Committee advances repeal efforts for two DOE 'midnight' efficiency rules after dueling testimony on costs and savings

The House Rules Committee approved closed rules to permit floor consideration of two Congressional Review Act measures — H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 — that seek to overturn recently finalized Department of Energy energy‑efficiency standards for walk‑in coolers and freezers and for commercial refrigeration equipment.

Why it matters: Supporters of repeal argued the DOE rules impose substantial upfront costs on small, independent retailers and rural businesses and may rely on test procedures that do not reflect real‑world use. Opponents said the standards will produce net energy and cost savings over time for businesses and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Representative Bob Latta, who introduced testimony supporting the resolutions, told the committee that DOE’s rules "go well beyond its authority" and that the agency’s cost estimates do not capture installation, building retrofits, downtime and supply‑chain effects. Latta said the Department of Energy estimated the rule affecting walk‑ins would impose roughly $960,000,000 in costs while creating burdens that fall disproportionately on small retailers.

"These rules will have an outsized impact on small and independent businesses," Latta said, adding that many small grocers operate on "1, 2, or 3 percent" margins. He also noted concerns about technological feasibility and refrigerant transitions, and he described instances where DOE test assumptions (for example, counts of door openings per hour) may not match busy retail environments.

Representative Frank Pallone, the committee’s senior Democrat who testified in opposition to repeal, said the rules would lower operating costs and reduce emissions. Pallone cited the Department of Energy’s regulatory analysis showing long‑term savings: the walk‑in rule targeted by H.J. Res. 24 was estimated in DOE materials to save businesses about $6.5 billion and cut roughly 29 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years; the commercial refrigeration standards targeted by H.J. Res. 75 were estimated to save about $4.6 billion and cut nearly 20 million metric tons of emissions over 30 years, with an estimated payback of roughly 3.5 years for the covered equipment in many cases.

Committee members pressed both witnesses on feasibility and economic impacts. Latta highlighted examples of equipment with very long payback estimates in DOE materials (he cited an estimate of nearly 94 years for one transparent vertical commercial refrigerator model under DOE assumptions), while Pallone emphasized that DOE’s rulemaking process evaluates technological feasibility, economic justification and energy savings under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).

Several Democrats objected to the lack of regular order: they said the Energy and Commerce Committee had not held hearings or markup opportunities for Members to review DOE technical assumptions before the Rules Committee considered a closed rule for repeal. Republicans countered with constituent testimony they said showed concern among small retailers.

Outcome: The Rules Committee package that included closed rules for H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 and a structured rule for H.R. 1048 was approved by the committee (recorded vote 7–3). The committee report and rule language will be entered into the House record and the items will proceed to floor consideration under the terms of the committee rule.

Ending: The closed rules will allow expedited floor consideration of the two Congressional Review Act resolutions and the related education bill; Members on both sides signaled further debate and amendment activity will occur on the House floor.

(Quotations in this article are taken from witness testimony and committee remarks as recorded in the hearing transcript.)