Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Department of Energy Relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers''
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24, the fourth Republican resolution this Congress to dismantle energy conservation standards for appliances. This harmful resolution guts a Department of Energy efficiency rule for walk-in coolers and freezers, which will increase energy costs for businesses and consumers. Let me stress that again. If this rule is repealed, businesses and consumers will have increased energy costs. Since it is a Congressional Review Act resolution, it prevents the Department of Energy from ever issuing substantially similar standards in the future.
Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet and facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families of healthcare, it is shocking that House Republicans are spending another day here on the floor focusing on repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards that save businesses and consumers money.
This whole Congress has been a revolving door of resolution after resolution attacking conservation standards for different appliances. In fact, I should point out, we were on the floor just yesterday afternoon debating an effort to repeal another energy efficiency standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers.
Instead of investigating--which is what they should be doing--the shocking and unprecedented breach of security and leaked military strikes from top Trump national security officials, which threatens our national security and our defense, we are here once again wasting valuable floor time debating energy efficiency standards.
Maybe we should be taking action to protect Social Security from the Trump administration's funding cuts that could stop seniors from getting the benefits they earned through a lifetime of work. My constituents are already telling me they can't even call the Social Security office anymore. There is nobody there. They have cut the staff. They have cut the phone service. They can't even access the Social Security Administration anymore under the Trump administration.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should be reversing the Trump administration's actions to close the Department of Education and rip away funding from students, teachers, and schools.
House Republicans are not likely to take on any of these actions that I suggested because they refuse to take on President Trump, even when he is breaking the law. It is clear that my Republican colleagues do not have their priorities in order. In fact, it seems to me their only priority is securing giant tax breaks for their billionaire buddies at the expense of American families and businesses. H.J. Res. 24 fits right into the Republican agenda of raising costs on hardworking Americans.
Now, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of this resolution. President Trump and Republicans ran on a promise to cut energy costs in half in his first year. Yet, here we are once again wasting precious time on the floor with a resolution that would raise energy costs for American businesses by wasting more energy.
The energy efficiency standards under threat today for walk-in refrigerators and freezers will save American businesses up to $6.5 billion on utility bills over the next 30 years. These businesses include restaurants, convenience stores, and supermarkets across the country, and Republicans' anti-efficiency agenda will rob them of these cost savings.
This is especially concerning at a time when we are hearing more and more stories about the damaging impacts of Trump's extreme tariffs, the rising cost of groceries, and the chaos and uncertainty that Trump is bringing every day to our economy.
People are concerned about a Trump recession. That is what they are worried about today. That is what I hear when I go home. However, Republicans don't care about everyday Americans. They only care about doing the bidding of their billionaire corporate buddies at the expense of consumers and working families.
Energy efficiency standards for appliances are designed to reduce energy use and climate pollution while also saving consumers and businesses money. Reducing an appliance's energy use also helps decrease stress on the electric grid.
The resolution today is proof that my Republican colleagues' concern about grid stress--we had a hearing yesterday on that--and the increased load growth from data centers and American manufacturing are hollow and merely lip service. If Republicans truly cared about reducing stress on the electric grid, which is what they said yesterday at the hearing, they would stop dismantling energy efficiency standards designed to ease strain on future electric grid capacity.
The true intent of this anti-efficiency resolution is not to help American businesses, but to line the pockets of their billionaire cronies and oil and gas friends. You guessed it, less efficient appliances means more profits for Big Oil and Gas.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Castor), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Energy.
Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Republicans make it sound like no one supports these standards, like they came out of nowhere and are an incredible government overreach. Of course, that is not true.
Manufacturers support these efficiency standards. They provide clarity to industry. Manufacturers support the Department of Energy's rule because it provides clear guidance. If this rule is revoked, it creates regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers.
The Department of Energy worked with manufacturers and advocates to ensure that these standards were feasible and justifiable. Unlike my colleagues across the aisle, the Department of Energy went through a prolonged process that engaged extensively with experts and worked to address their concerns.
In fact, in recently submitted comments regarding the delay and the effective date for the standards, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, a trade group that represents many of the manufacturers of these walk-in coolers, asserted strong support for proceeding with the standards as published in the Federal Register in December of last year.
Lennox, a manufacturer of these walk-in systems, also submitted comments asserting support for proceeding with the standards as finalized. Lennox's comments also state: ``The final rule provides regulatory predictability regarding . . . energy conservation standards through 2031, providing a stable planning horizon.''
These comments are an important reminder that regulatory uncertainty from killing a standard, as the resolution before us today would do, costs businesses money. My colleagues across the aisle are more concerned with slashing any and every regulation they can find than with engaging in thoughtful and well-reasoned policy.
This is politics at its worst, so I oppose this resolution.
I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues across the aisle keep talking about the costs of these standards to businesses, but I think it is important to get the facts straight. The new standards for walk-in coolers don't go into effect until 2027 for some products and 2028 for others. This means that if a business needs to replace these units anytime in the next couple of years, the products on the market now will be available to them. They don't have to get rid of the refrigerators they want. It is when they buy a new one.
Whenever a business does need to replace the units, the products on the market will save them money. Specifically, these standards will save, as I mentioned, $6.5 billion in utility bills over 30 years. DOE estimates the payback period for these products is 3 years for refrigerator systems and 1.6 years for non-display doors. After those 3 years or, in the other case, 1.6 years, you are actually saving money every year.
This means that after the first couple of years of ownership, these products start saving businesses a lot of money. This is real money.
The Republicans talked about upfront costs. There may be some upfront costs, but over the period of time after those first couple of years, businesses are saving money.
If Republicans are actually concerned about the small businesses in their communities, and if they are really concerned about costs being passed down to consumers, they would be standing up to the Trump administration and pushing back on tariffs.
I am mentioning the tariffs today because the President, again, is starting to impose new tariffs. The last one was on automobiles. Large appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines rely, in part, on steel, making them extremely vulnerable to price increases from Trump's tariffs on steel, which are already in place.
In the aftermath of steel and aluminum tariffs during Trump's first term, talking about the first term now, not the new one, major appliances showed price increases of between 5 and 10 percent.
If my colleagues are concerned about the prices, they should be speaking out against what Trump is doing with these tariffs, not to mention the fact that the tariffs impose additional costs on consumers. Again, the uncertainty--the back and forth, put the tariffs on, take the tariffs off--is the reason that the stock market has been so volatile. People don't know with certainty what is going on with this administration.
We are facing policies from the Trump administration that will increase everyday costs for households and businesses. Instead of trying to fight these increases, Republicans are more concerned with the upfront costs of walk-in coolers in 2028. I don't know what to say except that it is ridiculous.
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. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source