▶ 0:15:34Recognizes himself for an opening statement. Welcome to today's energy subcommittee markup of eight bills to restore consumer choice, reduce energy and housing costs, remove burdensome regulatory structures when selecting appliances or equipment for their home or business. Americans take many factors into consideration cost, reliability, size, and durability, to name a few. It is imperative to consumers that they have a wide range of products. They can choose what works best for their needs.
▶ 0:16:06Under the last administration, nearly 30 energy efficiency standards were issued, totaling over $60 billion in costs for moving products from the market, resulting in fewer options for americans. H.r. 4626, the don't mess with my home appliances act, would amend the energy policy and conservation act to reform the statutory procedures for issuing or amending energy efficiency standards.
▶ 0:16:31This will result in standards that truly meet the statutory requirements of epca, and provide both manufacturers and consumers with certainty, especially as we head into winter. Consumers must have access to durable, affordable, durable, affordable appliances to perform critical functions like home heating while still prioritizing energy efficiency and associated cost savings.
▶ 0:16:55Air tight building envelopes are also important for consumers, especially in the colder months, to keep, to keep warm, and to keep the warmth in the utility bills low. That is why the subcommittee will be considering h.r. 4758, the homeowner energy freedom act, to repeal sections of the inflation reduction act that essentially bribed states to recklessly adopt an amended building codes.
▶ 0:17:19Brian kemp, a witness in september's legislative hearing, said at best, I think we can all agree that american families deserve safe, strong and efficient homes. But we need to have a better pathway forward that gives local control, encourages innovation and keeps homes within reach of americans. The passage of h.r. 4758 is an important step towards accomplishing that shared goal. The subcommittee will also consider h.r.
▶ 0:17:474690, the reliable federal infrastructure act, a repeal of section 433 of the energy independence and security act, which required doe to phase out fossil fuel use in federal buildings across the country. This policy, which was opposed by even the obama administration, not only poses a significant national security risk, but it could in fact increase energy consumption as the direct use of natural gas is about 92% efficient, compared to 33% for electricity.
▶ 0:18:17This is a significant delta energy efficiency. Not not bands are important to prioritize for our federal buildings. I look forward to considering h.r. 3474, the federal mechanical insulation act, which is a bipartisan legislation to require an assessment of whether mechanical insulation should be installed or updated in federal building energy audits. This is a commonplace, a common sense measure that truly prioritizes energy efficiency.
▶ 0:18:45The subcommittee will also consider h.r. 3699, the energy choice act, which prohibits any state or local policy from banning access to an energy service based on the type or source of energy that is sold. States like new york, which banned natural gas use, are forcing consumers to incur significant costs while jeopardizing the reliability during the winter months. This must change.
▶ 0:19:12Duplicative standards and regulations have also impacted housing, appliance and equipment affordability for millions of americans. H.r. 5184, the affordable homes act, will repeal duplicative energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing and h.r. 4593. The shower act will codify a simple definition of showerhead, providing more options for consumers. Lastly, the subcommittee will consider h.r. 1355, the weatherization enhancement and readiness act of 2025.
▶ 0:19:42With the understanding we hope to reach a bipartisan agreement prior to a fall committee. Sorry, a full committee markup. I think the gentleman from new york and the minority professional staff are continuing to work with us toward a compromise. The legislation before us today represents an opportunity for this committee to implement reforms that reprioritize energy efficiency policies towards the items that matter most to consumers affordability, availability and durability.
▶ 0:20:11I urge all my colleagues to support these pieces of legislation, and with that, I yield back and at this time, recognize the gentlelady from florida's 14th district, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, colleagues, if americans were looking for relief from high energy bills and the crushing cost of living, uh, they shouldn't look to the gop controlled congress. Republicans in this committee have not offered one single bill that would lower costs.
▶ 0:20:40In fact, their policies have made it worse. Despite the urgings of advocates all across the political spectrum, republicans ended tax credits, rebates and incentives to lower electricity costs while cheering the trump administration's sabotage of cleaner, cheaper energy.
▶ 0:20:58Now, after shutting down the house of representatives for almost two months to avoid addressing the health care crisis and to dodge a vote to release the epstein files, republicans are offering nothing of substance to tackle the crushing cost of living. Meanwhile, household electricity prices are up 11% this year. 1 in 3 households is cutting back on basic necessities to afford their energy bills.
▶ 0:21:26At least 102 electric and gas utilities have either raised or proposed higher rates that will go into effect next year. The joint economic committee ♪minority, u, just released a, a an analysis that says on average, they project that american households will pay approximately $100 more per household in electric electricity costs this year.
▶ 0:21:51In kentucky, it's $190, in ohio, $160. So what are republicans offering today? Any policies to lower the cost of living? No. They are taking away important tools that help consumers save money, like energy efficient appliances and code upgrades. Republicans argue that energy efficiency increases costs. Of course, that's not true.
▶ 0:22:19The energy policy and conservation act explicitly requires standards to result in significant energy conservation and be technologically feasible and economically justified. This committee actually should be doing more to help our neighbors back home save money through energy efficiency, because studies show that household electric upgrades like rooftop solar and storage, or heat pumps that replace electric resistance heating, uh,
▶ 0:22:51Could meet 100% of the projected energy demand growth from data centers while cutting bills for families and strengthening the grid appliance standards save households more than $500 in energy bills each year, and it's projected that homeowners will save $15,000 for homes built using the updated building codes.
▶ 0:23:13Compared to the old ones, efficiency standards reduce more energy waste than any other federal initiative, and they work in tandem with federal programs like the weatherization assistance program, which helps households save money on their electric bills and make homes more resilient to extreme weather. That's why representative tom cole bill that would reauthorize and update this program is so important, and I encourage the committee to advance it.
▶ 0:23:41There are concrete ways we can reduce the cost of living and inflation right now, especially relating to energy. Congress should address trump's arbitrary and illegal tariffs that are increasing costs on products like steel and aluminum that underpin the energy system.
▶ 0:23:59Republicans could join us in pushing back on the white house bailout of the coal industry, as the trump administration funnels more than $600 million to dying uneconomic plants, as they make it harder to build out a resilient, the resilient grid grid. We need to drive down cost and power growing data, data center command demand. And I'm not kidding about this.
▶ 0:24:24The department of energy canceled a $4.9 billion loan guarantee for the grain belt express, which, if you haven't heard of it, it's a large scale transmission line across the midwest that was designed to deliver low cost power. That's insane, really, isn't it?
▶ 0:24:45And last month, the grid deployment office canceled 25 awards, including $464 million in grid resilience and innovation partnerships, funding for transmission lines. Why take us backwards? Why make life more expensive for our neighbors back home, when we should be working together to lower the cost of living as our neighbors back home struggle with skyrocketing electric bills, this committee should be working together to lower costs and solve problems.
▶ 0:25:13They deserve so much better than what this this committee is offering. I yield back my time. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance for time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of the full committee for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you. Thank you, chairman latta. And thanks to the members of this subcommittee for the important work on this markup.
▶ 0:25:36And over the last several months, this subcommittee has held hearings to examine billing and compliance policies that have driven up prices for consumers, distorting local decision making processes, and discouraging innovation while exacerbating strains on our electric grid.
▶ 0:25:52Today, the energy subcommittee is considering eight pieces of legislation that are imperative to restoring consumer choice, reversing policies that jeopardize our grid and national security, and lowering costs for american families and businesses. It seems that regulation, for its own sake was the philosophy of the last administration. In fact, the biden-harris administration's dewey issued nearly 30 energy efficient regulations for plants and equipment totaling over seven. Excuse me? 60 billion in cost to the economy.
▶ 0:26:24We all support real energy efficiency gains, but as time goes on, the diminishing returns from overregulation are apparent. For example, from 1995 to 2005, the average homeowner replaced their appliances every 12 to 13 years. Now, that timeline has shrunk to every 8 to 9 years. It is clear that doe's appliance and equipment standards program is no longer balanced, and it requires reforms that reflect how technology has changed since its inception.
▶ 0:26:53We must ensure states and localities have the flexibility they need when implementing building codes, rather than distorting local and state decision making, while delivering little to no savings in utility bills. Which is exactly what our programs did and why we worked to repeal as many as possible. The biden administration also taught the hands of federal agencies by finalizing new regulations to enforce a fossil fuel ban on all federal buildings, including military installations.
▶ 0:27:22Some states and localities have taken steps to ban or severely restrict natural gas use. Gas bans simply move the use of gas down the power wire to be used in less efficient manner, thus increasing electric grid demand and raising prices. These policies are dangerous, expensive and unsustainable.
▶ 0:27:42The pieces of legislation before us today will course correct by reforming the epca process, repealing bans on fossil fuels and federal buildings, removing unnecessary strain on our electric grid, repealing inappropriate ira programs, and restoring consumer freedom and affordability. Lastly, this subcommittee will also consider a bill from representative tonko on doe weatherization assistance program.
▶ 0:28:08While we oppose the bill in its current form, we have been discussing ways to improve it with our democratic colleagues. It inclusion today is a reflection of our desire to continue to work and have a product for which we all can reach agreement, and we strongly believe weatherization assistance program is important and we want to make it work. So thank you. And I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:28:35The 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 latta. Americans know all too well that we're in an affordability crisis. Utility bills are skyrocketing across the country, and trump's disastrous tariffs are being passed on to the american consumer. Grocery prices are up.
▶ 0:28:58The cost of buying a home feels out of reach for many, and this is all exacerbated by the fact that millions of americans are facing the reality that their health care premiums are about to surge at an alarming rate because president trump and congressional republicans refused to extend the premium tax credits that make health care more affordable for millions of americans. Now, to put it simply, americans across the country are experiencing sticker shock in nearly every facet of their lives.
▶ 0:29:24But instead of offering solutions to help lower costs for american families, republicans are largely putting forward a slate of bills that will only increase monthly energy bills and worsen the republican affordability crisis. And most of the bills were marking up today. Gut efficiency programs and make buildings use more energy, which will not only hurt americans wallets, but also threaten our ability to compete with china in the artificial intelligence race.
▶ 0:29:50At a time when we're experiencing an increase in electricity demand driven by ai data center expansion, we need to free up more space in our electric grid. So if my republican colleagues are serious about competing with china and lowering costs for americans, energy efficiency measures that reduce energy consumption from households and businesses should be a no brainer. Yet republicans remain wedded to their corporate polluter friends, propping up expensive fossil fuels at the expense of hardworking americans.
▶ 0:30:18Republicans have repeatedly doubled down on this principle. This congress look no further than their big ugly bill, which gutted critical incentives to bring cheap, clean energy to the grid and is expected to raise electricity prices by a staggering 61% over the next decade. Now, this is all more alarming when you consider the fact that electricity prices are already up 11% across the country, climbing twice as fast as inflation. And this jump is even bigger in some parts of the country.
▶ 0:30:46And I know my constituents back in new jersey are feeling the pressure of rising energy costs, thanks to pgm's inability to add new resources to the grid and the devastating project financing cuts from the trump administration. New jersey families are really hurting, and the republican led bills that we're considering today will only cause more pain.
▶ 0:31:04The bills add cumbersome and duplicative requirements to the department of energy rulemaking process, severely hampering doe's ability to issue energy efficiency standards that save americans money. They repeal critical energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing under the so-called affordable homes act, which will saddle residents of manufactured homes with even higher energy bills. And they attack federal building, energy efficiency, waste taxpayer dollars and undermine states rights.
▶ 0:31:34The bills also rip away popular appliance rebates that help with the upfront costs of energy saving products, terminate assistance for building code adoption, and revoke energy efficiency. Workforce training grants. Energy efficiency is an important tool in our toolbox to lower costs for americans and help us meet the growing demand for power. It is nonsensical that this once bipartisan solution is now being attacked with partizan bills that will only raise electricity costs and exacerbate grid reliability issues.
▶ 0:32:03Now, there are two bipartisan bills in this list today that I do support, including congressman tom cole weatherization enhancement and readiness act. This bipartisan bill actually addresses rising costs for families by reauthorizing the weatherization assistance program and increasing the average cost per household so that more families can receive assistance that better matches their needs. And I look forward to continuing the conversation with chairs latta and guthrie on a path to move this bill forward.
▶ 0:32:30So while I'm pleased to see representative tonko bill on today's market, as already stated, several of the other bills raise major concerns. It's abundantly clear that the trump administration and republicans have their priorities out of whack. We just came out of a government shutdown where president trump was more focused on demolishing the historic east wing of the white house for his new ballroom than paying snap benefits to families struggling to afford food.
▶ 0:32:55However, democrats remain laser focused on lowering costs for americans despite trump's empty campaign trail promises. Now, let me just say I go home. We were home for a long time, right? And all people talk about is prices. They don't talk about foreign policy. They don't talk about anything. But the increased costs of groceries, electricity, housing, that is all they focus on.
▶ 0:33:21And I just don't understand why the republicans on this committee and in this congress don't understand that that's the issue that needs to be addressed and to do anything contrary to that, to make prices even worse, is really showing your lack of attention or lack of understanding what's going on out there. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:33:45The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there any further opening statements? The gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. If these bills are republican's answer to the rising cost of living, I'm afraid it's a joke and a cruel one at that. With the exception of Mr.
▶ 0:34:12Tom cole bipartisan bill, most of the bills were considering today are intended to gut federal energy efficiency standards. Household electricity bills have gone up 11% on average since president trump took office. And republicans answer is to make our home appliances less efficient. So we have to pay even more for electricity. How does that make any sense? Today's energy efficiency standards save the average american household almost $600 a year across the country.
▶ 0:34:43That's more than $100 billion annually. In fact, the average energy usage of an american home has actually declined since the 1980s thanks to energy efficiency standards. If republicans succeed in gutting these standards, american families will face even higher utility bills, making an already dire situation worse. According to a recent poll, 80 million americans are struggling to pay their utility bills. That's almost a quarter of the united states.
▶ 0:35:12No one should have to choose between keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. This is a crisis, and it's going to get worse if we don't get serious about it. The american people are tired of broken promises. President trump ran on reducing the cost of living. But instead of working with democrats on serious solutions, republicans are still pursuing the same old culture war nonsense.
▶ 0:35:39Meanwhile, president trump is throwing lavish parties at mar a lago and showing off his new ballroom designed to wealthy people. I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents, because you might be surprised to learn that energy efficiency standards are extremely popular.
▶ 0:35:56According to a consumer survey conducted earlier this year, 82% of republican respondents agreed that home appliances should be required to achieve a minimum level of efficiency, while energy efficiency standards so popular because american families know they're saving money. Plain and simple. Energy efficiency standards aren't just good policy, they're a lifeline to struggling families across the country.
▶ 0:36:22So I urge my republican colleagues to set aside the culture war and work with democrats on serious bipartisan legislation like Mr. tom cole bills. I yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. Are there other further opening statements? The gentleman from new york's 20th district is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Let me start by thanking you and chair guthrie for including h.r.
▶ 0:36:501355, the weatherization enhancement and readiness act, as part of today's markup. I do know we still have work to do, but I am serious about trying to reach an agreement. There's no doubt that energy affordability is a real and growing challenge for many americans, and I believe congress should be examining ways to help lower costs.
▶ 0:37:11While we're going to have disagreements about the causes as well as some of the solutions, I hope we can find common ground on the role of proven programs like that of doe's weatherization assistance program. Energy efficiency can be a powerful tool to improve energy affordability for all americans. Many democrats criticized the president.
▶ 0:37:33The criticized president trump's budget reconciliation bill for repealing key energy tax credits, which I believe was a terrible policy decision for many reasons. But the cost increases to energy bills is certainly near the top of that list. Multiple independent analyzes showed these changes are going to raise average annual household energy bills by some $110 in the near term.
▶ 0:38:02By comparison, households receiving weatherization services on average saved $372 each year on their energy bills. That is a lot of impact, especially for low income families who spend a much higher portion of their income on utilities. Energy efficiency lowers bills. It reduces peak demand at a time when electricity load growth is straining our grid and risking major cost increases to consumers. We need to encourage more efficiency, not less.
▶ 0:38:32So while I'm grateful that the committee is interested in working on the weatherization assistance program, I'm opposed to legislation that would undermine doe's efficiency standards program. If not for today's standards, the average us household would be paying some $576 per year more on utility bills. And there is still room for improvements. Potential standards change standards. Changes in the years ahead could save households another $150 per year.
▶ 0:39:00I do hope we can prioritize legislation that will actually promote cost effective energy efficiency to lower people's utility bills. It's an urgent response required of us. So thank you, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to give an opening statement? Hearing none. The chair calls up h.r.
▶ 0:39:313474 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 3474, a bill to clarify that the installation of mechanical insulation property is. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? >> mister chairman. >> for what purpose does the vice chairman of the subcommittee wish to be recognized? >> recognized to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word on the bill.
▶ 0:40:02>> thank you, Mr. chairman. My legislation, the federal mechanical insulation act, is a bipartisan, targeted bill to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings, lowering the cost to our taxpayers. This very straightforward legislation requires an assessment to determine whether mechanical insulation should be updated or installed during a comprehensive energy and water evaluation of those same federal buildings.
▶ 0:40:31To be clear, this bill is not a mandate, nor does it impact privately owned buildings. When it comes to increasing energy efficiency and lowering costs to taxpayers, assessing the benefits of upgrading or installing mechanical insulation in federal buildings is low hanging fruit. Why is the bill necessary, you may ask yourself.
▶ 0:40:58The federal government is actually the largest consumer of energy in these united states, with a significant portion of this consumption coming from over 300,000 federally owned buildings. By adding this consideration, I know because I was in the air conditioning business for 35 years. By adding this consideration, the federal buildings stand to significantly improve their energy efficiency.
▶ 0:41:25Simply put, Mr. chairman, in a time when each and every electron and dollar matter, now more than ever before, this bill ensures, folks, your federal government is operating more efficiently than ever. The federal mechanical insulation act prioritizes true energy efficiency, and I hope and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr.
▶ 0:41:54Chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to give remarks on the bill? Hearing none. Are there any amendments on the bill? Seeing none. The question now occurs on adopting h.r. 3474. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed. No.
▶ 0:42:27Nay. Ayes have it. The bill is adopted. And forward to committee. Chair. Calls of h.r. 3699. And ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 3699, a bill to prohibit states or local governments from prohibiting or limiting the connection. Reconnection. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek recognized to seek to be recognized on the bill.
▶ 0:42:58>> Mr. chairman? >> for what purpose does the gentleman from new york? I'd like the 23rd district seek recognition? >> I'd like to speak on h.r. 3699. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I move to strike. The last word is this committee considers the energy choice act. It's critical that we ground this discussion in reality, in what is actually happening across the country and how these energy bans are affecting families, businesses and entire regional grids. The debate today isn't theoretical.
▶ 0:43:26States and localities are already restricting and banning energy sources. And the consequences are real. They're measurable and their harmful. We don't have to guess what happens when local governments start banning entire fuel types. We've already seen it.
▶ 0:43:41In brookline, massachusetts, officials attempted to ban natural gas, heating oil and propane in new buildings in that effort was struck down by their state's attorney general not once, but twice, because it would have raised housing costs, reduce reliability and conflicted with statewide energy laws. Brookline's bans created uncertainty for builders and homeowners and highlighted exactly why piecemeal, local prohibitions on energy sources cannot form the backbone of national energy policy.
▶ 0:44:09But brookline isn't alone. In california, multiple cities have restricted natural gas infrastructure. In some communities have attempted to limit diesel backup generators. The very systems hospitals and telecom networks rely on during wildfire related blackouts in in colorado. Denver's building rules effectively phase out gas equipment in large buildings.
▶ 0:44:31Again and again, we've seen that bans, whether on fossil fuels or renewables, create cost spikes, undermine reliability and leave downstream communities holding the bill. These bans also worsen the housing affordability crisis, according to the national association of home builders. Forcing all electric construction adds at least $15,000 to the cost of a new home. Nearly 75% of american households cannot afford a median priced new home in energy bans push that number even higher.
▶ 0:44:59Older buildings and cities simply cannot convert to all electric without expensive rewiring, panel upgrades and retrofits, all of which fall directly on the backs of renters and homeowners in the energy bill. Impacts are stark. In winter, a typical natural gas household pays roughly $602 for heat. The same house forced onto electricity alone pays 1037, a 42% increase.
▶ 0:45:26In colder climates, electric heating can cost 2 to 3 times more. Over the last decade, affordable american natural gas has saved consumers $125 billion. Energy bans would erase those savings overnight in winter. Storm elliot in my region in western new york in the southern tier showed exactly why energy bans are dangerous.
▶ 0:45:48More than 60 people lost their lives in western new york, many in their own homes, freezing to death because the grid failed and they had nowhere else to turn. Families who had natural gas, propane, wood, heating oil or generators they survived because they had options. Winter storm elliot proved that in the harshest way possible. Energy diversity saves lives in new york. If they had banned those fuels, the death toll wouldn't have been dozens.
▶ 0:46:17It would have been hundreds, if not thousands. Simply put, the energy choice act restores common sense. It protects affordability, reliability and consumer choice. It stops destructive bans, and it preserves the diverse energy mix americans rely on every single day. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And before I yield back, I'd like to submit letters of support for the record for the energy choice act from several of the 35 organizations that support the energy choice act.
▶ 0:46:46>> without objection, so ordered. >> and with that, I yield back. >> Mr. chair. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? The gentlelady from new york's 14th district is recognized. I'm sorry. Seeks recognition. >> thank you. I'd like to move to strike. The last word. >> the gentlelady is recognized. Strike the last word for five minutes. >> thank you. And I'd like to comment, um, on my fellow new yorkers. Bill, h.r. 3699, the energy choice act.
▶ 0:47:11Now, uh, hearing, uh, the gentleman's argument here around, um, energy source bans, I think it's important for us to take a look at the actual text here, because this bill states, quote, a state or local government may not adopt, implement or enforce a law regulation that not only prohibits, but it also bans limitations and regulations on this.
▶ 0:47:39Uh, regarding connection, reconnection, modification to an energy service based on a type or source of energy that is sold. Now, this, I think, creates some complicated problems here. Um, because when we seek to prohibit limitations, we're talking about limiting states rights to enforce safety codes, order emergency shutoffs were necessary and protect residents from gas leaks, explosions and pollution.
▶ 0:48:08In fact, the law could prevent state utility commissions from conducting oversight on utility rates. We have had and seen in places like during the texas, uh, blackout, when you had dramatic, uh, natural disaster events where utility companies will skyrocket and you need a state intervention to protect consumers, to prevent price gouging in these situations.
▶ 0:48:36I have a question for council here. Um, the language here does appear to prohibit a state utility commission from requiring an electric utility to offer a curtailment service. Um, would, for example, given that the bill does this, would it potentially cut off service, uh, prevent service that can be cut off if there's not enough power to, for example, a data center? Can you. >> repeat the question?
▶ 0:49:04>> so given that the bill prohibits a state from limiting the connection of energy based on its type or source, would this also prohibit a state utility commission from requiring an electric utility to offer a curtail service, for example, a service that that can be cut off if there's not enough power, for example, to a data center? >> that would be a a policy question. >> a policy question. Now let me try another way, council.
▶ 0:49:29If a state law mandated certain safety standards or equipment on a natural gas distribution line, would that be allowed under this law? Does it does it indirectly limit the distribution of an energy service? >> that would also be a policy question. >> so this is up to interpretation. This opens the door to a lot of problematic stripping of state and local power to conduct oversight on problematic sources of utility.
▶ 0:49:58In fact, I interpret this bill's text to mean that state regulators will not be able to assert necessary oversight that protects americans from surging energy prices or to mandate even basic safety standards in areas of potential danger. Depending on gas source. That means a state or local government cannot step in and protect people from a greedy utility company. Trying to make a quick buck in the crisis.
▶ 0:50:23And I think it's important to assert that this bill would deny state and local governments the right to manage or prevent dangerous gas related events as well. And so I vehemently oppose this bill and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider some of the unintended consequences in prohibiting any limitations and stripping state utility, local and municipal utility power in being able to
▶ 0:50:55Regulate bad actors on the state and local level. With that, I yield back. >> thank you very much. Gentleman. Yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Speak on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I want to speak today in strong support of the energy choice act, of which I am a proud sponsor. And I also want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from new york for championing this important legislation.
▶ 0:51:23Some of the same disastrous energy policies that we're seeing in places like new york and california, as mentioned, are already taking root in my home state of colorado. Beginning in 2022, politicians and cities like boulder and denver started mandating electrification and phasing out natural gas and common use appliances that utilize natural gas in new construction.
▶ 0:51:48Earlier this year, the colorado public utilities commission also approved mandatory beneficial electrification for a gas only utility in colorado, the first such policy in the entire country. So let me be clear coloradans do not support these heavy handed government mandates that restrict energy access, restrict energy choice, and raise utility bills. As a matter of fact, it's not even close. This is literally an 8020 issue.
▶ 0:52:17According to a 2024 poll, a staggering 78% of coloradans support voluntary options over mandatory electrification policies. For the thousands of working class families in my district, this just this isn't just an issue of preference. This is an issue of affordability.
▶ 0:52:39When the marshall fire destroyed hundreds of homes in boulder county a few years back, residents who chose to rebuild their burned homes quickly found out that they faced additional costs up to $75,000 per home to rebuild due to local policies that restricted energy choice and building codes that prioritized arbitrary and at times outright unattainable climate goals over affordability.
▶ 0:53:06Coloradans who buy newly constructed homes in municipalities with natural gas bans find themselves paying more than $1,100 per year because of the costs associated with mandatory electrification. Natural gas is forecasted to be 30 to 50% more affordable over the next 25 years, and my constituents have the right to choose the energy mix that works best for their families and their their pocketbooks.
▶ 0:53:37Affordability and cost of living remain one of the top concerns I hear from the residents in my district. They deserve better than having out of touch politicians at the state and the municipal level in colorado, raising their utility bills while they're trying to put food on the table. And we know the impact that these policies have on the broader economy. A recent report found that the denver metro area had the highest rate of inflation of any major metro area in the country, just a few short months ago.
▶ 0:54:07Policies that restrict energy choice are a contributing factor to the cost of living crisis that is plaguing my constituents and areas like the denver metro area that impose this heavy handed regulation. That's why I'm looking forward to supporting this bill throughout the legislative process and restoring sanity to america's energy policies.
▶ 0:54:30I urge the members of this subcommittee to join me in advancing affordability for working families, advancing the energy choice act, and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized? The gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition. >> move to strike. The last word. Chair. >> gentleman is recognized. Strike the last word and have five minutes. Thank you.
▶ 0:55:01>> the gentleman from colorado used the term heavy handed government mandate. And as the representative of the good people of brookline, massachusetts, I can assure you that they view this bill as a heavy handed government mandate. Uh, my 60,000 constituents in brookline, massachusetts, are capable, competent people who have a town meeting who, in consultation with the state government and beacon hill, are perfectly capable of governing themselves on these local issues.
▶ 0:55:29And it is disappointing to see the republican party, which used to stand for localism, and the fine grained differences between places in this big country, now revert to command and control from washington, D.C. this summer we saw the republican party wrap medicaid, a state administrative program with federal red tape.
▶ 0:55:50We've seen the republican party on this committee try to impose a ten year moratorium on any state regulating any form of ai at a time when americans talk about 80, 20 issues have been very clear that they want to see robust guardrails put in place. And now we're trying to prevent states and cities, as my colleague from from new york, Mr.
▶ 0:56:17Ocasio-cortez, put out, from cracking down on bad actions by utility companies or by transitioning to sources of energy that are going to be more sustainable and more cost effective. Uh, washington right now, we should be focusing on national energy issues, whether it's permitting reform, whether it's r&d, whether it's demand signals for new types of energy. We got a lot of work to do here.
▶ 0:56:43Uh, brookline, massachusetts, uh, decision making on natural gas is not one of them. And I would encourage the republican party, uh, to to cease this infatuation with command and control from the nation's capital, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members seeking recognition? The gentlelady from florida, the ranking member is seeks recognition. >> to strike. >> the last word. Strike the last word.
▶ 0:57:12Uh, she is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, colleagues, republicans on the committee have portrayed this bill as an effort to promote community energy choice and as a way to push back on the so-called gas bans. But the bill goes much farther than that. Um, uh, congresswoman ocasio-cortez, congressman, uh, auchincloss have pointed out some of the the flaws in the bill.
▶ 0:57:39If you actually read the language, it is a sweeping power grab that overrides state and local laws, could impede safety standards, and it makes it harder for utilities to do the work of grid planning. It's full of vague language that would upend decades of established practice meant to protect the public.
▶ 0:58:03Uh, I would say it's a recipe for chaos and higher costs at a time when when folks simply don't need any more chaos and higher costs in their lives. I have a sincere concern as well, that the bill will make our communities less safe. Uh, my neighbors in florida know how quickly our local utilities must respond to emergencies. Many of you all do.
▶ 0:58:24Um, in many communities that face floods or wildfires or grid failures, utilities will order emergency cut shutoffs. But this bill could block cities and counties from doing that. Another example municipalities often have protections to deny high risk hydrogen or propane installations near homes and schools or hospitals, but this bill would block those protections.
▶ 0:58:52Uh, the bill could also prevent local governments from enforcing local building, fire and electrical safety codes. It could interfere with approving or siting of new gas stations, and it could make it harder to regulate neighborhood gas lines to prevent leaks and explosions. Builders and inspectors and utilities all depend on stable federal regulation to provide clear rules. But if this bill moves forward, this bill removes a lot of those rules.
▶ 0:59:22And and local officials will not have the guidance that they need to approve permits or to conduct inspections. States will still have to enforce other federal laws, like the natural gas pipeline safety act and the clean air act, but this bill conflicts with provisions in those laws. All of this creates more confusion, and as a result, projects will be stalled and costs will go up for homeowners and businesses.
▶ 0:59:51Uh, state and local leaders. They know how to keep their community safe. Uh, we should trust them to do that, not tie their hands and take choices away. Away from them as this bill does. Uh, yeah. I think it is true that republicans used to defend local control, uh, public safety and fair, responsible energy governance. Um, so reach back to your roots.
▶ 1:00:18Don't support a bill that goes against those, those important principles. Um, and in the end, the american people want cleaner, cheaper, safer energy. But this bill, like so many others at the hearing today, it fails to to get us there. Um, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this overbroad bill, and I yield the balance of my time to miss ocasio-cortez. >> thank you. Thank you so much, miss castor.
▶ 1:00:45And I want to highlight one particular example in the dangers that in the dangers that you've raised in your remarks, which is this bubbling issue around data centers. Um, there are so many communities around the country that are starting to become very alarmed at what is happening with the development of data centers in their local communities.
▶ 1:01:09And one of the reasons why electricity bills are surging in many places is because of the electrical load that that these data centers are having on local grids. And one way that we can have this balance and strike a balance here is if a state or a local government wants to exercise their right to say, hey, if you're going to put in all this extra load on a grid, then you should chip in and helping improve that grid so that working class people don't have
▶ 1:01:39To pay for all of the extra supply that they are sucking up. Um, in driving up prices, this bill could totally prevent a state or local government from implementing reasonable regulations on data centers and the energy that they consume to prevent prices from getting up on working class americans across the country. And so I just wanted to to raise this awareness and put a finer point, uh, to to support the ranking member's argument.
▶ 1:02:08Thank you, thank you. Okay. >> the gentlelady yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman. >> uh, I wanted to be heard and yield my time to the gentleman from new york. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. None of these things would be prohibited under the energy choice act.
▶ 1:02:31This is about stopping regulators from wholesale prohibitions on the type of energy not governing whether a data center can get energy from the grid during a weather event. I mean, we're muddling here our our hate for natural gas in data centers from the the intent in the actual execution of this bill. There's nothing sustainable or cost effective on these prohibitions based on source of energy that my colleagues on the other side of the dais are talking about.
▶ 1:03:00It's actually driving costs up. I mean, our, my my colleague from new york, I mean, we have electricity generation crisis in new york. Uh, we have a full wholesale, uh, electrification mandate that's been thrust on us by the state government. Where is the electricity going to come from if we stop burning natural gas? I mean, these are these are things that, uh, are lost on people that just have decided to declare war on natural gas.
▶ 1:03:31And this claim that the bill somehow infringes on state rights. But but the argument ignores how energy actually works. In the united states of america, energy markets are not confined within state borders. Natural gas pipelines. They cross multiple states. Electricity flows across multi-state regional grids, fuels like propane, diesel, hydrogen and renewable fuels move through interstate commerce every single day. And when one state bans an energy source, the impacts don't stop at the state line.
▶ 1:03:59They ripple across an entire region, raising costs, straining reliability, and disrupting the energy mix. For families and businesses who never agreed to these policies in the first place. And we saw this in the midwest when illinois passed its climate and equitable jobs act, which accelerated fossil plant closures and directly affected the miso grid that serves 15 states, driving regional reliability warnings.
▶ 1:04:24One state's decision changed the energy equation for millions of people across state lines. That's exactly why the commerce clause in the dormant commerce clause exists. States cannot erect barriers that interfere with national energy markets. The energy choice act respects every state's right to regulate siting, building codes, environmental permitting, safety and local land use, but it prevents states from imposing total bans that discriminate against lawful fuels in interstate commerce.
▶ 1:04:52This bill protects constitutional balance and ensures that no state can destabilize an entire region's energy system. And I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> I yield the balance of my time to the chair. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Are there others? For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition from new jersey? >> move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Strike the last word. >> thank you. Chairman.
▶ 1:05:15I join my colleagues in just continuing to point out what this committee and what house republicans have done this entire congress, which is undermine one of their core pillars of their party, which is state rights. And you cannot avoid the fact at the beginning of the text in section two says, a state or local government may not. So you are dictating to states what they can do. And my colleague from massachusetts is correct.
▶ 1:05:37When you talk about the ai moratorium, it's a continuous pattern of undermining states and municipalities from doing that which they see best. It was also said that we are that states are restricting energy choice. Yet you were all silent when the trump administration issued a stop work order on revolution wind, which was 80% complete off the coast of rhode island. Where was your demand for energy choice then? You guys were all silent. I'm so tired of you lecturing us, my colleague from colorado said.
▶ 1:06:07Out of touch politicians in colorado. You think you're all in touch with the american people because they sent you a clear message this month that you are out of touch, which I know is why you don't have town halls. There's an affordability crisis. And your solution? This committee cut $1 trillion from health care, the largest cut to snap in the program's history. When the government shut down the republican shutdown, when the speaker refused to bring us back here to do the people's work.
▶ 1:06:33You were all silent when the administration said, we are not going to feed needy families. You were all silent. So don't talk to us about the affordability crisis, and please don't talk to us about out of state, local and state politicians. They were duly elected. They are closer to the people than you all are in this current iteration of the house gop, and it's a shame that you think you can lecture anyone on what we're doing for the american people. If you want to stand up for the american people, use your voices.
▶ 1:07:01When this administration puts tariffs on things from coffee to beef, making life more expensive. Use your voice then. But if you want to talk about affordability, be consistent because you are failing to do so. And with that I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none. Are there any amendments? >> Mr. chairman, I have. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 1:07:30>> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to h.r. 3699 offered by Mr. langworthy. Strike section two. Be and make such conforming changes as necessary. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Striking the definition of energy from section two be strengthens this bill and makes its intent even clearer. The energy choice act applies to any lawful energy source sold in interstate commerce, not just an illustrious list.
▶ 1:08:02Leaving in a narrow or incomplete definition risks creating confusion, loopholes or unintended exclusions as new fuels, new technologies, and new energy carriers emerge. By removing this subsection, we avoid the problem of future proofing a list and insist instead rely on the clean, objective, constitutional standard already embedded in the bill. If the energy is sold in interstate commerce, a state or locality cannot ban it.
▶ 1:08:28This amendment makes the bill cleaner, stronger, and clearer and constitutionally sound. It ensures that the energy choice act covers every energy source fairly and consistently, exactly as congress intends. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to speak on the amendment? Seeing none. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. On a voice vote has been requested.
▶ 1:08:59All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? Nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Chair now calls up the bill. Is there a voice vote? Pardon me. The question now occurs on adopting h.r. 3699, as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. The ayes have it.
▶ 1:09:27The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. >> a copy. Thank you. >> the chair calls up h.r. 5184 and asks the clerk to report. >> h.r. 5084, a bill to prohibit the secretary of energy from enforcing energy efficiency standards applicable to manufactured housing.
▶ 1:09:54>> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes in support of the bill, led by the gentlelady from indiana's ninth district.
▶ 1:10:06Under current law, both doe and h and hud have overlapping authority to set energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, including doe in this authority creates redundant, unnecessary standards that confuse the regulatory process, making it more difficult to construct and ultimately purchase affordable homes. H.r.
▶ 1:10:29584 would remove doe's authority to issue energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, while maintaining hud's full regulatory authority. This legislation ensures strong energy standards will align with federal construction requirements, which have been regulated by hud for almost 50 years. Hud's rigorous standards ensure that the health and safety of the occupants is the top priority. I urge all my colleagues to support h.r.
▶ 1:10:585184 to reduce regulatory burden on manufacturers and help restore the american dream of home ownership to american families. And I yield back the balance of my time. Is there any other members seeking recognition on the bill? Are there any amendments on the bill? The gentleman. For what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 1:11:27Amendment number 518401. >> the clerk will report. >> amendment to hr 5184 offered by Mr. clause in section two in the heading strike appeal. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thanks, chair.
▶ 1:11:49Housing is the largest single expense for american households, and I think that decreasing the cost of homeownership should be the single most important domestic policy issue we tackle on the economy. As a country, we need to build about 5 million new units of housing over this next decade in order to meaningfully lower prices for the middle class, and we're lagging behind as a country and across different states and different zoning and land use codes.
▶ 1:12:16So I support the intent of the affordable homes act, because manufactured and modular housing promises to be a critical way to increase housing supply at scale. And that's not academic. We've seen it work in other countries, and we've seen it work here in the united states, in certain states. But we do have to remove regulatory barriers to building manufactured housing at scale. The amendment that I have at the desk is intended to strengthen this bill.
▶ 1:12:45The amendment retains the department of energy's input on energy efficiency standards in an advisory capacity. So that means that the department of energy experts at the national labs, they'll be able to provide input and research into creating the energy efficiency standards. But ultimately, and I think this is important, it would be hud. It would be the housing and urban development secretary and staff who would have the final say on adopting the recommendations from doe.
▶ 1:13:12And this ensures that overall housing affordability, which again, I think needs to be our north star for housing policy, takes precedent over any individual component of affordability. It is the hud secretary, the hud staff, that is best positioned to think about and to incorporate feedback from other experts and entities in putting forward regulations that make manufactured housing work at scale. Um.
▶ 1:13:36Boosting manufactured and modular housing production is an important opportunity for us to build our way out of the current housing crisis, and this is a common sense set of reforms that will help unleash housing production. It's not going to solve the housing crisis, but it does move us forward. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Uh, and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Uh, the chair recognizes himself for five minutes in opposition to the amendment.
▶ 1:14:05The amendment is unnecessary and undermines the intent of the legislation. The affordable homes act, introduced by the gentlelady from indiana's ninth district, seeks to reduce the regulatory burden for manufactured homes by removing doe from the process and allowing hud to lead on regulations for manufactured homes.
▶ 1:14:25The current regulatory statutory structure for manufactured homes is to duplicative and confusing, which unnecessarily raises costs for families and pushes homeownership out of the reach for low income families. This amendment seeks to put the department of energy back into the regulatory space, which runs counter to the intent of the underlying legislation. If had wants to complete a study as this amendment seeks to accomplish, they can do so.
▶ 1:14:53I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 1:15:26In retrospect, we're going to support the amendment. We will report the amendment, the the ranking. The ranking member from new jersey is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Manufactured homes are an important source of affordable housing in the us. But residents of these homes face high energy bills and health hazards due to historically weak building standards.
▶ 1:15:48Thankfully, in may of 2022, the department of energy finalized a court mandated and long awaited energy conservation standard for manufactured homes that is projected to save residents $5 billion in costs, even when upfront costs are included. Unfortunately, h.r. 5184 attempts to prevent american families that live in manufactured housing from benefiting from energy efficiency standards by repealing the may 2022 rule.
▶ 1:16:15The bill also removes doe's authority to set efficiency standards for manufactured housing, and shifts the responsibility to the us department of housing and urban development, an agency that does not specialize in energy efficiency standards. Prior to the passage of the bipartisan energy independence and security act of 2007, hud was responsible for setting energy conservation standards for manufactured homes.
▶ 1:16:38However, hud failed to meaningfully update the standard since 1994, leaving manufactured housing residents saddled with high energy bills. In other words, these residents have gone over 30 years without an updated standard until the department of energy issued its final rule in 2022. Energy costs for manufactured homes are about 70% more per square foot compared to site built homes, and nearly 40% of manufactured housing. Residents face a high energy burden.
▶ 1:17:06Given the recent concerning trends on energy costs, it's even more important than ever that we maintain doe standard. We're seeing electricity costs shoot up across the country and absent protective standards, manufactured housing residents will pay the price. Additionally, department of energy is the appropriate entity to set energy efficiency standards because they have the necessary expertise that hud lacks yet. H.r.
▶ 1:17:285184 seeds, energy and commerce jurisdiction and moves this authority to an agency that failed to protect manufactured housing residents from high energy bills and health hazards for over a decade. I, for one, cannot support giving up this great committee's jurisdiction at the expense of the american people's wallets and safety, and I'm shocked that committee republicans are content to cede jurisdiction here.
▶ 1:17:51I understand the supporters of this bill are concerned with increasing access to affordable housing, but this bill will only make living in a manufactured home more expensive. Housing affordability is about more than just the purchase price of a home. We also need to consider how much it costs when people are actually living in these homes, and energy use is a big part of that. So to that end, doe worked with hud to set the energy conservation standard for manufactured housing and considered affordability when issuing the final rule.
▶ 1:18:19In fact, doe adopted a tiered approach in the final rule to accommodate the more price sensitive low income purchasers. And as I stated before, the immense benefits of this final rule far outweigh any potential increases in upfront costs. So ultimately, these these standards reduce the doe standards, reduce monthly household energy bills, and have other added benefits that can help reduce asthma risk and mold and help residents remain safe in their homes during extreme weather. Now, I.
▶ 1:18:47I appreciate that my colleague, representative klaus, has offered an amendment to attempt to improve this bill, but unfortunately, I don't believe the amendment addresses the fatal flaws in the underlying bill. It would allow doe to make efficiency recommendations to to hud for these homes, but hud could and probably will ignore those recommendations. Hud completely shirked its responsibility to meaningfully update the standards and provide cost savings to manufactured housing residents. So why should we entrust them to do it now?
▶ 1:19:17And the amendment leaves in place a section of the bill that nullifies doe's recent manufactured housing rule, jeopardizing billions in energy savings for manufactured housing residents. So I strongly oppose the bill. Families that live in manufactured housing deserve to have efficient and safe homes. We should be raising their standard of living, not lowering it. And with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you very much. Are there any further members seeking recognition? The gentleman from california is recognition. For what purpose?
▶ 1:19:48>> Mr. chairman, I move to strike the. >> last word on the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I just want to take a brief moment to speak in support of Mr. auchincloss amendment. The underlying bill would remove the department of energy's authority to establish energy conservation standards for manufacturing, housing and transfers the sole authority to the department of housing and urban development. Mr.
▶ 1:20:10Auchincloss amendment would make it so that doe would be brought back into the conversation and would be able to provide recommendations on energy conservation standards to hud. The amendment would ensure that hud could utilize its expertise in energy standards, while working with hud to prioritize affordability and accessibility of manufacturing homes. Manufactured homes, which are a critical piece of the puzzle when we attempt to solve our nation's housing shortage.
▶ 1:20:34I'm a strong supporter of modernizing energy standards, which save homeowners money on the back end through efficiency gains and reducing spending on heating, cooling and water. And I want to strike the right balance between long term affordability and immediate barriers to home ownership, with the biggest barrier right now being costs. So I think this amendment will help find that balance. I support the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:21:00Is there any further discussion on the amendment, seeing that there is no further discussion? The vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I, I. I those opposed, nay, nay. >> those. >> well, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Are there any other amendments on the bill?
▶ 1:21:27Seeing none the question now occurs on adopting h.r. 5184, as amended. As amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye aye. Those opposed? No. >> no. >> the ayes have it. The bill is adopted for to the full committee. >> can I get back? >> the chair calls up h.r.
▶ 1:21:544690 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 4690, a bill to amend the energy conservation and production act to repeal certain federal building energy efficiency. Without objection. >> the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition for new york's 23rd district?
▶ 1:22:24>> Mr. chairman, I want to speak on the bill. H.r. 4690. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> uh, I want to thank you for including the reliable federal infrastructure act in today's markup, Mr. chairman, uh, this legislation addresses a critical flaw in federal energy policy, one that has real world consequences for reliability, national security, and cost effective infrastructure planning.
▶ 1:22:48As it stands today, the federal building standards and certification systems actively discourage or penalize the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels, even when those systems are proven to be cleaner, more resilient, and more affordable in certain applications. Section 433 of the energy independence and security act effectively phases out fossil fuels, uh, in their use in federal buildings, forcing a one size fits all electrification mandate regardless of regional climate, mission critical facility needs or impacts on the grid.
▶ 1:23:18These policies don't just drive up construction and operational costs, they undermine energy security for facilities that must never go dark. Think about federal installations like va hospitals, military bases, research labs, dhs facilities, emergency response centers.
▶ 1:23:36These buildings require assured energy reliability not just during normal operations but during extreme weather, cyber threats or grid failures, localized backup generation and hybrid energy systems are essential to resilience. And yet, under current policy, these assets are treated as liabilities simply because they rely on natural gas or other fuels.
▶ 1:23:57It's telling that even former president obama called for the repeal of section 433, citing technical infeasibility, major cost burdens and operational risks to national defense installations. Our amendment makes technical corrections to ensure section 433 and its implementing regulations are fully repealed, while still preserving high performance energy standards and certification systems.
▶ 1:24:20It restores energy neutrality, meaning buildings will be judged on their actual efficiency and performance, not on whether they use one energy source or another. This is pro resilience, pro choice, pro performance position. And when you allow energy sources to compete based on costs, reliability and emissions, not ideology, you get better outcomes for taxpayers, for facility operators and for the grid. This is a common sense, bipartisan fix.
▶ 1:24:50I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying h.r. 4690. And with that, I yield back. >> the. Just to make clear, the gentleman just offered his if the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 4690 offered by Mr.
▶ 1:25:17Langworthy, strike all after the enacting clause, and insert the following section. >> is dispensed with. And, um, are there any other other members wishing to speak on the amendment? The anes, the gentleman from new york, is recognized for five minutes in. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I move to strike the last word.
▶ 1:25:45>> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. Earlier this year, we saw story after story in the news about elon musk and the department of government efficiency hunting for waste throughout the government. Well, they should not have had to look hard to see the wastefulness of our federal buildings and how much money it takes to power them. This would strike key provisions from section 433 of the energy independence and security act of 2007, which requires a reduction in fossil fuels in federal buildings.
▶ 1:26:14Section 433 requires new and renovated federal buildings to make incremental progress toward phasing out their use of fossil fuels. And while the department of energy had been slow to implement the requirement, we're in a much better place today to achieve these goals. Compared to the efforts of 2007. In the nearly two decades since this section's enactment, there have been major technological advancements in the design and the operations of buildings.
▶ 1:26:44There are cost effective, well performing alternatives for space heating, for water heating, and for many appliances. Just look at heat pumps, their availability and performance, including in cold climates, has improved considerably since 2007, and the federal government can be helpful in supporting the continued growth and deployment of american made heat pumps by taking the initiative and installing them in our buildings, leading by example in promoting energy efficiency and technology adoption.
▶ 1:27:13The federal government is the largest property owner, as well as the largest energy consumer in our united states. We should be conscientious of that and seek to be good stewards of taxpayers dollars who are footing those energy bills.
▶ 1:27:30Since our section 433 encourages construction and operation of federal buildings in a manner that reduces energy use, which reduces the federal government's energy bills, it also contributes to reducing demand across our entire energy system, freeing up electrons and natural gas that may be used to power a new factory or heat someone's home. Instead, this bill wants to lock us into the past, regardless of how much technological innovation occurs.
▶ 1:27:58Relitigating 20 year old policy fights just so the federal government can continue to consume wasteful amounts of fossil fuels simply isn't good for taxpayers, and it does nothing to address the pressing energy affordability issues that our constituents are facing. So with that, I encourage members to oppose this bill. Mr. chair, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there other members seeking recognition?
▶ 1:28:26Are there any members seeking recognition to speak on the aims? The question now occurs on adopting the aims to h.r. 4690. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? Nay. The ayes have it. Names is adopted. >> so.
▶ 1:28:58>> is there any further discussion on the bill hearing? None a. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes I, Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes I Mr. allen. Mr.
▶ 1:29:27Allen votes I Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes I Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes I. Mrs. harshbarger. Mrs. harshbarger votes I. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. miller-meeks, votes I Mr. james. Mr. bentz. Mr. frye. Mr.
▶ 1:30:02Frye. Mr. frye votes I miss lee miss lee votes I Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes I Mr. woolley. Mr. evans Mr. evans votes I Mr. goldman Mr. goldman votes I Mrs. fedorchuk. Mrs. fedorchuk votes I Mr. guthrie. Mr.
▶ 1:30:32Guthrie votes I miss castor miss castor votes no Mr. peters. Mr. menendez Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen Mr. mullen votes no. Miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Mr. get. Mr. votes no. Miss. Matsui.
▶ 1:31:05>> no. >> miss matsui, votes no. Mr. tonko. No. Mr. tonko votes no. Mr. veasey. Mr. veasey votes no. Miss schreyer, kim schrier votes no. Miss fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. auchincloss, Mr. auchincloss votes no. Mr. pallone. No. Mr.
▶ 1:31:37Pallone votes no. Mr. latta. >> I are there any members? >> votes no. Or. Excuse me recognized votes I. I yes, sir. >> Mr. >> how's anyone from michigan recorded? >> Mr. james is not recorded Mr. james votes I. >> the gentleman from california recorded. >> Mr. peters is not recorded. Mr. peters votes no.
▶ 1:32:06>> are there any other members wishing to be recognized on this roll hearing? None. The clerk will report. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote. There were 16 eyes and 14 noes. >> the ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair calls up h.r.
▶ 1:32:344593 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 4593, a bill to amend the energy policy and conservation act, to revise the the definition of showerhead. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? But for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? Wish to speak on the bill? Mr.
▶ 1:33:02Chairman, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Under the last administration, we saw federal agencies stretch appliance regulations far beyond what congress intended, even going so far as to repeatedly redefine what a showerhead is. When bureaucrats change the meaning for everyday products, us consumers and manufacturers often end up paying the price. That's why I introduced the shower act, which is the saving homeowners from overregulation with exceptional rinsing.
▶ 1:33:32Act as a mouthful, right? Uh. Don't worry. Unlike some of the previous administration's regulations, this bill will not leave anybody high and dry. Um. Got dad jokes today, y'all. Uh, the bill is simple. It codifies, uh, the industry standard definition of a showerhead, the same one that is used by engineers, plumbers and manufacturers. Uh. That's it. This legislation stops the regulatory ping pong, uh, that occurs whenever political control changes hands.
▶ 1:34:01It gives families confidence that washington will not suddenly decide that products in their home need to be redesigned again, and it gives manufacturers certainty so that they can focus on innovation, not guessing what the next administration will reinterpret. The bottom line is this the shower act restores common sense, it protects consumer choice, and it reins in overreach, federal overreach without costing the taxpayers a dime. It's very simple. I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward bill.
▶ 1:34:31Thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there a discussion? The gentlelady from florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee. For what purpose do. >> you strike the last word? >> the gentlelady is recognized. Strike the last word. Five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, colleagues, many, many folks have, um, suggested to me, uh, that this bill, the shower act, is nothing more than a vanity project by house republicans.
▶ 1:34:59Uh, to in the service of president trump's personal fixation on bathroom and shower fixtures. Um. But the it's so much more insidious than this, isn't it? The priorities, the the time spent on certain things.
▶ 1:35:22Um, here we are in the middle of an affordability squeeze that our neighbors at home are really feeling. Uh, we've watched as house republicans have ripped health care away.
▶ 1:35:35They refuse to address the health care crisis, where millions of americans now are facing astronomical increases to their health care bills because you you won't come to the table to negotiate a resolution, didn't speak up when food aid was illegally withheld during your shutdown of the house for almost two months.
▶ 1:35:56Um, a lot of people think you shut down the house for that long because you you wanted to, again, provide fealty to a president who didn't want the epstein files exposed. And in the meantime, as all of this was going on, there was an election. And what was the president asked about the after the election is the affordability issue. And he said, I don't want to talk about affordability, but what did he want to do? He devoted his energy to giving the white house a makeover.
▶ 1:36:22He tore down the entire east wing to make way for a 90,000 square foot, $300 million ballroom, funded by corporations that have a lot to gain there in his favor. Um, he's covered the oval office and seemingly every service he can find with bargain bargain bin gold gilding and his latest project, renovating the lincoln bathroom, comes complete with golden shower heads, gatsby parties, dancing girls.
▶ 1:36:52Doesn't want to talk about affordability, though. It tells you all of this tells you exactly what president trump and republicans care about. Even if we pretend that house republicans really care about shower water pressure, there are solutions that don't require wasting this committee's time. It's not due to overregulation.
▶ 1:37:17It's probably because of your home plumbing or because of limescale build up on the shower head, rather than anything to do with the flow rate. You can run down to home depot or lowe's and or clean it out. Um, at the beginning, towards the beginning of his term, uh, this was such a priority for the president.
▶ 1:37:39He issued an executive order to end the obama biden war on water pressure and make america's showers great again. That would be funny if we weren't asked as public servants to actually solve problems, real problems, people's health care. Do they have the nutrition to kids and older neighbors? Have the nutrition they need. Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills, and they face enormous health care cost hikes.
▶ 1:38:09No one's asking this committee to spend our time on this legislation. We don't need to redefine what constitutes a shower head. The only thing this bill does is create more regulatory uncertainty could lead to rollbacks, which goes against the principles of the energy policy and conservation act and would likely only only benefit foreign manufacturers who want to import their inferior products to the us.
▶ 1:38:30Uh, let's not forget that implementing the changes proposed in this bill requires the public servants at the department of energy, but the administration fired, uh, more and illegally laid off over 3000 public servants at the department of energy. Uh, so I'm not sure who's going to be enforcing this anyway.
▶ 1:38:51So once again, I wish the republicans on this committee and the president would be willing to talk about affordability, to engage on real, substantive issues that help our neighbors back home rather than pushing these harmful, pointless messaging bills. So I urge you all to oppose this bill. Thank you, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill?
▶ 1:39:16For what purpose does the gentlelady from colorado seek recognition? >> speak on the bill. >> gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. To strike the last word. >> I just want to associate myself with every single thing that my colleague from florida just said. And it may seem amusing that some staff member must have spent hours trying to figure out how to make this bill have the name shower act.
▶ 1:39:45It might seem amusing that president trump, um, is so concerned about the strength of his showers at the white house that the my colleagues in in congress feel the need to legislate on this. But in truth, rome is burning, and I'm not going to repeat myself to everything that congresswoman castor just said. All of which is true.
▶ 1:40:08But I want to point out as the as the what we learned in the last couple of months, because the premium tax supports are expiring for millions of people who are on the exchanges at the end of december. Um, and, and approximately 5 million people are going to lose their health insurance coverage because of this, in addition to the 10 million people who are going to lose their medicaid benefits under the h.r.
▶ 1:40:37One, which was passed earlier this year, the big I call it the big bad bill for a total of 15 million americans, at a minimum, who are going to lose their health insurance. And after being gone for, um, seven weeks because speaker johnson didn't want to bring the house back into session, even though the senate was in session.
▶ 1:41:00And even after the shutdown, the health subcommittee has no markups, it has no hearings. It has no nothing scheduled between now and the end of the year. And yet we're talking in a very cute and humorous way about showerheads. It's no wonder that congress has one of the lowest ratings by by constituents in this country in history.
▶ 1:41:28And I might suggest to my colleagues across the aisle that they might want to get serious about the real affordability issues in health care, in in utility costs and energy costs, in food, in everything else, and work in a bipartisan way to make this a reality. Otherwise, it's it's just performative. And I I'm offended by that. I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Are there any further members?
▶ 1:41:59The gentlelady? For what purposes? Gentlelady from washington seek recognition? >> uh, I'd like to speak on the bill, Mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. To strike the last word on the bill. >> I am just mind boggled by this whole conversation today. Like why, at a time when people are having trouble paying their bills, whether that's a water bill or an energy bill? We are talking you are talking about undermining efficiency standards.
▶ 1:42:28It is one of the simplest ways to decrease energy costs for people in this country who are struggling to pay their bills. Uh, people in california, where they have drought, uh, are happy to all pitch in and make sure that they conserve water so that they have enough to grow crops and enough to, uh, to make sure everybody gets their fair share. I'll remind you that water is also not just water. A utility that we pay for.
▶ 1:42:57It takes energy to treat water before we drink it, and also energy to treat wastewater. And nobody in california is walking around, to quote, uh, the sponsor of this bill, high and dry. Um, or, uh, unclean because their shower is more efficient.
▶ 1:43:15And so, um, I just want to say that if a state is suffering from drought and a water shortage, they ought to be able to insist that everybody do their part and have more efficient, uh, showerheads. I just I find this, uh, unbelievable that we're having this conversation at a time when people are having trouble paying their bills. Thank you, I yield back. >> are there other members seeking recognition?
▶ 1:43:42What purpose does the gentleman from texas 33rd district seek recognition? >> uh. >> thank you, Mr. >> chair. >> to speak on the bill. >> and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. His last word. >> uh. Thank you. Um, I want to echo what doctor scheyer just talked about. Um, I would really like to have, like, real discussions and, um, and to find out more about how we can be more efficient when it comes to protecting our natural resources.
▶ 1:44:10As someone that loves this time of the year to be outdoors, uh, to be hunting, I know in the pacific northwest, people love to do things like, uh, enjoy the outdoors, to do things like fishing. I think that having a debate over how we're going to protect our natural resources is something that should definitely be more serious. Um, and I know that a lot of these issues that we talk about on this committee are quite divisive, whether it's what sort of vehicles people are going to drive or the gas stove issue that we had.
▶ 1:44:42But the question that I always ask is, is america going to lead in these areas if if they're going to be efficient? Uh, water heads that people in other countries in china and india and parts of europe, so they can conserve their natural resources, is america going to be the country that is going to lead in the innovation when it comes to showerheads?
▶ 1:45:07Is america going to lead when it comes to innovation and the next, uh, wave of automobiles that people use as america going to lead when it comes to efficiencies in the way that stoves perform? Or are we going to continue to sort of have these, you know, kind of silly jokes that we do back and forth with each other? Uh, over, you know, what's what's cooking on the stove or whatever, whatever. It was that when we were talking about before. And, you know, I think that all of these things deserve serious debate.
▶ 1:45:38I mean, I'm I'm sure that there are two sides to each story. Uh, but we really do need to have a real spirited debate in front of the american public so we can really go through these things. And I think in a more serious matter, because, um, you know, the president trump and the way that he jokes around about the showerheads is not really serious scholarship on whether or not we're going to protect our natural resources.
▶ 1:46:03So especially if we're going to live in a country that's going to continue to experience growth, uh, we need to figure out a way how we're going to mitigate for all of these things, uh, so we can continue to, you know, have water we shouldn't take. We shouldn't take it for granted that we're always going to have water. We've had issues in texas and parts of rural texas where where there have been subdivisions that have been built and they've had trouble.
▶ 1:46:27People have had trouble even filling up their swimming pools, and they've had to do moratoriums on people putting waters and new pools on new builds of houses. Those are serious issues. So let's talk about that. Let's not joke around about, uh, about this. Uh, again, I'm sure there are two sides to this story, but I think that we should have some a little bit more serious debate about it. Thank you, Mr. chair. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members seeking recognition on the bill?
▶ 1:46:53Are there any amendments on the bill? Seeing none. The question now occurs on adopting h.r. 4593. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? No. A roll call vote has been requested, and the clerk will take the roll. >> Mr. weber. Mr. palmer, Mr.
▶ 1:47:23Palmer votes I. Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes I. Mr. balderson. Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes I Mrs. harshbarger. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. miller-meeks votes I Mr. james. Mr. bense.
▶ 1:47:53Mr. bense votes I Mr. frye. Mr. frye votes I miss lee I miss lee votes I Mr. langworthy Mr. langworthy votes I Mr. woolley. Mr. >> evans I. >> Mr. evans votes I Mr. goldman Mr. goldman votes I Mrs. fedorchuk. Mrs.
▶ 1:48:21Fedorchuk votes I Mr. guthrie. Mr. guthrie votes I miss castor. >> no. >> miss castor votes no. Mr. peters Mr. peters votes no. Mr. menendez Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen, Mr. mullen votes no. Miss mcclellan. Mr.
▶ 1:48:50Mcclellan votes no. Mr. jet. Mr. get votes no. Miss. Matsui. >> no. >> miss. Matsui, votes no. Mr. tonko. >> no. >> Mr. tonko votes no. Mr. veasey, Mr. veasey votes no. Miss schreyer. Kim schrier votes no. Miss fletcher, miss fletcher votes no.
▶ 1:49:19Miss ocasio-cortez, miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. auchincloss, Mr. auchincloss votes no. Mr. pallone. >> yes. >> Mr. pallone votes no. Mr. latta. I Mr. latta votes I. >> are there members wishing to record their vote. >> Mr. weber is not recorded. Mr. weber votes I.
▶ 1:49:50>> Mr. james is not recorded. Recorded. >> Mr. james votes I. >> the gentlelady from tennessee. >> Mrs. harshbarger is not recorded. Mrs. harshbarger votes I. >> gentleman from ohio. >> Mr. balderson is not recorded. Mr. balderson votes I. >> are there any other members wishing to record their. Vote hearing none. The clerk will report.
▶ 1:50:20>> Mr. chairman, on that vote. There were 17 eyes and 14 noes. >> thank you very much. The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forward to the full committee. The chair calls up h.r. 4758 and asks the clerk to report. >> h.r. 4758, a bill to repeal provisions of public law. 117 dash 169 relating to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification and for other purposes, be it enacted by the senate.
▶ 1:50:50>> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
▶ 1:51:21>> Mr. chairman, I seek to be recognized to speak on the bill. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. For many americans, the price of a home is simply too high. Recent reporting finds that the average first time home buyer is now 40 years old. I'm proud to say with the passage of this bill, it will bring energy prices down for all americans and their rush to impose unpopular green new deal policies.
▶ 1:51:47The biden administration spent billions in taxpayer dollars to mandate, I repeat, to mandate green energy appliances in new homes. Some home builders estimate that these policies have increased the cost of new homes by $31,000. These policies push home ownership and the american dream out of reach for many families.
▶ 1:52:11My bill, the homeowner energy freedom act, would help address home affordability by repealing several costly and burdensome programs in the so-called inflation reduction act. This common sense bill will help lower the cost of homeownership for americans. Building on this committee's work to rescind unobligated ira funds, I urge my colleagues to support h.r.
▶ 1:52:394758 and repeal these reckless programs, and I yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized on the bill? Are there any amendments on the bill? What purpose does the gentlelady from colorado seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk amd for 578 underlined co2. >> the the clerk will report.
▶ 1:53:10>> amendment to h.r. 4758 offered by miss degette ad at the following and at the end the following. >> objection reading the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Uh, Mr. chairman, this this amendment, um, seems to be pretty sensible.
▶ 1:53:30What it says is that the bill is conditioned on the secretary of energy certifying that its implementation would not raise costs for homeowners and renters. Um, frankly, our constituents are suffering from the energy affordability crisis that was brought on by the trump administration.
▶ 1:53:51And they showed up at the polls earlier this month and said, uh, my constituents and all of our constituents, they want to stop paying so much for their bills, health care, grocery, and relevant to today's markup, energy bills, while our constituents are resoundingly asking for lower utility bills, this bill would actually increase them.
▶ 1:54:14Um, and here's why this bill would rescind rebates and assistance for the adoption and implementation of energy codes that will make buildings more efficient and save thousands of dollars in energy costs. The republican majority already took a hatchet to the inflation reduction act, which saved the average american household thousands of dollars with the big bad bill.
▶ 1:54:40But then they took another strike at the ira to hollow out the remainder of the most impactful affordability signed bill signed into law in recent years. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim their problem with the adoption of electric appliances and other efficiency practices is due to the upfront cost.
▶ 1:55:01But this bill would repeal the very rebates that seek to make these practices affordable, in some cases amounting to almost as much as $14,000 in rebates to purchase electric appliances, weatherize buildings and reduce energy in in efficiencies.
▶ 1:55:21In other words, what's happening is we're trying to incentivize people to buy appliances that, over the life of the appliances, will save money for the people and have the additional benefit of, of, uh, improving our environment.
▶ 1:55:43The bill also repeals and rescinds critical funding for states and localities to adopt and implement the latest energy building codes, which will promote affordable, efficient and sustainable housing, all while lowering costs for families and businesses. If all new homes in the united states were built to the current model, codes that states would save residents $6 billion after added costs just in the first year alone.
▶ 1:56:10Currently, 80 million americans are reporting struggling to pay their utility bills. 1 in 3 households already sacrifice critical purchases to pay energy bills. Rising energy prices have led 87% of voters to say they're concerned about the affordability of utility bills. I can't think of the last time 87% of people agreed on anything, except for maybe that we should release the epstein files.
▶ 1:56:39And so, to remind my colleagues across the aisle, when you provide rebates, that gives consumers the option to elect electrify and to save money over the life of the appliance. Furthermore, states and localities can choose to adopt energy building codes. They're not mandated by doe, so why not support consumer states and localities that are trying to lower costs for the hard working american families?
▶ 1:57:07Um, I just want to say repealing these incentives will cause the most harm to low and moderate income households, meaning this would further worsen energy insecurity for the one quarter of low income households who spend more than 15% of their income on energy bills.
▶ 1:57:25To conceptualize, conceptual contextualize this for those who just had two months of paid leave on the american taxpayer's dime, the common rule of thumb is to spend 5 to 10% max on your utility bill. We need to work harder to bring costs down for americans, rather than to waste money to make our buildings less efficient and to keep dirty fuel sources in our homes. Which is why I'm offering this amendment.
▶ 1:57:54I don't support the bill for the myriad reasons I've already addressed, but at least if the secretary had to certify that people's costs were not going to go up because of this bill, that would give some some certainty to my constituents that they're going to suffer no harm. And so I hope you'll adopt my amendment. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
▶ 1:58:21Are there other members seeking to speak on the amendment? The gentleman from texas is 12th district is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is another tactic to delay implementation of the homeowner energy freedom act until the secretary of energy certifies it won't increase costs for homeowners and renters.
▶ 1:58:43I oppose this amendment because a homeowner energy freedom act is focused on improving housing affordability by reducing forced and expensive green energy mandates on new homes. These green new energy building codes on homes will add well over $20,000 to the cost of new homes in certain regions. These green energy provisions effectively force builders and developers to install electric appliances rather than natural gas alternatives.
▶ 1:59:10This not only will decrease the affordability of homes, but also deprives americans of the ability to decide how to cook their food and heat their homes. These actions will push homeownership out of reach of thousands of families, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance of time. Are there other members seeking recognition? For what purpose? Gentleman from new jersey seek recognition. >> move to strike. The last word.
▶ 1:59:41>> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Speak. The last is to strike the last word. >> I want to support this amendment. It's a common sense approach to ensuring that we are actually driving down the cost for homeowners and renters. Um, because with this, with the majority on this committee does is look backwards towards the biden administration and find faults with what they perceive as misguided policy. Yet when this administration is imposing tariffs that directly impact home building in the united states, they're silent.
▶ 2:00:10There's no pushback against this administration and their tariff use. In fact, I want to read a quote from the national association of home builders chairman buddy hughes, who says, quote, these new tariffs will create additional headwinds for an already challenged housing market by further raising construction and renovation costs.
▶ 2:00:33There's estimates from the low double digits to high double digits in terms of what these tariffs are doing. So shouldn't that be an issue that you all speak out against? Right. You're looking at about energy efficiency, energy policy I understand why that's what we're talking about on this committee.
▶ 2:00:50But beyond this committee I've heard nothing about speaking out against tariffs, which are making it almost impossible to build new housing, which is my colleague from massachusetts said we desperately need to do so if you want to build more homes, if you want to make homeownership more affordable, speak out against this administration, speak out against all the harm that they're doing. But while you remain silent, you're not really in a position to lecture us about what we need to do on energy policy. And with that, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
▶ 2:01:19Are there other members wishing to speak on the amendment? Hearing no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment from the gentlelady from colorado. All those in favor signify by saying I. Those opposed. Nay, nay. A recorded vote has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. weber. Mr. palmer, Mr. palmer votes no. Mr. allen. Mr.
▶ 2:01:54Balderson. Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger. Mrs. harshbarger, votes. Mrs. harshbarger, votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks, Mrs. miller-meeks votes no. Mr. james, Mr. bense. Mr.
▶ 2:02:19Bense votes no. Mr. fry. Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Miss lee votes no. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. woolley. Mr. evans no. Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs.
▶ 2:02:50Fedorchuk. Mrs. fedorchuk votes no. Mr. guthrie, Mr. guthrie votes no. Miss kaster, miss kaster votes I Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes I. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I. Mr. mcclellan.
▶ 2:03:18Miss mcclellan votes I Mr. get Mr. get votes I miss matsui. I miss matsui votes I Mr. >> tom cole I Mr. >> tonko votes I Mr. veasey Mr. veasey votes I. Miss schreyer Mr.
▶ 2:03:41Votes I miss fletcher miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. jake auchincloss. Mr. auchincloss votes I. Mr. pallone. I Mr. pallone votes I Mr. >> latta. No. >> Mr. latta votes no. >> are there other members wishing to. >> Mr. allen is not recorded.
▶ 2:04:11>> uh the uh the vice chairman from texas recorded. >> Mr. weber is not recorded. Mr. weber votes. No. >> the gentleman from ohio's 12th district recorded. >> Mr. balderson is not recorded. Mr. balderson votes no. >> how's the gentleman from michigan recorded? >> Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes no.
▶ 2:04:40>> are there any other members wishing to record their vote? The clerk will report the result of the roll. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 14 I's and 16 noes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? For what purpose does the gentlelady from virginia seek recognition? >> Mr.
▶ 2:05:08Chair, I have an amendment at the desk labeled amd underscore h.r. 4578, underscore scr one. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to h.r. 4758 offered by miss mcclellan. Add at the end the following new section. >> without objection, reading the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:05:37This amendment would protect the growing energy efficiency sector of our economy by requiring the energy secretary to certify that the provisions of this bill will not negatively impact job growth in the energy efficiency sector before it can go into effect. H.r. 4758 directly targets rebates for low and middle income homeowners to replace outdated, inefficient appliances with newer energy efficiency models.
▶ 2:06:01Energy efficient models that reduce monthly bills, and we cannot meet growing energy demand just on the supply side. We have to also address it on the demand side by lowering energy use through the fastest, cheapest, most efficient way of doing it, which is through energy efficiency programs. But this bill targets a grant program that invests in energy efficiency and electrification. Workforce training to have the workforce to do that.
▶ 2:06:31And if that's not enough, the bill targets assistance for states to adopt the latest energy building codes that will improve the quality of housing stock and protect consumers from growing energy costs. At a time when our constituents are making tough financial decisions, we have to not recklessly undermine a growing and integral part of our economy. The energy efficiency sector supports approximately 2.3 million jobs and has been steadily, steadily growing thanks to the inflation reduction act.
▶ 2:07:01This represents a field that employs almost twice as many people as the fossil fuel industry. These jobs involve everything from installing more efficient kitchen appliances and better insulation, to improving hvac systems, and more to help homeowners save money. And they are all over the country. Energy efficiency jobs are represented in 99.9% of us counties.
▶ 2:07:26Not to mention that a majority of these energy efficiency firms are small businesses. So not only do energy efficiency measures help reduce demand for our grid, lower costs for homeowners, promote resilience and boost energy security, they are important drivers of local job growth. Therefore, repealing these vital inflation reduction act programs would dampen growth in a critical, thriving economic sector.
▶ 2:07:52We should also be extremely wary of legislation that will undermine homeowners from pursuing much needed home grades, home upgrades that provide long term energy and cost savings. And with that, I ask that you adopt this amendment and I yield back. >> thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of her time. Are there other members wishing to speak on the amendment? The gentleman from the gentleman from texas, 12th district seek recognition. >> Mr.
▶ 2:08:21Chairman, I seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. The amendment is a tactic to delay the implementation of the homeowner energy freedom act until the secretary of energy certifies it won't affect jobs in the energy efficiency industry. I oppose this amendment because the homeowner energy freedom act is focused on improving housing affordability by reducing unnecessary and costly green energy mandates on new homes.
▶ 2:08:48The truth is, job growth and creation should result from consumer choices in the free market, not government mandates that subsidize preferred industries. By mandating these programs, the biden administration's policies put a thumb on the scale and drove up home prices. The homeowner homeowner energy freedom act is about preserving home affordability, consumer choice, and allowing the free market to operate in the best interest of americans.
▶ 2:09:15I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of time. Are there any other members wishing to speak on the amendment? Seeing none. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment and a roll call vote has been requested, so the clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. weber. Mr. palmer. Mr.
▶ 2:09:46Allen. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mr. james. Mr. bense. Mr. bense votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:10:16Frey, Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Mr. langworthy. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mrs. fedorchuk votes no. Mr. guthrie, Mr. guthrie votes no.
▶ 2:10:45Miss kaster. >> yes. >> miss. Casper votes I, Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes I. Mr. mullin Mr. mullin votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I Mr.
▶ 2:11:11Get miss degette votes I miss matsui miss matsui votes I Mr. tonko Mr. tonko votes I Mr. veasey Mr. veasey votes I miss schreyer miss schreyer votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. claus.
▶ 2:11:45Mr. auchincloss, votes I Mr. pallone I. Mr. pallone votes I Mr. latta no. >> are there other members wishing to record their vote? How's the gentleman from texas? The vice chairman of the subcommittee reported. >> Mr. weber is not recorded. Mr. weber votes no. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> Mr. allen votes no. >> gentleman from michigan. >> Mr. james is not recorded.
▶ 2:12:16Mr. james votes no. >> the gentleman from new york's 23rd district. >> Mr. langworthy, is not recorded. Mr. langworthy votes no. >> the gentlelady from florida, 15th. >> miss lee is not recorded. >> no. >> miss lee votes no. >> jones from alabama. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes no. >> and the gentlelady from iowa's first district. >> Mrs. miller-meeks, is not recorded. Mrs. miller-meeks votes no.
▶ 2:12:54>> do we have any other members wishing to record their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will report. Please. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote. There were 14 eyes. 16 noes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Question now occurs on adopting h.r. 4758. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No, no.
▶ 2:13:23A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will take the roll. >> Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes I, Mr. palmer. Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes I Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes I Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs.
▶ 2:13:54Harshbarger votes I Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. miller-meeks, votes I. Mr. james. Mr. james votes I Mr. bentz. Mr. benson, votes I. Mr. frye. Mr. frye votes I miss lee miss lee votes I Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes I Mr. woolley.
▶ 2:14:25Mr. evans Mr. evans votes I Mr. goldman Mr. goldman votes I Mrs. fedorchuk. Mrs. fedorchuk votes I Mr. guthrie. Mr. guthrie votes I miss castor miss castor votes I Mr. peters. Mrs. castor is off I and on. No.
▶ 2:14:56>> yeah she did. >> Mr. peters. >> yeah. >> Mr. peters votes no. Mr. menendez Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen Mr. mullen votes no. Miss mcclellan. Mr. mcclellan votes no. Mr. get. Mr. get votes no. Miss. Matsui. >> no. >> miss. Matsui, votes no. Mr. tom cole. >> no. >> Mr. tom cole votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:15:28Veasey. Mr. veasey votes no. Miss schreyer, miss schreyer votes no. Miss fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez, miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. auchincloss, Mr. atkins votes no. Mr. pallone, Mr. pallone votes no. Mr. latta, Mr. latta votes I.
▶ 2:15:59>> are there members wishing to record their votes. How is the gentleman from alabama recorded? >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes. >> I are there other members seeking to cast their vote? The clerk will report. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote. There were 16 eyes and 14 noes. >> thank you. The ayes have it.
▶ 2:16:29The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. >> Mr. chair. >> before I call up h.r. 4626, for what purpose does the gentleman from new york's 20th district seek recognition? >> chair. A point of personal privilege. >> uh, the gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. >> thank you. It's my pleasure to introduce a colleague in government who was here witnessing the proceedings of the energy subcommittee.
▶ 2:16:51Uh, he's a former mayor of cohoes, new york, within my 20th congressional district terrain and now serves for many terms, has been serving in the new york state assembly. Uh, assemblyman john mcdonald, uh, the only pharmacist, I believe, in the entire, uh, body in this new york state assembly. And I think buddy carter from our committee would welcome that, uh, news also. So thank you, sir. >> well, thank you very much. Welcome.
▶ 2:17:20The chair calls up h.r. 4626 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 4626, a bill to amend the energy policy and conservation act to prohibit the secretary. >> without objection. The first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek recognition on the bill? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk title and h.r.
▶ 2:17:484626, uh, underscore zero one. >> uh, the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 4626 offered by Mr. allen of georgia. >> strike action. >> the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you.
▶ 2:18:08Chair latta, 1975 congress enacted the energy policy and conservation act to increase energy production, reduce demand, and encourage more efficient, efficient use of energy. As part part of this effort to epca authorized doe's appliance and equipment standards program to set minimum energy efficiency standards for product categories. Uh doe.
▶ 2:18:32Doe must follow specific statute statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products and covered equipment. Over the last several years, uh, under the biden administration, doe has gone beyond its scope of statutory authority, setting arbitrary and capricious standards as found by the us court of appeals for the fifth circuit, and finalizing rules that do not meet the specific statutory criteria.
▶ 2:19:00In fact, egregious appliance standards have caused homeowners to spend 34% more on appliances than they did 15 years ago, while having to replace them at a faster rate. Uh, when I'm home in the district, people want to know why replacing their air conditioning system cost $10,000 more today than it did four years ago.
▶ 2:19:25Furthermore, the previous administration proposed standards that discourage the use of natural gas in favor of the electrification of appliances. Regardless of the cost to the consumer. The american people want choice, and these decisions need to be market driven and not government driven.
▶ 2:19:46My legislation, the don't mess with my home appliances act, will make much needed statutory reforms to energy efficiency standards for appliances by eliminating doe's requirements to review and update energy conservation standards every six years. Establish a new process to allow standards to be revoked or revised, and amending the statutory criteria for determining whether an energy conservation standard is actually economically justified.
▶ 2:20:15Additionally, this amendment in the nature of a substitute aligns all compliance dates to be five years. Following a final rule requires test procedures to be issued at least 100 and 180 days before rulemaking action. Maintains provisions of current law related to doj reviews. Clarifies doe's authority to amend water efficiency standards for closed uh washers and dishwashers, as well as other changes that overall improve the underlying legislation.
▶ 2:20:44These are commonsense changes that will ensure certainty for manufacturers and consumers alike. I urge support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute in the underlying, uh, uh, legislation.
▶ 2:20:58And for I'm going to submit for the record, uh, these are, uh, residential electricity rates by state, and I want to submit those for the record, uh, because, uh, you know, you know, I hear these these, uh, comments about, uh, this is, you know, this is going to cost consumers money.
▶ 2:21:25But, you know, in georgia, our rates are are below the national average. And states, uh, such as, uh, california or connecticut is double the kilowatt hour rate. So, um, and this, uh, this these, uh, uh, these recommendations, uh, affect every state.
▶ 2:21:49And so, uh, what, you know, it it again, it needs to be market driven and the consumer needs to make the choices. And, uh, and I believe the manufacturers are innovating every day, and the stuff needs to work. So, uh, with that, uh, I urge support of the underlying, uh, legislation, and I yield back. And I submit this for the record, sir. >> thank you very much.
▶ 2:22:19Without objection. So ordered. Uh, are there is there are there any other members seeking recognition on the. The, uh, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, members, this is another republican bill that is going to raise electricity prices for our neighbors back home.
▶ 2:22:48Um, uh, and let's talk about it through my amendment labeled sc 462607. >> the clerk will report. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 4626 offered by miss caster. At the. >> end. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. >> yeah. >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
▶ 2:23:19>> when you try to undermine energy efficiency standards, you're you're saying to to consumers, we want you to pay more. That's what republicans are doing here. They're creating new roadblocks to update energy efficiency standards and keep old energy wasting technologies on the market. Uh, but let's talk energy efficiency. 101 uh, and the gentleman from georgia got into this a little bit years ago. Congress passed a law to lower costs for consumers through energy efficiency standards.
▶ 2:23:49They said, okay, manufacturers, we want you to produce more uh, efficient appliances. Um, but here's the kicker. Requires that the standards be technologically feasible and economically justified. And over time, appliances have improved with technology. Good old fashioned american ingenuity.
▶ 2:24:11Um, as a result, consumers have saved money in america right now with these standards, people have a choice on the kind of appliance they want. They can get a one that is less efficient. They can get one that's more efficient. You can choose what fits your household budget. What this bill would do would be take away that choice.
▶ 2:24:37The bill ignores the basic economies of prohibits these standards, no matter the savings for consumers. In cases where maybe there's an additional upfront cost is paid back over three years, most appliances are kept for well over three years.
▶ 2:24:55This bill also eliminates the primary accountability tool, ensuring doe regulators update standards because there is a required eight year review cycle that was established in a bipartisan law in 2007.
▶ 2:25:09The testimony before the committee and all the evidence demonstrates that this bill, uh, will result in costs being shifted to households in the form of higher energy bills at a time when nearly 80 million americans are struggling to pay their bills.
▶ 2:25:27This republican bill is a gift to those who profit from higher electricity usage at the expense of consumers and customers who want to save money. It's wrong. Democrats oppose shifting higher costs onto american families.
▶ 2:25:46Look, product technology is improving and many types, meaning that future standards could achieve major savings between 2030 and 2050, us households could save an average of nearly $150 annually on their utility bills. Businesses could collectively save over $13 billion annually. Uh members these standards are popular.
▶ 2:26:13That's why surveys show that 87% of americans support them. In fact, a majority of americans want improved energy efficiency standards. So my amendment is a simple one. It would ask the department of energy to conduct a report on the effects of revoking efficiency standards on costs, monetary benefits and, uh, climate pollution. This amendment does not affect the implementation of anything in the bill. It just asks doe to study it.
▶ 2:26:41So I see no reason why anyone would have trouble supporting this. This would improve this flawed bill. But I don't know that it would get it all the way home. It's really time for for republicans and congress to get serious with us, our folks, our our friends and neighbors back home are really, really suffering through this affordability squeeze. It's groceries. Gosh, it's health care. It's electricity bills.
▶ 2:27:07I was with my neighbors a couple of weeks ago, and they were burning their electric bills because it's just soaring. They know that summers are longer and hotter. They have to use their air conditioners more often. Um, the the storms also exact a toll because utilities have to have to add on additional charges.
▶ 2:27:33The least we could do is to preserve these important cost saving measures for neighbors that help them purchase more efficient appliances. That's the least we can do. Rather than continuing to side with electric utilities and polluters who benefit by keeping people using as much power as possible. We can do this together.
▶ 2:27:58I wish you all would join us in helping to to help solve these problems and help our help our neighbors back home. Lower cost. So I urge colleagues to adopt this amendment. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Uh, are there any other members wishing to speak on the amendment? But for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia, 12th district, seeking recognition? >> I may strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Strike the last word.
▶ 2:28:26>> uh, well, um, you know, I hate. I hate to bring up history, but, uh, you know, if you were born after 1982, you never saw inflation in this country. Think about that.
▶ 2:28:43And all of a sudden, in 2021 to 20 to present, or just a few months ago, uh, you're looking at 20% inflation. What that does to input cost for farmers, for appliances, for electric utilities and everybody else.
▶ 2:29:12And y'all are screaming affordability. I mean, you know, it's on it's on the internet. Just google electric inflation over the last 20 years since 1982. And we're going to get this under control, I can assure you that. And, uh, but I can tell you this too, is, uh, you know, this amendment is duplicative and unnecessary.
▶ 2:29:40The underlying bill already requires the department of energy doe to consider the impacts of efficiency standards. On page three of the underlying bill, there is a provision which requires the secretary of energy to examine several criteria before amending or revoking an efficiency standard. The criteria on page three includes the cost to consumers, the level of energy savings, the technological feasibility, and the commercial availability of products.
▶ 2:30:07Furthermore, page seven of the underlying bill requires an economic analysis that specifically examines the cost to low income households, households, and the impact on employment. For these reasons, this amendment is duplicative and unnecessary, plus the fact how can you evaluate the cost when every state is different in their charges for electricity?
▶ 2:30:32I mean, certainly in new york, at $0.30 a kilowatt hour, it's going to cost more to run those electric appliances than it is in georgia. And under $0.15 a kilowatt hour.
▶ 2:30:45And regarding republican policies versus democratic policies, if you look at the states and you look at the utility rates, the democratic led states are almost double the republican led states as far as state governments. So, you know, you might want to work with us and we will show you how to develop affordable energy. And yes, we will get inflation down, because here's the deal.
▶ 2:31:14The only way to reduce cost is competition. And when you have an administration that is attempting to put energy companies and regulate them out of business, your cost is going to go up.
▶ 2:31:34But when you allow competition between gas, electricity, uh, uh, all of the energy, all of the above energy and everybody compete on a level playing field, you will see costs go down. And that's why we're trying to bring all manufacturing back here so that we have you know, the problem is when you have when when demand outstrips supply, you're going to have inflation.
▶ 2:32:04And that's exactly what happened because of regulatory issues, just like I'm talking about right here. And with that I. >> will the gentleman yield? >> uh, no, I okay I yield to the chair. >> the gentleman yields back. Or is there further discussion? Gentlelady from colorado. For what purpose do you rise? Recognition. >> move to strike. The last word. >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Right. >> thank you.
▶ 2:32:33Well, since the gentleman wouldn't yield, I'll take my time with the gentleman. Did I hear the gentleman correctly? That. Did you say inflation was 20% in the last few months? >> yeah. >> you could turn your mic on so we can all hear you. >> at the beginning of the biden administration. >> uh. >> to the end of the biden administration. Cumulative 20% inflation. >> 20% inflation. >> yeah. Just you can google it.
▶ 2:33:02>> you said, look, I did google it. As a matter of fact, when you said that the annual inflation rate for 2024 was 2.9%, um, and, and this year, of course, it's gone up to over 3%. Um, and, and I guess are you adding the inflation for each year. >> it is cumulative. >> yes. Cumulative.
▶ 2:33:23But the inflation rate was never 20% the last time according to google, which you asked me to look at, the last time inflation was over 20% was in the civil war. So I would just it was well, that's what google says. You told me to look at it. Yeah. Okay. And and and in 2025 um, I believe it's like 3.7%.
▶ 2:33:48So it's actually gone up since the last year that president biden was in the white house. So thank you for clarifying for that. And I now yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Uh, for purposes, gentleman from new jersey seek recognition. >> move to strike. The last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.
▶ 2:34:11>> well, I just want to respond to some of the comments made by the gentleman from georgia regarding competition and specifically with respect to energy, because you guys never want to acknowledge that that the trump administration has put its thumb on the scale of energy production. Revolution wind. I'll say it again and again off the coast of rhode island was 80% done, and the trump administration issued a stop work order. So that is inhibiting competition that you spoke to earlier.
▶ 2:34:38Further, again, I would say you said, I believe the only way to reduce cost is through competition. Well, wouldn't you be able to reduce the cost of pasta if you didn't have a 92% tariff on it? It's doubling the price. So there are a multitude of ways to drive down cost. One is competition. Absolutely. But have fair competition on energy.
▶ 2:35:02The other way to reduce costs is to not have this insane tariff policy that the president has put on all of us, making life more expensive every single day. I think you know that is wrong. We should be discussing tariff policy here in congress, but you refuse to raise your voice. So there is a multitude of ways we can take on the affordability crisis. Democrats are willing to do it, but we need you to speak out when this administration is hurting all of our constituents. And with that, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:35:33Are there any is there further discussion? For what purpose? Gentlelady I'm sorry, from virginia. Seek recognition. >> um, move to strike. The last word. >> the gentlelady, uh, moves to strike the last word as recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I also want to address the comment from the gentleman from georgia that if you address competition, um, competition will solve inflation.
▶ 2:36:00Uh, look, I'm not I don't have a phd in economics, but I spent 25 years working for a utility company and learned a little bit about econ 101. And the biggest driver to inflation is when supply and demand are out of whack.
▶ 2:36:18And for the life of me, I don't understand why this committee refuses to acknowledge that as we have explosive energy demands and, and and some of that is driven by ai and some of that is driven by the electrification of of things and everything going on the internet.
▶ 2:36:45But it is also driven by the fact that you've got to address demand and supply to get energy costs down. And when you kneecap significant sources of cheap, cheapest, quickest, cleanest energy going on the grid and you got energy efficiency programs that at least stabilize, if not reduce
▶ 2:37:18Demand, competition in and of itself isn't going to do a thing to address inflation. And and I think we need to get back to understanding that if we are ever going to meet the exploding energy demands of this country, which are only going to increase because of changes in technology.
▶ 2:37:37We have to address it both on the supply side and the demand side by increasing supply, not just one type, but the cheapest, cleanest, most efficient clean energy sources. And we have got to help address demand.
▶ 2:38:01And what I don't understand, this committee and the trump administration and republicans spent months, months giving people who make making sure people who make over $500,000 a year can have permanent tax cuts on everything from we're going to have the estate tax.
▶ 2:38:31We're going to give you up to $15 million for an estate and gift tax exempt exemption. But we're going to nickel and dime families that make 44,000 to 94, $95,000 a year and say, we're not going to give you up to $2,000 to replace your heat pump.
▶ 2:38:48We're not going to give you up to $1,200 to replace inefficient windows that are responsible for you for 25 to 30% of your residential heating and cooling costs, the priorities are screwed up.
▶ 2:39:03When you say we're going to focus more time, attention and money on the top 10% while we ignore the needs of the bottom 10%, and it just it doesn't make sense to me, I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be, uh. Seek recognition on the gentlelady's amendment?
▶ 2:39:32Do you want a. >> roll call? >> uh, there's no further discussion. A vote occurs, and a roll call has been requested on the gentlelady from florida's amendment. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes no, Mr. palmer. Mr.
▶ 2:40:01Palmer votes no. Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks, Mrs. miller-meeks votes no. Mr. john james. Mr.
▶ 2:40:32Bense. Mr. bense votes no. Mr. frey. Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mrs.
▶ 2:41:04Fedorchuk votes no. Mr. guthrie no. Mr. guthrie votes no. Miss kaster. Miss kaster votes aye. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes I Mr. menendez. >> yes. >> Mr. menendez votes I. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I Mr. get I Mr. get votes I.
▶ 2:41:37Miss matsui. I miss matsui votes I Mr. >> tonko I Mr. >> tonko votes I Mr. veasey. Mr. kim schrier votes I miss fletcher miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. auchincloss. Mr.
▶ 2:42:05Auchincloss votes I. Mr. pallone Mr. pallone votes I. Mr. >> latta no. Mr. are there other. >> members wishing to record their vote? >> Mr. james is not recorded. Gentlelady votes. >> no. >> gentleman from florida. >> miss lee. Miss lee is not recorded. Miss lee votes no.
▶ 2:42:34>> are there other members wishing to record their vote? Oh. I'm sorry. How's the gentleman from texas? 33rd recorded. >> Mr. is not recorded. Mr. veasey votes I. >> are there other members wishing to record the vote? Hearing none. Hearing none. The clerk will report the result of the roll call. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 14 I's and 16 noes.
▶ 2:43:04>> uh, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there other amendments? For what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk labeled um, sc 4626 underscore 11. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment.
▶ 2:43:35In the nature of a substitute to h.r. 4006 26 offered by miss matsui. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. We are on the brink of an energy crisis. My amendment would ensure this legislation doesn't push us over the brink by preventing this bill from going into effect until the department of energy certifies that this would not add more stress to electric grid.
▶ 2:44:04Electricity demand is growing rapidly, in large part due to ai data centers, and we're not building power plants fast enough to keep up. At the same time, electricity rates are becoming increasingly unaffordable and utility bills will get worse if we don't tackle this crisis head on. This is not a partizan talking point.
▶ 2:44:25My republican colleagues have already held five hearings this year on rising energy demand, and I think it's been pretty well established that we're heading for a breaking point. Unfortunately, republicans seem to be doing everything they can to make the problem worse. Solar, wind and batteries are the cheapest energy sources around, and they can be added to the grid faster than anything else.
▶ 2:44:52But president trump is blocking new solar and wind energy from being built, while forcing utilities to keep old, expensive coal plants online. And during the shutdown, president trump canceled funding for hundreds of ongoing energy projects just to score some political points. So what is this committee doing about it? Standing up to trump? No.
▶ 2:45:19Working with democrats to find low cost, common sense solutions? No. Instead, republicans are trying to kill efficiency standards, which are not only popular, but also incredibly effective at saving energy. Energy efficiency doesn't just save you money on your monthly bills. Collectively, energy efficiency standards have massively reduced the total energy needs of the united states since the 1970s.
▶ 2:45:48If republicans get their way and we get rid of these efficiency standards, total us energy demand will increase by a staggering amount at the very moment we're already facing an energy crisis from rising demand, my amendment would ensure that doesn't happen. It prevents this legislation from going into effect if it would increase stress on our electric grid, this should be a no brainer. My colleagues keep saying we need more energy.
▶ 2:46:18Well, energy efficiency provides more energy for less. If my colleagues were serious about tackling rising energy demand and skyrocketing energy bills, they would work with democrats to increase energy efficiency. Rather than attacking these programs, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia's 12th district for five minutes.
▶ 2:46:49>> uh, yes. I move to strike the last word. Um. You know, many policies put forth in the name of energy efficiency don't result in substantial energy gains. Some, like banning natural gas appliances, actually increase energy use. Uh, and, uh, consumer prices. Uh, in georgia, homeowners using gas for heating yields significant savings as compared to electric only alternatives.
▶ 2:47:18And the state has protected energy choice in statute. All americans deserve to make that same choice based on what works best for their families and their pocketbooks. Uh, during a september hearing on this topic. Uh, jim steffes of washington gas said it.
▶ 2:47:35Well, when discussing gas bans, the idea we're going to push the gas back down the power wire and use it in a less efficient manner than you would use it at home, is absolutely going to raise prices, allowing energy efficiency standards that pick winners and losers. Losers will add significantly more strain to the grid, as we will be forced to look at electric only options. Additionally, energy efficiency standards have resulted in less efficient and less effective products.
▶ 2:48:04For example, a consumer is not saving energy or money when they have to run their clothes dryer three times to fully dry their clothes. Not only is this amendment an indefinite delay tactic, it ignores the basic reality that electric solutions, while simultaneously banning gas products, will cripple our grid. I urge no vote and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment.
▶ 2:48:35>> okay. >> there's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. weber. >> Mr. weber votes no. Mr. palmer. >> palmer votes no. >> Mr. palmer votes no. Mr. allen. >> no. >> Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr.
▶ 2:49:05Balderson votes no. Mr. pflueger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks, Mrs. miller-meeks votes no. Mr. james. Mr. bense, Mr. bense votes no. Mr. frey, Mr. frey votes no.
▶ 2:49:31Miss lee, miss lee votes no. Mr. langworthy no. Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. woolley. Mr. evans no. Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mrs. fedorchuk votes no. Mr. guthrie, Mr.
▶ 2:49:58Guthrie votes no. Miss. Kathy castor. Mr. votes aye. Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes aye. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes aye. Mr. mullen Mr. mullen votes aye Mr. mclellan. Mr. mclellan votes aye. Mr. get. Mr. votes aye.
▶ 2:50:29Miss matsui. I miss matsui votes I Mr. >> tom cole aye. >> Mr. tonko votes I Mr. veasey. Mr. veasey votes I miss schreyer. Mr. schreyer votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. claus. Mr. claus, votes I Mr.
▶ 2:51:02Pallone. I Mr. pallone votes I Mr. latta. >> no. >> Mr. latta votes no. >> are there members who wish to record their vote? The gentleman from michigan. >> Mr. james, is not recorded. >> Mr. gentleman from. >> south carolina. >> Mr. excuse me. Mr. frey is recorded as no.
▶ 2:51:43>> the clerk will report the roll. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 14 eyes and 16 noes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Are there other amendments? For what purposes? General lady from washington seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk labeled sc 462603. >> the clerk. The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 2:52:11>> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 4626 offered by miss schreier. Page 19, line 13. >> without objection, reading the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. We need abundant energy and consumers need lower energy bills. And one of the fastest ways to decrease the cost of energy and increase reliability is to connect more energy generation to the grid. And there is a long queue.
▶ 2:52:41The connection to that grid depends on transformers and they are in very short supply. Dangerously short supply. Specifically, the united states remains behind in securing critical grid inventories like distribution transformers. And yet demand growth, as we all know, is soaring as we grow more dependent on foreign sourced equipment.
▶ 2:53:06And from not having the domestic production here at home, we lose out on economic growth and our supply chains become less secure, compromising the security and reliability of our electric grid and increasing prices. The lack of access to transformers is delaying affordable energy, affordable housing and clean energy projects while making our existing infrastructure vulnerable in the face of increasingly common natural disaster events.
▶ 2:53:34Yet in the face of all this, the administration and republicans are taking actions that further deepen the transformer shortage, including instituting tariffs on steel components that are critical for transformer manufacturing when there isn't a reliable domestic manufacturing base available to provide this supply in the short term.
▶ 2:53:57And today, with this bill, my republican colleagues are choosing to permanently prevent any future standards on energy efficiency in the manufacturing and performance of transformers that are designed to save consumers money and reduce grid loss. I've spoken out against overly strict proposed energy efficiency standards and the use of certain steel in the face of shortages, but a complete prohibition on future standards in perpetuity is wrongheaded.
▶ 2:54:26It does nothing to actually address the underlying supply chain problems from its current condition. That is why I am offering this amendment to the current bill that would give domestic manufacturers access to financial and technical assistance to help address the distribution transformer shortage. If the administration is going to institute steel tariffs, let's give manufacturers the proper tools to boost domestic production here at home.
▶ 2:54:55I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back or is there further discussion? For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia district seek recognition? >> uh, I seek to be recognized, to speak in opposition to this amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Speak in opposition.
▶ 2:55:17>> uh, this amendment would require doe to establish a program providing financial and technical assistance to manufacturers of transformers and other grid related components. This is unnecessary. Manufacturers do not need financial assistance from taxpayers to continue making these products. They just need regulatory certainty. That is why we have the shortage of transformers is because of regulatory regulatory environment.
▶ 2:55:42Under the biden administration, rules that require manufacturers to completely retool their supply chains, or one of the greatest threats to meeting growing electricity demand, uh, by removing doe's ability to set new standards for distribution transformers. My legislation will provide that regulatory consistency. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 2:56:13Seeing none no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed. Nay. No. Aye, aye. Roll call has been requested and the clerk will take the roll. >> Mr. weber. >> Mr. weber votes no. Mr. palmer, Mr. palmer votes no. Mr. allen. Yes. Mr.
▶ 2:56:39Allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mr. james. Mr. pence, Mr. benn's votes no. Mr. fry. Miss.
▶ 2:57:09Lee, miss lee, votes no. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. woolley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk, Mrs. fedorchuk votes no. Mr. guthrie, Mr.
▶ 2:57:35Guthrie votes no. Miss kaster. Miss kaster votes aye. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes aye. Mr. menendez, Mr. menendez votes aye. Mr. mullen, Mr. mullen votes aye. Mr. mclellan, miss mcclellan votes I Mr. garrett I. Mr. garrett votes I miss matsui.
▶ 2:58:08I miss matsui votes I Mr. tonko. Aye Mr. tonko votes I Mr. veasey. Mr. veasey votes I Mr. kim schrier votes I miss fletcher miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. auchincloss. Mr. claus votes I Mr. pallone. I Mr.
▶ 2:58:38Pallone votes I Mr. >> latta no. >> Mr. letters. >> no. >> are there other members wishing to record the vote? Gentleman from north carolina recorded. >> Mr. fries not recorded. Mr. frey votes no. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes no. >> the gentleman from alabama. >> Mr. palmer, is recorded as no.
▶ 2:59:08>> recorded. >> are there any other members wishing to be recorded? The clerk will take the roll. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 14 eyes and 15 noes. >> thank you. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Any further amendments?
▶ 2:59:36Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting the anes. The h.r. 4690. All those in favor signify by saying aye and those opposed no. Again, those signify by saying I, I those opposed. No. The ayes have it. Pardon me. Pardon me.
▶ 3:00:00In the anes is adopted a roll call vote has been requested on the question that now occurs on adopting h.r. 4626, as amended. The clerk will take the roll. >> Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes I, Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes I. Mr. allen I Mr.
▶ 3:00:27Allen votes I Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes I Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger Mrs. harshbarger votes I Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. miller-meeks, votes I. Mr. james. Mr. james votes I Mr. bentz. Mr. bentz votes I. Mr.
▶ 3:00:58Frye. Mr. frye votes I miss lee miss lee votes I Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes I Mr. rowley. Mr. evans Mr. evans votes I Mr. goldman Mr. goldman votes I Mrs. fedorchuk. I Mrs. fedorchuk votes I Mr. guthrie. Mr.
▶ 3:01:27Guthrie votes I miss castor miss castor votes no Mr. peters Mr. peters votes no Mr. menendez. Mr. mullen Mr. mullen votes no. Mr. mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Mr. >> get no. >> Mr. get votes no. Miss. Matsui. >> no. >> miss. Matsui. Votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:02:00Tom cole. >> no. >> Mr. tonko votes no. Mr. veasey. Mr. veasey votes no. Miss schrier, miss schrier votes no. Miss fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez, miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. jake auchincloss, Mr. auchincloss votes no. Mr. pallone no. Mr.
▶ 3:02:28Pallone votes no. Mr. latta, >> I. >> Mr. latta votes I. >> are there other members wishing to be recorded? Those the gentleman from texas recorded? >> Mr. pfluger is not recorded. Mr. pfluger votes I. >> I'm sorry, and how is the gentleman from new jersey recorded? >> Mr. menendez is not recorded. >> no. >> Mr. menendez votes? No. >> are there any other members wishing to record their vote?
▶ 3:02:59Hearing none, the clerk will report. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote. There were 17 eyes and 14 noes. >> thank you. The ayes have it. The bill h.r. 4626, as amended, is adopted and forwarded to the full committee.
▶ 3:03:29The chair now calls up h.r. 1355 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 1355, a bill to amend the energy conservation and production act, to reauthorize the weatherization. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from new york's 20th district seek recognition? >> Mr.
▶ 3:03:59Chair, I move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Weatherization works. I mentioned earlier that the average household saves $372 on their energy bills each year after receiving services from doe's weatherization assistance program. This doesn't even account for the health and safety benefits that come from being in a more livable home.
▶ 3:04:24When a family goes through this program, it can be life changing for low income households that are eligible for the program spend about 14% of their income on energy costs, compared to 3% for other households. But despite the program's effectiveness, we know it can be improved. First, the program's authorization expired in september. It was last reauthorized with strong bipartisan support in the energy act of 2020, which was signed into law by then president trump. H.r.
▶ 3:04:521355 would reauthorize the weatherization assistance program for fiscal year 2030. Second, the program includes a limitation on how much assistance each home can receive, known as the average cost per unit. This limit must not only cover the cost of materials, but labor as well. So statutorily, the limit was set at $6,500 for 2010.
▶ 3:05:18It currently stands at about $8,500, and it can be increased annually based on the consumer price index up to 3%. Unfortunately, inflation over the past several years has outpaced the program, and that is especially true for the cost of building materials. This means each home receives fewer services and there is downward pressure on wages for weatherization crews, making it harder to recruit and retain talent to carry out this.
▶ 3:05:43This work, raising the average cost per unit, is a small adjustment that will benefit the long term health of the program, as well as the individual households receiving these services. H.r. 1355 would reset the acp to 1200 $12,000.
▶ 3:06:01Finally, this bill would reauthorize the weatherization readiness fund, an existing program at doe that complements traditional weatherization in many states, more than 20% of eligible homes cannot receive weatherization simply because they are in such poor condition. The readiness fund was established to overcome these health and safety issues. To get more homes into the weatherization pipeline.
▶ 3:06:29They may have a bad roof or mold, or any number of problems that would render weatherization ineffective or make it unsafe for a crew to work in that home. I heard one story of a home needing to deal with a snake infestation in an attic before it could be insulated. These are real barriers that prevent people from receiving weatherization, and the readiness fund has proven to work especially for those lower barriers.
▶ 3:06:53The house republicans energy and water appropriations bill continues to fund the readiness program. If funding is going to continue. I think that we, as the committee of jurisdiction, should actually authorize it. So, Mr. chair, I understand there is still some work to be done to reach agreement on a version of the bill that can be supported by everyone, and I appreciate the opportunity to continue those discussions. With that, I thank you and I yield back. >> thank you.
▶ 3:07:22The gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes himself for five minutes to speak on h.r. 1355, the department of energy's weatherization assistance program plays an important role in reducing energy costs for low income dwelling units by improving the energy efficiency of the home. Since the program's inception, doe estimates over 7 million families, including ohioans, have received funding from the program.
▶ 3:07:47The program was most recently reauthorized in the energy act of 2020, expiring at the end of september. The energy act of 2020 also amended the program doe to the program doe to consider non-energy benefits of weatherization improvements. Additionally, this program received $3.5 billion of funding for the program through the infrastructure and jobs act.
▶ 3:08:12While the trump administration is working to efficiently and responsibly disburse that money, a significant amount of the funding has not yet been made it down to the community level for ultimate deployment at the time. At this time, I'm not supportive of the underlying legislation as current form due to the first ever authorization of weatherization readiness program. However, I appreciate the minorities engagement and good faith discussion, and I hope we can reach a compromise prior to the full committee markup. The inclusion of h.r.
▶ 3:08:431355, in today's energy subcommittee markup is an acknowledgment of those ongoing negotiations. I thank the gentleman from new york's 20th district for his leadership and engagement on the issue, and I thank the minorities professional staff for the engagement and productive bipartisan negotiations. And I yield back the balance of my time. For what purpose does the the ranking member of the full committee seek recognition? >> thank you, Mr. chairman, to strike the last. >> word, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.
▶ 3:09:13>> as I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm pleased to see congressman tom cole bill on today's markup, h.r. 1355, the weatherization enhancement and readiness act. Now, this is a bipartisan bill that lowers cost for energy burden households by boosting energy security and increasing energy efficiency, promoting affordability across the board. The bill reauthorizes the department of energy's critical weatherization assistance program through 2030.
▶ 3:09:37This program enables low income families to reduce their monthly energy bills by increasing their home's energy efficiency, all while ensuring the health and safety of the household. And this critical program has been reducing the energy burden of low income americans for nearly 50 years, having reached over 7 million households making a real difference in our communities. Weatherization helps shield low income families from high energy prices, which is a critical issue today.
▶ 3:10:03At a time when electricity prices are up 11% nationwide, we need to prioritize efforts that reduce a household's energy consumption. Thankfully, there are a wide range of energy efficiency measures supported by the weatherization assistance program to boost homes energy efficiency, including energy efficient windows, insulation or water heaters.
▶ 3:10:25So this bill also increases the statutory limit for the average amount a state can spend on weatherizing homes from $6500 to $12,000, to ensure that the program keeps pace with rising costs of building materials, wages and equipment. This increase allows households to receive more assistance, allowing for deeper retrofits that will yield even higher energy savings. When families struggle to pay their utility bills, they can fall into debt.
▶ 3:10:53This is evidenced by the fact that since december 23rd, household utility debt has risen over 30%. Weatherization helps relieve this burden. Households served by the program save an average of $372 per year on their energy bills, making a real difference in americans wallets. So the program I should mention was last reauthorized in the bipartisan energy act of 2020, signed by president trump. But it's important now more than ever, that we reauthorize this critical program in the face of rising energy bills.
▶ 3:11:23As I said in my opening statement, I look forward to continuing the conversation with chairs, latta and guthrie and obviously, Mr. tom cole moving this bill forward along with us, with our ranking member, miss castro. So I yield back at this point. Thank you. >> Mr. thank you, Mr. chair. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments on the bill? Seeing none.
▶ 3:11:49The question now occurs on adopting h.r. 1355. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? No. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered.
▶ 3:12:19Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.