not mandate the use of mechanical insulation or nor would it apply to privately owned buildings. The purpose for this is to save taxpayer money, promote practical, cost effective energy efficiency. Over the past week, we've been discussing what efficiency standards may have missed the mark. With that in mind, can you speak, uh, can you guys speak to how targeted, industry supported and achievable measures such as the one outlined in Mr.
▶ 5:03:32Webber's bill can and should be promoted? Um, Mr. kevin kemp? >> could you rephrase the question on exactly what you're asking us to address? >> he's asking, um, if we have a bipartisan bill, we have a consensus.
▶ 5:03:53Uh, doesn't it make sense to to implement legislation like this that would allow us to to have a standard for mechanical insulation for any new installations, because over time, it's going to save us a good bit of money. Doesn't that make sense? >> yes. And again, that goes back to us, you know, being in favor of reasonable building codes.
▶ 5:04:17But there is a point at which, uh, you know, putting too much in, um, you're putting more in than you're getting back. So setting a standard that works for whatever goal you're trying to achieve in different parts of the country. We support that. But, um, trying to put something together that is a one size fits all. >> that that leads me to another question for you.
▶ 5:04:42And that's local conditions, because weather's different, different parts of the country, and you've got to have some flexibility in your coding, wouldn't you? >> I agree, and so that is one of the biggest reasons why we have tried to educate lawmakers on the problems with the 2021 ipcc.
▶ 5:05:02Again, um, it was put together as a model to allow local agencies and municipalities to, um, set up their codes. When the inflation reduction act put this grant out there, it basically said, don't amend it, don't do anything. Adopt it as is. Well, when that's done, that basically says that we can't make it fit for our area. As we see.
▶ 5:05:31>> alabama is a little different than minnesota. >> I agree, I agree. So that's the the one reason that I would ask that congress, you know, let's builders build and enacts policies that reduce some of these burdens on us to be able to make what works in our area most efficiently. >> one of the issues I have is some of these codes trying to exclude natural gas. And I think your local codes, federal codes, international codes should include natural gas.
▶ 5:05:59Um, I introduced and got passed a resolution. Um, h.r. 20 to allow, um, to overturn an biden regulation that would have basically eliminated natural gas, uh, tankless, uh, water heaters. And, I mean, it's.
▶ 5:06:20Was going to cost a significant amount of money for about a 40% of consumers. Um, there were. Mr. novak, how can can you speak to, um, novak? I'm sorry. That was the previous one. Mr.
▶ 5:06:42Lowe, can you speak to how the dod is working to make sure that rules are submitted, that how they ought to be making sure that these rules submitted are for the benefit of the american people? >> absolutely. Energy codes ought to be based on energy efficiency and the reductions around the energy efficiency. Energy efficiency does not equate to electrification. You can have energy savings through the process of codes.
▶ 5:07:07And like I've said, we have been very supportive for more than 50 years. In fact, the original, uh, voluntary standards that aj and our members instituted around appliances were the ansi standards that were then taken over by epa and the department of education when it was brought into existence. We have a long history of it. But when you're moving policy to eliminate a fuel source rather than remaining fuel neutral, that's where we have a problem.
▶ 5:07:37That's where we'll step up to defend the direct use of natural gas and ensure that americans have that opportunity to have that fuel choice. >> thank you. Mr. Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. Uh. >> thank you, chairman. Uh, and thank you for holding this important second panel, uh, with stakeholders to discuss appliance and, uh, building policy.
▶ 5:08:05Uh, as I mentioned in the first panel, I introduced the don't mess with my home appliances act, uh, to modernize energy policy and conservation. Uh epca. Uh, which is energy and policy, policy and conservation act. Epca to protect consumer choice in appliances. And my wife is who really insisted on this because she has a new gas stove and she wants to keep it.
▶ 5:08:32In fact, I never thought in my wildest imagination I would testify on the house floor during a debate trying to save my wife's gas stove. But, you know, these are different times. Uh, the biden-harris administration waged a four year war on domestic energy and consumer choice. American families have paid the price. This bill makes necessary reforms to epca to ensure no future administration can implement regulations, drive up costs for consumers.
▶ 5:09:01Uh, you know, back home in august, the question I got is, why does my replacing my air conditioning system cost three times more today than it did five years ago? That's what the american people are asking. Uh, miss clarey, you said, ahem, has been testifying since the early 2000 seeking epa reform. What are the top 1 or 2 most important reforms you'd like to see accomplished?
▶ 5:09:32>> uh, well, we're thrilled that we're here today talking about this issue. Like I said, we've been wanting it for a long time, so thank you for initiating it with your bill. Um, we really believe that, as your bill does, it's time to shift the focus, uh, at doe from endless rulemaking cycles to meaningful energy savings. So that's the top priority, um, to do that. And your bill does that. Uh, we also support maintaining and strengthening federal preemption because, uh, efficiency standards work best when they're on a national scale.
▶ 5:10:01So that's really important. And if I could put in a third one, we want to make sure that doe, uh, is following epa so that it is not resulting in reduced choice to consumers. >> okay. Thank you. Um. I hope you get, uh, uh, Mr. lowe, uh, my bill is aimed at ensuring that efficiency standards are economically justified with a payback period of three years.
▶ 5:10:26Can you explain how this provision will ensure consumer affordability for appliances? >> well, first of all, thank you for introducing the legislation. We look forward to working with you on it. And there are a couple areas we'd love to add to the bill, including including some two product class legislation the previous administration tried to eliminate natural gas furnaces, uh, condensing versus non condensing. Love to talk to your staff about the opportunities. >> there to do that.
▶ 5:10:56>> the payback period is incredibly important. You know, there were uh a number of times during the original furnace rule that doe said a 900 year payback period was appropriate for furnace. Um, if I'm in a house 900 years from now and that is still paying off, I will take my words back. But, you know, we've got to have reasonable payback periods for it to make sense for the customer to purchase that model. >> sounds like they're talking about biblical times, old testament times there.
▶ 5:11:24Um, and thank you for that, because yes, we're going to mark the bill up and amend it. So we need to we need to get that information from you and, uh, appreciate that feedback. That's why we, by the way, while we had these hearings before we mark up a bill so we can, uh, uh, do this thing, right, uh, from the bottom up rather than the top down, like we've seen, uh, the last four years before. Um, this administration, uh, Mr.
▶ 5:11:56Camp, did I get that correct? Close. Okay, good. Thank you. Uh, housing affordability is an issue for too many americans, and we must focus on policies that expand housing accessibility.
▶ 5:12:10We have a housing shortage in this country, and affordable and affordability crisis obviously would help if interest rates, uh, hopefully they came down, I think today or tomorrow, whenever the fed meets um, but, you know, things like, uh, the changes in transformers, uh, and things like that, we couldn't get transformers to develop. Uh, can you share real quickly?
▶ 5:12:34I got about 20s how energy efficiency standards that phase out natural gas appliances can impact the ability to build affordable homes. >> so you're asking me how that would phasing out natural gas? The house I talked about earlier, um, the customer wanted to put an ev charger in it, but he insisted on having dual electric water heaters. Right. Because of the 200, uh, amp total that we could have on the house at the time, that made that impossible.
▶ 5:13:03So we tried to get them to go with a high performing direct vent gas water heater so that he could do that. Right. He didn't want to do that and put that that cost in there. >> so yeah, customer comes first, right? Yeah. Uh, I'm out of time. I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes representative baldwin balderson. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman. Uh, thank you all for being here this afternoon. I apologize for the runaround. Um, my first question is for Mr. lowe.
▶ 5:13:32Um, section 433 of the energy independence and security act requires the elimination of on site fossil fuel use from new and renovated buildings by 2030. As you note in your testimony, federal facilities such as hospitals, military housing, national labs and computing facilities depend on on site backup systems and direct use fuels for resilience.
▶ 5:13:56Can you discuss the impact section 433 would have on these facilities if left in place? >> it's impossible to achieve. First of all, um, you know, and I was a senate staffer in two 2007 when this passed, um, pre shale revolution before directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing became, um, help us become dominant in the, in the gas space.
▶ 5:14:24And I think that there was a lot of hope and prayer behind that. We would get to 2030 and have energy solutions that simply aren't there yet. Um, it endangers our troops. It endangers our veterans. If you are going through cancer treatment in a hospital, you've got to have reliable generation and reliable backup generation.
▶ 5:14:49If we're suddenly taking away that reliability and going to less reliable sources, um, that's not what our veterans deserve. That's not what our troops deserve. That's not what the american taxpayer deserves. And the biden administration's own rule in 2024 showed that it was likely to produce another two or, I'm sorry, 28 million btu of fuel use in additional costs, not only in energy but
▶ 5:15:21In emission costs as well. So while this rule may have been good in the beginning, in 2007, it's outlived its purpose. It's outlived its value and needs to be repealed. >> thank you. Do you believe section 433 is ban on natural gas and fossil fuels? Um, you basically answered that. Um. My follow up to you would be is on the issue I raised during last week's subcommittee hearing.
▶ 5:15:47And your testimony, you mentioned concerns with the previous administration's final rule on residential furnaces, which effectively bans non-condensing gas furnaces after 2028. Can you walk us through how this rule would increase costs for consumers, and specifically, how it would disproportionately impact seniors and low income families? >> uh, I appreciate the question. And and the difference in this is condensing versus non-condensing.
▶ 5:16:13If you think about a traditional furnace that most people, probably 60 to 70% of the market right now, have it vented out and it goes out, your roof goes out, your chimney goes out where it may be very good technology. Uh non-condensing. Furnace does not have that same attribute. It does not exhaust at the top. It's got to go out of side vent. So think of older, you know, philadelphia here in washington dc, new york city where you have row houses.
▶ 5:16:42You you may be able to vent straight out the top. Right now, you can't vent out a neighbor's sidewall at all. And that that becomes an issue. Cost also becomes an issue because you're repiping the entire house. So you're looking at a couple of thousand dollars of additional cost around that. There are clearly two very separate products should be treated very separately.
▶ 5:17:05Uh, the previous doe viewed them as one product class, as a way to eliminate what is 40 to 50% of the market today and and is reliable and affordable, especially for those in low income neighborhoods. They simply could not afford to replace it if you're even allowed to by statute. >> okay. Thank you.
▶ 5:17:23Um, miss, clearly we have a minute left, but, um, do I think many on this committee, myself included, have deep concerns that the efficiency standards proposed and finalized by the previous administration failed to meet epc a's requirement that the standard is economically justified. Do you believe those efficiency standards finalized on home appliances were economically justified or cost effective?
▶ 5:17:55>> uh, well, certainly, uh, doe finalized those standards and made that determination. And I think our concern is making sure that all standards in the future, um, are justified for consumers. >> okay. Thank you very much, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts for five minutes. >> thanks, chair. >> um, and I appreciate the panel's testimony today.
▶ 5:18:22I want to talk about the manufactured housing bill. Uh, housing is usually the single largest expense expense for american households. And I think the cost of housing is the single most pressing economic challenge in the united states today. We've got to build 5 million new units of housing over the next decade, and we're lagging behind.
▶ 5:18:47I think off site construction of housing is a really important way to help deliver the units that we need. And I have seen firsthand in my district, and also in speaking to developers and, um, and, and experts, how much progress has been made on offsite construction. I know this has been an industry that's been doing this in some form for like 70 or 80 years, but in the last decade, there's been pretty significant progress, which is exciting to see.
▶ 5:19:12And so I understand the intent of the affordable housing over over mandating efficiency standards act. Um. I'm sort of concerned that the bill would take authority for manufactured housing energy standards away from energy and granted to hud. Because it doesn't it's not clear that hud has the experience with energy standards. But I understand the intent of the bill. Um, can any of you speak to why we should assume that hud can do this instead of department of energy?
▶ 5:19:44Mr. kemp? >> can you rephrase the question of what you're asking there? >> well, so this bill, uh, the affordable homes act, it would repeal the authority for the department of energy to establish an conservation standards for manufactured housing and vest that authority solely with hud, with housing and urban development. And I you know, it looks like the intent here was that hud previously had this authority. And I think in 2007 it was moved to department of energy.
▶ 5:20:14Um, and the standards since have gotten much tighter and more stringent. And I can totally believe that maybe the standards have inhibited the production of manufactured homes, which is a shame. We need more of it. Um, but why would we, instead of telling department of energy maybe, you know, scope down the standards to a place that works, why would we give it to hud, which probably doesn't really have the in-house expertise to do energy conservation standards?
▶ 5:20:38>> I don't know that I can answer that question for you, but I'd be willing to try and find out. >> anybody. >> I think it's accurate that the department has the expertise when it comes to energy efficiency standards. >> that energy department does. >> yes. >> yeah, but this bill is taking it from department of energy and giving it to hud. Does does the chair want to weigh in? It's a genuine question about the I'm serious. I want to vote for this bill.
▶ 5:21:07I just why would hud know how to do this. >> restate your question. >> this bill, the affordable homes act, it's actually rep hawkins. And, um, you know, maybe she can weigh in on it, but, um, it would repeal the authority for the department of energy to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing and give it to hud, the idea being that department of energy standards were too stringent. Hud will be more lax, which I can I maybe they're too stringent.
▶ 5:21:36We should just pare them back. But why give it to hud? >> well, I'm not going to comment right now. I'm going to ask that you direct your questions to the witnesses that we invited. >> yeah. None of the witnesses seem to know either why we would give it to energy or give it to hud rather. >> now, let me say this, uh, like she said, the committee staff can follow up with your staff. Okay. But right now, let's direct our attention to the witnesses. >> okay. Well, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. langworthy, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 5:22:06>> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I want to begin by thanking the energy subcommittee for considering these two important bills in today's hearings, especially the energy choice act and the reliable federal infrastructure act, which I introduced earlier this year. These two bills are connected by a simple principle that protecting the freedom of americans to make their own energy choices and ensuring that the infrastructure we build is reliable, affordable and resilient. Uh, in my home state of new york, families and businesses are being crushed under the weight of albany's reckless energy mandates.
▶ 5:22:37Beginning january 1st of next year, a statewide ban on natural gas hookups in new construction goes into effect, the first of its kind in the entire nation. Uh, state leaders have declared war on natural gas and propane, stripping away consumer choice and driving up costs at a time that people can least afford it. These policies aren't just misguided, they're downright dangerous.
▶ 5:22:59Uh, during winter storm elliot, uh, more than 60, almost 70 new yorkers froze to death, many of which in their own homes when the power went out. Uh, if this mandate had been in place, forcing families to rely only on the electrical grid, uh, we wouldn't have been looking at dozens of deaths. We'd be into the hundreds, if not the thousands. Uh, Mr.
▶ 5:23:19Camp, from your perspective as a home builder, what are the real world consequences of forcing new homes to rely solely on electricity, both for construction costs and for residents safety during power outages, during extreme weather? >> I would say it's extremely dangerous. Um, going all electric, um, raises the cost and limits, um, efficient heating in certain areas of the country.
▶ 5:23:47Um, and the homes that we build, uh, it was mentioned earlier. I mean, we put a fireplace in that runs on a d battery. So if there's no power in the house, they can put a d battery in there, and they can turn the fireplace on and they can heat their house with gas during a power outage, as long as they light that one time, it'll continue to produce heat. Uh, if they were completely reliant on electricity for their home, then it's as the house cools over a few days. Then, I mean, there's nothing else they can do.
▶ 5:24:17And then you're going to see people probably doing things that are not the smartest in order to try and keep their families warm. That will end up most likely costing families their lives. >> thank you very much. And at the same time, we have to take a hard look at how the federal government itself is approaching energy. Uh, we spend taxpayer dollars to maintain federal buildings, and we can't waste these dollars building unreliable and inefficient infrastructure.
▶ 5:24:41Uh, under section 433 of the energy independence and security act, federal buildings are required to eliminate on site fossil fuel use by 2030. It ties the hands of agencies, it drives up construction costs, and it's forcing the taxpayers to foot the bill for mandates that don't even guarantee lower emissions. Uh, the men and women who rely on va hospitals, military bases and research facilities, they deserve infrastructure that's reliable and affordable and not subject to the latest political fad.
▶ 5:25:10Uh, if anything, our federal buildings should be leading by example and prioritizing resilience and affordability and predictability so they can continue their critical missions without disruption. Uh, Mr. low, section 433 intends to ensure federal government buildings can run on clean energy. Can you tell us why ag is concerned with section 433, and why we need the reliable federal infrastructure act?
▶ 5:25:37>> uh, thank you, congressman, and thank you for your work around these issues. Uh, it's incredibly important. Uh, let me say consumers, including the us government, should have choices when it comes to the energy they use and the best solutions that they have. What may be a solution for upstate new york may be very different.
▶ 5:25:56In florida, my home state of alaska, I can tell you, building a federal courthouse in fairbanks, alaska that uses, uh, just wind or solar may be a very difficult option to achieve. Uh, whereas having the gas line running down, having that right there, using it makes a lot of sense. We ought to have the flexibility as a federal government, just like every american, should have the flexibility to choose the fuel source that makes the most sense for them. >> thank you very much.
▶ 5:26:23And taken together, these two bills are putting americans first. Uh, whether it's giving families the freedom to choose how to heat their home or ensuring federal projects are built reliably and resiliently, these bills reject costly mandates that put ideology over common sense. Energy policy should serve the people keeping homes warm, people safe, businesses running in critical infrastructure strong, not advancing woke political agendas. So and with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back.
▶ 5:26:54>> gentleman yields back. Seeing no other members, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Members may have additional written questions for you. Uh, and I will remind members that they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record. And I ask that the witnesses do their best to submit responses within ten days of receipt of those questions. Um, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
▶ 5:27:21Without objection, so ordered. Without objection. Subcommittee is adjourned.
▶ 5:30:54>> for. The.
▶ 5:33:05>> as. We know. Yes.