The House passed (212-195) H.R.6192, which overhauls procedures under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that the Energy Department must follow when setting efficiency standards for consumer products, including by eliminating the requirement that the department review existing standards every six years.

Under the measure, the department would be prohibited from setting an efficiency standard without first prescribing a test procedure for the product, and it must conduct an economic analysis to determine if the efficiency standard is economically justified. Efficiency standards must result in minimum energy or water savings prescribed by the bill, and could not reduce the utility or performance of a product. Any efficiency standard that would result in the unavailability of a product based on its type of fuel would be prohibited.

It also allows any person to petition the Energy Department to revoke an efficiency standard if the standard increases costs to consumers; revoked standards would also effectively revoke any similar efficiency standards established by individual states.

Supporters of the bill say it will prevent the Energy Department from acting outside the scope of its authority to pursue an energy conservation and efficiency agenda that discourages the use of natural gas in favor of electrical appliances, regardless of cost or availability to consumers. The Biden administration is waging war on oil and gas through aggressive and illegal energy efficiency mandates, they say, and is using efficiency and appliance standards to pursue climate objectives over consumer choice. The department's proposed efficiency standards violate EPCA because the rules are not technologically feasible or economically viable, they say. The bill, they argue, will clarify the process for setting standards and protect consumers from federal mandates that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy savings, are not technologically feasible, or eliminate performance features or product choice.

Opponents of the bill say it will hurt consumers and harm efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They argue that the measure adds burdensome, duplicative, and contradictory procedures to the process for issuing energy efficiency standards. They say that new requirements under the bill, including an economic analysis, minimum energy savings, performance and compatibility factors, and market and competition review are designed to protect industry and slow the rulemaking process. And prohibiting the department from considering the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions shortsightedly ignores science. Because the bill allows future administrations to revoke existing standards, they say it potentially violates the EPCA's anti-backsliding provisions. Finally, they object to the preemption of states' ability to establish efficiency standards if federal efficiency standards are revoked.

Should Congress pass H.R.6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act?

The bill establishes new procedures the Energy Department must follow when setting efficiency standards for consumer products (excluding automobiles).

It maintains the requirement that any new or amended energy conservation standard achieve maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency (depending on the product) and be technologically feasible and economically justified, but eliminates the requirement that the department issue a new proposed rulemaking (or publish a notice that the product standard need not be amended) six years after issuing a final rule — thereby eliminating the current requirement that efficiency standards be reviewed every six years. Instead, reviews of standards would be left to the department's discretion.

It prohibits the department from prescribing an energy conservation standard unless it has prescribed a test procedure for that type or class of product, which would modify current law by also imposing that requirement for dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and kitchen ranges and ovens (those appliances are currently exempt from a similar requirement).

The bill requires the Energy Department, before prescribing a new or amended energy conservation standard, to conduct an analysis of the possible economic impact of such a standard.

The analysis must determine the predicted effects on costs and monetary benefits to consumers (including low-income households) and variations in costs based on differences in regions and climates; on employment; and on lifecycle costs for the product — including purchase, installation, maintenance, disposal and replacement. (Current law does not require an analysis of impact on income, region and climate variation. The department must consider purchase cost and maintenance expenses, but not installation, disposal and replacement.)

Under the measure, a new efficiency standard could not be deemed to be economically justified if the economic analysis shows that the standard would result in additional net costs for consumers, and unless the monetary value of the energy or water savings achieved by the standard in the first three years of use would be greater than any increased costs of the product itself. (Under current law, if the additional cost of the product built under a new efficiency standard is less than three times the value of the energy or water savings during the first year of use, it is generally assumed that the standard is economically justified. However, if the department determines that such criterion is not met, it is not required to use that criterion to determine if the standard is economically justified.)

The bill establishes minimum energy or water savings that must be met before a new efficiency standard can be imposed for a consumer product.

Specifically, a new standard must result in a reduction of at least 0.3 quads of site energy (energy used in a given location or building) over 30 years, or at least a 10% reduction in energy or water use by the product. (Under current law, no minimum savings are required.)

The bill establishes new performance criteria the Energy Department must consider when determining whether a new efficiency standard is economically justified.

It prohibits the department from determining that a new standard is economically justified unless it finds that the standard will not reduce the product's utility or performance. The department must account for the effects of the standard on the compatibility of the product with existing systems; the life span of the product; the operating conditions of the product; the duty cycle, charging time and run time; maintenance requirements; and replacement and disposal requirements.

    (Current law simply requires the department to consider "any lessening of the utility or the performance" of the product that is likely to result from the new standard.)

The bill also prohibits the Energy Department from determining that a new standard is economically justified if the standard would result in any lessening of market competition or in price discrimination. (Under current law the department must consider the lessening of competition, although that criterion alone would not prevent adoption of a new standard.)

It prohibits a new efficiency standard if the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the U.S. of a type of product based on the type of fuel the product consumes.

It requires the department to prioritize the interests of consumers when imposing an energy conservation standard. The department must also consider: the economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers; savings in operating costs compared to any increase in maintenance expenses; the total projected amount of energy or water savings likely to result from the standard; and the need for national energy and water conservation.

Finally, the measure prohibits the department from considering the social costs or social benefits associated with incremental greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to determining that a standard is technologically feasible when developing the standard, the Energy Department within two years of issuing a final energy or water efficiency standard must again evaluate it to review whether the standard was technologically feasible and economically justified and whether the impact analysis remains accurate.

If the department determines that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified, it must publish that determination and the standard would have no force or effect.

The department could modify a standard, which would become effective two years after the publication of a final rule.

Current law allows any person to petition the Energy Department to establish a new efficiency standard for a product. The department must grant the petition if it finds an adequate basis for determining that the new standard would result in significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and cost effective.

The bill also allows any person to petition the department to revoke or modify an efficiency standard by showing that the standard increases costs to consumers; does not result in significant conservation of energy or water; is not technologically feasible; and results in the product not being commercially available in the U.S. to all consumers.

 If the department revokes an efficiency standard, that revocation would effectively revoke any similar state standards by preempting the state standards.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would change spending subject to appropriation by less than $500,000 over five years, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. The measure would not affect revenues, but would reduce direct spending by less than $500,000 over five years (but not affect total direct spending over 10 years). Because it would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

The legislation contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates the cost of the mandate would not result in additional expenditures or losses in revenue, and therefore would not exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($100 million in 2024, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.