[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING THE
EFFECTS OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
REGULATIONS ON AMERICA'S JOB CREATORS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
NOVEMBER 8, 2024
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 118-029
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-085 WASHINGTON : 2024
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
Ben Johnson, Majority Staff Director
Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC................................................. 4
Ms. Alicia Huey, President, AGH Homes, Inc., Birmingham, AL...... 6
Mr. Jeff Bauman, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, National
Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Products, Inc., Bensalem, PA.. 7
Prof. Emily Hammond, Professor of Law, The George Washington
University, Washington, DC..................................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Washington, DC.................................. 32
Ms. Alicia Huey, President, AGH Homes, Inc., Birmingham, AL.. 35
Mr. Jeff Bauman, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, National
Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Products, Inc., Bensalem,
PA......................................................... 43
Prof. Emily Hammond, Professor of Law, The George Washington
University, Washington, DC................................. 46
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
Appliance Standards Awareness Project Letter................. 52
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)......................... 61
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
REGULATIONS ON AMERICA'S JOB
CREATORS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Stauber, Meuser, Van
Duyne, Mann, Molinaro, Alford, Bean, Velazquez, Golden,
Landsman, McGarvey, Gluesenkamp Perez, Scholten, Thanedar, and
Chu.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Good morning, and I want to apologize
for being late to both my democratic colleagues and Republican
colleagues.
Before we get started, I want to recognize Representative
Bean here to lead us in the pledge and prayer.
Okay. I will do that if you all stand, please.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation,
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Please bow your heads.
Heavenly Father, God of all people, thank you for allowing
us to be here today to talk about the greatness of our country
and how both sides can do everything we can in your name to
improve, but we have the opportunity to do so with. We
appreciate our witnesses coming today. In your name we pray.
Amen.
I now call the committee on small business to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
Good morning to all of you again. Thank you for being here,
and welcome to today's hearing which will focus on examining
the detrimental effects of the Department of Energy's
regulations on our nation's job creators.
First I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today,
and I know you traveled to be with us this morning. We
appreciate, again, all of you taking time to do so.
The Biden administration seemingly has it out for Main
Street America. Through their misguided economic policies and
increased regulatory requirements, small businesses are finding
it harder to make ends meet.
Rather than looking for growth opportunities, small
businesses are forced to play defense in order to deal with a
whole host of new regulations coming down the pipeline.
President Biden's Energy Department has been especially
active in the past few years in passing new rules that have
dramatic repercussions on small businesses. By implementing
tighter energy-efficient standards, manufacturers are being
forced to change significant portions of their operations.
This is increasing the cost of producing this equipment
which is ultimately passed along to businesses and the American
people. The actions are forcing Main Street America to foot the
bill for this administration's radical climate agenda.
Inflation remains a top concern for job creators, yet the
DOE's new regulations on gas stoves, ceiling fans, and
transformers are increasing costs for businesses and consumers
alike.
Not only are these new standards forcing businesses to
purchase updated equipment, but they are reducing consumer
choice in the marketplace. Competition and consumer preference
should be what determines what is produced, not government
mandates.
These policies provide minimal benefit to our small
businesses and only make it harder for them to operate. So
while small businesses suffer under this administration, their
concerns continue to be ignored.
It is the job of this committee to be main street's voice
in Washington, and we are proud to have this hearing to shine a
light on the devastating effects of these new actions taken by
the Biden administration.
And if we want to ensure America continues to have a
thriving small business economy, our agencies must do better by
listening to main street--repeat, listening to main street--
throughout the rulemaking process and limit the negative
impacts of new regulations.
The government should be in the business of ensuring the
economy works for Americans and guaranteeing regulations aren't
hamstringing job creators. This committee's goal is to ensure
Main Street America is given a fair shot at the American Dream.
Our nation's job creators have been forced to endure
profound challenges over the past--last couple of years, and I
hope this hearing helps spotlight some of the detrimental
consequences of this administration's regulatory policies and
will help us come up with solutions to support our nation's
small businesses.
Again, I want to thank you all for being here today with
us. I am looking forward to today's conversation.
With that, I want to yield to our distinguished Ranking
Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez, for her opening remarks.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Williams. As Members of
the Small Business Committee, we understand that complying with
federal, state, and local regulations can be burdensome for
small business owners, and that is why Congress created the
Office of Advocacy to ensure that federal agencies are taking
the views of small businesses into consideration throughout the
rule-writing process.
In our oversight role, we can send letters, hold hearings,
and request meetings in an effort to hold agencies accountable
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Department of Energy is required, under the bipartisan
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to establish energy
conservation standards for approximately 60 consumer products
and reevaluate them every 6 years.
Unfortunately, the previous administration violated the law
and missed 26 deadlines, including one for distribution
transformers.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you may hear today.
The Trump DOE was sued, and as part of a court settlement, the
Biden administration is required to review these long overdue
standards. This isn't a case of federal overreach.
The reality is, the Trump delays hurt small businesses,
costing them more to do business. Since taking office, the
Biden administration has issued efficiency standards for more
than 20 product categories, saving Americans $570 billion and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.4 billion
metric tons over 30 years.
That translates into significant energy savings for small
businesses.
Today I hope to have a productive discussion about energy
conservation standards that lower energy bills for small
businesses, and I would like also to learn more about the steps
that the Department of Energy is taking to consider small
businesses throughout the rule-writing process.
Maybe in the near future we can bring the federal agencies
to hear directly from them, and to give them an opportunity to
explain their thinking.
I would like to request that the written testimony of
Andrew deLaski, the Executive Director of the Appliance
Standards Awareness Project be entered into the record.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So ordered.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. And I will now introduce our
witnesses. Unfortunately, our original witness, Mr. Ben
Lieberman is sick and unable to testify. So, Mr. Marlo Lewis,
we have gone to the bullpen and brought you out, and we
appreciate you being here today on such short notice.
So Mr. Lewis is a senior fellow at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute located here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Lewis
specializes in energy and public policy issues, and previously
he served as the director of external relations at the Reason
Foundation Los Angeles and the staff director of the House
Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth,
Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs.
Mr. Lewis, thank you for being with us again today, and we
look forward to hearing your conversation with us.
Our next witness here today is Ms. Alicia Huey. Ms. Huey is
president of AGH Homes located in Birmingham, Alabama. AGH
Homes is a custom homebuilding company which specializes in
high-end custom homes for buyers on individual lots.
Ms. Huey has also been an active Member of the National
Association of Home Builders and is currently serving as the
Chairman of the Board of Directors.
And while attending the University of Montevallo and
volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, she decided to switch
careers from early childhood education to homebuilding.
Ms. Huey, thank you for being here today, and we look
forward to this important conversation ahead.
Our next witness here with us today is Mr. Jeff Bauman. Mr.
Bauman is manager of regulatory affairs at National
Refrigeration located in Pennsylvania. Mr. Bauman has been with
National Refrigeration, a full-service HVAC and plumbing
mechanical contractor since 2008.
Prior to working at National Refrigeration, he spent 21
years as director of the engineering at Victory Refrigeration.
Mr. Bauman attended Drexel University where he received his
bachelor of science in mechanical engineering.
Mr. Bauman, thank you for being here today, and we look
forward to your testimony.
And now I recognize the Ranking Member from New York, Ms.
Velazquez, to briefly introduce our last witness appearing
before us today.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. It is my pleasure to introduce
Professor Emily Hammond who is a nationally recognized expert
in energy, environment, and administrative law. Professor
Hammond's research on policy work has focused on transparency
and public participation in the regulatory processes. She has
served as the Deputy Counsel for litigation, regulations, and
enforcement at the Department of Energy as well.
Welcome, Professor, and thank you for being here with us
today.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. And we appreciate, again, all
of you being with us on this date.
So before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to remind
them that their oral testimony is restricted to 5 minutes in
length. If you hear me do this, you need to shut it down. Okay?
And if you see the light turn red in front of you, it means
your 5 minutes has concluded and you should wrap up your
testimony.
So with that, I now recognize Mr. Lewis for his 5-minute
opening remarks.
STATEMENTS OF MARLO LEWIS, SENIOR FELLOW, COMPETITIVE
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; ALICIA HUEY, PRESIDENT, AGH HOMES, INC.;
JEFF BAUMAN, MANAGER OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL
REFRIGERATION & AIR CONDITIONING PRODUCTS, INC; AND EMILY
HAMMOND, PROFESSOR OF LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF MARLO LEWIS
Mr. LEWIS. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velazquez, and
Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
am Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, and as you have heard, I am filling in today for my
colleague, Ben Lieberman, who is ill and can't be here, but he
sends his regrets, and I want to thank the committee for
understanding these last-minute circumstances.
Appliance overregulation has been a problem for years, and
things have gotten worse since January 2023. The year began
with the Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
telling the media that a ban on gas stoves is a real
possibility.
That sparked a powerful public backlash, followed by
strenuous denials from the Biden administration that any such
ban was under consideration.
And then only weeks later, the Department of Energy opened
a second regulatory front against gas stoves. While DOE did not
propose an outright ban, compliance stoves would have to
sacrifice product features that have helped make gas the choice
of 38 percent of homeowners and the strong preference of many
serious cooks--and all for the energy savings that DOE
estimated at $1.51 per year.
Other DOE efficiency rulemakings in 2023 target
dishwashers, water heaters, ceiling fans, furnaces, and washing
machines.
Each proposed or final rule likely entails higher appliance
prices, compromised performance, and reduced choices.
With a regulatory agenda so out of touch with what most
people want, it is not surprising that Congress is pushing back
with legislative initiatives to repeal specific appliance
regulations, defund their implementation, or reform the entire
program.
So far most of the attention has been on the adverse
consumer impacts. This hearing adds a much needed focus on the
equally concerning small business impacts. As with homeowners,
small businesses already face hardship and risk from high
gasoline prices, rising interest rates, and regulatory
campaigns to transform America's motor vehicle electricity and
financial sectors.
The last thing small businesses need is a bunch of new
appliance mandates that they didn't ask for.
I would note that DOE efficiency standards need not target
commercial-grade equipment to hinder small businesses. For
example, many catering businesses operate out of people's homes
and use consumer stoves.
Many home-based chefs depend on the high heat setting of
gas stoves for searing and stir-frying. So for them, an
electrification mandate is simply unacceptable.
I should also note that DOE's stove and furnace rules are
part of the Biden administration's climate policy plan to phase
out natural gas usage and electrify everything. Yet DOE admits
that electricity is three times more expensive than gas on a
per-unit energy basis.
The electrification agenda disfavors small businesses that
rely on natural gas for cooking, heating, and other purposes.
DOE's efficiency standards also impose costs on small
businesses that manufacture appliances. That topic deserves
more attention and study.
And in general, I think we would all agree that small
businesses already incur a higher per-employee regulatory costs
than do large firms.
The best reform, it seems to me, is to sunset DOE's
standard-setting authority entirely. Doing so would have no
down side for small businesses, only an up side. Any business
owner that actually wants to purchase or manufacture the kinds
of appliances favored by DOE will always be free to do so, with
or without such regulations.
The only thing that appliance efficiency mandates
accomplish is to force government's particular preference on
everyone, including the businesses that don't want them.
So we recommend--CEI recommends that Congress use the
Congressional Review Act and other authorities to take on each
and every rule that imposes hardships on small businesses.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.
I now recognize Ms. Huey for her 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF ALICIA HUEY
Ms. HUEY. Thank you, and I am pleased to appear before you
today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders to
share our views on how the Department of Energy regulations are
adding to the affordability crisis.
Access to safe, decent, and affordable housing is essential
to the well-being of all Americans. While today's hearing is
focused specifically on Department of Energy regulations, there
are a vast array of regulatory burdens imposed on the
homebuilding industry.
On average, regulations imposed by all levels of government
account for nearly 25 percent of the price of a single-family
home and over 40 percent of the cost of a typical multifamily
development.
Government policies and regulations are making it harder
for homebuilders and multifamily developers to build housing
that is affordable. I would like to share three examples of how
excessive regulations originating from the Department of Energy
worsen the housing affordability.
Number one is the transformer standards. Soaring costs and
shortages of electrical distribution transfers are delaying
housing projects across the nation. Some projects face an 18-
to 24-month wait for a transformer.
The administration is well aware of the shortages of
electrical transformers, yet DOE is pursuing a regulatory
change that will make the situation much worse.
Specifically, DOE is seeking to increase the energy
efficiency of transformers by a mere one-tenth of a percentage
point. This requirement would force manufacturers to retool
production lines and worsen the historic backlog.
Transformers are an essential part of the electrical grid,
and homes cannot be sold unless a transformer is installed and
working.
DOE's proposal will have little impact on energy efficiency
and will exacerbate the current transformer shortage. This is
why NAHB supports the Protecting America's Distribution
Transformer Supply Chain Act.
The legislation would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from
changing energy conservation standards for distribution
transformers for a period of 5 years, which would allow time
for the market to stabilize and so manufacturers could catch up
with the demand.
The next DOE regulation concerns gas stoves. DOE has
proposed a rule that would ban the sale of most current gas
cook top models sold in the United States.
Currently more than 187 million Americans use natural gas
appliances, saving them an average of $1,068 each year.
Each American deserves to live in a home of their choice,
in a location of their choice, and fueled by the energy type of
their choice. Neither DOE, nor the administration, should take
these options away.
And finally the Building Energy Codes. The Inflation
Reduction Act included $1 billion in grants to States that
adopt updated Energy Codes, specifically, the 2021 Energy Code.
Adoption of the 2021 Code adds as much as $31,000 to the
price of a new home.
NAHB understands the importance of energy efficiency, but
the savings from the 2021 Code can take a homeowner as long as
90 years to see payback. That is not a reasonable trade-off.
If you want to make a difference on energy efficiency, we
must focus on existing housing, particularly older homes built
before the introduction of modern Energy Codes.
According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
upgrades to the existing housing stock could yield a projected
reduction of 5.7 percent of the total annual U.S. electricity
consumption by 2030.
Given this potential, upgrading the existing housing stock
must be the primary focus if the nation is going to make
measurable progress.
That billion dollars could have been spent smarter by
focusing on upgrading older homes versus making new, already
energy-efficient housing unaffordable for many American
families.
Improving the nation's housing supply and easing housing
affordability challenges will take a coordinated and concerted
effort at all levels of government. Let's begin by fixing the
broken regulatory process.
Congress should pass legislation such as the Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act to ensure that all
regulations are designed with small businesses in mind, that
regulatory rulemaking agencies are required to consider the
true cost of regulations on small businesses, and that agencies
comply with the letter and intent of the law in crafting new
legislation.
Thank you again for the opportunity, and we look forward to
working with you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. Huey.
And now I want to recognize Mr. Bauman for his 5-minute
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BAUMAN
Mr. BAUMAN. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velazquez, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name
is Jeffrey Bauman. I am the manager of regulatory affairs for
National Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Products, which
embodies Continental Refrigerator and National Comfort
Products.
I am truly thankful and honored for the opportunity to
discuss the impact of Department of Energy regulations on small
businesses like ours.
I have worked in the commercial, food service equipment
industry for over 34 years, including the past 15 years with
Continental where I previously held the position of engineering
manager.
Approximately 2 years ago our company made the decision
that a new full-time position was needed to help manage the
barrage of multiple regulatory actions that continue to
confront our companies, and I took over that role.
National Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Products is a
small, domestic manufacturer that represents approximately 250
high quality manufacturing jobs in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
Continental Refrigerator is a leading manufacturer of
commercial refrigeration equipment, offering over 2,500
different model configurations. We design, build, and certify
all of our products to provide superior performance, to
maintain safe food temperatures in the harsh environments of
commercial kitchens.
Our products must comply with numerous regulations for
safety and sanitation as well as DOE energy regulations. The
refrigerants and foam insulations that are critical components
of these products, must comply with EPA global warming
potential, or GWP, limits.
Our company has made significant investments in research
and development, and production changes over the past 6 years
to transition to extremely low GWP insulation and convert over
99 percent of our products to self-contained R-290 refrigerant,
with the lowest GWP available for these types of products.
Multimillion dollar capital expenditures made for new
production equipment, including new temperature-controlled foam
fixtures to address flow issues with the new low-GWP foams, and
new charging stations required for flammable refrigerants.
We also built in-house, state-of-the-art, laboratory-grade
test chambers. These labs continue to run around the clock 7
days a week to evaluate product performance and manage the
multitude of energy testing required for regulatory compliance.
As a small manufacturer in a heavy regulated industry,
Continental is particularly challenged by continual changes in
regulations while working to control rising costs and develop
innovative products in a highly competitive market.
In 2017, we discontinued a line of horizontal freezers that
could not economically meet new DOE energy standards. We
compete with numerous, low-cost, imported products from foreign
manufacturers who benefit from government subsidies.
Despite our resource limitations, Continental is an active
member of industry associations, including AHRI, NAFEM, ASHRAE,
ASTM, and the NSF Standards Task Force. We hold positions on
numerous committees that are critical to developing robust and
reliable industry test methods and standards.
Our company actively works to engage with the Department of
Energy and the EPA in rulemaking. We analyze and regularly
submit comments in response to Requests for Information and
proposed rules.
This effort is critical to our business because compliance
with excessive regulations significantly impedes our ability to
develop new products, which have been a keystone to the
successful growth of our business.
We also work with the Small Business Administration Office
of Advocacy and helped initiate a small business roundtable to
discuss concerns in the commercial refrigeration industry that
we participated in last year with other stakeholders.
On October 10th of this year, DOE published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in regards to energy conservation standards
for commercial refrigerators and freezers. Our company, along
with other manufacturers and industry associations, are
extremely concerned with DOE's unrealistic proposals in this
notice.
Analysis of the proposed standard level shows extremely
excessive reductions that are up to 60 percent lower than
currently allowed. We have been unable to identify any
potential paths to these types of extraordinary cuts.
DOE's consultants conducted manufacturing interviews that
we participated prior to this proposed rule, but it appears the
information was not thoroughly evaluated for this rulemaking.
Technology options that DOE indicates would reduce energy
consumption in the near future, such as fan controls and high
efficiency fans motors, are already in use.
Other proposed technologies, such as microchannel condenser
coils, have so far proven to be impractical for many
applications. Proposed technologies, such as variable-speed
compressors, have shown some promise in reducing energy
consumption but have not proven to be economically viable
options for many of our products over the next few years.
Increasing our costs to adopt this technology would impede
our ability to compete against other products, particularly
those from foreign manufacturers.
A review of information in DOE's Compliance Certification
Database indicates that more than 85 percent of self-contained
products currently certified would fail to meet the new
standards.
Manufacturers would have to redesign almost every product
to significantly reduce energy consumption in a very short
period of time, using proposed technologies that are not
proven.
Another example of what we believe is DOE overreach is DOE
adding refrigerated chef bases to the scope. There is no test
procedure for this product that has been proven to be tested,
and DOE is proposing new standards for products that have not
been evaluated properly.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share the
information about our company, and the significant burden
presented by DOE regulations on small businesses like ours. We
look forward to working with Congress to address these concerns
and will continue to engage with regulatory agencies.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Bauman.
I now recognize Professor Hammond for her 5-minute opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF EMILY HAMMOND
Ms. HAMMOND. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velazquez, and distinguished Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to testify today.
I will be testifying concerning the Department of Energy's
approach to rulemaking for its Energy Conservation Standards
Program, how the process is structured to ensure that the
voices of small businesses are heard and how these standards
benefit small businesses.
As you noted, I am a professor of law, and I previously
served at the Department of Energy, but the testimony I offer
today is my own, and I don't represent or speak for any party.
Before I speak about the legal requirements DOE must follow
to complete its standards, I want to emphasize that my
experience with the Agency revealed a committed group of
professionals, whether lawyers, engineers, or economists, who
did not treat these legal requirements as boxes to check but
rather thoughtfully carried out both the letter and the spirit
of these laws in service of good governance.
I will begin with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
or EPCA. As you know, Congress passed EPCA in 1975 at a time
when consumer energy costs were rising and there was a scarcity
of energy resources to meet rising demand.
Congress, itself, set the first energy efficiency
standards, and it directed DOE to periodically reassess those
standards and update them using a detailed set of criteria.
The standards must achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that are technologically feasible and
economically justified, and the standards must result in a
significant conservation of energy.
Congress explicitly instructed the agency to consider seven
factors for this analysis, which include economic impact of the
standards on manufacturers as well as consumers.
DOE always sets forth its methodology for evaluating these
factors in its proposed and final rules, and that methodology
allows it to hone in on costs and benefits to small businesses.
In formulating these standards, DOE offers far more
opportunities to participate than required by the
Administrative Procedure Act or EPCA, and indeed it will even
interview small business owners to ensure that it is fully
considering their interests.
This process also helps the agency ensure that it complies
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the analysis for which is
detailed in every proposed rule. That offers further
opportunities for engagement with the Agency before the rule is
final.
Once a standard is adopted, there is usually a 3- to 5-year
timeframe before compliance is expected, and under EPCA, small
businesses can seek an additional 2-year exception.
Moreover, DOE offers guidance to small businesses in plain
language on the website, complete with real phone numbers to
call, and a searchable FAQ section. So small businesses can
easily learn how to seek an exception or to get assistance in
understanding their obligations.
It bears emphasis that this program brings concrete
benefits on householders, small businesses, and other
commercial enterprises in the form of real and meaningful
savings.
For example, one recent study concluded that energy
conservation standards saved businesses almost $23 billion
nationwide.
Each proposed and final rule also documents these kinds of
savings, like the $9 billion that consumers will save under the
proposed battery charger standards.
These consumers are small businesses themselves, and also
the owners and employees of these small businesses whose
financial pressures at home are diminished when their bills are
lower.
There are other benefits too. By reducing energy use, these
standards reduce air pollution, which brings health benefits
and avoids lower worker productivity and lost work days.
Those kinds of disruptions are especially hard on small
businesses, which are already feeling the strain of labor
supply shortages.
And as climate disruption presents even more risks to the
economy and worker well-being, this important program's
additional benefits should not be understated.
Reduced energy reliance translates to grid resiliency, and
of course reduced cost to consumers alleviate the burdens of
those who are most impacted by climate disasters.
DOE values its avoided greenhouse gas emissions and the
billions of dollars for its major rules, and these benefits
extend to small businesses too.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, and we will now
move to the Member questions under the 5-minute rule. I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
The Department of Energy is not typically thought of as a
regulatory entity. However, it appears the Biden administration
is working to undo these norms.
Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you highlight that you
believe the best thing that Congress could do to protect small
business and consumers is to take away DOE's standard-setting
authority entirely.
So, question, can you expand on why you feel this is an
important step and why DOE should not be the one responsible
for setting these standards?
Mr. LEWIS. Well, these standards have been developed over
decades----
Chairman WILLIAMS. Microphone.
Mr. LEWIS. Oh, I am sorry. DOE has been setting these
standards ever since EPCA was adopted--and perhaps parts of the
federal government even before that--and EPCA was enacted in
1975.
So we have had literally decades of mandatory increases in
energy efficiency of appliances, and we have, I think, long
passed the point of capturing all the low-hanging fruit.
And so we had an example that was mentioned before of
improving energy efficiency by one-tenth of 1 percent, and it
is really hard to believe that that translates into gigantic
net savings to small businesses or the economy.
At a certain point, you have to, I think, trust that there
are--that consumers are--have the primary interest in looking
out for what is best for them and that they can make their own
choices, and that DOE doesn't need to continually put its thumb
on the scales.
So I think, you know, DOE should just declare a victory,
say that, yes, you know, mission accomplished and now it is up
to competitive forces and the economy to determine to what
extent we prioritize energy efficiency versus other product
features, qualities, and consumer choices.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Competition always works.
Ms. Huey, I am concerned that the Department of Energy is
prioritizing expensive and burdensome energy efficiency
standards, while providing meager efficiency benefits.
Distribution transformers you have talked about are a clear
example of this. The critical devices are already 99.5 percent
efficient, and they are hard to come by due to supply chain
pressure.
So, question, please tell us how this new rule would impact
homebuilders and hurt your industry.
Ms. HUEY. We have several areas that have houses that are
sitting waiting on transformers. I believe in one area of the
country, we have over 4,000 homes that are ready, but--and also
time is money, so those houses are costing more. As they are
sitting there, builders and developers, are paying interest.
And then ultimately it comes down to the American consumer
having to wait to buy the American Dream.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Bad timing right now with interest,
right?
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Let me follow-up on that. Given the
challenges you just outlined, do you think the Department of
Energy appropriately balanced consumer needs and energy
efficiency when drafting this rule?
Ms. HUEY. No, sir, I don't think so. With the efficiency
that there already is, if we could just put a pause on
increasing the efficiency right now until we can narrow down
the backlog, get rid of the 18- to 24-month waiting period, and
then look at the energy efficiency again.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. With what I have remaining, Mr.
Bauman, a few years ago, your company created a new position to
help manage the regulatory burden by the federal government.
Please share with us what led your company to make that
decision.
Mr. BAUMAN. Our company primarily does commercial
refrigeration equipment. We have had new standards that came
out in 2014, additional new standards that have been--or first
comes the test procedures, and we--when we looked at what the
test procedures, as I mentioned in my testimony, that we are
involved in, which did not--not a lot of small businesses are
able to do, that we are involved in those many organizations
that I mentioned because those are the organizations that write
the test procedures.
And we have seen test standards that came out previously
that were excessive that just, when it came down to it, we had
to shut down production and development, we had to shut down
other programs, and we realized a need to really dedicate a lot
of resources to that effort to get the regulations.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Quickly, regulatory compliance is
expensive, and can you describe quickly what endeavors your
business has had to forego so that you can keep up with
changing regulatory standards.
Mr. BAUMAN. We had a line of freezers that we had to
discontinue. We also have to annually recertify all of our
products with the Department of Energy.
We also have, as I mentioned, we built a new test lab, and
that was primarily because of the onslaught of numerous energy
regulations that we had to comply with, and that lab is running
continuously primarily doing energy testing.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. Thank you for that, and I now
recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bauman, I heard you mention that you have worked with
the Office of Advocacy. Is that true?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, we have.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. How has that experience been?
Mr. BAUMAN. I would say we have had conversations. In all
honesty, we----
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Good? Bad?
Mr. BAUMAN. Good conversations with some, I will say, some
of the previous staff. We have had less responses back in
recent months.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. This week, we are debating the SBA
funding on the floor, and Republicans cut the Office of
Advocacy budget by $800 million, yet right now we are
discussing how regulations affect small firms.
Does it make sense to cut the budget of an office that
exists to monitor federal agency regulatory small business
compliance, and advocate for small firms? It seems disingenuous
to me.
Professor Hammond, how many years does the Department of
Energy typically give small businesses to transition to new
standards?
Ms. HAMMOND. It gives typically 3 to 5 years with the
opportunity for an exception for up to an additional 2 more.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So there is an extension allowed?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And have small firms utilized this
extension?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. And those are all published in the
Federal Register.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Is this enough time to comply, in your
opinion?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Do any standards apply retroactively?
Ms. HAMMOND. No. They all apply in the future.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. Professor, the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act allows DOE to adopt consensus standards that
were negotiated by the industry and energy efficiency experts.
Could you please discuss this option.
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. The agency convened a federal advisory
committee to enable negotiated rulemaking, which is an
alternative to typical notice-and-comment procedures that
allows for a consensus-based process, promoting deeper
collaboration between the Agency and stakeholders.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So, the industry is part of the negotiations
and at the table?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. [Nonverbal response.]
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Lewis, CEI's testimony failed to mention
that DOE was presented with a private consensus agreement for a
proposed final standard for gas stoves in September 2023. Yes
or no, are you aware of this agreement?
Mr. LEWIS. No, I am not.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. Would you support it?
Mr. LEWIS. I would have to look at it first.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. Professor Hammond, can you discuss the
previous administration's failure to meet the statutory
deadlines under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and why
DOE is issuing standards more frequently?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. Congress instructed the agency to
reconsider these standards every 6 years, and the Trump
administration didn't do what Congress instructed, and it got
sued. So now DOE is operating under a consent decree where it
has to play catch-up, and it has to maintain its regular rhythm
of review that Congress has set forth.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Professor, there is a tremendous amount of
misinformation circulating about DOE's appliance standards. Can
you discuss the benefits of the new energy efficient standards
for small firms?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. Small firms save in a number of ways, and
a number of these ways are itemized in the rulemaking record.
They save on energy, and then of course they also save on the
indirect benefits like the health benefits from reduced air
pollution.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. And knowing that small
manufacturers may be disproportionately impacted by the new
standards, how does DOE seek out the input of the smallest of
small firms?
Ms. HAMMOND. It does a significant amount of research on
the front end to make sure it has identified all of the small
businesses that might be impacted, and among other things, it
reaches out to them individually and offers the opportunity for
a conversation.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
Ms. Huey, the DOE standards apply to new products and give
small firms 3 to 5 years to comply. Moreover, DOE's process
allows small manufacturers, advocates, and states to work
together to jointly recommend regulations.
Given the flexibility built into the process, why doesn't
NAHB work collaboratively with the agency rather than opposing
regulations that can lower energy bills for homeowners?
Ms. HUEY. I wouldn't say that we were against the
regulation. We just have such a backlog now that we would like
to catch up before we implement any new energy efficiency
standards for the transformers.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Thank you very much.
And I now recognize Representative Stauber from the great
State of Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Velazquez, for holding this hearing today, and thank you
to our witnesses for taking time away from your busy schedules
to help shed light on this important topic.
Today we are here to talk about the devastating effects of
the DOE's efficiency standards on small businesses and families
in our districts.
These standards are designed to reduce energy consumption
in our homes and businesses. However, they have had the
unintended consequence of making our homes less affordable and
more expensive to build.
Ms. Huey, you mentioned in your testimony that you think
federal regulatory agencies should include the, quote, true,
end quote, cost of the regulations in the rulemaking process.
Can you expand a bit what you mean by the ``true cost''?
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. What I have
come to learn in the regulatory rulemaking process here in
Washington is that agencies are only required to consider the
direct cost of crafting new regulations. They don't take into
consideration sometimes just the waiting time. Time is money.
Time that I have to spend waiting for water taps to be
installed, waiting for zoning approval, waiting for permitting,
all of those sorts of things need to be taken into
consideration as well.
Mr. STAUBER. So when we talk about gas furnaces, the
Department of Energy wants to get rid of gas furnaces or change
the way they operate.
Water heaters. A new water heater, their recommendation is
to get water heaters that reduce energy. To replace a water
heater is $2,800.
Ms. HUEY. And that is just the water heater. That doesn't
include installing the electrical plug for it.
Mr. STAUBER. Exactly right.
Dishwashers----
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir, same.
Mr. STAUBER.--$225 more.
Gas stoves, between $800 and $3,200 it is going to cost the
American people. Light bulbs, $140 more. Washers, $200. Air
conditioners, pushing $2,000.
And would you believe our federal government wants to
regulate ceiling fans? Think about the overreach by this
federal government.
Ms. Huey, these aren't my numbers. These are
administration's numbers. $320 billion--that is with a B--$320
billion of additional regulations on American small businesses
and manufacturers.
What do you--give us an estimate of the cost per household
if these changes were made. Can the American people afford
this?
I mean, the government wants to be in every part of our
lives--ceiling fans, dishwashers, water heaters, light bulbs.
It is unbelievable. Give us a cost from the builders, and what
is their sense?
Ms. HUEY. And, you know, we are talking about costs for
small businesses, but in my business it is ultimately passed
down to the consumer.
With the new Energy Codes, the 2021 Energy Codes, that is
an additional cost of $31,000 to a new home. That is something
that a teacher or a firefighter or a nurse cannot afford.
Mr. STAUBER. Or a police officer like myself?
Ms. HUEY. Or a police officer, yes, sir.
Mr. STAUBER. I just--Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, $31,000 these
bureaucrats put on somebody that wants to build a new home, not
through Congress, through these three-letter agencies,
unaccountable, nonelected, to put on the American people.
And this is just what you are talking about--$31,000. The
median income in the district that I represent is 60-ish-
thousand dollars. This is unbelievable.
And the interest rates right now, it is simply--it is
simply unacceptable. I can't imagine what folks are thinking
when the government is telling us what type of water heaters we
can use or gas furnaces we need to change, gas stoves--banning
gas stoves.
My 90-year-old father says, what am I going to cook at the
hunting shack with? It is a gas stove. He has been doing it for
60 years.
This is overreach, Mr. Chair, by our federal government, in
every aspect of our lives, complete overreach, and it is
unacceptable. I think the American people have had it, and I
yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Representative Golden from the great State
of Maine for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Hammond, I really only have two questions, I
believe. I reserve the right for follow-ups, but by all means,
take your time and answer them as best you can.
You mentioned in your opening testimony that the Agency
does a good job of speaking in very plain terms to businesses
to help them understand new regulations and compliance, and I
am hoping you can treat the committee the same way here and not
assume that we are deep in the weeds.
If you were to hand us some kind of blueprint, like a one-
pager, that would tell us a little bit about the process that
DOE conducts to do outreach to small businesses as part of the
rulemaking process, what would it show us? What concrete steps?
If you could be, you know, detailed.
Ms. HAMMOND. It would show a very--a years' long process to
not only develop the standards themselves but also the test
procedures that come before the standards.
These begin with Requests for Information--which are widely
extended and as well as published in the Federal Register--the
development of technical support documents, webinars, and then
specific research to identify particular small businesses who
may be impacted, to seek them out directly. And that is all
before a rulemaking is even proposed.
Once it is proposed, it goes through that process again. It
works with the Office of Advocacy as well to make sure that it
is properly considering the interests of small businesses, and
again----
Mr. GOLDEN. You bring specific industry, small business
owners in and actually sit around the table with them?
Ms. HAMMOND. Well, yes. For example, I am aware that
yesterday DOE hosted a public meeting on the commercial
refrigeration standards.
Mr. GOLDEN. Okay. And how--could you describe, like,
attendance? What is the update?
Ms. HAMMOND. I haven't checked on the attendance yesterday.
The ones that I previously participated in were very well
attended.
Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you. So kind of moving on from there, how
often do you think that input is received and then acted upon
such that between a proposal and a final rule, changes are
actually made that incorporate what small businesses have given
back to DOE?
Ms. HAMMOND. Very often. It is extremely common for the
Agency to adjust its final rule in response to all of the input
it received during the proposed rule.
And I should note that a number of the standards we are
talking about today are proposed standards, so there is still
an opportunity for lots of engagement with the Agency, and it
indeed will address those comments.
Mr. GOLDEN. Are there any specific examples that you can
recall in your own time in the Department where you saw that
process play out and changes made and incorporated?
Ms. HAMMOND. I--yes. And of course I was serving as
counsel, so I--I will maybe not be quite as detailed, but I
will say an example is for the general standard--the general
service lamp, the light bulb standard which, of course,
Congress directed the agency to undertake.
And the Agency considered all of the feedback of
businesses, and it developed a different enforcement timeline
to provide even further a glide path to make sure that people
had a chance to be ready for the standard going into effect.
Mr. GOLDEN. Sure. And finally in your testimony you
mentioned Congress built in a relief valve for small
businesses. Can you talk a little bit about the flexibility
that that affords the Agency and small businesses? And can you
think of any examples where that has actually been utilized?
Ms. HAMMOND. I don't have a concrete example right at hand,
but essentially this is written into the statute, and the
Department has very clear guidance on its website about what a
small business would need to do.
Once a small business does present a request, then that is
published in the Federal Register, and assuming it is granted,
that is also published in the Federal Register. So it is----
Mr. GOLDEN. Is that like a specific waiver request from one
business or is it----
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Mr. GOLDEN. Okay. So it is not a broad waiver across an
entire industry?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right. A small business can take
advantage of that.
For the test procedures, there is also a waiver process
available, and that relates to the procedures themselves and
the technology.
Mr. GOLDEN. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Alford from the great State
of Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking
Member Velazquez. Thank you to all of our witnesses here today.
I know you come here on your own dime and own time, and we
really appreciate that.
Hey, this is a very important hearing for us for a couple
of reasons. You know, the past few months, we have all seen the
news about the Department of Energy--or I think I am going to
rename it the department of encroachment now--and their new
energy efficiency rules.
And now we are really learning the impact that it is going
to have on our businesses and our American families.
The Biden-Harris administration time and time again, I
think, fails to consider the impact of these erroneous over-
regulations, what it is going to have on our homebuilders, our
families, and our businesses.
If we do not champion main street interests, then we will
lose the small businesses that are part of the fabric of
America, and a contributing factor to the closure of small
business is the current regulatory environment.
Ms. Huey, I want to start with you if I can, ma'am.
In your testimony you said regulatory burdens account for
25 percent of the cost of a typical newly built home. I just
gave up my real estate license, sold new homes actually in the
Kansas City area for many years.
The average or median price there for a home is $270,000.
That would bump it up to $337,500. And when you consider the
interest rates now that, especially younger folks, new families
are trying to get into homes, it seems like the Biden
administration does not believe in the American Dream.
It is trying to kill the American Dream, the American Dream
of homeownership, moving our society from owners into renters.
I have had conversations with Will Ruder, the president of
our local Home Builders Association there in Kansas City. He
says the exact same thing, that this 25 percent increase is
going to drive people out of the Kansas City area and into
places that are not having to conduct, because of other
regulations--the Kansas City Council is imposing on Building
Codes there, but it is a monstrous really burden that people
are having to pay to get into the American Dream of
homeownership.
How do you see this playing out long-term for builders? How
did they keep building when the Biden administration keeps
putting a foot on their neck?
Ms. HUEY. It does make it extremely more difficult because
we have federal, state, and regulations all to follow.
It is noted that NAHB illustrates that for every $1,000
increase in the price of a median home, which is about
$425,700, that prices out 140,436 households out of the
market--for every $1,000 increase in the price of a house.
Mr. ALFORD. Well, when you consider this--and this is
getting off into another topic, I realize it, but investment
companies like BlackRock that are also investing in build-to-
rent communities--we have seen that in the Kansas City area--
where they are building entire neighborhoods of rental homes
that look like regular, single-family homes, and they are, but
they are like apartments.
And you know what else, it is a lot easier to get people
into rentals and apartments especially. You can ballot harvest
a lot easier in an apartment than you can walking a single-
family neighborhood.
It is scary what is happening to the American Dream, and I
applaud you and the homebuilders of America who are trying to
make that dream possible and affordable for the American
people. I am running out of time.
Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you mentioned the RFA's and
lack of Agency's willingness to take it seriously. Please talk
about how we can better utilize or improve the RFA so we can
use it as effective tool rather than just a check box.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes. Well, one thing that--oh, sorry, the mike
again. Yeah. I mean, the agencies have flexibility--they get
flexibility in determining what is a significant impact or what
is a substantial number of small entities.
So I would think that maybe tightening up or clarifying
those definitions. Like I was just trying to think--I was
talking to my colleague on the way over here and kicking some
ideas around, and what is a significant impact, it seems to me,
would be relative to the profit margin of the business that is
affected.
And so maybe there could be some standard that will be
adopted that would say, you know, for the industrywide
average----
Mr. ALFORD. Sir, we are out of time. I am sorry.
Mr. LEWIS. Okay.
--the regulation cannot cost more than, say, 3 percent of
your profit margin. I mean, that might be an idea.
Mr. ALFORD. I like that idea.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative McGarvey from the great
State of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here today.
Thank you, Professor Hammond. I want to especially thank
you for highlighting some of the contributions of our civil
servants who do a really good job in trying to do the best they
can for all of us in this country.
I am going to repeat a little bit of myself from one of the
previous hearings we had in this committee, and that is, we are
here to talk about regulations. We care about how regulations
impact people and how they impact businesses.
And that well written and well executed regulations are
important--they save lives. They save money. They save money
for our government. They save money for our consumers. They
also can save our planet--and I want to go to these specific
standards as an example of that.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
estimates that efficiency standards for appliances and lighting
would save the average Kentuckian, where I am from, an
estimated 15 percent of their annual bill.
This isn't surprising. I see in my own home, which was
built in the late 1920s, early 1930s, the importance of having
energy-efficient items.
The DOE estimates that by 2030, cumulative savings from all
standards in effect since 1987 will reach nearly $2 trillion.
So I want to go back and, Professor Hammond, I want to
start with you, in part because I am a recovering lawyer and I
have always wanted to ask a law professor a question instead of
having them ask me a question.
But the administration is required by law to issue these
regulations, correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Mr. MCGARVEY. And it is a result of a court decision from
the Trump administration not issuing these regulations that is
requiring them to not just issue the regulations but to have to
play catch-up for what the Trump administration didn't do in
the 4 years it was in office?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Okay. So these are required by law, and
obviously this committee is not suggesting that the
administration break the law. So let's talk about what these
standards are doing.
And it has been shown that the standards we are examining
today will help benefit small businesses and save them money in
the long run.
Again, we care about small businesses. Small businesses are
the backbone of my community in Louisville, Kentucky. We want
them to succeed and thrive and do well.
So how do these standards benefit the broader economy and
the country, including small business, small business
employees, and those who do business with them?
Ms. HAMMOND. In a number of ways. There is, of course, the
direct benefit, which is lower energy bills, and I should note,
lower water bills too for some of the standards.
So that is a direct impact that is true for a business that
is using any of these appliances or equipment, as well as the
homeowners or householders who also use them in the house and
also work at small businesses.
Then of course there are the broader impacts, like the
health benefits and the climate benefits that I mentioned.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you. Okay. So kind of just reframing
this again, the court has said the administration has to issue
these. They have to issue more because the Trump administration
didn't do it.
They can be helpful, but we want to make sure they are
helpful to small businesses. Is there a process by which the
administration is considering the needs of small businesses? Do
they have community engagement sessions? Must they take into
consideration any of these comments in the proposed rule?
Ms. HAMMOND. Yes. First of all, to answer your final
question, they are required by law to respond--not just
consider but respond--to significant comments raised, and of
course the overall process is very much designed to consider
interests of all stakeholders but particularly small
businesses.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you. And when they find a legitimate
concern, how do they work to address it?
Ms. HAMMOND. They work first to just understand what it is
and make sure that they have thoroughly considered the issue.
They look to see whether there are adjustments to be made and
how those trade off against the other factors that Congress
required the Agency to consider.
So it is very much a case-by-case decision, but those
comments do have an impact.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Professor, I appreciate that
because, again, we want to make sure that our small businesses
are being heard, that they are being represented, that these
regulations make sense for them. So I appreciate that very
much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Van Duyne from the great
State of Texas for 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing today is one of tremendous importance. With
Americans suffering under 3 years of disastrous policies from
the Biden administration that have been painfully driving up
cost of living.
It has made food, electricity, housing, and transportation
impossible to afford, and it has made new homeownership an
impossibly distant dream for many young Americans.
Now we need to deal with a reckless agenda from the
Department of Energy, pushing overreaching energy-efficiency
rules that will burden small manufacturers.
Earlier this year, this committee passed my bill, the Small
Business Regulatory Reduction Act, which requires the Small
Business Administration to ensure, for each fiscal year, the
cost to small businesses of the administration's rulemaking is
not greater than zero, and while also requiring the SBA to
issue a report on any regulations issued by other federal
agencies that impact small businesses.
And I am looking to expand this to obviously the Department
of Energy now, and I think it is a perfect place to start.
This hearing is a great example of why my bill is
necessary, and which is to ensure Congress is reigning in the
power of out-of-control, regulatory, glutton executive branch.
And I look forward to continuing to work with the committee to
see my bill move forward and to work to strengthen small
businesses across the country.
We just heard testimony on, in answers to some of the
questions, that said that these regulations benefit small
businesses.
Mr. Bauman, I want to ask you--you work for a small
business--how often do you guys Go, Oh, goody, we got more
regulations, these are going to benefit us?
Mr. BAUMAN. We don't--it hurt us, as I said, from the
product side, our competitiveness and ability to offer--
innovate products and work along those lines versus we are
taking time to address regulations to meet with and--as Ms.
Hammond mentioned, we were in a meeting yesterday with DOE in
regards to commercial refrigeration equipment, and I was there.
I was basically the only small business. There were a few
others, there were a handful, but a lot of small businesses
don't have the opportunity like we have invested in to do that.
So it has absolutely been a burden. And the other----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So this is going to cost small businesses
money?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, yes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. But we just heard about all of these cost
savings that they were going to have. Do you actually see that?
I mean, there is one thing to say that that is going to happen
on paper, but in reality do you see that that is happening?
Mr. BAUMAN. We do not see that happening. It continues to
be a burden on our sales and on our manufacturing.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So you have got increased inflation as well,
and that is being coupled with increased federal regulations.
Has that made it more difficult for your business to grow?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, it has. We are privately owned. We are
very short-term borrowers. We try to not do a lot of
investments that we can't afford to invest ourselves. But,
yeah, there is all different types of capital expenditures that
are harsh on our business.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. And, Ms. Huey, I am going to ask you the
same question. I mean, do your home builders--are they excited
with these new regulations? Do they see all of the cost savings
that we have heard are going to come? Are they actually seeing
that in reality?
Ms. HUEY. Yeah, no. Thank you for the question.
As I talked about earlier, one-quarter of the cost of new
construction of a single-family home is government regulations,
and that is at all levels. For me I looked back at a house I
built recently. I spent $35,000 before I ever started building
the house. That was permit--building permit, land disturbance
permit, water tap, sewer tap, driveway permit, gravel, silt
fence. All of those add up before I ever really started
building the house.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. What State?
Ms. HUEY. Alabama.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. In Alabama. So be happy that you are not
building in California because pre-pandemic it was 40 percent
regulatory costs.
Ms. HUEY. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. But, you know, have you found that in your
increased inflation as well, coupled with increased
regulations, has that made it difficult for you to grow your
business?
Ms. HUEY. It has. And it is difficult for the consumers.
They don't understand that when I give them a price of what--
that estimate of what their house is going to be and then when
those estimates grow because of things like fuel surcharge, you
know, in the last couple of years that we have had. Now I
understand the fuel prices are down, but in the last couple of
years they were up. So it is things like that that added on to
the top that we didn't expect.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So you are saying that not only are these
regulations overburdensome and harmful to small businesses, but
you are saying actually people who want to buy homes are also
affected negatively by this?
Ms. HUEY. Absolutely.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So how much more have homes cost in the last
3 years, if you could, in Alabama or anywhere in the country?
Ms. HUEY. I know that in the last couple of years, one
point of reference I have is during the pandemic--and I know
that we are not talking about lumber prices, but our lumber
package went from $35,000 to $125,000, and it settled somewhere
around $75,000.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Well, I would look forward to hearing if you
guys have any solutions. I know typically what I hear is we
just want the government to stay out of our business. That was
the best way to help it grow.
I appreciate you guys being here. And I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Chu from the great State of
California for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. While those on the other side of the aisle are
trying to make it sound like the Biden administration decided
to just do rulemaking on its own, but let me emphasize this is
the law. And the Department of Energy is required by law to
evaluate energy efficiency standards for various products and
appliances every 6 years. Once an updated standard is
published, small businesses get 3 years to comply and get an
extra 2 years' grace period before they have to come into
compliance. So that is 5 years total to do so. And let's not
forget that these standards only apply to newly manufactured
products, not to existing products that consumers already
owned.
We also heard from Professor Hammond's testimony that there
is ample opportunity for small businesses' and small
manufacturers' concerns to be considered at every step of the
department's process when they decide how to update a
particular standard. And, in fact, she said that the department
even goes further than what is required, offering webinars and
conducting other types of direct outreach to small business
stakeholders. So, actually, the Biden administration is going
above and beyond to consider small business voices in the
rulemaking.
Actually, we are in this situation because the previous
administration missed scores of deadlines violating the
requirements in the law. And, in addition, there was a lawsuit
over the previous administration's failure to meet the
standards. It was settled, and the settlement was that the DOE
was required to review these regulations.
So, Professor Hammond, can you explain why the Department
of Energy is being required to issue so many new standards now
and give an example of how this benefits small businesses?
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. As you described, it is required to do
so many now because it has its existing statutory obligations,
plus the backlog that now a court is enforcing that it has to
comply with.
And then in terms of the kinds of benefits, these benefits
can be for all kinds of small businesses. We are not just
talking about manufacturers here. We are talking about all
small businesses. It is the convenience store owner. It is the
person who has the restaurant or cooks out of their home. Any
number of businesses who use appliances are going to be saving
on their bills because of these standards.
Ms. CHU. Well, let's talk about one particular appliance
because there is so much misinformation about the proposed gas
stove standards. The Department of Energy is not proposing to
ban gas cooking products any more than it is trying to ban
light bulbs.
Does the DOE even have the authority to ban gas stoves?
Ms. HAMMOND. No, it doesn't.
Ms. CHU. When would these proposed standards for gas stoves
go into effect? And, by the way, can you explain what the
standard is now?
Ms. HAMMOND. Well, I will mention that the proposed rules,
they are not even finalized yet, so they will still benefit
from input, the types of which we are hearing today. The
proposed rules are not just for gas stoves. They are for gas
and electric stoves as the department is required to do. And
they will go into effect, I think it is 3 to 5 years from when
the rule is final. I just want to note, those are future-
looking for new stoves. It has nothing to say about what
happens for people who already have gas stoves.
Ms. CHU. And, in fact, the DOE does not have the authority
to take products out of consumers' homes or small businesses.
Is that correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. Absolutely.
Ms. CHU. Now, can you also give us an example of where the
DOE did a review and maybe cite a standard that the DOE decided
not to update because it did not meet the criteria?
Ms. HAMMOND. One that comes to mind is space heaters. DOE
decided not to set efficiency standards for those. So it does
look at these and decide whether it is called for under the
statutory requirements.
Ms. CHU. So the process works, and the DOE is not
overreaching. Correct?
Ms. HAMMOND. That is right.
Ms. CHU. And let me ask also about the particular savings
that the average American household is saving, because it is
not just small businesses. It is every American that is saving
on their utility bills. Can you talk more about that?
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. And that is true. All of these rules
have to be cost justified. That means the costs have to be
outweighed by the benefits, and DOE published those
transparently for everyone to see. The deLaski and Mauer study
that I cite in my written testimony provides State-by-State
analyses of benefits not just to businesses but also to
consumers.
Ms. CHU. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Meuser from the great State
of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it very much.
Thank you very much to our witnesses.
So we just heard--and I say this in all due respect--how
wonderful the DOE's regulations and rulemaking is and how
positive it must be for small business.
Mr. Lewis, do you find that from gas stoves to other rules
being made that that has been beneficial to the industry that
you are familiar with?
Mr. LEWIS. Well, I don't have much industry specific
experience, but I will say that--mike. Oh, sorry, the mike.
I can't----
Mr. MEUSER. Well, Competitive Enterprise Institute, you
must--that deals with businesses. Right?
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, that's right. But, in other words, we
don't--we are not spokespersons for any particular industry. My
colleague, Ben Lieberman, who was supposed to testify, actually
does have much more contact with industry experts. I wish he
were here.
Mr. MEUSER. And I will move on down the line. Ms. Huey.
Mr. LEWIS. But if I could----
Mr. MEUSER. Yeah, go ahead.
Mr. LEWIS. Yeah. But if I could mention, you know, some of
these costs are in the form of degraded performance. Like many
people complain that the dishwasher has to be run twice in
order to get the dishes clean, that clothes washers now, they
are so efficient in their use of, say, water that you have to
wash the clothes twice.
Mr. MEUSER. Right.
Mr. LEWIS. And we actually had an ad back a few years ago
which was billed ``Send Your Underpants to the
Undersecretary,'' because a lot of people were complaining that
they had to run the same load twice.
So those are costs that the agency is really not terribly
concerned about.
Mr. MEUSER. Good. Great points.
And if they actually were to talk with stakeholders, as we
are hearing, that the overreach is just phenomenal--you know, I
was in business for nearly 25 years. And, Mr. Bauman, I want to
ask you, when you all have improved air-conditioners, when you
make air-conditioners more efficient, you make them less cost,
you make them utilize less energy, did any of that come from a
mandate or a rule from the government?
Mr. BAUMAN. No. We----
Mr. MEUSER. It is laughable. Right?
Mr. BAUMAN. Yeah. We look at what the regulations are, but
in the air-conditioning and on the refrigeration side, we are
because of the competitive market----
Mr. MEUSER. You make it better?
Mr. BAUMAN. Right.
Mr. MEUSER. So your customers--so it costs them less, so
they are using less fuel, so as they are cooling the area in
the best manner and most effective way possible. It is called
American innovation. It is called entrepreneurship. Would you
call it government rulemaking and mandates?
Mr. BAUMAN. I would say the innovation is where we--not the
mandates, but having products that are innovative and, again,
primarily that are providing refrigeration for safe food or
those that really are providing safety and comfort.
Mr. MEUSER. And, Chairman, I am sorry I sound a little
sarcastic, but it is a little hard to take.
So, Ms. Huey, I would like to ask you a couple of questions
on the transformer issue that you spoke about in your testimony
and the shortage that exists and the Department of Energy now
submitting that it needs to have some new standards for these
transformers, and yet they have gone through all kinds of
efficiency measures over the last several years.
Do you want to just speak on that a little bit further,
please?
Ms. HUEY. Yes. So as we have talked about, they are
already, you know, like 97.9 percent energy efficient, and we
are only increasing the efficiency by 1/10 of a percent while
we have an 18- to 24-month backlog of people that need them,
the houses that are sitting. I think it is in the Houston area
there is about 4,000 houses that are sitting. And then recently
the tornadoes that ripped through Mississippi, I think there
was about 400 transformers that were torn out there. So it only
adds to the backlog and the time.
Mr. MEUSER. Sure. Has your industry been in--has the DOE
been in contact with you folks and said, Hey, what do you think
about this action? Give us some input. We are very interested
in whether or not we should pursue this.
Ms. HUEY. We did participate in the SBA's advocacy. We had
over 60 of our builders that were part of a round table
discussion, and they expressed all of their concerns. It will
be very interesting to see if the DOE will heed those concerns.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay. So you haven't had a response yet?
Ms. HUEY. No.
Mr. MEUSER. You have only had the original rule, so nothing
has been affected or changed as of yet?
Ms. HUEY. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay. Well, maybe we can help you follow up on
that with them and see because, in the end, we are interested
in reasonable initiatives. However, at this point in time, you
think the current rule is quite unreasonable for your industry?
Ms. HUEY. Right now because we have a backlog I do believe
that it is, yes.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay.
Ms. HUEY. When you think about the energy efficiency that
we already have in homes right now and in the transformers, to
go another step when we have such a backlog and the American
dream is unaffordable and unattainable for so many.
Mr. MEUSER. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Scholten from the great
State of Michigan for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you
to all of our witnesses for coming here today. Your testimony
is incredibly enlightening. This is such an important topic.
My district is home to a very large portion of the Grand
River Watershed, the largest river in the State of Michigan.
And we also represent miles of beautiful Lake Michigan
shoreline, the Great Lakes region multibillion dollar economy.
I am very serious about protecting these natural resources, not
only for their inherent worth, but what they contribute to our
economy.
That being said, there is nothing more frustrating to a
west Michigan small business owner than regulations that do
nothing and just stand in their way, impede their business and
don't even do what they purport to do.
My colleagues on this committee know that I have been the
first among Democrats many times to push back against
unnecessary regulations. But one of the things that I want to
talk about today is the process that the department goes
through to make sure that these regulations are doing what they
intend to do.
And so I have two questions for you, Professor Hammond. I
am wondering if you can explain how the Department of Energy's
current rulemaking process takes into consideration the
priorities of small businesses and consumers and what DOE does
to ensure that regulations are cost-effective and not overly
burdensome for consumers--or for businesses. Excuse me. Yeah,
thank you.
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. So the process itself has that seven-
factor analysis that Congress required, and that looks at both
costs and benefits to consumers, to manufacturers. And then, of
course, DOE further evaluates specifically the interests of
small businesses in that process. It always has to be cost
justified.
And then further--I am sorry. Could you just remind me of
your second question?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yeah. So how is the DOE ensuring that these
regulations are cost-effective and not overly burdensome for
small businesses? What is the process beyond maybe those seven
steps?
Ms. HAMMOND. It also complies, of course, with Executive
Order 12866, and it does a cost-benefit analysis that is
reviewed both by OIRA. It collects interagency comments on,
again, not just the proposed rules but also the final rules,
and for many of the standards we are talking about today, they
are still just proposed.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Okay. Thank you so much.
And what's your impression of that process, the feedback
loop that happens and the consideration that is taken in? You
know, are small businesses being heard when they weigh in about
how that would impact their business?
Ms. HAMMOND. They are. My experience is that the agency
takes small business feedback very seriously and thinks long
and hard about how these standards will affect those
businesses.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you.
My second question is, you know, I hear so much from
constituents who regard regulations as unnecessary government
intervention in the market. Can you explain how regulations
around energy conservation standards actually serve to bolster
innovation and positively impact the economy?
Ms. HAMMOND. Sure. And I want to say maybe two things about
the EPCA standards. The first is that these are national
standards to avoid additional costs that manufacturers would
have to comply with if they had to go State by State for
various standards. So there is an efficiency built in right
there. And they push innovation. Typically the standards do
apply in a way that already there are existing products on the
market, but it allows new entrants to the market and invites
innovation to even push forward.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you so much.
Yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Molinaro from the great
State of New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLINARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although great State
of New York, it may not be the right moniker for the purposes
of this hearing as New York has created--made a science and art
form of overregulating even the most basic behaviors.
I came at the right moment. I take no--I don't want to take
much issue, but, you know, uniformity of regulation is nice and
efficiencies to achieve that. It might come out of uniformity
of regulation, but we live in a Republican democracy, and in
that form of government, the States have certain
responsibilities, the federal government has certain
responsibilities. And we are not supposed to tread on those.
And small businesses in particular, they understand the burden,
the challenge of overregulation.
I have often said, having spent the last 30 years in both
State and local government, that when it comes to federal
regulation or federal government, not only doesn't the federal
government know what the left--the right hand doesn't know what
the left hand is doing. In the federal government, sometimes
the left hand doesn't even know there is a right hand.
And that overburdensome bureaucracy, if you will, that
labyrinth of regulation adds enormous burden, pressure,
compliance concerns, and costs to small businesses. And so I
happen to think that we ought to expect greater consolidation
of regulation. We ought to demand greater transparency, and
there needs to be better understanding by the small business
owners in particular as to what regulation they are to follow,
when, how, and what the impact is to them.
And so to that end, I joined in introducing the POST It Act
which requires federal agencies to post guidance on rules that
will have significant impact on small businesses. I represent
small communities all across Upstate New York. Small business
is, as it is across America, the engine of economic opportunity
in our community. 70 percent of new jobs created by existing
small business, they are overburdened.
To that end, Mr. Marlo Lewis, I want to just get your take
and opinion on the necessity of the POST It Act, the benefit it
might provide, and how small businesses might be helped should
it be adopted.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes. This is a straight-up transparency and
accountability reform. It is almost unbelievable that anyone
would oppose this or that the access to regulatory guidance
wasn't already readily available. It was for a period under the
Trump administration that we have heard so much about, but the
Biden administration, one of its first moves in the regulatory
sphere was to repeal the requirement that every agency provide
a portal with a database, a searchable database so that
businesses could find out what guidance documents--and there
are literally thousands of them--apply to them and that they
must know in order in turn to comply with regulations.
So we are all behind your bill. We think it is great and it
is long overdue. And we are also flabbergasted that it is even
necessary.
Mr. MOLINARO. Yeah, I thought you might say that. And not
only is it important for transparency purposes, but the lack of
transparency allows the federal government and, by extension,
State governments to enforce without either understanding or
the ability by small businesses to effectively react or even
prevent such enforcement.
Ms. Huey, I wanted to--because I only have a minute left. I
just wanted to acknowledge, in your testimony you talk a little
bit about recent efforts by the DOE to use the rulemaking
process to limit consumer access to residential gas stoves. New
York has already taken such an action, which for me, you know,
I come from a part of the country where, by the way, the modern
day environmental movement was born in the Hudson River Valley.
I get it. We understand the value of both environmental
protection and addressing climate change. However, the policy
is misguided, and it does focus a heavy bureaucracy on a
fragile industry and overtaxed individuals. And I did join in
opposing Governor Hochul's proposed ban and requiring the
federal government to evaluate the actual costs of such a ban
to small businesses.
Could you just speak quickly about how the DOE's proposed
rule on gas stoves might affect your business and, by
extension, customers?
Ms. HUEY. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
I recently built a home for a customer that cooked, loved
to cook. When we walked through the house at the rough-in, she
said, I guess we need to add an electrical plug because they
are going to come and take my gas stove. She really said that
to me. And she said, And I guess we need to put one upstairs
for the hot water heater too. And I said, No, ma'am, they are
not going to come take it out of your house.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I just would add, this is
precisely why we need the transparency. I yield with we have
consumers that are unduly burdened and worried that the federal
government is looking around their kitchen tables.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. The gentleman
yields back.
I now represent Representative Gluesenkamp from the great
State of Washington for 5 minutes.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I think I know the answer to this. And I want to say I
sincerely appreciate the witnesses. I know you all pay your own
way to be here. I really appreciate that you are here. But do
any of you--have any you of you--none of you currently work as
technicians fixing appliances. Correct? Have any of you been
technicians?
Okay. Thank you to the committee staff who ensured that
someone on the panel has worked actually fixing appliances,
because I think that is a critical piece that has been missing
from this discussion.
I want to say that I appreciate the department's statutory
obligation to review the standards, but I am deeply concerned
why these washing machines can play Tchaikovsky, but they only
last 2 years now. And it is something that--you know, they say
there is lies, damn lies, and statistics. And I am very
concerned about the horizon.
So, Professor Hammond, I don't know if you know the answer
to this, but when they do these cost-benefit analysis, like,
how do they reflect back the durability of an appliance? And
what's the horizon that they are expected to last?
Ms. HAMMOND. They do consider the lifetime of the
appliance. And, of course, that varies by appliance. I will say
they also consider the efficacy. I know they just did a test
procedure for dishwashers to ensure that there is a washability
standard there too.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Do you know what the timeline--like,
how many years are they expected to last?
Ms. HAMMOND. I would have to go look for which specific
appliances we are talking about, but sometimes, you know, 10 to
12 years.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Because every time I am driving
around I see these front-loading washing machines out on the
street, you know, and it is a huge environmental impact, and it
is a huge cost to consumers and small businesses to have
appliances that do not last anymore. Like, my washing machine
is from 2003. My fridge is from 1997. You know, like, the old
stuff can last if we support it. But often we are seeing a huge
explosion in the number of chips involved in any given
appliance. Everything is made out of plastic now. I, you know,
work on cars. Right? Like, the quality of parts is very, very
concerning to me, of components within them. And so that is
what I am--you know, I think these standards can be useful, but
I am very, very concerned the horizon under which they are
considered.
So I had a question for Mr. Bauman. I understand that you
have an obligation to abide by these standards, and you have
expressed concerns today about this process and its impact on
your business. But I am also curious and thinking about how we
make sure that manufacturers, like, are prioritizing
durability.
What is the thing--like, what can we do to put more
pressure on increasing the life cycle and the durability? Why
do some brands, like--you know, I probably shouldn't say this--
Speed Queen still pretty good. Right? But a lot of these things
have just gone through the floor.
Mr. BAUMAN. Thank you for the question.
And I personally have very similar home appliances, our
front-loading washing machine, we have had to replace our
refrigerator where we had refrigerators that lasted, you know,
20 years. I think trying to regulate that, I think that is
really a market control issue, because one of the things on our
refrigeration side particularly--and, again, we always talk
about on that side of it--is that in commercial refrigeration,
those are the harshest. I mean, your kitchen is harsh, but your
commercial kitchen is many times even more harsh. And,
competitively, that is what we promote in our products. That
has always been our kind of baseline is making sure we have
safe temperatures. We use heavier gauged materials and such
than others. And I have to say that, unfortunately, with
meeting, again, very aggressive energy standards like the
Department of Energy is actually proposing actually hurts that
because we have to take out materials in other areas to try
to----
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. But, like, any technician can look
at something and say what is trash and what is going to last,
you know. Like, you can--you know, mechanical engineers I don't
think have that brain necessarily, but----
Mr. BAUMAN. I'm both.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. But do you see any way that you can
implement or is this going to be more regulation?
Mr. BAUMAN. Because of the complexity, again, as you get
into electronic controls, fan speeds, a number of the things I
mentioned as far as, again, talking about commercial
refrigeration and also on the air-conditioning side with the
new refrigerants that are required, they all required a lot
more electronics, a lot more things that all--additional
components that break down and reduce the overall life of the
product as it is used, again, in very harsh conditions.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Okay. Well, thank you sincerely to
all of our witnesses for being here today.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I would like to--we are right on time. I would like to
thank our witnesses for their testimony today and for appearing
here.
Without objection, the Members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional materials and written requests, questions for
the witnesses to the Chair which will be forwarded to the
witnesses. I ask the witnesses to please respond promptly.
If there is no further objection, without objection, the
committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]