Save Our Gas Stoves Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1640, the so-called Save Our Gas Stoves Act. This is a Republican messaging bill designed to deliberately mislead the American people about gas stoves.
Let's set the record straight with a little reality. The Biden administration is not, and I repeat, not banning gas stoves. This is nothing but a political stunt.
House Republicans continue to put politics over people. With this bill today, they are once again putting polluters over people.
H.R. 1640 is designed to prevent the Department of Energy from finalizing a recently proposed energy efficiency standard for electric and gas stoves and cooktops that would lower energy bills, improve Americans' health, and cut pollution.
DOE energy efficiency standards are extremely popular. A recent poll found that three out of five Americans support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.
The proposed DOE rule that Republicans are trying to prevent from moving forward is a commonsense standard. The claim that 96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed DOE standard is just not true. Mr. Chair, 50 percent of the market already meets the proposed standard, including all entry-level models.
More importantly, the proposed standard only applies to new gas stoves manufactured and sold 3 years after the rule is finalized. That would give manufacturers more than enough time to meet these new standards. There is simply no reason for this proposed rule to be controversial.
No one is saying you can't keep your gas stove. No one is saying you don't have a choice. No one is saying you have to move to electric stoves. This is all misinformation.
Rather than acknowledging the facts, Republicans are instead employing their usual scare tactics, putting politics over people.
Despite what you hear from my Republican colleagues today, the DOE rule does not ban gas stoves, does not remove gas stoves from homes, and does not prevent anyone from putting a gas stove in their home.
This rule only applies to new stoves, and, as I said, manufacturers have 3 years to meet the standard.
Mr. Chair, I am sorry I have to keep repeating it, but I know the other side keeps repeating the misinformation.
All this means is that if a consumer goes to buy a new gas stove in 3 years, it will be more energy efficient and cheaper to operate. That is a win for consumers, our health, and our ongoing fight to combat the worsening climate crisis.
Mr. Chair, to make it worse, Republicans are not just going after this energy efficiency standard. Since the bill does not include a sunset clause, it could forever limit the Department of Energy from taking substantive action to improve energy efficiency of cooktops. This is just another way Republicans are continuing to prop up their polluter friends.
This bill as well as the REINS Act, which is on the floor later this evening, show that Republicans are skeptical of everything agencies do, including all rulemakings and regulations.
Republicans think that they can do the math, conduct the analysis, and reach conclusions better than the subject matter experts at our Federal agencies. That is not how our government works. We hire agency experts to make the best decisions and do their jobs best. The Department of Energy rulemaking process is detailed and well researched, with ample opportunity for public engagement.
Commonsense energy efficiency standards save everyday Americans money and reduce emissions. These standards are popular, and cooktops that meet the standard are already available on the market.
Republicans claim to care about energy prices, but this Republican bill prohibits the Department of Energy from finalizing a rule that can save consumers up to $1.7 billion.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 1640 should be rejected so that the Department of Energy can proceed with its commonsense energy efficiency standards.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to claim that they support lower energy costs, but the fact is that this bill will increase costs for consumers. As a result of appliance efficiency standards in effect today, the average American household saves roughly $500 annually on utility bills, and this bill blocks an efficiency standard that will save consumers up to $1.7 billion. This will specifically impact low- and moderate-income households that spend more of their money on energy bills.
I also think it is ironic that Republicans have cited the American Gas Association's strong support for this bill. AGA is an association of gas utilities that make more money when consumers use more gas. Should we be surprised that they oppose a standard that makes gas stoves more efficient and affordable?
This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry, and that would drive prices higher for Americans. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I take a moment to draw attention to a fundamental difference between the Democrats and our friends across the aisle.
Over the last few years, Democrats enacted $4.5 billion to help Americans with their home energy bills and replace appliances, $4.5 billion for energy efficiency retrofits, and historic funding for weatherization and low-income energy assistance, including a record $6 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in last year's omnibus spending bill.
All this funding goes to Americans' pocket to help them lower their energy bills during a time of increasing climate threats, turbulent fossil fuel prices, and economic challenges caused by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.
Democrats have worked hard to help Americans pay the energy bills. Republicans, on the other hand, are working hard for their fossil fuel friends.
While Democrats advocate the energy efficient standards that lower bills, Republicans try to chip away at the Department of Energy's conservation work. While Democrats defend families and try to ensure indoor appliances don't emit harmful pollutants, Republicans push bills endorsed by the American Gas Association, bills that ensure gas stoves use more energy than they really need.
So let me be clear. Democrats are advocating for everyday Americans, and Republicans are advocating for their fossil fuel friends.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would just take a moment to bring us back to the real world. Earlier this week, the administration issued its statement of administration policy, that is the Biden administration's official views on this bill, and I have to report that the administration does not view this bill favorably.
Despite what our Republican colleagues are saying today, the administration makes clear that in the real world, this bill would ``deny the American people the savings that come with having more efficient, new appliances on the market.''
The administration is right. This bill is not about freedom. I keep hearing that a lot on the other side. It is not about choice--they keep mentioning that--or about saving gas stoves, because we are not banning it. It is about taking away the freedom of Americans to save money to buy new, efficient appliances.
The bill's authors do not believe in the essentially American innovation that has brought consumers a cumulative $2 trillion in savings since DOE first issued efficiency standards.
Now, let me say, our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, prides ourselves on being the committee of innovation, of invention, of doing things better. I come from a district in Menlo Park and in Edison, New Jersey, where Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, the motion picture, and so many different things.
We should be proud of the fact that we are trying to do things differently, more efficiently, more innovatively. I listen to my colleagues on the other side. For a Republican Party that claims that it wants to let Americans make their own individual choices, this doesn't seem like much of a choice at all.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, let me just say that this is the second bill that came up today dealing with gas stoves. If there is one message that I really want to give to my colleagues, and urge them to vote against this bill, as well as the previous one, is that we are not banning gas stoves. I don't know how many times I can say that. The administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Energy, all of them had made clear over and over again that we are not banning gas stoves.
What we are doing in this case with this bill is to try to provide more energy efficiency, which has been something that the Department of Energy has done for years. We have given them the authority and urged them to deal with and come up with more efficient appliances, whether it is gas stoves, electric stoves, cooktops, whatever it happens to be. So why not let them do that? Why keep saying that we are banning gas stoves when we are not? Why keep suggesting that somehow eliminating the Department of Energy's ability to adopt more efficiency standards for these appliances is not a good thing? It saves money. It makes sense.
I heard my colleagues on the other side talk about the middle class, about working people. Working people want to save money. They want more efficiency. Overwhelmingly, polls show that they believe that appliances should be more efficient.
I think that when people buy things and go to the appliance store or to the supermarket, or wherever they are buying appliances, they not only expect that those appliances are safe and safe for themselves and for their kids, but they also think that the Federal Government is trying to do things to make things more efficient. There is no reason why we shouldn't.
For those reasons, I would ask my colleagues to vote to oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am happy to see that the gentleman from Michigan admits that the Department of Energy is not banning gas stoves. I keep saying it, but he did say that they are not banning them, at least not yet, he said.
I want to stress that the efficiency standards in the Department of Energy rule, again, don't go into effect until 3 years after the rule is finalized. Even though my colleagues keep saying that we are banning gas stoves and talk about the efficiency standards and how they have to get rid of them with this legislation, keep in mind that these efficiency standards don't even go into effect for another 3 years after the rule is adopted.
Again, we are not banning gas stoves, just talking about efficiency standards.
There is also the claim that has been put out there by the Republicans that 96 percent of gas stoves on the market today don't meet the proposed DOE standard, and that is just not true. The statistic that is mentioned by our colleagues on the other side is a specific test of high-end models that the Department of Energy anticipated would not meet the standard, meaning one of the tests conducted by DOE was deliberately designed to focus on models that would need upgrades to meet the standard. This test was not designed to represent the whole market.
According to DOE, and you can look at what they have put out, about half of the market already meets the proposed energy conservation standard, including all entry-level models at this time.
Again, you can keep your gas stove. We are talking about efficiency standards in 3 years, not now.
As to the amendment before us, which I oppose, it amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with vague language that would likely be impossible to implement.
Additionally, this amendment is clearly designed to target environmental and clean energy groups. If this amendment is adopted, and if H.R. 1640 becomes law, it would slow down the Department of Energy rulemaking process and create additional burdens to adopting energy conservation standards.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to recognize that this amendment is pure Republican messaging and would hinder climate action. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There are many problems with the Save Our Gas Stoves Act. One of the biggest issues, in my opinion, is that this bill not only prevents the Department of Energy from finalizing a commonsense proposed efficiency standard, but it also limits future DOE rulemaking.
H.R. 1640 includes Congressional Review Act style language blocking ``any substantially similar rule.'' This is designed to ensnare future related rules in a messy legal and linguistic trap.
This language provides no clarity on what a substantially similar rule means and could hamstring the Department of Energy on future cooktop and stove efficiency standards.
The bill also amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to limit and complicate future Department of Energy rulemaking on cooktops and gas stoves. The bill imposes an additional hurdle in the DOE rulemaking process and could impact future cooktop standards, regardless of fuel type.
If this bill becomes law, it will negatively impact the Department of Energy's ability to issue effective energy conservation standards related to cooktops and stoves going forward. This would also significantly impact DOE's ability to reduce energy bills and slash carbon emissions.
My amendment to H.R. 1640 strikes these harmful and open-ended provisions from the bill and limits the application of the bill only to the current proposed Department of Energy standard.
While I still strongly oppose blocking the current rule, it is critical that we not impede future Department of Energy action.
I urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just say I find it incredible that the Republicans want to just take away all ability of the Department of Energy to deal with efficiency standards not only for gas stoves, for electric stoves-- remember, that this rule doesn't just apply to gas stoves or cooktops. It applies to electric stoves, as well.
Any fair reading of this legislation makes it clear, in my opinion, that not only are they banning and overturning this bill but overturning anything else that is within the sphere of efficiency for cooktops, whether they be gas stoves or electric stoves or anything of that nature.
Again, I think it is a huge overreach. I, of course, oppose the underlying bill as well, but it is a huge overreach to say that the Department of Energy can't deal with this efficiency issue when it comes to stoves of whatever type in the future because that is what their job is--to deal with these efficiency standards, and they have been doing it very effectively to save money and to be innovative.
Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I would ask for support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source