Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. 6192
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Biden administration has waged a war on American energy, and this war has made its way into Americans' homes.
President Biden and the Department of Energy's Secretary Granholm have sacrificed appliance affordability and reliability in their pursuit of a radical rush-to-green agenda. In the name of energy efficiency, the Biden administration has issued rules on home appliances that would drive up costs and make these popular products less reliable and available to the American families.
The Biden administration's new rules do not save a significant amount of energy and are not cost effective. The Biden administration's rules discourage the use of natural gas in favor of the electrification of appliances, regardless of the cost, reliability, or availability. Just look how the minority tried to ban gas stoves before my Save Our Gas Stoves legislation and public outcry dialed it back.
House Republicans are leading to protect Americans from Federal mandates that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy savings, are not practical, and eliminate the performance features of product choices.
My legislation, H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, fights back against the Biden administration's radical agenda and will preserve the affordability, availability, and quality of the household appliances Americans rely on every day.
Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, also called EPCA, provides specific criteria the Department of Energy must follow in order to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. It is supposed to result in a significant conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and economically justified.
The problem is that current law doesn't define the parameters for these criteria, so the Biden administration has ignored these critical consumer protections by proposing and finalizing standards that violate the statute.
My bill will define how much energy or water has to be saved. My bill will define that any additional upfront costs to install a new appliance that has new mandated energy efficiency standards will be recuperated within a reasonable period of time.
H.R. 6192 will protect affordability by requiring the Department of Energy to consider the full lifecycle cost of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified. The bill requires a 3-year or less payback to the consumer and requires consideration of the cost for low-income households.
No longer will the Biden administration be able to say a savings of 12 cents per month is economically justified, as they have done before, and no longer will a customer have to hold onto their appliance for 8 to 10 or longer years just before they see any cost savings.
The bill establishes a minimum threshold for energy or water savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards. The bill requires that any new standard must achieve at least a 10 percent reduction in energy or water usage. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses so there can be no more natural gas bans.
The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the lifespan of the products. Americans want their appliances to work. The bill will allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior standards if they don't save the consumers money and if the appliance doesn't work.
Last week, I asked Secretary Granholm in committee some very basic questions about the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should be technologically feasible?
Secretary Granholm said: Yes.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should not increase net cost for consumers?
Secretary Granholm said: Yes.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should save a significant amount of energy?
Secretary Granholm said: Yes.
I stated to her: Efficiency mandates increase the upfront costs of appliances, which can really hurt low-income families and renters who do not have the luxury of waiting years for the energy savings to break even.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that 3 years is a reasonable payback period for efficiency regulations?
You know what? Secretary Granholm said she thought the payback should be done within 1 year.
Thus, folks, Secretary Granholm is on record supporting every key element of my bill.
In January of this year, the Fifth Circuit Court found that the Department of Energy has abused the law. In their opinion, they said: Department of Energy `` . . . failed to adequately consider appliance performance, substitution effects, and the ample record evidence that Department of Energy's conservation standards are causing Americans to use more energy and water rather than less.''
It is time to reform the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Like our laws set speed limits to determine at what speed we are breaking the law, it is time to define what economically justified and technologically feasible mean. It is time to fight back against the radical agenda set by the Biden administration. It is time for energy efficiency laws to actually save Americans money, actually save energy and water, and actually preserve Americans' consumer choice.
Mr. Chair, I ask both Republicans and Democrats to support my bill, H.R.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who is the chair of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would like to go over some of the things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have accused this bill of mine of doing.
First, Mr. Pallone, who I respect, said this bill will raise energy bills. Absolutely not. In fact, if you read the bill, it couldn't be clearer because the text states: The Secretary cannot issue a new standard if the energy efficiency standard results in additional cost to consumers. It is very clear. In fact, the whole goal of this bill is to save consumers money and also make sure that their appliances actually work.
My fellow colleague, Representative Castor, said: We need to side with the people. Well, that is exactly what my bill does. I will tell you why. Let me give you some examples of what our current Department of Energy is doing and why this isn't a waste of time to be talking about because this is for the people. This is for every household in America that has to pay more money because of these crazy Department of Energy regulations.
Let me give you some examples: For clothes washers, the Department of Energy estimates that its standard could save as little as $9 for certain models over the average lifetime for the appliance, which is estimated to be 13.4 years, $9 over 13.4 years. Wow.
For dishwashers, the analysis by the Department of Energy under Biden finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 28 percent, and it could take consumers 12 years to pay back the increased cost on a product that may only last 7 to 12 years.
My bill is for the people.
Here is another DOE rule under the Biden administration: For refrigerators and freezers, the Department of Energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost to replace that refrigerator or freezer by 25 percent, and it could take consumers 10 years to pay back the increased cost for a product that may only last 14 to 15 years.
Here is another example: For air conditioners, the Department of Energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 30 percent, and it could take consumers 4 years to pay back the increased cost for a product that may only last 9 years.
Here is another one: For clothes dryers, Biden's Department of Energy's own analysis--I am talking about their analysis, not mine-- shows that it would take between 6 years and 46 years to pay back the increased cost, depending on the type of dryer and the product features.
The payback periods for many of these appliances are uneconomical. For example, under Biden's Department of Energy, the payback periods for proposed clothes dryer standards are 6 years for electric, 18 years for electric compact, 20 years for vented electric compact, 5 years for vented gas, 11 years for ventless electric compact, and 46 years for ventless electric combination washer/dryer.
With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, who say this is a waste of time--we are wasting time, we should be talking about all of their priorities. No. Republicans are here. We are standing up for the average, commonsense, everyday American who can't afford groceries anymore, let alone these crazy, radical standards that the Biden administration is pushing through that will increase their costs.
That is why I am doing this bill. We want appliances that not only work, but we don't want to bankrupt the American people with all these crazy, radical, Biden rush-to-green energy policies.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues keep saying: Do something that the people really care about. This is something that the American people really care about.
Let me show you a Wall Street Journal article from today. It is from today. It is titled, ``Biden is Coming for Your Air Conditioner.'' It says: ``Your next new home air conditioner could set you back $12,000 or more, with Federal regulators contributing to the rising cost of staying cool.''
I am from Arizona. We need air conditioners. People are just trying to get by right now because of the inflation under Biden. Biden's economics--Bidenomics, as he calls it--is costing people money.
The Energy Department in January 2023 issued a new efficiency standard for residential air-conditioning systems. It necessitated a major redesign that increased costs by $1,000 to $1,500 per air conditioner.
It isn't clear that consumers will ever earn back in long-term energy savings the steeper upfront costs they are paying.
Next up is an Environmental Protection Agency regulation scheduled to take effect in 2025. It will require air-conditioning equipment makers to use new refrigerants deemed sufficiently climate friendly. The only refrigerants being used by manufacturers that meet the EPA's new green standards are classified as mildly flammable.
Manufacturers in earnings conference calls have estimated that the price of compliant equipment will increase the price of the air conditioner at least 10 percent. The switch to flammable systems will also require additional technician training and extra installation steps that are likely to increase labor costs for installations and repairs.
I wish that I didn't have to sponsor this bill. I mean, if you asked me a number of years ago would I sponsor this, I would have thought it wasn't necessary. However, under the Biden administration, they have just gone crazy. I don't know if radical environmentalists are bending the ear of President Biden or what is going on because, as I have demonstrated, this isn't helping Americans. This is a radical agenda that is increasing the prices on everyday Americans, and we can't afford it. That is why this bill is necessary.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, sometimes I feel like it is deja vu. I remember standing here and talking about my Save Our Gas Stoves bill.
My Democrat colleagues--not all of them because some of them voted with me on my bill--said the same arguments. This is a waste of time. We are not banning stoves. The Americans don't care about this.
Well, guess what? That bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and then guess what? It worked because the Department of Energy dialed it back.
Originally, according to their own analysis, they were going to effectively ban 96 percent of all the current models of gas stoves. Now, it is only 3 percent. We won. The American people won. That is why I am doing this bill.
When my friend, Mr. Pallone, says, well, these energy efficiency standards will save all kinds of money, what he is not saying is all of the money that it is going to cost extra up front for these new, revised standards, and that is if the thing even works well.
Let me remind my colleagues what this bill actually does and why it is needed. It is a commonsense bill. It will protect affordability by requiring the Department of Energy to consider the full life cycle cost of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified.
The bill requires a 3-year payback. The Secretary of Energy said, oh, it should only be 1 year, so there shouldn't be any problems with my bill.
The bill establishes minimum thresholds for energy or water savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards.
My Democrat colleagues say they want to save energy and water. So do I. Let's put it in the bill. Let's say, okay, it has to save 10 percent.
The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses, just like they were trying to do with the gas stoves.
The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the life span of the product.
You know why? Because Americans, when they buy new appliances, want them to work as good as the ones that they have now.
The bill will allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior standards if they don't save consumers money and they don't work.
This is a commonsense bill. It should be a bipartisan bill. I don't know why my Democrat colleagues are fighting it so hard because it says it has to save the consumers money.
It is all about helping the American homeowner who is struggling with Bidenomics right now. I am telling you: People in my district, they complain about the prices of groceries. They are complaining about the price of gas.
When their air conditioner, when their water heater, when their dishwasher starts to fail, and they have to buy a new one, they don't want to pay a whole bunch more, and they want it to work as well as their current one has done for years.
That is the purpose of my bill. That is why I ask my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues to support my bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source