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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 242, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Res. 75.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE.

Mr. Speaker, as President Trump took office in January, the Biden- Harris Department of Energy finalized amended energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.

H.J. Res. 75, introduced by Representative Goldman of Texas, a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, repeals this final rule.

New standards for this equipment, which included a variety of products, became effective just 3 years ago. Yet the Biden administration moved ahead with implementing burdensome new standards.

In fact, these standards will require energy reductions up to 60 percent on top of the previous standards, pushing the price of this equipment higher than ever before. The Department of Energy itself estimates the final rule will cost $8 billion. However, it substantially underestimated compliance costs throughout the rulemaking process.

The Department of Energy, despite feedback from stakeholders, did not account for the significant ongoing capital investment manufacturers must make to shift to new refrigerants.

When amending energy efficiency standards, the Department of Energy must prove that new or amended standards are economically justified, as well as technologically feasible, and that they result in significant savings. Not only is it unclear if compliance with the DOE's final rule is technically feasible but it is certainly clear that the rule is not cost-effective.

For example, one popular refrigerator design covered by this rule, vertically closed transparent commercial refrigerators, is estimated by the Department of Energy to have a payback period of almost 94 years under the amended standards. For retailers, many of which are small or family-owned businesses, it makes no sense to purchase equipment that will take nearly 100 years to recoup the cost on, especially when the average lifetime of this product is 14 years.

This will result in less efficient equipment being used beyond its recommended lifetime or a significant capital expenditure which will have to be passed down to American families in the form of higher prices. This is a lose-lose situation for small business owners and clearly violates the letter of the law.

We must pass H.J. Res. 75 to repeal this midnight rule and provide certainty to American manufacturers and small retailers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Goldman) for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the National Automatic Merchandising Association--vending machines, as most of us would know it--that it would be affecting their vending members. Most are small businesses. Ninety-plus percent of their operators have revenues of less than $10 million a year.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. It is difficult for small businesses to stay in business. I would say if this equipment was going to do for small businesses what the Department of Energy and the other side is saying, they would buy them. They wouldn't have to be told to buy them.

I have a letter from the National Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers, which sells to restaurants and so forth. It says these costs must be passed on to customers, many of which are small businesses like restaurants, bars, retailers, hotels, grocers, and schools. As the Department of Energy acknowledges in its own analysis, the increased capital expense caused by these standards may take more than--not many small businesses will invest their money if it is going to take more than 10, 75, and up to 94 years. Most small businesses don't stay in families more than a couple of generations. In many instances, to match cost reductions achieved through higher efficiency gains, more expensive equipment translates into higher costs for consumers. This is simple economics. As the cost of inputs in doing business increases, a restaurant's or grocer's prices also must increase to make enough of a profit to stay in business.

The other argument you can make is that if you buy this, you are going to be more efficient. The other side has said that then you can make more profit. If that is the case, believe me, our small businesses would be doing it without a government mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird), my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Register lists this class of equipment, and the simple payback period in years is 93.9 for all purchasers. I have it right here.

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today, the Biden-Harris administration DOE's final rule for commercial refrigeration equipment will have a detrimental impact on small businesses and the consumers. If small businesses thought this was going to benefit their businesses, I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, as a family business owner, we would invest in it. We would not have to be mandated to invest in it.

This final rule does not even meet the statutory requirements laid out in ECPA for new or amended energy efficiency standards. With a cost of at least $8 billion, questions surrounding the technological feasibility of the standards and serious food safety concerns cloud this rulemaking.

Simply put, the DOE far exceeded the bounds of its authority with this rule. If Congress does not act, this final regulation will harm small businesses, drive up costs for American families, and put already expensive equipment out of reach for many who need it for their livelihoods.

That is why the following groups are supporting this CRA: The National Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers; NATSO, representing truck stops and travel centers; SIGMA, representing fuel marketers; and National Automatic Merchandizing Association, which includes vending machine operators.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this.

I just want to be clear. I don't have anything in my family business in any of these businesses, but I will tell you what we look at is do we get a return on investment and can we serve our customers better.

The list I just said, they looked at it and said that if they don't get a return on their investment, then they can't serve their customers better by this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 75 to overturn these unworkable energy standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source