Contact: Ben Somberg, 202-658-8129, bsomberg@aceee.org
Washington, DC—A Department of Energy proposal that would set hurdles for updating efficiency standards for appliances and equipment should be withdrawn, consumer, environmental, and health organizations argued in a series of comment letters to the agency.
The “process rule” proposal from July—billed as an effort to “Permanently End Green New Scam Appliance Mandates”—would create roadblocks for future administrations updating efficiency standards, putting at risk major advances for reducing utility costs, pollution, and strain on the electric grid.
Major energy and water savings could be at stake. Thanks to technological advances, the next round of strengthened standards could reduce a typical household’s utility bills by an average of about $160 annually and collectively save businesses almost $15 billion in annual operating costs over two decades (2030–2050), a recent ASAP analysis found. The proposed hurdles could frustrate or block that effort.
The Department’s public comment period concluded on Friday. Comments opposing the proposal include:
-
ASAP, the National Consumer Law Center, NRDC, and other national consumer and environmental groups provided detailed legal and technical arguments showing that the proposal includes “numerous procedural hurdles, arbitrary thresholds for setting standards, and unlawful processes for selecting standard levels.”
-
Consumer and ratepayer advocates including Consumer Reports, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National Consumers League argued the proposal “would undermine one of the nation's most effective consumer affordability policies.”
-
National health and medical organizations including the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, and American College of Physicians warned: “Delaying or making it more difficult to implement appliance efficiency standards would prolong American families’ exposure to unhealthy air and undermine important public health protections, all while the technology already exists to improve efficiency, reduce costs and improve air quality.”
-
A coalition of climate and environmental advocacy groups across the country said the proposal would “create new procedural barriers, rigid screening thresholds, and additional litigation risks that could prevent or substantially delay future standards—even when they would reduce consumers’ total costs, strengthen the electric grid, and deliver significant environmental benefits.”
Groups of U.S. senators and representatives have previously stated their opposition to the proposal. An earlier ASAP release provides an overview of harmful provisions in the rule.
###
