House Energy and Commerce subcommittee clashes over appliance and building-efficiency rules and costs

At a U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee hearing in Washington, members and witnesses debated whether federal appliance and building-efficiency rules and related state and local actions are saving consumers money or driving up housing and utility costs.

The hearing featured four witnesses and more than a dozen members of Congress. Buddy Hughes, chairman of the board at the National Association of Home Builders, warned that mandates tied to model codes and appliance rules would worsen an affordability crisis for new-home buyers. Ben Lieberman, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argued that DOE regulations have repeatedly tightened over many rounds and that some rules have raised upfront costs without delivering commensurate savings for consumers. Cara Saul Renaudy, chief policy officer at the Building Performance Association, testified that "Energy efficiency in buildings and appliances lowers cost for families and businesses," and stressed the sector’s job footprint and rapid deployment potential. Jim Steffes, senior vice president of regulatory policy and advocacy at Washington Gas, told the panel that natural gas remains a critical reliability and affordability resource for the National Capital Region.

Why it matters: Members framed the issues around two common concerns — household affordability and grid reliability — and disagreed sharply about where federal, state and local responsibility should lie. The debate touched on the Inflation Reduction Act, DOE rulemaking under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (the federal provision that directs fossil-fuel phaseout in remodeled and new federal buildings by 2030).

Most important testimony and claims

- Affordability and housing permits. Buddy Hughes said his membership faces an affordability crisis: "Our members, are on the front lines of an affordability crisis," and argued that some jurisdictions that adopted the 2021 IECC saw single-family permits fall (he cited Kansas City, Missouri as an example) while surrounding jurisdictions saw permit shifts. Hughes and several Republican members said compliance with some code pathways can add thousands of dollars to new-home costs; his testimony included an example estimate that adoption of the 2021 IECC can add "more than $31,000 to the cost of a new home." He said the larger opportunity for energy savings lies in retrofitting existing older homes.

- Appliance rulemaking and consumer costs. Ben Lieberman and several Republican members criticized multiple rounds of DOE standards, saying repeated tightening has increased upfront appliance costs and in some cases hurt product performance or longevity. Lieberman said the bills under consideration would add a "look back" and ensure new rules produce net consumer savings; he called HR 4626 (the "Don't Mess With My Home Appliances" bill, as discussed in testimony) a vehicle for that look-back and additional safeguards.

- Energy efficiency, jobs and near-term deployment. Cara Saul Renaudy countered that the building and appliance sector is the largest employer in the energy space, citing the DOE USER report: the energy efficiency sector employs roughly 2.4 million people, she said, and efficiency upgrades deploy faster than generation projects and can reduce peak demand in months rather than years. Renaudy also cited DOE and ACEEE estimates about average household energy waste and the potential annual savings from efficiency upgrades.

- Federal facilities and section 433. Multiple witnesses warned that section 433 — the provision that phases out fossil fuel use for many federal buildings by 2030 — could remove redundancy at sites of national security importance. Jim Steffes testified: "Energy delivery in the National Capital Region is not just a utility service. It is an essential underpinning of federal government operations," and said eliminating on-site gas options could increase electricity demand and stress the grid.

- Weatherization and program funding. Witnesses and members discussed the Weatherization Assistance Program and related workforce and grant programs. Renaudy said programs that help low-income households retrofit homes (insulation, HVAC upgrades, mitigation of mold/asbestos before upgrades) produce average annual savings per weatherized home and provide local jobs; she also told members that at the time of questioning only six of 56 state and territory weatherization plans had been approved by DOE and that delays in plan approvals risk contractor layoffs.

Points of factual dispute and context

- Cost estimates and pathways. Members and witnesses disputed single-cost figures for the 2021 IECC; witnesses who support codes and standards said the more expensive pathways are not required and that multiple compliance paths exist. Renaudy and other witnesses argued that the frequently-cited $31,000 figure uses optional or costlier code pathways and does not reflect lower-cost alternatives available in many jurisdictions.

- Whether appliance standards equate to fuel bans. Some Republican witnesses and members said recent DOE rules effectively ban natural-gas appliances; Democratic members and several witnesses emphasized statutory limits on DOE authority to ban products solely based on fuel and said some claims conflate program incentives with outright bans.

- Time scale for benefits. Republicans emphasized upfront compliance and installation costs and longer payback periods for some measures; witnesses for efficiency emphasized average, multi-year household savings and quick deployment speed for demand-reduction measures compared with the multi-year timeline required to permit and build new generation.

What the committee focused on next

Lawmakers pressed witnesses on specific policy responses: GOP members highlighted proposals such as HR 4626 and other measures to add review and look-back authority for DOE rules; witnesses supporting efficiency urged continued funding for weatherization, workforce training and state energy office programs. Several members asked for written follow-up and cost data.

Quotes from the hearing

- "Energy efficiency in buildings and appliances lowers cost for families and businesses." — Cara Saul Renaudy, chief policy officer, Building Performance Association.

- "Our members, are on the front lines of an affordability crisis." — Buddy Hughes, chairman of the board, National Association of Home Builders.

- "The bill also states that these regulations cannot be used to impose climate policy and that natural gas appliances cannot be disproportionately targeted." — Ben Lieberman, senior fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

- "Energy delivery in the National Capital Region is not just a utility service. It is an essential underpinning of federal government operations." — Jim Steffes, senior vice president, Washington Gas.

Ending

The hearing underscored a clear partisan split on how to balance upfront costs, consumer choice and building- and appliance-based energy savings. Several members signaled plans for follow-up bills and additional oversight, and witnesses pledged to provide more data to the committee. No formal votes or committee actions were recorded at the hearing.