Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 401.
This bill amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to significantly constrain how the Secretary of Energy prescribes new or amended energy conservation standards.
It adds strict procedural timelines, requires detailed quantitative economic analyses, sets minimum energy/water savings thresholds (0.3 quads over 30 years or 10% reduction), bars consideration of social costs of greenhouse gases, requires disclosure of meetings with entities tied to the People’s Republic of China, and bans new or revised standards for distribution transformers.
It also adjusts effective dates (typically 5 years after final rule), clarifies test-procedure timing, and permits specific design and performance standards for clothes washers and dishwashers.
Substantial regulatory constraints appeal to deregulatory coalitions but face organized opposition and stronger hurdles in the Senate; legal challenge risk also exists.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed substantive amendment to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that provides precise legal mechanisms, criteria, and timelines for prescribing, amending, and revoking energy and water conservation standards. It integrates closely with existing statutory text and adds multiple procedural and analytic requirements intended to constrain or condition standard-setting authority.
Liberal emphasizes climate and long‑term energy savings lost under bill
Liberal emphasizes climate and long‑term energy savings lost under bill
Likely critical of the bill for restricting regulatory authority to raise efficiency and for expressly forbidding consideration of social costs of greenhouse gases.
Concerned the bill erects high procedural and cost-based hurdles that will slow or prevent long-term efficiency gains.
Some impacts are speculative and depend on how the Secretary applies the new tests.
Views the bill as a mixed package: constructive on consumer cost protections and procedural clarity but potentially problematic for climate policy and regulatory flexibility.
Appreciates required economic analyses and timelines, while wary that bright‑line thresholds (0.3 quads, 10%) and banning social‑cost estimates could make sensible standards harder to justify.
Overall moderate skepticism pending implementation details.
Favorable: sees the bill as rein on regulatory overreach, protecting consumers from higher upfront costs and ensuring standards are technologically feasible and economically justified.
Values the ban on considering social cost of carbon and the China‑related disclosure requirements.
Likely to support the bill strongly, viewing it as enforcing accountability and transparency.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantial regulatory constraints appeal to deregulatory coalitions but face organized opposition and stronger hurdles in the Senate; legal challenge risk also exists.
On Passage
On Motion to Recommit
Liberal emphasizes climate and long‑term energy savings lost under bill
Substantial regulatory constraints appeal to deregulatory coalitions but face organized opposition and stronger hurdles in the Senate; lega…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed substantive amendment to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that provides precise legal mechanisms, criteria, and timelines for prescribing, amendin…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.