Today, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing titled Wasted Energy: DOE’S Inaction on Efficiency Standards and its Impact on Consumers and the Climate. Witnesses at the hearing included: Daniel Simmons, Assistant Secretary at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE); Andrew deLaski, Executive Director for the Appliance Standards Awareness Project; and Katherine Kennedy, Senior Director, Climate & Clean Energy Program for the Natural Resources Defense Council. The hearing began with an opening statement from Chairman Rush (D-Ill.) that focused on missed deadlines for completing reviews to determine if several current efficiency standards should be revised. Assistant Secretary Simmons addressed several issues in his testimony, including changes proposed by DOE to the Process Rule. The Process Rule addresses the procedures and policies that guide DOE in establishing new or amended energy efficiency standards. Many of the changes to the Process Rule proposed by DOE, including the requirement that the test procedures used to evaluate proposed standards be finalized at least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended standards, are supported by APGA.
APGA and the American Gas Association (AGA) submitted joint testimony for the record. In the testimony, the associations communicate their support for energy efficiency standards that are based on sound science, transparent analysis, and economic justification. The testimony also communicates that “DOE should not implement more stringent efficiency standards without a full review and analysis of the potential impact on the overall energy markets and product markets, and the standards’ effect on customer choice, among other things.” The testimony states that while DOE’s role should be to establish minimum standards in an open and transparent manner, APGA and AGA “are concerned about the lack of transparency in the rulemaking for residential furnace efficiency standards.” The testimony cites, as evidence of a lack of transparency, the fact that APGA was required to spend $15,000 to purchase two studies that DOE utilized in the life cycle cost calculation for the proposed furnace rule.
A copy of the joint APGA/AGA testimony is available on the APGA website. APGA will also be participating in a March 21 DOE Public Meeting on proposed changes to the Process Rule and submitting formal comments in response to the proposed changes in April.
For questions on this article, please contact Dave Schryver of APGA staff by phone at 202-464-2742 or by email at
dschryver@apga.org.