Costs of the new appliance . I would say that these standards have very different affects on different households based on some of the characteristics i mentioned and also some that i state as well in my written testimony. For instance, if you live in texas, maybe its more benefit for you to have an Efficient Air conditioner but do you care how efficient your furnace is . In that case you may not save money by getting an efficient furnace. So i would say that different situations geographical area would have an impact on it . Absolutely. And you indicated the use of the product, obviously, would have an impact on it. And you mentioned, i think, some elderly people who maybe use it less would have less benefit from it as well, is that correct . That is correct. And the Department Notes that in its analysis. So all of us make comments about, oh, this is going to save money and so forth, but it certainly is possible in many instances, i would assume, that lowincome people and elderly are harmed more by these regulations perhaps than they are benefitted. Wow agree with that . That seems to be the case. And the Department Also does acknowledge that there are negative impacts on those groups in its own analyses. Its not a view thats outside the mainstream. Originally, this started because of the arab oil embargo. The reason that this all started was because of trying to conserve the use of energy and certainly that has changed today because we have an abundance of energy in america. But today its become more of a Climate Change issue. Thats what people talk about, well, weve got to be more efficient. Less co2 and so forth. Mr. Mcgwire you and mr. Cosgriff and mr. Urich, all touched on this, the need for reform. And you all made some pretty strong statements. You said that sometimes the product is not going to be as effective, its going to cost more to consumers. Its going to you reduce consumer choice. And one comment i would also make on hr8, which is our energy bill, one of the most controversial aspects of it related to the process that the doe goes through in adopting these new standards. For example, they really are not transparent on this. The Data Analysis is really not available until they get ready to notice it. And so all we were saying in this one provision which was like we were turning the world upside down was we want doe to sit down with the manufacturers, the people who make these goods, and have a more open and transparent discussion with them. I mean, you would agree with that, right . We would agree with that, mr. Chairman. And actually, that process that youre describing used to be used by the department of energy where manufacturers would have an opportunity to test a product under a new standard or to even employ a new Test Procedure before you could determine whether a standard was appropriate. But what weve seen in the last several years is just because so many rule makings are going on at the same time that doe has not been able to go through this very thorough process of lets do a Test Procedure and make sure that works. The a test can be repeatable and reproducible before we set a standard so the companies can see if you can test a product. Its very manufacturers spend an enormous amount of resources on compliance to these standards. The testing is very complicated. Right. These products are more sophisticated than they used to be. So you want to get that right. You dont want to mess that up. Right. And whats happened is the process has been conflated and its difficult to understand whats happening sometimes. Do you agree with that basically . I would agree with that. Maybe i think as mr. Mcgwire was answering your question, the product cycle of some of the products entering the market in our area, l. E. D. Lamps as an example, is in many cases less than a year. So if you miss one of these hurdles ive referred to, youve missed a product cycle. Thats a very big deal. And for a small or Mediumsized Company of which theres many making l. E. D. S, that could be fatal. Well, i have a lot of other questions but my time has already expired. Mr. Rush, youre recognized for five minutes. I want to thank again, mr. Chairman, thank you for your interesting testimony so far. Theres a question that i have, and there is an argument that while the efficiency standards have been very valuable at reducing energy costs and consumption, many of these standards have already reached their maximum efficacy, and we cannot squeeze any more juice from the grapes in a certain manner of speaking. Do you agree with the statement that many of these appliances are as efficient as they can reasonably become . Or is there no and theres no room to move forward with these new standards or do you believe theres some more costeffective standards and measures and pathways that we can implement in order to greater have more efficiency and cost savings . Thank you, congressman rush. Yes, i do think that there are more costeffective pathways to achieve Greater Energy savings that have yet to come. And id begin by just as i say today in my opening remarks the rule that was finalized just last year for commercial rooftop units represented the Largest Energy saving single standard in agency history. And that was the third time that that standard had been revised. And while this is going to deliver Huge Consumer and environmental value, it was nowhere near the most energyefficient technology thats commercially available. So it just suggests that there is still room to improve, and i would also note that as i mentioned in my opening remarks that the forthcoming report from aceee in appliance standards project looks at the rules that will be up for revision in the next eight years and has shown that the Energy Savings opportunity from those rules will exceed that of which of those that were finalized in the last eight years. Again, just further suggesting that and some of those standards will be ones that will be products that have already had standards and have gone through revisions in the past. And i would finally would just say that standards increase innovation and that innovation, that technological innovation creates new product features, new design opportunities. Our refrigerators today have more features than ever before. And that also could unlock opportunities for increased Energy Savings. And that could form the baseline for future revisions to standards in the future. Yes, maam. I want to shift my focus. My office has had many conversations regarding Energy Efficiency standards for appliances and their impacts on lowincome families. One of the arguments that we hear quite often is that the cost of complying with new Energy Efficiency standards will have a disproportionate impact on lowincome consumers. How do you respond to this char, and secondly, are there any benefits to lowincome households if industry is forced to comply with the most current Energy Efficiency appliance standards . Thank you. I guess i would id begin by saying i know the impacts on lowincome customers is a priority of yours, as it is for nrdc. And minimum efficiency standards set a dependable level of Energy Efficiency that every american can count on. Our analysis suggests that appliance standards will save the average American Household including lowincome households 500 a year compared to before standards were set. So that is significant. And i agree that lowincome households pay a disproportionately higher portion of their income goes to energy costs. In a recent report by nrdc and aceee shows that Energy Efficiency is a key strategy for reducing the Energy Burden that lowincome households face. I would say that is why groups like the National Consumers law center and texas rose and other consumer advocacy groups engage and are highly active in the standards setting process because of the important benefits that it serves for the lowincome populations that they support. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. This time recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. Shimkus. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is actually a very good panel. You know, there really is more that unites us than divides us on this whole debate. And i think thats true across the board. And first of all for mr. Mcguire, mr. Cosgriff and mr. Yurek, youre saying theres a need for some reform, but youre not claiming that theres a desire to jettison Energy Efficiency standards, are you . No, not at all. Were supporters of the program. Okay. Let me im going to go quickly, so mr. Cosgriff . Absolutely not. Mr. Yurek . No. So this is an example where we really can Work Together to get some sensible changes to affect folks like the narrative that i provided earlier today. There is that trap that people do fall into from big federal agencies and the rolling out of regs and, as the fluorescent light bulb case, mr. Cosgriff, they get caught in a trap and you dont want to miss a cycle of putting a product on the shelves because for a small company, that could be deadly. So, and miss noll, you did mention in the discussion with my colleague, mr. Rush, that we should the confusing thing is were not talking from a baseline of families. What is a family . What is a cost . I think ms. Miller mentioned it. Her cost in a twofamily household is different than a family im one of seven kids. Nine in the family grew up. A lot different costs, a lot different projected savings. Dont you think that if were going to have this debate that the department of energy ought to help us define what is a family, what is a savings, and to have part of that transparency, miss noll . Thank you. I would say the department of energy does take into account many perspectives. But dont you think they should help define this so we could have a better, accurate discussion of what the savings are and who theyre saving . This amorphous savings is being disputed by economists based upon real data and real numbers. As many of the colleagues that i work with, we strive to find get better data the question is, shouldnt the department of energy help us define their savings . The answer is they dont. Mr. Yurek, following up on this question, dont you think they should do a better job, department of energy should help us define savings and costs . Yes, i think the process the d. O. E. Is in a bind in some ways by the statutory language of this 40yearold act and how theyre required to do the analysis. Theyre in a bind by the time frame in which they need to do all these rules. They dont have the time anymore because of all the rules that theyre involved in to do the deep analysis that they used to be able to do and confer with everybody. And they also have a court order saying they need to meet these deadlines. Lets go quickly to job losses. You highlighted it in part of your written testimony. Talk about the job losses. Shouldnt the d. O. E. Talk about that there is a loss of jobs . Especially as you get to this point of again, my colleague mr. Russia says how much juice are you squeezing from the grape . You identified that just in your testimony. Yes. I think thats one of the Economic Analysis that needs to be done. I think they forget the purpose of this act is not to go to the maximum tech and maximum efficiency. Its to slowly raise the bottom so everybody can purchase that equipment and have those savings. Theres other programs such as mr. Mcguire mentioned related to energy star that are the pull to get the higher efficient and get people to buy that equipment. What were seeing now is that this program is being used to go to the max tech versus going to the minimal level where people get savings and benefits but dont have the cost arent you asking for a return to a collaborative approach with the department of energy, mr. Mcguire . Yes, we are. Mr. Cosgriff . More collaborative. Mr. Yurek. Yes. So i do have to applaud the d. O. E. We have actually been pressuring them years and also the epa to say, tell us how this affects jobs so in this most recent proposal rule march 12, 2015, this is what it says, some large manufacturers have already begun moving production to lower cost countries. Short term, u. S. Job loss. This is the department of energy saying that. An amended standard that necessitates large increases in labor content or that requires large expenditures to retool facilities should cause other manufacturers to reevaluate production siting options. What that means is that if we squeeze too much my colleague mr. Rush, if we go too much, we lose jobs to overseas manufacturers, and that would be unfortunate. Thank you, i yield back my time. Gentlemans time has expired. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee from new jersey for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Noll, from listening to some of the people sitting next to you on the panel and some of my colleagues on the other side, youd think that the standards process has suddenly become far more contentious than it used to be. In my Opening Statement i talked about the fact that the standard setting process has always yielded some controversy from one industry to another, and thats not to say that complaints or controversies werent always important or even valid. But i just see some contention as inevitable part of any meaningful standard setting process no matter how well it functions. So while not every standard can be negotiated, my sense is that there has been more consensus than ever before and that every Industry Trade represented here today has been involved and likely benefited from that consensus. So my question is, do you agree with me that there actually seems to have been more consensus in the standards setting process over the past eight years and of the rules finalized in the last eight years what percentage of those rules has been established through consensus negotiations, if you could . Good morning. Yeah, its interesting because i think about the number of rules and the number of negotiations that have taken place over the years, and theres so many to choose from. I mean, the last two revisions to home airconditioning standards went through a consensus process and landed a negotiated consensus outcome. And thats fantastic for consumers and the value of that is going to deliver to them and for the environment as well. So i think from my perspective i would say that the controversy is the exception, not the rule. You know, that we can demonstrate i think of the as i said in my opening remarks, of the 42 standards that have been finalized since 2009, almost a quarter of those stemmed from joint consensus negotiations. And thats not to say that every rule needs to or can come from a consensus or a negotiation. And those that didnt went through the normal rule making process. And with the exception of maybe a few standards have been without controversy and supported by stakeholders through the process and input. So, yeah, i would just encourage us not to characterize action as controversy at this point. All right. Im a strong supporter of Energy Efficiency programs and again im confused by some of the claims being made by members of todays panel. I find it difficult to believe there are no more significant Energy Efficiency gains to Consumer Products unless you assume we cant improve on Current Technology or develop entirely new technologies that are more Energy Efficient. For example, tv went from tubes to liquid crystal displays to plasma to l. E. D. In a little over a decade. So are we truly done with refrigerators, dishwashers, airconditioners, furnaces, whatever . Our experience has been no. I mean, i think in the latest refrigerator standard revision this was the sixth time including the state standards that that standard had been revised. It represented about 20 to 30 improvement over the previous standard, and thats on par with other revisions, fully supported by manufacturers and stakeholders. And i think weve seen, you know, that that trajectory has held true. Refrigerators are now 75 more efficient. They have more product features, are 20 larger, and it costs half as much. I think the lighting revolution that weve seen take place is another example of i dont think in 2000 we could have predicted the number of choices and the efficiency that we would get from l. E. D. S today. So those are just a few examples of where this could be headed. Right. Several witnesses have referred to mandatory serial rulemakings. My understanding of the law is that it mandates the review of a standard every six years. However, to my knowledge, the law doesnt require that the standard be updated every six years. So just to clarify, would you just answer yes or no to the following questions, okay . Does the law require a standard be reviewed every six years, yes or no . Once its gone through its statutory requirements, then yes its required to be reviewed every six years. Does the law mandate that a standard be updated every six years regardless of any other fact pattern . No. Does the d. O. E. Have to determine whether rulemaking is likely to result in significant savings before requiring a standard be updated . Yes. And does d. O. E. Have to determine whether rulemaking is likely to be technologically feasible and costeffective before updating a standard . Yes. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The gentlemans time has expires. The chair uses the privilege of the vice chairman to recognize himself for five minutes. A hearty texas welcome to mrs. Miller, mr. Mcguire, miss noll, mr. Cosgriff, mr. Eckman, and mr. Yurek. In the initial time i have one question about airconditioning. Southeast texas, my home, exists in a climate we call 95 95. From early april to late september its 95 degrees fahrenheit with 95 humidity. Until 1902, the only job in that region was picking cotton and guarding prisoners in big state prisons. That provided very, very slow, low growth. And then this carrier invented the air conditioner in 1902. That single invention combined with oil being discovered at spindletop and beaumont and