Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy Relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator- Freezers''

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Week after week, I find myself here on the House floor, not debating things that are important to American families like protecting Medicaid or Social Security. Instead, we are debating standards for appliances. We have got refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines. This one isn't even something for use in a household. It is for commercial use.

Again, House Republicans have chosen this time to ignore the pressing issues that Americans face and to instead march forward with their anti-efficiency agenda that drives up energy costs for American businesses and consumers. Democrats, on the other hand, are here to defend these commonsense energy efficiency standards and the very real savings they provide Americans.

My home State of New Jersey was recently recognized among the top 10 States doing the most to advance energy efficiency, and I am pleased by my State's progress and want to make sure that Americans in all States benefit from similar efforts.

Today's resolution, like all the other anti-efficiency resolutions that we have seen recently from the Republicans, did not go through any regular order. I want to stress why that is important. We never received any expert witness testimony on the impact of the standards or on the impact of repealing them. Instead, we are left to trust a Republican Party that is decidedly antiscience on the impacts of energy conservation standards.

Let me stress this. What do I mean by regular order? Well, a bill is introduced. We have a subcommittee hearing in Energy and Commerce. In this case, the Department of Energy would come in and show how there are so many savings and why these standards lead to more efficiency.

Then if the Republicans disagree, they can bring in experts that say the opposite. Of course, they don't want to do that because there aren't any experts that are going to say the opposite. They are just making this stuff up.

Today's resolution, H.J. Res. 75, targets a recently finalized energy conservation standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers. Again, this isn't even for households. These are commercial refrigerators and freezers. These are products that are primarily used in grocery stores and convenience stores.

Now we are debating whether or not the refrigerators in grocery stores should be energy efficient. I can't imagine more of a waste of floor time. When there are so many other issues that have to be discussed here today, we are doing this instead.

The energy conservation standard targeted by this resolution would save businesses $4.6 billion over 30 years. Republicans have already taken away options for households to save money on their energy bills. Now they are going to strip businesses of these options as well.

Repealing these standards would also raise costs and increase demand on the electricity grid. It is also not necessary because two-thirds of the products on the market today already meet these new efficiency standards. The payback period for any up-front costs of the more efficient products is about 3.5 years, while the products themselves last for 12 to 14 years. To argue that there is some kind of major regulatory burden or imposition on small businesses is just false.

At a time of increased energy costs, increased grid strain, tariffs, and rising household costs under the Trump administration, we have to ask ourselves: Why do Republicans keep targeting policies that save money and save energy? They ran on the fact they were going to make things more affordable. Things are less affordable, and this will also make them less affordable.

The only answer I can come up with is that when more energy is consumed or more energy is wasted, the oil and gas industry benefits. We know that the Washington Republicans continue to do the bidding of Big Oil and Gas.

This resolution proves that Republicans are completely out of touch. Americans are struggling to make ends meet and are facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families not only of healthcare but repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards.

Republicans also continue to look the other way as the Trump administration and Elon Musk undermine Social Security, threatening the benefits seniors have earned over a lifetime of hard work. Instead, they are focusing on refrigerators.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say.

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to disrespect the sponsor of the resolution. He is on our committee. He is from the great State of Texas.

What I hear is that he said: ``The evidence is clear.'' The evidence is not clear that these standards for commercial refrigerators are actually worse or a burden on small businesses. He hasn't cited anything that says that.

He says that we should have change. That is what we voted for in November but not change that is going to hurt people or that is actually going to cost them more money.

The bottom line is and the way this works is that the Department of Energy, under the existing law, is required to look at appliances and see whether or not they can be made more efficient and more cost- effective. That is what they did. They found that these standards were more efficient and cost-effective.

Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard from the other side or any experts they cite to, other than their own opinion, to say the experts at the Department of Energy made a mistake.

The experts at DOE who established these energy conservation standards were not politicians. DOE's process involves extensive stakeholder engagement, working with manufacturers and advocates to establish standards that are economically feasible, economically justifiable, and result in significant energy savings.

This is a highly technical process. My colleagues across the aisle are making claims that this resolution before us today reduces costs and cuts red tape, and nothing could be further from the truth. We know there are manufacturers out there that support these standards and support having consistent guidance from DOE, as opposed to ever- shifting goalposts.

Again, even if my colleagues on the other side come up with testimony or documents today that say that the Department of Energy was wrong, it would have been helpful to hold a hearing where their experts could come in and challenge the Department of Energy experts who put these standards together. Then we as members of the Committee could look at this and say who is right.

They didn't do that. There was no regular order. There was no hearing. We had no benefit of a hearing on this resolution and the implications of revoking these standards.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution isn't some well-reasoned proposal that has been properly vetted. It is a way to kill floor time. It is a way to target any and every regulation without any assessment of the consequences.

I spent last week in my district meeting with constituents and holding a townhall. What I heard was that people were really concerned that the economy was heading into a recession because of President Trump's policies. They were concerned about costs to Medicaid and threats from Elon Musk to dismantle Social Security. Nobody mentioned commercial refrigeration requirements to me. I didn't hear anybody mention that. Republicans have really lost the plot, and I think Americans are taking notice.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Castor), the ranking member of our Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clarify some of the numbers that we are hearing from the Republicans. The chairman keeps mentioning a 94-year payback period for one of the products impacted by the rule, and he claims that this number comes from the DOE's rule. However, this is really a total misunderstanding of what happened.

There may have been some analysis of this 95 years, but the DOE did not propose or adopt efficiency levels like that for the product mentioned. In fact, for that particular product that he is mentioning, the final rule made no changes to the existing standards.

Now, I am not surprised that my friends across the aisle are throwing this number around, this 94 years, even though it has nothing to do with the final rule. They are not interested in a good-faith debate on the merits of these standards. If they were, as I said, we would have had hearings on this resolution so Members could better understand the details.

The truth is that the actual payback period for this particular class of products, since there were no updates to the standards, is zero because it wasn't changed. The average payback period for the other products impacted by the rule, as I mentioned earlier, is close to 3.5 years. So this 94-year analysis was not in the rule, it was not made for the product, and it wasn't proposed for the product.

For everything else, it is about 3.5 years. What this means is that after the 3.5 years, every year you are saving money. So all this just goes to show that my colleagues across the aisle pretend to be experts in energy conservation standards, but they can't even read the final rule correctly.

Again, this wouldn't be the case if we had a hearing and went through regular order, but that didn't happen.

I rise in opposition to this resolution. We have heard a lot today about upfront costs to businesses, the rising cost of doing business, and the slim margins under which businesses operate.

First, let me say that no one is forcing businesses to replace their commercial refrigerator equipment. These standards don't go into effect until 2029, and even then it is only when existing products need to be replaced that businesses will be looking at the upfront cost of any new products.

Many of these products already exist on the market, the ones with the new standards, so it is not like businesses will be faced with totally new and unfamiliar options. Sixty percent of the products on the market right now meet these efficiency standards.

As I have already said, the payback period for these products is about 3 years. After that, businesses will be saving money every month on their energy bills.

If Republicans were serious about reducing costs for businesses and for Americans, they would push back on Trump's tariffs. That is what they should be pushing back on is tariffs. They are the ones who are causing all the unrest, the possibility of recession, and raising costs. All of our economic indicators show that we are heading toward a recession and that consumer confidence is extremely low.

Why aren't Republicans fighting policies like the tariffs that impact the cost of things now instead of the cost of commercial refrigerators in 2029? I don't know what else to say.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source