U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–284 WASHINGTON : 2019

DISCUSSION DRAFT, ENERGY STAR REFORM ACT 

OF 2017 AND H.R. 3477, CEILING FAN ENERGY 

CONSERVATION HARMONIZATION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 7, 2017 

Serial No. 115–74 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 16 

WITNESSES

Joseph McGuire, President and CEO, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ................................................................................................................ 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy ........................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 165 

Greg Merritt, Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs, CREE .................. 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 170 

Christopher Drew, Executive Vice President, Chief Marketing and Strategy 

Officer, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute ....................... 59 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Douglas Johnson, Vice President, Technology Policy, Consumer Technology 

Association ............................................................................................................ 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Scott Pruitt, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 173 

Daniel Simmons, Administrator, Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department 

of Energy 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 178 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 3477 .................................................................................................................. 8 

Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 ............................................................................ 10 

Statement of Congressman Buddy Carter ............................................................. 114 

Statement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................... 115 

Statement of the U.S. Department of Energy ....................................................... 118 

Statement of the American Council of Independent Laboratories ...................... 120 

Statement of the U.S. Green Building Council ..................................................... 122 

Statement of the American Public Gas Association .............................................. 126 

Statement of the U.S. real estate industry ............................................................ 128 

Statement of Underwriters’ Laboratories .............................................................. 136 

Statement of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ............... 139 

Statement of Spire Inc. ........................................................................................... 143 

Statement of E4TheFuture and Home Performance Coalition ............................ 150 

Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association ....................... 153 

Statement of the High Performance Building Coalition ....................................... 158 

Statement of Lowe’s ................................................................................................ 161 

Statement of the Air Conditioning Contractors of America ................................. 162 

(1) 

DISCUSSION DRAFT, ENERGY STAR REFORM 

ACT OF 2017 AND H.R. 3477, CEILING FAN 

ENERGY CONSERVATION HARMONIZATION 

ACT 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pete Olson (vice chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Olson, Barton, Shimkus, Murphy, Latta, Harper, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Bucshon, 

Flores, Mullin, Cramer, Walberg, Walden (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Peters, Green, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Tonko, Loebsack, 

Schrader, Kennedy, Butterfield, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Allie Bury, Legislative 

Clerk, Energy/Environment; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Zachary 

Dareshori, Staff Assistant; Wyatt Ellertson, Research Associate, 

Energy/Environment; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; A.T. 

Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; Ben Lieberman, Senior 

Counsel, Energy; Mary Martin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy & 

Environment; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief Energy Advisor; Annelise 

Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter 

Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Energy; Madeline Vey, Policy 

Coordinator, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Hamlin 

Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Jeff Carroll, Minority 

Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, 

Minority Chief Counsel; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. OLSON. Good morning. 

The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order. The chair 

now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

2 

When the Trump administration proposed to zero out the Energy 

Star program earlier this year, it got people talking. Many manufacturers said Energy Star is worth saving but that there is room 

for improvement. 

This is a discussion draft. I repeat, discussion draft, and offers 

possible solutions—and I repeat, possible—possible solutions and 

reforms. 

It would make the DOE the lead agency for Energy Star while 

requiring them to consult with the EPA. Today, each administration can choose whether EPA or DOE runs the show. This is an energy program, which is why some want the Department of Energy 

in the driver’s seat. 

This draft also has liability protections like what’s in a bill by my 

friends Bob Latta from Ohio and Peter Welch from Vermont. Energy Star has its own penalties for those who break the rules. We 

don’t need more lawyers involved on top of that. And I say that as 

a member of the Texas Bar and active with a UT law degree on 

my wall. 

This draft also creates more chances for industry input in the 

program. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about any and 

all sections. 

One other point—last Friday, our Democratic colleagues sent a 

letter asking to delay this hearing because they wanted a government panel. You should know that staff tried but couldn’t get the 

appropriate witnesses. We need to have a high level panel with live 

bodies confirmed by the Senate. Our friends there have to move 

forward. 

But both EPA and DOE have submitted statements and comments and will respond to any questions for the record that they 

get. And we will remind them that they need to be prompt with 

their answers. 

At this point, I would like to give the balance of my time to Mr. 

Latta, who has been a leader on these issues for years. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON

When the Trump administration proposed to zero out the Energy Star program 

earlier this year, it got people talking. Many manufacturers said Energy Star is 

worth saving, but that there is room for improvement. 

This discussion draft offers several possible reforms. 

It would make DOE the lead agency for Energy Star, while giving them the power 

to bring EPA in. Today, each administration can choose whether EPA or DOE runs 

the show. This is an energy program, which is why some want DOE in the driver’s 

seat. 

The draft also has liability protections like what’s in a bill by my friends Rep. 

Latta and Welch. Energy Star has its own penalties for those who break the rules— 

we don’t need to get more lawyers involved on top of that. And I say that as someone with a UT Law degree on my wall. 

The draft also creates more chances for industry input in the program, among 

other things. I look forward to hearing thoughts about any and all sections. 

One other point. Last Friday, our Democratic colleagues sent a letter asking to 

delay this hearing because they wanted a government panel. I’m told that staff tried 

but couldn’t get the right witnesses. I think we need a few more live bodies confirmed by our friends in the Senate. 

BUT, both EPA and DOE have submitted statements and will respond to any 

questions for the record they get. We will remind them that they need to be prompt 

with the answers. 

3 

At this point I would like to yield my time to Mr. Latta who has been a leader 

on these issues for years. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you very much for yielding, and to our panel of witnesses today, 

thanks very much for being here. We really appreciate it for this 

discussion that we are going to have today. 

Energy Star program has been a win-win for consumers and 

manufacturers over the past 25 years. This program has proven to 

be a successful tool in advancing the development and use of efficient energy technologies. It has also promoted economic expansion 

and job growth for participating manufacturers across the nation 

including many across my home State of Ohio. 

This hearing today is a starting point for reforming Energy Star 

program. We have heard from stakeholders that reforms are needed to Energy Star and that this draft is an opportunity to discuss 

those ideas. 

I want today to be a step in the process toward building a strong 

bill that shows support for this program while making the necessary changes that we need. 

I am looking forward to the testimony. I hope that the engagement of these issues will not stop after today’s hearing. We need 

to hear from all the stakeholders about reform ideas so that we can 

move this package forward. I have an open-door policy and I hope 

that anyone who is interested will share their thoughts, concerns, 

and suggestions with me. 

One provision in the draft directly addresses a recent trend that 

has led to a chilled participation in the program. This language 

protects manufacturers that have fallen out of compliance if they 

have complied with all corrective measures and penalties from litigation related to noncompliance. The draft also moves the primary 

responsibility of the program to the Department of Energy since 

the heart of this program is helping consumers make energy-efficient choices. 

Additionally, we will look at opportunities for more transparency 

and public engagement in the standard-setting process. The Energy 

Star program is widely recognized by consumers and has seen 

major investments by the manufacturing community over the past 

two decades. 

The updates we are considering today are important for ensuring 

that this program remains strong. I want to again thank the committee for holding today’s hearing and I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield back. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

Now the chair calls upon a man who’s very happy that my Houston Astros took the place of his Chicago Cubs as the World Series 

champs, the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have never been introduced like that 

before and I am stunned with that introduction. But thank you 

anyway, Mr. Chairman. 

4 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Ranking Member Pallone and myself, we sent a letter to you and Chairman Walden on Friday asking that this hearing be postponed until representatives from the 

EPA and from the DOE were made available to testify before this 

subcommittee. 

Mr. Chairman, it is highly unusually and wholly unacceptable 

that we are now in the month of November and the administration 

witnesses have been allowed to repeatedly thumb their noses at requests made by this subcommittee to get them to come here and 

to testify before the representatives of the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very deeply concerned and disturbed that 

this subcommittee seems to be completely feckless in persuading 

the administrative officials to provide testimony on pending legislation and to engage members in person as has been the tradition of 

this subcommittee for as long as I can remember and for as long 

as I have been on this subcommittee. At some point very soon, Mr. 

Chairman, I would hope that we would use all the power available 

to us to convince representatives of this administration to answer 

our call when they receive an invitation from this subcommittee to 

come before us. 

Mr. Chairman, I think it does not do us well for us to continue 

to accept these refusals to come before this subcommittee, to continually accept this restraint and disregard for this subcommittee. 

And Mr. Chairman, to me it’s the epitome, rather, of foolhardiness for us to continually give government officials from this administration namby-pamby excuses for not coming here before this 

subcommittee. 

Mr. Chairman, I can only imagine the howls and the growls and 

the threats that we would have heard from your side of the aisle 

if former EPA administrators, Gina McCarthy or Lisa Jackson, 

would have simply refused to even show up in person or even send 

a representative in their place to answer members’ questions. 

Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to bring this kind of disrespect 

to a screeching halt and I hope that you and the Republican members of this subcommittee will be as outraged at this inaction and 

this disrespect from the administration. Show up before us and 

let’s have some real discussion about politics. 

Mr. Chairman, for these two bills before us, I support H.R. 3477, 

the Ceiling Fan Energy and Conservation Harmonization Act, and 

I strongly oppose the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield right now the balance of my 

time to the gentleman from Vermont. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. 

This Energy Star draft is a step, and I appreciate the intent of 

the drafters. Energy Star has had 25 years of a fantastic success. 

It has done a lot since 1992 on a voluntary program, saving consumers and businesses $430 billion on their utility bills and reducing carbon emissions by 3 billion metric tons, and I appreciate the 

work of Mr. Walden, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Latta, who I have worked 

with very, very closely in putting this draft out there. 

I appreciate the effort of Mr. Latta to maintain the development 

of energy efficiency appliances through Energy Star by preventing 

the need for class action, something he and I worked on. 

5 

That said, here’s the concerns I have about proposed changes in 

the current draft that I hope we can address. I think moving the 

program from EPA to DOE is a significant issue, instituting the 

Administrative Procedure Act standards and allowing for self-certification of certain products. All of these, in my view, could be detrimental to the continued effectiveness of this program. 

So I look forward to working with my colleagues. This is a bipartisan effort and I thank the authors of the draft legislation for getting us moving. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair, responding to the ranking member’s concerns about 

the people ignoring this committee, I remind my good friend it took 

us 10 months—10 months to have our first cabinet secretary, Rick 

Perry, speak before this committee. 

The problem about this committee, it’s a slow confirmation process in the Senate. We tried to get witnesses. We tried. We tried. 

But there is none available that have the stature we need to do our 

job. 

And so we’re going forward. With that, I yield to the chairman 

of the full committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes’ opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his comments. That is what we face. We share the frustration the minority 

has expressed today about the inability to have the administration’s people confirmed by Senate and in place so we would have 

somebody that could give us the administration’s perspective on 

these matters of legislation. 

Our committee’s energy focus is not limited to energy production 

and delivery. As you all know, we are also interested in policies 

that promote energy efficiency. Doing more with less is always a 

win for consumers, for manufacturers, for jobs, the environment, 

and for the economy overall. 

H.R. 3477, the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization 

Act, authored by my good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, 

is one of the two bills that we will examine today. This legislation 

would align the compliance date of the next efficiency standard for 

ceiling fans with the compliance date for ceiling fan lights so the 

manufacturers can deal with both at the same time. What a concept. Amazing we have to pass legislation to fix something like 

this. 

Shifting gears, I believe the Energy Star program is a nice complement to the mandatory federal energy efficiency standards for 

many energy-using products in that it helps consumers identify 

those models that go above and beyond the minimum standards. I 

know I look at that and my wife does when we buy different appliances and things. It’s a guide. Surveys show that consumers are 

aware of the Energy Star label, that many of them look for it when 

making their purchasing decisions. In addition to appliances, Energy Star also helps building owners and renters save on energy. 

6 

The Energy Star program received a great deal of attention earlier this year when the administration’s FY 2018 budget proposed 

to zero out the program. I certainly disagreed with this approach 

but I do believe the program could be improved upon and now is 

a great time to kick off that dialogue. Today’s hearing will focus on 

our discussion draft of Energy Star reforms. Keep in mind this is 

just a draft. We welcome constructive criticisms of what it contains 

as well as suggestions for things that we should add onto it. 

One of the quirks of the Energy Star program is that it has no 

permanent lead agency. Each new administration can decide how 

to divide responsibilities between the Department of Energy and 

the Environment Protection Administration, or agency. And in 

2009, the Obama administration shifted the lead to EPA. In my 

mind, Energy Star is fundamentally an energy program and belongs at the Department of Energy. I understand that many participants in the program are happy with it being at EPA now. The 

discussion draft proposes to make DOE the lead agency while still 

giving EPA an important role. And, again, I stress that this is just 

a discussion draft and we welcome all comments on how the program should be structured. 

As I mentioned, Energy Star is a well-functioning program overall but there are areas for improvement. The discussion draft addresses some of these such as protections against unhelpful class 

action litigation as well as assurances that companies have a 

chance to comment on major actions under the program. It also has 

provisions to help safeguard consumer choice. 

I would also like to note that thoughtful legislating often takes 

time. This is the first of what I am sure will be several hearings 

and markups on legislation. Today’s hearing is focused on a discussion draft and has yet to be formally introduced. I am looking forward to receiving feedback again from all the stakeholders including EPA and DOE as we continue to move through the legislative 

process. 

As we discuss potential changes to the program we can’t lose 

sight that consumers are the reason for the Energy Star and that 

the focus should always be on what is best for the consumer. Any 

ideas that improve the process by which consumers get the information they can use to save on their energy bills is something we 

would like to hear about. So I thank the witnesses for participating 

in this hearing. I look forward to your testimony. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Our committee’s energy focus is not limited to energy production and delivery— 

we are also very interested in policies that promote energy efficiency. Doing more 

with less is always a win for consumers, for manufacturers, for jobs, the environment, and for the economy overall. 

H.R. 3477, the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act, authored by 

my good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, is one of the two bills we’re examining today. The legislation would align the compliance date of the next efficiency 

standard for ceiling fans with the compliance date for ceiling fan lights, so that 

manufacturers can deal with both at the same time. 

Shifting gears, I believe that the Energy Star program is a nice complement to 

the mandatory federal efficiency standards for many energy-using products in that 

it helps consumers identify those models that go above and beyond these minimum 

7 

standards. Surveys show that consumers are aware of the Energy Star label and 

that many of them look for it when making their purchasing decisions. In addition 

to appliances, Energy Star also helps building owners and renters save on energy. 

The Energy Star program received a great deal of attention earlier this year when 

the administration’s FY2018 budget proposed to zero out the program. I certainly 

disagree with this approach, but I do believe that the program could be improved 

upon and now is a great time to kick off that dialogue. Today’s hearing will focus 

on our discussion draft of Energy Star reforms. Keep in mind that this is just a 

draft—we welcome constructive criticisms of what it contains as well as suggestions 

for things we should add to it. 

One of the quirks with the Energy Star program is that it has no permanent lead 

agency. Each new administration can decide how to divide responsibilities between 

DOE and EPA, and in 2009 the Obama administration shifted the lead to EPA. In 

my mind, Energy Star is fundamentally an energy program and belongs at DOE, 

but I understand that many participants in the program are happy with EPA. The 

discussion draft proposes to make DOE the lead agency while still giving EPA an 

important role, but again I stress that this is just a discussion draft and I welcome 

all comments on how the program should be structured. 

As I mentioned, Energy Star is a well-functioning program overall, but there are 

areas for improvement. The discussion draft addresses some of these, such as protections against unhelpful class action litigation as well as assurances that companies have a chance to comment on major actions under the program. It also has provisions to that help safeguard consumer choice. 

I’d also like to note that thoughtful legislating often takes time. This is the first— 

of what I’m sure will be several—hearings and markups on the legislation. Today’s 

hearing is focused on a discussion draft that has yet to be formally introduced and 

I’m looking forward to receiving feedback from all stakeholders—including EPA and 

DOE—as we continue to move through the legislative process. 

As we discuss potential changes to the program, we cannot lose sight that consumers are the reason for Energy Star and that the focus should always be on them. 

Any idea that improves the process by which consumers get the information they 

can use to save on their energy bills is something we would like to hear about. 

I thank the witnesses for their participation in this hearing. 

8 

[H.R. 3477 follows:] 


28284.001

ll5TH CONGRBSS H R 3477 ]ST SESSION • • 

To dPem the compliance date for amended energy conservation standard.'! 

for ceiling fan light kits to be January 21, 2020. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN'l'ATIVES 

,JULY 27, 2017 

l\Ir. HUDSON (for himself, Mr. BUTTERFIEI,D, )Jr. CAKI'ER of' Georgia, and 

Mr. KRISHNAliiOORTHI) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

'l'o deem the compliance date for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fa11 light kits to be January 

21, 2020. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hmise of Representa2 tives of the United Sta,tes of America in Cong1·ess assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may he cited as the "Ceiling :B.,an Energ:y 

5 Conservation Harmonization Act". 
9 


28284.002

2 

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE DATE FOR AMENDED ENERGY CON· 

2 SERVATION STANDARDS FOR CEILING FAN 

3 LIGHT KITS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAh-The complianee date for the 

5 amended energy conservation standards established for 

6 eeiling fan light kits in the final rule entitled "Energy 

7 Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards 

8 for Ceiling :F'an Light Kits" published at 81 :F'ed. Reg. 

9 580 (January 6, 2016) is deemed to be January 21, 2020. 

10 (b) CONI~OK\UNG CIL\.'\'GEs.-Not later than 60 days 

11 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

12 Energy shall make such technical and conforming changes 

13 to any regulation, guidance document, or procedure as 

14 may be necessary to implement subsection (a). 

0 

•HR 3477 IH 
10 

[The Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 follows:] 


28284.003

G:\CMTE\EC\15\EN\EE\ENERGYST AR_OOl.XML 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 

(Origiual Signature of Member) 

To amend the Energy Poliey and Conservation Act to provide for limitation 

on warranty and revision of ccrtif]cation requirements under the Energy 

Star program, and for other purposes. 

IK THE HUGSE OF REPRESEKTATIVES 

M_. ___ ·--introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on ·----··--~··~---·---·-

A BILL 

To amend the Ener!-'Y Policy and Conservation Act to provide 

for limitation on 'varranty and revision of certification 

requirements under the Energy Star program, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hmtse of Representa2 tives of the United States of America ·in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This .Aet may be cited as the "Energy Star Reform 

5 Actof2017". 

g:\VHLC\101217\101217.099.xml 

October 12,2017 (1 :23 p.m.) 

(665707132) 
11 


28284.004

G:\CMTE\EC\15\EN\EE\ENERGYSTAR_OO!.XML 

2 

1 SEC. 2. ENERGY STAR PROGRAM. 

2 Section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

3 Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a) is amended4 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting "to he known 

5 as the Energy Star program" after "voluntary pro6 !,"ram"; 

7 (2) m subsection (b), by striking "dh~ded be8 tween the Department of Ener!,>y and the Environ9 mental Protection Agency in accordance with the 

10 terms of applicable agreements between those agen11 cies" and inserting "held by the Department of En12 crgy and may be delegated to the Environmental 

13 Protection Agency, as determined appropriate by the 

14 Secretary"; 

15 (3) in subsection (c)-

16 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

17 by striking "Adrninistmtor and the Secretary" 

18 and inserting "Secretary, in consultation ·with 

19 the Administrator,"; 

20 (B) by amending paragraph ( 5) to read as 

21 follows: 

22 "(5) to the extent practicable, establish Energy 

23 Star product categories, specifications, and criteria, 

24 as applicable, for products of all available sizes, ca25 pacities, and features; and"; 

g:\VHLC\101217\101217.099.xml 

October 12, 2017 (1 :23 p.m.) 

(665707132) 
12 


28284.005

G:\CMTE\EC\15\EN\EE\ENERGYSTAR_OOl.XML 

3 

1 (C) by striking paragTaph ( 6) and redesig2 nating paragraph (7) as paragTaph (6); and 

3 (D) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), 

4 by striking "(which shall be 270 days, unless 

5 the Ag·ency or Department specifies otherwise)" 

6 and inserting "(which shall be not less than 

7 270 days)"; and 

8 ( 4) by adding at the end the following·: 

9 ''(e) PROCEDUl{,E.-After the date of enactment of 

10 this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the Ad11 ministrator, shall establish or revise, by rule in aecordance 

12 vvith section 553 of title 5, United States Code, any En13 ergy Star14 "(1) product category, speeification, or cri15 terion; 

16 "(2) certification or verification requirement; 

17 and 

18 "(3) general program operating principle. 

19 "(f) No WARRANTY.-

20 "(1) I:\'" GBNERAI,.-Any disclosure relating to 

21 participatimt of a product ill the Energy Star pro22 gram shall not create an express or implied war23 ranty, or give rise to any private claims or rights of 

24 action under State or _I.'ederal law relating to the 

g:\VHLC\1012171101217.099.xml 

October 12.2017 (1:23 p.m.) 

(665707132) 
13 


28284.006

G:\CMTE\EC\15\EN\EE\ENERGYST AR_OO l.XML 

4 

1 disqualification of that product from the Energy 

2 Star program, if3 "(A} the prodnct4 "(i) has beeu certified by a third5 party certification body recognized by the 

6 Energy Star program; or 

7 "(ii) is exempt from third-party cer8 tification pursuant to subsection (g); 

9 "(B) the Seeretary, in consultation >vith 

10 the Administrator, has approved corrective 

11 measures, including a determination of whether 

12 or not consumer compensation is appropriate; 

13 and 

14 "(C) the responsible party has fully com15 plied with all approved correetive measures. 

16 "(2) STAT1Tl'ORY CO~STRFCTION.-Nothing in 

17 this subsection shall be construed to require the Sec18 retary or the Administrator to modify any procedure 

19 or take any other action. 

20 "(g) THIRD-PAR1'Y CERTIFICATI0~.-

21 "(1) IN GENERAL.-Subject to paragraph (2), 

22 not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

23 of this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation 

24 with the Administrator, shall revise the certification 

25 requirements for the listing· of consumer, home, and 

g:\VHLC\1 012171101217.099.xml 

October 12,2017 (1:23 p.m.) 

(665707132) 
14 


28284.007

G:\CMTE\EC\15\EN\EE\ENERGYSTAR_OO l.XML 

5 

1 office electronic products under the Energy Star 

2 progTam for program partners that have complied 

3 with all requirements of the Energy Star progTam 

4 for a period of at least 18 months. 

5 "(2) ADl\IIXISTRATION.-The revised certifi6 cation requirements under paragTaph (1) for the 

7 listing of products described in such paragraph 

8 under the Energy Star program shall provide that 

9 the Secretary10 "(A) shall, except as provided in paragraph 

11 (4), exempt program partners described in 

12 paragraph (1) from third-party certification re13 quircments; and 

14 "(B) may require such program partners 

15 to submit test data and other product informa16 tion to facilitate produet listing and perform17 ance verifieation by the Sceretary, in consulta18 tion ·with the Administrator, for a sample of 

19 such products. 

20 "(;3) THIRD PARTIES.-Nothing m this sub21 seetion shall be construed to prevent the Secretary 

22 or the Administrator from using third parties in the 

23 course of the administration of the Energy Star pro24 gram. 

25 "( 4) LIMITATION OX APPI,ICATION.-

g:\VHLC\1012171101217.099.xml 

October 12,2017 (1 :23 p.m.) 

(655707132) 
15 


28284.008

G:\CMTE\EC\15\EN\EE\ENERGYST AR_OO l.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

g:IVHLC\101217\101217.099.xml 

October 12, 2017 (1 :23 p.m.) 

(1 

"(A) 'fERl\fi~ATION OF EXI<~:\1PTION.-Subject to subparagraph (B), if the Secretary, in 

consultation with the Administrator, finds that 

a program partner exempted from third-party 

certification requirements under paragraph (2) 

has violated any requirement of the Energy 

Star program with respect to 2 or more separate products listed under the Energy Star progl'am during a 2-year period, such exemption 

shall no longer apply to the program partner. 

"(B) RESUMPTION OF EXEl\IPTION.-If the 

Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, finds that a program partner to which 

an exemption no longer applies pursuant to 

subparagraph (A) has complied vvith all Energy 

Star program requirements for a period of at 

least 3 years, the application of the exemption 

to the progTam partner shall resume.". 

(665707132) 
16 

Mr. OLSON. The chairman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing will look at two pieces of legislation relating to 

energy efficiency, a very troubling discussion draft entitled the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 and another bill, H.R. 3477, the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act, that seems to 

have no opposition. 

But before I discuss the legislation, I must say that it’s totally 

unacceptable to have a legislative hearing on a bill that will make 

major changes to the Energy Star program without witnesses from 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s blatant refusal to 

participate in our committee’s legislative process has been a common theme since President Trump took office in January. 

It is now November and we are expected to believe that there is 

not a single person at EPA who can discuss the impact of a bill 

that completely moves the Energy Star program to DOE. 

I have looked at the committee records and both the Obama and 

Bush administrations were able to get EPA witnesses including the 

administrator up here within 3 months of taking office. 

It has been almost 10 months now and this committee has yet 

to have a single EPA witness before us and that is simply unacceptable. If the administration’s absence is due to a scheduling conflict then today’s hearing should have been postponed. But if 

they’re just refusing to appear before our committee to discuss any 

legislative proposal then we should not accept that. On Friday, 

Ranking Member Rush and I asked that this hearing be postponed 

until we could have both EPA and DOE before us. Clearly, that did 

not happen. 

But I would hope that committee Republicans would join us in 

saying enough is enough. The days of the administration hiding are 

over. It is time that they appeared before us so that we can hear 

their thoughts on the legislation that we are considering. 

Now let me move to one of the bills before us. I have serious concerns with the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 discussion draft, 

which makes several significant changes to the Energy Star program, and I have one question. What problem are we trying to 

solve with this proposal? The Energy Star program is extremely 

successful, reducing energy consumption and saving consumers 

money. According to EPA, in 2014 alone this completely voluntary 

program saved consumers $34 billion on their utility bills while 

stopping the release of 300 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. This program is a win-win for consumers 

and the environment and yet this bill is proposing major changes 

including taking the program out of EPA and moving it to DOE. 

Energy Star was originally established at EPA and the program 

was codified into law with EPA as the co-lead agency in the Energy 

17 

Policy Act of 2005, which was produced by a Republican Congress 

and president. It remains an extremely effective and popular volunteer program so, again, why the need for change. 

I have yet to hear a credible argument from anyone as to why 

this is necessary. The discussion draft also requires that product 

certifications and other program specifications be done using the 

administrative procedure act process which would require every 

product certification be published in the Federal Register and be 

subject to public notice and comment. And I worry that this will 

make the program less nimble and harm both consumers and companies by opening the process to new needless litigation from companies who otherwise couldn’t meet Energy Star standards. 

Two other provisions in the draft would harm consumers who 

purchase products under this popular program. The no warranty 

subsection would create a liability shield, blocking consumers from 

recovering costs when the Energy Star labeled product they bought 

turns out to be mislabeled and doesn’t achieve the energy savings 

promised. And another provision would allow companies to once 

again deem their products to be energy efficient with little to no 

outside verification of those claims. GAO warned us back in 2010 

that the Energy Star program was vulnerable to waste, fraud, and 

abuse due to its self-certification policy. 

So EPA implemented reforms including a third party certification 

program to ensure products with the Energy Star label actually 

save energy. Rolling back this critical reform would endanger the 

long-term viability of the Energy Star program. It is particularly 

reckless when combined with the liability shield because it would 

leave consumers with no outside verification of manufacturer 

claims or removing a critical avenue for consumers to make whole 

if the manufacturer’s claims prove to be wrong. 

So, again, Energy Star is a program that enjoys broad support 

from American consumers, manufacturers, and efficiency advocates. It is a voluntary program and companies can choose not to 

participate. The changes in this draft would undermine the integrity of the Energy Star label, Incentivize companies to cheat the 

system, and allow bad actors who lie about the efficiency of their 

products to get off scot free. In all these scenarios, consumers are 

left paying the price for the legislative mistakes proposed in this 

draft. 

And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

We have now concluded with member opening statements. Chair 

would like to remind all members that pursuant to the committee 

rules, all members’ opening statements will be made part of the 

record. And we want to thank all the witnesses for being here on 

this cold day and taking the time to testify before this subcommittee. 

Today’s witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening 

statements followed by random questions from members. These 

statements are limited to 5 minutes. You will have a green light. 

At one minute left you’ll have a yellow light and at 5 minutes you’ll 

have the red light. 

18 

Our witness panel today includes, first of all, Mr. Joseph M. 

McGuire, the President and CEO of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

You have 5 minutes, Mr. McGuire. Hit the bottom of the microphone there. 

STATEMENTS OF JOSEPH MCGUIRE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS; 

KATERI CALLAHAN, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY; GREG MERRITT, VICE PRESIDENT, MARKETING AND 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CREE; CHRISTOPHER DREW, EXECUTIVE 

VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF MARKETING AND STRATEGY OFFICER, AIR-CONDITIONING, HEATING AND REFRIGERATION 

INSTITUTE; DOUGLAS JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY POLICY, CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MCGUIRE 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the future of Energy Star. 

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers represents 

the producers of the vast majority of home appliances purchased by 

U.S. consumers. Our members are strong supporters of the Energy 

Star program. AHAM has significant experience with the Energy 

Star program, having worked closely with EPA and DOE since the 

program’s inception for home appliances in 1996. 

AHAM is an Energy Star verification testing body approved by 

both agencies. Because the Energy Star brand is known to more 

than 80 percent of consumers nationwide, AHAM strongly supports 

maintenance of the program within the federal government. This 

program should not be privatized or eliminated. The program 

should be adequately funded. But we strongly believe the program 

should be improved in recognition of its significant role in the marketplace. 

Energy efficiency gains across core major appliance categories 

have been dramatic over the past decades. A new clothes washer 

today uses 70 percent less energy than it did in 1990 and less than 

half the water. Energy Star has played a critical role in educating 

consumers on the benefits of energy efficiency and it had become 

so ubiquitous that it is now referenced in building codes. It is part 

of utility rebates, federal procurement, and retail buyer specifications. Thus, the voluntary program has effectively become mandatory in the marketplace. As such, manufacturers must make significant investment decisions to qualify products for the program 

just as they must invest products to comply with mandatory appliance efficiency standards. 

The Energy Star program for home appliances originally was administered by DOE so that critical coordination with appliance 

standards and test procedures could occur. However, in 2009, the 

program was transferred from DOE to EPA. The lack of expertise 

within EPA has led to complications with verification testing requirements and EPA officials began to broaden the scope of the 

program into non-energy related product requirements such as 

product performance and warranty terms. This expansion has 

added consideration confusion for manufacturers and diminishes 

19 

the brand. Energy Star has drifted from its original mission and 

operates at many levels as it if were still an experimental program. 

Within 25 years from its creation, the Energy Star program is a 

full matured de facto mandatory federal program that needs additional statutory authorization to keep it focused and to create longterm stability and certainty. It must maintain its focus on its intended and sole purpose—energy efficiency. To address these concerns, AHAM proposes the following. 

First, move the Energy Star for home appliances from EPA back 

to DOE and provide funding for a reform program. I believe Secretary Perry was receptive to this suggestion when he appeared before this committee recently. While Energy Star can be transferred 

back to DOE administratively, and we support that, statutory requirement to house the program at DOE will keep it from becoming 

a ping pong ball. We respectfully suggest that the draft bill indicate that authority over the Energy Star program be held by DOE 

and except for home appliances covered under EPCA may be delegated to EPA as determined by the secretary. 

Secondly, we support the bill’s revision to increase transparency 

and long-term certainty of the program by establishing administrative procedure process requirements. There should be a formal and 

transparent process for changing and developing Energy Star specifications for all stakeholders. The APA will not slow down the Energy Star processes. 

Finally, we support the draft bill’s provision to stop Energy Star 

class action lawsuits that undercut fair enforcement by the federal 

government. Because Energy Star has its own remedies, allowing 

class actions undermines the program and fosters a system of double jeopardy for Energy Star partners. Congress should make clear 

it does not intend this program to be used for that purpose. Our 

members must earn the trust of consumers each and every day, as 

our products are so vital to their well-being. 

We look forward to working with the committee to improve the 

Energy Star processes and make the program stronger to deliver 

reliable energy efficiency tools to consumers purchasing home appliances. 

On behalf of our industry, I’d like to thank the subcommittee for 

its work on this issue including this draft bill and I respectfully request that my written statement be included as part of the hearing 

record. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire follows:] 

20 


28284.009

',\/Al-lAM 

->¥~ ASSOCIATION OF HOME -~ ' , APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS 

Leadership> Knowledge » Innovation 

Testimony 

Joseph M. McGuire 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

Before the 

Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 

November 7, 2017 

--------------------~-~-~ Leadership> Knowledge,. Innovation 
21 


28284.010

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush and members of the Committee, good morning and 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) regarding the ENERGY STAR program. We appreciate the Committee 

holding this important hearing and the work that went into developing the DRAFT ENERGY 

STAR reform bill. As President and CEO of AHAM, I am pleased to appear before the 

Committee to discuss ENERGY STAR, a program that is vital to our member companies, best 

housed within the federal government, and in need of reform to create stability, certainty, 

transparency, and to further the goals of advancing energy efficiency. 

Importantly, reforms are needed to ensure the ENERGY STAR program continues to deliver on 

the energy saving mission Congress intended and does not stray from this successful mission into 

other experimental areas that are programmatic and ideologically driven. Specifically, AHAM 

requests that Congress do the following: 

l. Move ENERGY STAR for home appliances from EPA back to DOE where the program 

originated, thus allowing full and seamless integration with the appliance standards 

rulemaking process, with funding for a reformed and right-sized program; 

2. Apply the Administrative Procedure Act due process requirements to ENERGY STAR; 

and 

3. Preempt ENERGY STAR class action lawsuits. 

.o2 
22 


28284.011

Reform is Needed for a Continued ENERGY STAR Program 

Energy efficiency gains across core major appliance categories have been dramatic, and the 

creation of the ENERGY STAR program in the 1990s has played a critical role in educating 

consumers on the benefits of energy efficiency. The success of this program is evident in that 

this once truly voluntary program is now referenced in building codes, rebate requirements, 

federal procurement, and retailer buying specifications. For example, many retailers require in 

some categories that all or nearly all models be ENERGY STAR in order to obtain floor space 

for models. And because the Federal Acquisition Regulations mandate ENERGY STAR 

products, government purchasers can only consider ENERGY STAR products-companies have 

been excluded from government bids because of the mandate to procure ENERGY STAR 

products. Thus, the program has effectively become mandatory in the marketplace. 

Manufacturers must make significant investment decisions to qualify products for the program 

just as they must invest for products to comply with mandatory appliance efficiency standards 

authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and administered and enforced 

by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 

The ENERGY STAR program for home appliances was, therefore, located within the DOE 

appliance standards program for critical coordination with the development of appliance 

standards and test procedures. However, in 2009, the ENERGY STAR appliance program was 

transferred from DOE to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Unfortunately, the 

lack of expertise within EPA led to complications with verification testing requirements and 

officials within EPA began to broaden the scope of the program beyond energy efficiency and 

.03 
23 


28284.012

into product performance and warranties. This expansion threatens to diminish the ENERGY 

STAR brand. 

The transfer from DOE to EPA was done administratively and administrative action could, 

likewise, reverse the transfer. AHAM supports the transfer back to DOE, but we also support 

legislation that would permanently house the program for appliances at DOE where it belongs. 

We support the DRAFT bill's provisions that would improve transparency of and establish 

consistent procedures for the ENERGY STAR program. The DRAFT bill also addresses the 

parasitical class action lawsuits regarding disqualified products that are a disincentive to and 

punishment for participation in the program. 

AHAM represents manufacturers of major, portable and floor care home appliances, and 

suppliers to the industry. AHAM's membership includes over 150 companies throughout the 

world. In the U.S., AHAM members employ tens of thousands of people and produce more than 

95% of the household appliances shipped for sale. The factory shipment value ofthese products 

is more than $30 billion annually. The home appliance industry, through its products and 

innovation, is essential to improving a person's lifestyle and health, and saving people time. 

Through its technology, employees, and productivity, the industry contributes significantly to 

U.S. jobs and economic security. Home appliances are also a success story in terms of energy 

efficiency and environmental protection. New appliances often represent the most cost effective 

choice a consumer can make to reduce home energy use and costs. 

D4 
24 


28284.013

AHAM and its members have been major stakeholders in the ENERGY STAR program since its 

commencement. When most people think of the blue ENERGY STAR label, they probably 

think of refrigerators or clothes washers or other home appliances under AHAM's scope. We 

have engaged with ENERGY STAR in all its forms and through its various reorganizations and 

have a major stake in its continued success. ENERGY STAR has drifted significantly from its 

original mission and EPA operates it at many levels as if it were still an experimental program in 

its infancy. AHAM supported the first statutory authorization for ENERGY STAR and at least 

some minimum level of due process and procedures for what otherwise was a completely 

discretionary, de facto regulatory program run by EPA. Now the program, 25 years from its 

creation, is a fully matured federal program that needs additional statutory authorization to keep 

it focused and minimize its ability to stray from its mission while increasing its long-term 

stability and certainty. 

For our major appliances, since it was transferred to EPA, the program has strayed from its 

energy efficiency mission. It has become increasingly obvious that in an attempt to maintain 

relevance since many product categories no longer had room for significant efficiency 

improvements, EPA has migrated from an energy-related program into other areas beyond the 

program's ambit and EPA's expertise and authority. This drift must be considered in concert 

with the reality that the success of the program has essentially made it mandatory in the 

marketplace. It now is necessary for Congress to bring this program under DOE's authority, at 

least for products such as home appliances, which are regulated by DOE under the Appliance 

Standards Program. Further, Congress should require more traditional procedures and criteria 

for public notice and comment, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, which applies to 

o5 
25 


28284.014

virtually every other mature program EPA and DOE administer. Even "voluntary" participation 

in federal procurement, for example, is governed by numerous statutes and regulations. 

Moreover, there are significant penalties for companies who participate and have a product 

disqualified from the program. Not only does EPA require that the product be removed from the 

ENERGY STAR qualified products list (as it should be if it does not comply), but Plaintiffs' 

lawyers have targeted companies whose products are disqualified in costly class action lawsuits. 

Having private lawyers seek additional monetary damages and attorney fees even after EPA has 

considered and applied the proper remedies to provide consumer redress was never anticipated 

by the law or the program. 

That is why today's hearing is so critical. The ENERGY STAR program has provided a 

valuable benefit to consumers, but for it to continue to do so reform is needed. I will focus my 

remarks today in three major areas, and will provide input into the DRAFT ENERGY STAR 

Reform Act circulated by the Committee in recent weeks. AHAM's proposed key solutions to 

address the need for ENERGY STAR reform include: 

1. Move ENERGY STAR for home appliances from EPA back to DOE where the program 

originated, thus allowing full and seamless integration with the appliance standards 

rulemaking process, with funding for a reformed and right-sized program; 

2. Apply the Administrative Procedure Act due process requirements to ENERGY STAR; 

and 

3. Preempt ENERGY STAR class action lawsuits. 

.o6 
26 


28284.015

ENERGY STAR Reform Solutions 

AHAM supports a continued ENERGY STAR program in the federal government. Privatizing 

or eliminating the program is not a viable nor desirable option to maintain its neutrality and 

consumer confidence. But, in order to retain this program-which has become entrenched in 

building codes, federal procurement, rebate programs, and the market·-·it must be housed at 

DOE for home appliances and subject to rigorous, transparent procedures that recognize its 

effectively mandatory status in the market. Moreover, Congress should insulate ENERGY 

STAR manufacturer partners from class action litigation given that, upon disqualification of a 

product from the program, a federal agency has already considered and applied the appropriate 

remedy. 

Move ENERGY STAR for Home Appliances From EPA to DOE and Provide Funding for 

a Reformed Program 

The fiscal year 2018 Budget request eliminates the ENERGY STAR program within EPA, but it 

is silent on this program within the DOE budget. AHAM supports appropriate funding for a 

reformed ENERGY STAR program for home appliances at DOE. AHAM worked with House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees this year to affirm this position, which was reflected in 

legislative language in the reports accompanying the FY 18 House Interior and Environment 

Appropriations bill and the Senate FY 18 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. AHAM is 

awaiting the introduction of the Senate version of the FY18 Interior and Environment 

Appropriations bill and is hopeful that language reflecting this position is also included. The 

Appropriations Committee report language appears in Appendix A to this testimony. 

.o7 
27 


28284.016

Next, AHAM supports the repeal of the latest 2009 MOU, which transferred responsibilities for 

the ENERGY STAR program for home appliances from DOE to EPA. Congress also should 

provide permanence and certainty to ENERGY STAR partners and consumers by moving the 

ENERGY STAR program for home appliances back home to DOE. DOE has the necessary 

expertise over these products through the Appliance Standards Programs and continues to be the 

federal government's experts on the analysis of technical and economic justification for energy 

conservation standards and the test procedures that are needed to test energy and water 

consumption of our products. The 2009 MOU can be repealed through an inter-agency 

agreement between the EPA and DOE, and AHAM and other stakeholders have engaged both 

agencies in numerous discussions to that end. However, what would benefit consumers and 

industry most is for this issue to be addressed statutorily to provide continuity across 

administrations and to manage taxpayer dollars by leveraging DOE's expertise and analysis 

rather than EPA attempting to duplicate this expertise and failing to do so, resulting in 

inconsistencies and confusion. 

Al·!AM applauds the Committee's effort to address AHAM's concerns in its DRAFT bill. 

Specifically, AHAM requests that the Committee strengthen Section 2 of the DRAFT in order to 

maintain all of the critical factors outlined in my written statement. A HAM's interpretation of 

DRAFT Section 2(2) is that although Congress would give DOE authority over the ENERGY 

STAR program, it also would allow DOE to, at will and with no defined criteria, transfer 

responsibility for any or all aspects of the program to EPA. Although we appreciate the intent to 

move the authority to DOE, allowing DOE the discretion to transfer its authority to EPA does 

_o8 
28 


28284.017

not solve the challenges I have outlined in this testimony. Rather, it unfortunately maintains the 

status quo, because in 2009 DOE voluntarily transferred the program to EPA. 

Instead, AHAM suggests that the bill indicate that authority over the ENERGY STAR program 

be "held by the Department of Energy and, except for covered products under the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, may be delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency, as determined 

appropriate by the Secretary." This language will ensure that two federal agencies are not doing 

duplicative work. It will also create certainty and continuity for the program for those products 

subject to coverage under the Appliance Standards Program as those products will only ever be 

subject to evaluation by DOE. Alternatively, major appliances can be explicitly transferred 

without the option to be later moved to EPA. 

Create Administrative Procedure Act process requirements for ENERGY STAR 

EPA's process for changing and developing ENERGY STAR specifications is inconsistent and 

uncertain. As required by the statutory authorization, EPA put in place a general process, but it 

is not formalized and EPA picks and chooses which parts of the process to follow in any given 

case. While the ENERGY STAR Guiding Principles provide factors EPA often reviews in 

developing new or revised qualification criteria, the principles do not mandate that all of the 

factors be reviewed every time, nor do they provide sufficient insight into when EPA will review 

each of the factors. And, though EPA provides opportunity for public comment, there is no 

formalized notice and comment process for specification levels and test procedures, no defined 

allotted time for comments, and there is not always a reasoned or fact-based agency response to 

all the comments. 

.o9 
29 


28284.018

Moreover, EPA does not regularly share all of the data supporting its qualification criteria 

revisions for home appliances, For example, during the development a recent revision to the 

dehumidifier specification, AHAM requested data regarding EPA's analysis of the consumer 

payback period and EPA refused to provide it. It appears that EPA publicly shares data in other 

categories such as consumer electronics, but fails to share that same data for appliances unless or 

until stakeholders request it (and even then, EPA sometimes refuses to provide data). Without 

regular access to that data, stakeholders cannot evaluate the proposed specifications. In addition, 

it is not clear that all decisions are supported by data. For example, meaningful data on 

consumer energy savings is needed as is a better-defined and more transparent consumer 

payback period analysis. EPA uses only a count of models to do this analysis, which ignores the 

saturation of those models in the market. DOE, on the other hand, conducts an extensive 

analysis of consumer payback, which relies on shipment data, and thus accounts for saturation of 

models in the market, in its analysis under the Appliance Standards Program. This is yet another 

example of the efficiencies created by moving the ENERGY STAR program back to DOE for 

home appliances. DOE can leverage its extensive analysis instead of EPA creating a new, less 

accurate one and, if time has passed, DOE is in the best position to update its analysis. 

Furthermore, EPA's processes for determining its agenda on specification updates is lacking to 

say the least. Last year, EPA engaged in a "road mapping" effort for major appliances in which 

it sought feedback from stakeholders on a limited number of topics such as connectivity and 

performance requirements. The main method EPA employed for seeking feedback was through 

a series of webinars in which it solicited oral comments. EPA attempted to collect "data" by 

~ 10 
30 


28284.019

using audience polls during the webinar on various questions without knowing who was on the 

phone answering the questions, which had only limited, arguably biased, responses available. 

There was little insight into what EPA would do with the ''data" it gathered. This process is 

arbitrary and makes it difficult to meaningfully participate. 

These basic administrative due process deficiencies cannot continue. As I described earlier, the 

ENERGY STAR program is effectively mandatory in the marketplace. The program can no 

longer operate as it did when it was in its infancy 25 years ago. It is a mature, well-recognized 

and utilized program and needs a formalized process that provides consistency and certainty 

while requiring a fuller technical analysis. Accordingly, there should be a formal process for 

changing and developing ENERGY STAR specifications and the program should be subject to 

review by the White House Office of Management and Budget and applicable Executive Orders. 

The APA has offered that for over 60 years. The agencies know how to comply. 

AHAM thanks the committee for recognizing in the DRAFT bill the additional value that 

applying the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to ENERGY STAR brings to the program 

and to consumers. Implementing APA provisions will ensure that the agency implementing the 

program-which we hope will be DOE-provides stakeholders with an opportunity to comment 

on proposals with sufficient time, responds to comments it receives, and makes transparent 

decisions based on thorough analyses and sufficient data. It will also ensure that decisions are 

subject to judicial review, which will help to ensure that ENERGY STAR decisions are made 

based on a well-reasoned foundation. 

11 
31 


28284.020

AHAM is aware that concerns exist regarding application of APA to ENERGY STAR. 

Concerns focus on the idea that, under the APA, an agency will no longer have the flexibility it 

needs to move nimbly through a process to set new or revised criteria on a quick timeline. This 

is empirically incorrect. Appendix B depicts the average DOE Rulemaking timeframe and 

compares it to an average timeline for ENERGY STAR determinations based on analysis of past 

rulemakings and specification development processes. AHAM looked at its products as well as 

some other products under both programs and found that the APA timeline can actually be 

almost one-third the time that an average ENERGY STAR specification takes to develop (see 

table below). 

Time Period Comparison I ENERGY STAR I APATime I EPCA 

Period* Rulemakings** 

All Products (only measured products) I 1 year, 5 months I 7 months I 2 years 

*Estimate based on typical required time for a rulemaking 

**Average time for a proposed rulemaking to develop to a final rule only 

To be clear, the APA can take longer or shorter as can an ENERGY STAR specification. The 

point is that APA is not inherently a process that moves slowly~it can move quickly in 

appropriate cases and if done correctly, and it provides certainty in the process and increased 

transparency. 

AHAM offers a couple of minor revisions to DRAFT Section 2(4)(e)(2). First, AHAM 

respectfully requests that Congress make it clear that the application of the APA to certification 

and verification requirements include third party certification only if the Secretary determines it 

is necessary to ensure the integrity of the ENERGY STAR program. If appliances are moved 

back to DOE, then DOE can leverage its existing certification database for manufacturers to 

12 
32 


28284.021

indicate whether a product meets the ENERGY STAR criteria at the same time they certify 

compliance with the applicable energy conservation standard. As a result, it would be 

unnecessary to have a duplicative certification for a product meeting ENERGY STAR criteria. 

AHAM surveyed its members regarding the cost for duplicative certification of ENERGY STAR 

products and found that the average cost for a company to qualify all product categories to 

ENERGY STAR specifications is more than $200,000. 1 Eliminating duplicative certification 

requirements would not only eliminate costly burdens for manufacturers, but it would also mean 

that ENERGY STAR qualification would be made under the same rigorous certification 

requirements applied to a product meeting the applicable energy conservation standard. 

Moreover, there are rigorous verification requirements for the ENERGY STAR program, which 

includes surveillance and testing of products in current production and provides consumers, the 

federal government, retailers, and even competitors, with certainty that products in the program 

meet its stringent requirements. Under such rigor, a separate certification for ENERGY STAR 

would be unnecessary and duplicative. 

Second, AHAM also respectfully requests that final compliance determinations be subject to the 

APA and judicial review. Currently, manufacturers have no obvious, formal recourse if they do 

not agree with EPA's decision to disqualify a product. Manufacturers are essentially left to 

appeal a decision to the same entity that made the decision. Such decisions have impactful 

consequences given the mandatory nature of the ENERGY STAR program in the marketplace. 

For example, manufacturers may need to offer a suite of ENERGY STAR products to retailers 

1 There is significant fluctuation in this cost as it is highly dependent on the product, the number of 

models, and specific requirements (e.g., third party testing, fees for reporting certification, and deleting 

models from EPA's Qualified Products List, etc.). Refrigerator/freezers are the most costly and 

burdensome product to certify according to the survey. 
33 


28284.022

and those products also will no longer be eligible for certain rebates. Thus, it makes sense that 

such decisions be subject to review. 

Create ENERGY STAR preemption of class action lawsuits 

When EPA determines that an ENERGY STAR qualified product does not meet the ENERGY 

STAR criteria, it considers a number of potential remedies. For products that are disqualified, 

EPA requires that the manufacturing partner submit a corporate certification detailing product 

control and corrective measures undertaken to manage the sale, distribution, and marketing of 

the disqualified model, such that ENERGY STAR is no longer associated with the product. EPA 

also implements control measures based on certain factors such as consumer expectation and 

investment. EPA generally requires that product control/corrective action measures include 

notice or posting of disqualification and may require, where market feasible, that the 

manufacturing partners compensate consumers in a commensurate and appropriate manner. EPA 

acts to protect the ENERGY STAR trademark's integrity. 

A federal approach to disqualification, in particular with regard to product control measures, 

ensures national consistency. It also minimizes inequities among manufacturers, supports a 

national approach to managing a federal trademark, and provides consistency among the many 

geographical markets in which products are sold. In addition, it allows the federal government to 

protect the integrity of the program while keeping compliance costs low enough to encourage 

participation by consumers and manufacturers. Because ENERGY STAR has its own remedies, 

allowing parasitical class actions- -which can cost companies millions of which plaintiffs' 

attorneys are the main beneficiary--· -undermines the program and dampens participation. 
34 


28284.023

Congress should make clear it does not intend this program to be used for that purpose. 

Accordingly, we thank the Committee for including in the DRAFT bill section 2(4)(!), and 

AHAM strongly supports inclusion of that section in the bill. 

Background 

The ENERGY STAR program was established by the EPA in !992, under the authority of the 

Clean Air Act Section I 03(g). ENERGY STAR touts itself as a voluntary, public-private 

partnership designed to reduce energy use and related air pollution and greenhouse gas 

emissions. Twenty-five years later, ENERGY STAR is a brand recognized by more than eighty 

percent of consumers nationwide. In addition, both federal and state governments rely on 

ENERGY STAR when making procurement decisions. ENERGY STAR qualification is 

required at the state and local level to meet many building code specifications. Retailers, when 

staging showrooms, usually require ENERGY STAR products to be displayed and require 

manufacturers to provide them with a high percentage of ENERGY STAR qualified products. 

Each of these factors has effectively transformed a once voluntary program into an effectively 

mandatory program. 

ln 1996, home appliances became part of the ENERGY STAR program. DOE administered 

ENERGY STAR for these products leveraging the expertise it gained by regulating home 

appliances under the federal Appliance Standards Program. The Appliance Standards Program, 

as established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA), was 

designed to improve energy efficiency for consumer products, including home appliances and 

certain commercial and industrial equipment nationwide. The Appliance Standards Program 

15 
35 


28284.024

consists of essentially four parts: (!)testing, (2) labeling, (3) minimum energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Therefore, the ENERGY STAR 

program for home appliances was placed under DOE's authority. This just makes sense. DOE 

already has expertise in these products; the agency develops and establishes lest procedures to 

test the energy use; and the ENERGY STAR program builds from the minimum energy 

standards. For example, the current ENERGY STAR refrigerator qualification level is ten 

percent more efficient than the federal minimum energy standard; it is directly linked to the 

Appliance Standard program. It makes no sense to have another federal agency try to duplicate 

this expertise and all the regulatory bureaucracy that surrounds such a program. Nor do we want 

to see ENERGY STAR test procedures at variance with DOE's, a source of cost and confusion 

for manufacturers, which cannot occur in the private sector or the states. 

In 2009, EPA and DOE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that established EPA 

as the lead agency for all products. DOE transferred its responsibility of setting performance 

levels for home appliances away from DOE to EPA, which had no previous experience with the 

products. The responsibility for developing and consulting on test procedures remained at DOE, 

but EPA did not always use DOE's current test procedures. 

Due to manufacturer innovation, rebates, ENERGY STAR and appliance standards, energy 

efficiency gains across all of the core major appliance categories have been dramatic. 

Refrigerator/freezers are being produced at larger capacities, and yet are 50 percent more 

efficient than they were 20 years ago. Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers with an 

added ENERGY STAR designation are at least I 0 percent more efficient than the federal 

16 
36 


28284.025

standard. The most commonly purchased modern refrigerator/freezer uses on average only the 

same amount of electricity as a 50-Watt light bulb. Tub capacity for clothes washers have 

grown and are growing larger while energy consumption has declined; this is another example of 

an energy efficiency success. A new clothes washer uses 73 percent less energy than it did in 

1990. In fact, replacing an 8-year old washer with one of current average efficiency will save the 

American consumer $130 per year in utility bills, and more than 5,000 gallons of water per year. 

ENERGY STAR models enjoy additional energy and water savings. Dishwashers, room air 

conditioners, freezers and other major appliances offer similar energy efficiency gains. 

However, in an almost mechanistic fashion, all this accomplishment is only used by EPA as a 

predicate for ever-stricter qualification levels with the assumption that these product categories 

will always be ripe for more. But that is wrong. 

Faced with decreasing energy savings opportunities for home appliances on products such as 

dishwashers and room air conditioners, EPA has been struggling to remain squarely focused on 

energy efficiency and has been delving into areas like product performance, capacity, features 

and warranties, which should be determined by market forces rather than the federal 

government's program. 2 Additionally, EPA has made proposals in the ENERGY STAR 

specification revision processes that would encroach on other regulations or government 

programs such as environmental sustainability, recyclability, toxic chemicals, ozone depleting 

substances, and climate change. Moreover, the requirements can have a real life impact-for 

2 ln many cases, ENERY STAR products save only a few dollars per year as compared to similar nonENERGY STAR models. 

-----------------·--· 17 
37 


28284.026

example, cycle times for clothes washer, clothes dryers or dishwashers may be lengthened in 

order for a product to meet the ENERGY STAR criteria. 

The 2009 EPA-DOE MOU states that EPA should manage the program "in consultation with 

DOE." The reality is that the basic logistics and coordination of differing internal processes of 

two federal agencies attempt to coordinate changes in specifications and test procedures cause 

wasteful, undue resource expenditures by the private sector and the Federal government, but also 

inconsistent and problematic results. At times, EPA~s specifications, in draft or final fonn, either 

conflict with or depart from DOE's foundational regulations for the same products. Those 

differences, even seemingly minor ones, cause confusion and uncertainty for consumers and 

regulated parties. 

For example, over AHAM's strong objection, EPA finalized a specification for clothes dryers 

that required use of a test procedure not yet required by DOE for compliance with standards. To 

do this, EPA relied on a loophole in DOE guidance (which has since been closed). This means 

that, today, ENERGY STAR qualified clothes dryers are tested differently than clothes dryers 

that are not qualified for ENERGY STAR and meet minimum efficiency standards. Consumers 

are not aware that clothes dryer energy efficiency is not measured the same way across products. 

Thus, though consumers believe they are comparing apples to apples when they evaluate energy 

efficiency claims, they are really comparing apples and oranges when they select and ENERGY 

STAR product. 3 Moreover, there is considerable confusion for manufacturers who must be 

conversant in and employ resources for two different test (the differences are significant). 

3 Although there is no EnergyGuide label, energy use is reported on DOE's database which consumers 

can search and some manufacturers may choose to make energy related claims. 
38 


28284.027

For clothes washers alone, there have been five appliance standard changes and five ENERY 

STAR changes in just the last 10 years, That's on average one change per year. Due to this high 

frequency of changes, manufacturers need to invest significant resources to make products 

comply. Further, DOE and EPA interpretation, auditing, pending regulation and specification 

changes, and other clerical work have created additional organizational structure in companies 

simply to maintain compliance due to the frequency and scope of activity. 

Other examples include: 

EPA has instituted a number of non-efficiency metrics in the ENERGY STAR 

specifications. Examples include a drying time limit on ENERGY STAR clothes dryers 

(which was developed without data to indicate it was necessary or what the appropriate 

time limit should be); an optional reporting requirement for dishwasher cleanability (and 

a minimum cleaning performance score to achieve the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 

designation); a humidistat control requirement for dehumidifiers; a required "energy 

saver mode/' a filter reminder requirement, and installation requirements for room air 

conditioners. EPA has also investigated refrigerant requirements for room air 

conditioners and refrigerators and warranty requirements for clothes dryers. 

Some ENERGY STAR requirements are designed to disadvantage certain sizes of 

products that EPA deems undesirable. For example, EPA insisted upon different product 

classes for dehumidifiers-the ENERGY STAR product classes are collapsed to two, 

which limits consumer choice of available ENERGY STAR dehumidifiers because it is 

19 
39 


28284.028

biased against smaller dehumidifiers. EPA also proposed, and AHAM eventually 

defeated, refrigerator levels that were biased against larger refrigerator/freezers. 

AHAM had to advocate, often up to the political level within EPA, to avoid effective 

dates for ENERGY STAR specifications that differed from approaching energy 

conservation standards changes for refrigerator freezers, room air conditioners, and 

laundry products. Misalignment of these effective dates would have cost manufacturers 

millions of dollars in reflooring costs without a comparable benefit in energy savings. 

EPA maintains a separate database of qualified products-the Qualified Products Listwhich requires manufacturers to certify separately to EPA that products meet the 

ENERGY STAR requirements. And this must be done through third party certification. 

This requires manufacturers to report the same data to two Federal agencies-it is 

redundant and a waste of resources for manufacturers and the Federal government. A 

more streamlined approach would be for DOE to allow manufacturers to indicate that a 

product meets the ENERGY STAR criteria on its database. 

Conclusion 

Our ultimate objective is to improve the ENERGY STAR program to ensure it capitalizes on 

DOE's product expertise and extensive analysis; is fair, predictable, open, and transparent; and 

encourages continued manufacturer participation by eliminating class action lawsuits that 

duplicate remedy decisions the Federal government has already made. Accordingly, we call on 

Congress to send the ENERGY STAR program for home appliances back home to DOE, apply 

the APA's open and transparent notice and comment requirements to the program and subject 

final compliance determinations to judicial review, and preempt class action lawsuits in 

• 20 
40 


28284.029

situations where the federal government has already determined the appropriate punishment and 

remedy. 

Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush, on behalf of the home appliance industry, I would 

like to thank the Committee for working with industry and interested stakeholders to address 

issues in the DRAFT bill and for allowing AHAM to testify this morning. I respectfully request 

that my written statement be included as part of the hearing record. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

21 
41 


28284.030

APPENDIX A 

House Appropriations Committee 

Fiscal Year 2018 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill 

Committee Report 

Clean Air.-The Committee recommends $227,142,000. Within this amount, the 

Committee includes $3,000,000 to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of both 

preconstruction and operating permitting programs. In addition, the Committee 

continues to support the EnergySTAR program and does not terminate the program as 

proposed. However, program adjustments or reforms may be warranted. In 2009, EPA 

and the Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Understanding that 

reallocated roles and responsibilities between the Department and the Agency. The 

Committee believes those responsibilities should be reviewed. In addition, EPA 

appropriately took action to restructure the program in 2011 following questions about 

program integrity. The Agency established third party certification requirements that 

directed many product review responsibilities to outside vendors. As such, the 

Committee finds that historical funding levels exceed the needs for internal product 

reviews leading to the recommended level of $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2018. Further, 

the Committee does not support the termination of voluntary programs such as Natural 

GasSTAR, AgSTAR, and other partnership programs where EPA works collaboratively 

with non-governmental entities to identify beneficial methods to reduce emissions, 

pollution, and increase efficiency. 

Senate Appropriations Committee 

Fiscal Year 2018 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill 

Committee Report 

Energy Star.-ln 2009, the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] related to the Energy Star Program, 

which shifted some functions related to home appliance products from the Department 

to the EPA. The Department shall work with the EPA to review the 2009 MOU and 

report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days 

after enactment of this Act on whether the expected efficiencies for home appliance 

products have been achieved. 
42 


28284.031

APPENDIXB 

O!shwashen4.0 II 

Olshwashen5.0 IBII. 

!!!I!I!!I!!!!!L..., 

2 

Numb:erofvears 

Mlnltill Ottftto Final Version 

M NOP"R to Final Rule 

APA (Possible nme Period): 

Rtoflett$ a possilbe time perlod ln 

which the APA would require for 

anv rulcm•ldog, 

EPCA (Avg. Time Period): Reflects 

the: averase time period in wfllch a 

proposed rulemalrina becomes a 

final rule. 

23 
43 

Mr. OLSON. Without objection, so ordered. And thank you, Mr. 

McGuire. 

The chair now calls upon Kateri Callahan, the President of the 

Alliance to Save Energy. I am sorry if I butchered that first name 

with that thick Texas drawl but—— 

STATEMENT OF KATERI CALLAHAN 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Sir, you did it just right and a Kentucky drawl 

appreciates that Texas drawl. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I have the pleasure of serving as the President of the 

Alliance to Save Energy, which is a nonprofit coalition comprised 

of over 130 different businesses and organizations and I would note 

that all the witnesses before you today are members of the Alliance 

to Save Energy’s associate’s program and our businesses represent 

about $870 billion in market cap. 

We were founded way back in 1977 by Senators Chuck Percy of 

Illinois and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, and our bipartisan 

heritage had continued the 40 years since. 

Today, we have 15 members of Congress who serve in an honorary capacity on our board representing both sides of the Capitol 

and both sides of the aisle and I am just honored and delighted 

that five members of this committee serve on the Alliance’s honorary board including Dr. Burgess, Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. McKinley, 

Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Welch. We thank them for their support. 

The Alliance’s history with the Energy Star program is long. We 

supported the creation of the program and we worked then with 

the Congress, with EPA, DOE, and all the Energy Star partners to 

keep the voluntary program both robust and impactful. For this 

reason, we very much appreciate and applaud the subcommittee 

members and staff for fully engaging all the key stakeholder 

groups as you seek to craft legislation that will impact this program. While we are open to continuing to improve the program, we 

have to caution the subcommittee to be very careful to assure that 

there are no unintended negative consequences as you consider 

changes. 

As many have already mentioned and as detailed in my testimony and those of other businesses and organizations that are offering comment on the discussion draft, Energy Star today is a venerable program. It is widely recognized as the world’s gold standard 

for public-private partnerships. More than 90 percent of Americans 

recognize and trust that familiar blue label. 

Energy cost savings to consumers have grown to over $430 billion and we are still counting. The program has driven $165 billion 

in private sector investment and new technology and innovation. 

Ten percent of the homes built today are built and proudly display the Energy Star label and over 50 percent of the commercial 

building floor space—50 percent—is using the Energy Star portfolio 

manager to monitor and control energy consumption. I think it was 

Mr. Pallone who mentioned this, but if the old adage ever stood 

true—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That is the case with today’s Energy Star program and it should be the test against which the subcommittee determines the content of any bill that will impact its 

future. 

44 

Our greatest concerns with the discussion draft are twofold—the 

proposed wholesale move of the program from EPA to DOE, and 

the application of the Administrative Procedures Act, or APA. We 

oppose a wholesale move of the Energy Star program from EPA to 

DOE. As Joe said, such a shift in responsibility for parts of the programs can be done and the flexibility is there under current law 

for EPA and DOE to assign or reassign responsibilities to assure 

the most effective and streamlined management of the program. 

So we encourage the stakeholders and the committee to look to 

the administration to move any parts that may make the most 

sense over and back and forth between the two agencies. We also 

oppose the broad application of the APA, which was designed and 

intended for regulatory programs that carry the force of law, not 

voluntary programs like the Energy Star. 

We do believe, however, that there should be adequate transparency and predictability to the specification-setting process for 

Energy Star products and we’d very much like to work with the 

agencies and the subcommittee to consider provisions that can accomplish this goal. 

The Alliance appreciates the efforts made by the subcommittee 

to reduce costs for manufacturers that are in good standing to the 

program. But we do not support an exemption of third party certification for only certain manufacturers of consumer electronic devices. We stand ready to work with the subcommittee, EPA, and 

its partners to consider options that could lower certification costs 

for all manufacturers who are in good standing. 

Finally, the Alliance does support the discussion draft provision 

to explicitly put in a no-warranty clause to defend against class action suits. In our experience, the agencies have actively enforced 

specification compliance and have delisted products and assessed 

penalties in an appropriate fashion. 

In conclusion, I would note, as other members of the committee 

have, that the subcommittee’s deliberations are coming at a time 

when the Energy Star program is under threat of elimination by 

the administration and significant budget cuts by the Congress. We 

urge this subcommittee, therefore, to continue to work closely with 

all of us who support this gold standard public-private partnership 

and make sure that the program has the congressional support, it 

has the guidance, and, very importantly, it has the funding it needs 

to continue to deliver the enormous energy and dollar savings that 

American consumers and businesses have come to expect from the 

Energy Star label. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Callahan follows:] 

45 


28284.032

Ms. Kateri Callahan 

President, Alliance to Save Energy 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017 

Introduction 

The Alliance to Save Energy is a nonprofit, bipartisan coalition of business, government, civil society 

and academic leaders that work together to drive greater U.S. energy productivity to achieve economic growth, 

a cleaner environment and greater energy security, affordability and reliability. 1 The Alliance enjoys the 

participation of nearly 130 businesses and organizations that collectively represent more than $870 billion in 

market capital. The Alliance was founded in 1977 by U.S. Sens. Charles Percy (R-lL) and Hubert Humphrey 

(D-MN) and today has 15 Members of Congress on its Honorary Board of Directors including five members of 

the this committee: Reps. Burgess, Kinzinger, McKinley, Tonko and Welch. 

The Alliance appreciates the opportunity to testify on the subcommittee's discussion draft legislation 

regarding the ENERGY STAR program. The Alliance supported the creation of this program by the Congress 

in 1992 as a means of reducing energy waste and lowering energy costs for consumers and businesses. The 

Alliance has worked since then with the Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

Department of Energy (DOE) and the ENERGY STAR partners to insure the viability and integrity, as well as 

the expansion and growth, of this important and effective voluntary program. 

The Alliance has continually sought meaningful ways to improve the ENERGY STAR program and we 

therefore appreciate the subcommittee has invited stakeholders, including the Alliance, to comment upon 

legislative suggestions for changes to the program. We urge the subcommittee to move forward cautiously, 

1 The complete roster of the Alliance's Board of Directors is available at: http://www.ase.org/about/leadership/board. The complete 

roster of the Alliance's Associate members is available at: http://www.ase.org/involved/join/members. 
46 


28284.033

however, as this venerable program already is working very effectively and is understood and trusted by 

consumers not only in the U.S. but also globaily. ENERGY STAR is recognized widely as the world's gold 

standard for public-private partnerships; it is licensed and used by the European Union, Canada, Japan, Iceland, 

Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Thailand. The old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies very 

well to today's ENERGY STAR program and should be the test against which the subcommittee determines the 

content of any bill designed to change or improve the program. 

Why ENERGY STAR® Matters 

ENERGY STAR is an important source of information for consumers, businesses and governments. 

More than 90% of Americans surveyed recognize the familiar blue label that instills confidence and an 

expectation of energy efficiency and cost savings across a diverse programmatic portfolio. The program is run 

at a relatively modest cost to taxpayers of about $42 million a year, and the return on this investment in 

gigantic. In 2015, consumers and businesses saved $34 billion through the program and since its inception, 

ENERGY STAR and its partners have delivered $430 billion in utility bill savings to consumers and businesses. 

While brand recognition most typically is associated with consumer goods and products, the program is 

driving energy efficiency- and therefore cost savings- in real estate across the country. Homeowners and 

building energy managers alike rely on this voluntary program to reduce their energy costs. In 2016, nearly 10% 

of new homes built proudly displayed the ENERGY STAR brand; and nearly 2 million homes in America built 

since 1995 have earned the label. On the commercial side the story is equally compelling; 50% of building floor 

space has been benchmarked for energy consumption using the ENERGY STAR portfolio manager. 

In addition to the billions of dollars saved by Americans every year, ENERGY STAR also catalyzes 

huge investments by the private sector; since its inception, the program has driven more than $165 billion in 

private sector investment in new technologies and innovation. 

Existential Threats to the ENERGY STAR Program 

The subcommittee is considering ENERGY STAR legislation at a time when the program is facing 

significant threats to its continuation. The administration's FY20 18 budget proposes to eliminate the ENERGY 
47 


28284.034

STAR program. The FY2018 House Interior Appropriations bill includes only $31 million for ENERGY STAR, 

which represents at least a 25% reduction from FY20 17 levels, 

In addition to these direct financial threats to the program, debilitating cuts to the DOE's Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) that have been proposed by the administration (FY20 18 

funding reduced roughly 80% compared to FY2017 appropriated levels) and the House (DOE energy efficiency 

program funding reduced by about 40%2 as compared to FY20 17) must be considered as the subcommittee 

considers a move of the program from EPA to DOE. 

ENERGY STAR Discussion Dl"o~ft- Comments and Suggestions 

The Alliance's gravest concerns about the proposed ENERGY STAR legislation are two-fold: the 

proposed move of the program from EPA to DOE-- particularly at a time when the program already is under 

threat of elimination and/or sharp budget cuts; and the application of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

which will add unnecessary costs and time-consuming bureaucracy to a voluntary program. 

The Alliance docs not support the proposal to shift responsibility to DOE. Amending the statute as 

proposed would be tremendously disruptive. The shift would put strain on DOE's current resources- both 

financial and human; it would distract from the administration, growth and promotion of the program while the 

internal program infrastructure is dismantled and rebuilt in another agency; and, the institutional knowledge and 

deep partner relationships that have been established between EPA and its 16,000 partners would be lost. 

Further, and importantly, Congress appropriates funding to EPA to administer the program. The 

discussion draft is silent on the issue ofl\.mding so it is very unclear where and how DOE could secure the 

funding to administer the program effectively. And, as the administration already has announced its intent to 

eliminate the program, it appears unlikely that DOE or EPA would seek to reprogram or repurpose funds to 

insure that the program continues without specific direction from the Congress to do so. 

Finally, current law allows EPA and DOE to assign and/or reassign responsibilities to allow for the most 

effective and streamlined management of the program. This has been done as recently as 2009 through the use 

~ "FY2018 Budget Chart- House And Senate Appropriations," http://www.ase.org/resources/fy2018-budget*chart~house-and-senateappropriations, Alliance to Save Energy, July 25, 2017, last accessed November 3, 2017. 
48 


28284.035

of a budget-neutral memorandum of understanding (MOU). Such flexibility allows for input by the key 

stakeholders and program partners and can insure that responsibilities are assigned to the agency best-resourced, 

with respect to financial, technical and human resources. We suggest stakeholders looking for changes in the 

administration of particular parts of the program should work with and through the agencies rather than the 

Congress to effectuate such changes. 

The Alliance also does not support the application of the APA to the development of product 

specifications and other program requirements. Application of the APA is intended and appropriate for 

federal regulatory programs that carry the force of law; we do not believe it is appropriate for a voluntary 

program. The AP A's full notice and comment process can take years to complete. A slow and burdensome 

process likely would erode consumer confidence and serve as a disincentive to companies to participate and 

introduce new products. We do believe, however, that there should be adequate transparency and predictability 

to the specification-setting process for products under the ENERGY STAR program and we would support 

changes made administratively or even by statute to insure that these tenets are achieved. 

The Alliance appreciates the effort made by the subcommittee to reduce costs for manufacturers 

that are "iu good standing" in the program, however, we do not support an exemption ofthird-partv 

certification for only certain consumer electronic devices. Consumer electronic devices account for fully 

40% of the savings generated through the ENERGY STAR program, and we do not understand why these 

products should not be held to the same rules and requirements in place for other products. 

EPA implemented third-party certification starting in 2011 in response to a report by the U.S. 

Government Accounting Office (GAO) that found the ENERGY STAR program was vulnerable to fraud 

because there was then no independent certification process. Third-party certification enhances the value of the 

program to partners, including retailers, manufacturers, and utilities, by ensuring that products are properly 

tested and reviewed prior to being labeled. It is important to note that ENERGY STAR's third-party 

certification rules leverage existing accreditation and testing infrastructure, including that for product safety, 

minimizing added manufacturer cost, that help to contain costs. 
49 


28284.036

The Alliance stands ready to work with the subcommittee, EPA and its partners to consider options that 

could lower certification costs to manufacturers which could free up resources for product development. 

The Alliance does not support the requirement for specifications for product categories for all 

capacities, sizes, and features. The agencies already strive to make ENERGY STAR open to products of 

varying capacities, sizes, and features based on tbe current statute, which gives the agencies the explicit 

authority to do so. The discussion draft provision that would require the agencies to create specifications for all 

capacities, sizes and features would put added strain on a budget that we believe already is inadequate and 

likely shrinking. 

The Alliance supports the discussion draft provisions to make explicit a "no-warranty" clause for 

delisted products under certain circumstances. The Alliance is sensitive to concerns about potential liability 

risk to manufacturers following the decertification of a product, but before the established administrative 

process is complete. In our experience, the agencies actively enforce specification compliance and have 

delisted products and assessed penalties when appropriate. 

The Alliance recommends the inclusion of an explicit authorization of funding to the ENERGY 

STAR program. We believe annual appropriations at-or-above current appropriated levels (approximately $42 

million) are warranted and suggest that the Committee consider a funding level as high as $75 million annually. 

And, as we already have indicated, we believe that EPA should remain the "home" of the ENERGY STAR 

program and therefore would ask tbat the funds be authorized specifically to that agency. An explicit 

authorization of appropriations would give partners and the public greater certainty about the long-term viability 

of ENERGY STAR and clearly signal to the administration tbat Congress will not allow the federal government 

to shut down this important public-private partnership program. 

Conclusion 

The Alliance applauds the subcommittee members and staff for inviting comments and input before a bill is 

finalized. In tbe instance of ENERGY STAR, it is exceedingly important to include the stakeholders in the 

legislative process as they have much to gain or lose by the actions of Congress. The list of stakeholders is long 

and covers almost every sector of the U.S. economy including: 
50 


28284.037

National retail chains who stock and sell ENERGY STAR certified products; 

ENERGY STAR product suppliers; 

Real estate companies who benchmark their buildings with Portfolio Manager; 

Service provider partners; 

Utilities who use ENERGY STAR as the platform for the energy efficiency programs they execute; 

Fast food chains who outfit their kitchens with ENERGY STAR certified food service equipment; 

ENEGY STAR equipment distributors; 

Commercial laboratories who offer testing services 

Independent certification bodies to certify ENERGY STAR products; 

Home energy raters who verify the energy savings; 

ENERGY STAR home builder partners; 

School districts who leverage ENERGY STAR resources and install ENERGY STAR certified 

equipment to spend less on energy and more on books; and, 

Members of thirty industrial sectors- such as the petrochemical and aluminum casting industries- who 

use ENERGY STAR to improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental risk across their plants. 

Any changes in the administration of the program, the process for establishing criteria and testing products, 

and funding will impact the 16,000 partners and could impact the ENERGY STAR brand which is now 

highly trusted and almost universally recognized. As we stated at the outset, the Alliance is very open to 

changes that we believe can improve the integrity, cost-effectiveness and impact of the program, but any 

such changes must be considered very carefully to assure that there are no unintended, negative outcomes 

for the partners or those consumers, businesses and governments who have come to rely on the ENERGY 

STAR brand to deliver energy and cost savings while improving the environment. 
51 


28284.038

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President 

Alliance to Save Energy 

Snmmary of Major Points 

1. ENERGY STAR is widely recognized as the world's gold standard of public-private partnerships 

having over 16,000 partners; brand recognition above 90%; verified and delivered savings of$430 

billion to American consumers and businesses. The program needs to be nurtured and protected. 

2. ENERGY STAR has been targeted by the administration for elimination and House-approved 

FY20!8 appropriations are 25% lower than 2017. Funding for energy efficiency programs at the 

DOE also are under significant threat of draconian cuts. 

3. The Alliance opposes moving the ENERGY STAR program from EPA to DOE as it will be not only 

disruptive, but also could put the program's continuance in question given the funding situation. 

4. The Alliance opposes application of the APA to a voluntary program, APA was created for 

regulatory programs that carry the force of law. The Alliance is open to working with the 

subcommittee to find other ways to insure program transparency and to lower costs to partners. 

5. The Alliance opposes an exemption from third-party certifications for consumer electronic devices; 

third-party certification was deemed necessary by GAO to insure the program's integrity. 

6. The Alliance supports the "no-warranty" provision for delisted products as the agencies currently 

insure remedial action and compensation for consumers. 

7. The Alliance does not support the requirement for specifications for product categories for all 

capacities, sizes, and features. The agencies already have the discretion to take such action, and 

requirement is costly and burdensome to a program already under-funded and facing more cuts. 

8. The Alliance recommends the inclusion of an annual authorization for appropriations for $75 million 

to EPA for the ENERGY STAR program. 
52 

Mr. OLSON. And as the people of Kentucky and Texas say, much 

obliged. 

Our next witness is Mr. Greg Merritt. Greg is vice president at 

CREE. You have 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF GREG MERRITT 

Mr. MERRITT. Thank you, and good morning. I’d like to thank the 

committee, the chairman, and ranking member for the opportunity 

to speak to you today. 

CREE is a U.S.-based developer and producer of advanced technology LEDs, LED lighting products, and power and wireless semiconductor components. We are headquartered in North Carolina 

and have facilities in Wisconsin, Arkansas, and California with 

over 6,000 employees worldwide. Our technologies, products, and 

solutions are all focused on advancing energy-efficient improvements across the lighting, communications, electric transportation, 

renewable energy, and energy storage industries. We helped to 

launch what we called the LED lighting revolution over 10 years 

ago and have witnessed firsthand the important role Energy Star 

has played in helping guide consumers to higher quality energy-efficient products driving adoption by facilitating rebates and incentive programs and providing a trusted brand among the confusion 

of new technologies and many unknown manufacturer which, by 

the way, included CREE in those early days. 

Energy Star continues to be a trusted brand to consumers and 

a valued partner to suppliers like CREE. The program’s remarkable success is undeniable, as you’ve heard earlier, and as a marketing executive I will tell you that there are many companies 

around the world that would envy the 90 percent brand recognition 

that Energy Star enjoys today. This brand is an incredibly valued 

asset and we should fiercely protect it. As a participating Energy 

Star company with over 400 Energy Star-rated products, CREE is 

very supportive of changes that will improve the program and help 

secure its future but is also wary of those that may do otherwise. 

Our foremost interest, and I think you’ve heard this earlier, is 

to ensure that Energy Star is fully funded, retains its experience 

and capable staff and management, and continues to deliver multiple valued programs including product certification, commercial 

buildings, and homes. Furthermore, we would advocate specific authorization of funding to ensure that the appropriated levels going 

forward are adequate to keep the program strong and viable and 

at least match historical levels of funding. 

Among the proposals included in the discussion draft we are addressing today we are particularly concerned by the proposed 

transfer of the program to DOE and the proposal to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to the development of Energy Star 

specifications. We believe the wholesale transfer of the program to 

DOE threatens to severely disrupt funding, staffing, and operations, and while there are always improvements that can be made 

and we believe they could be made under the existing structure, we 

believe Energy Star is running smoothly and is well managed at 

EPA. 

EPA has a talented team of professionals, years of institutional 

knowledge and experience, not to mention established and strong 

53 

working relationships with 16,000 Energy Star partners. We are, 

therefore, opposed to moving Energy Star to DOE, an agency that 

does not have budget authority appropriations or staff who are 

trained and experienced in the critical marketing, brand management, and partnership aspects of this important program. 

As for the proposal to apply the APA to Energy Star specifications, we are adamantly opposed. We believe this proposal would 

add unnecessary, time-consuming, and burdensome regulation and 

process to a voluntary program that by its very nature must be 

nimble, flexible, and responsive to rapidly-changing products, technologies, and markets. 

We believe imposing APA will eliminate the ability of program 

staff to make quick adjustments to the specification that are necessary in response to technology evolution and the program will 

forever be chasing technology and market evolution, rendering it 

ineffective. I would also note that recent experience with Energy 

Star, at least by my company, has reflected improved engagement 

of product manufacturing and specification process, multiple 

rounds of comment and drafts, and many of these have been in response to our earlier requests to EPA. 

We would also be opposed to providing exemptions for specific 

manufacturers or products from third party certification. Third 

party certification was added to the program to prevent bad actors 

from misusing the program with products that don’t meet Energy 

Star standards, depriving consumers of their promised savings. 

We believe allowing exemptions would create the opportunity for 

this bad behavior to happen. While external testing does create a 

longer process and adds some costs, we believe it is a necessary 

and worthwhile trade-off. The trustworthiness of the Energy Star 

certification and label is the most valuable attribute of the program 

and it should not be risked for convenience. 

Finally, while we don’t have a firm position on the warranty provision, we would oppose it if it is paired with exemptions from 

third party certification for the reasons I delineated above. 

Thank you very much for your time today and for the ability to 

share CREE’s perspective on this important issue. I will be happy 

to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merritt follows:] 

54 


28284.039

U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Hearing on "Energy Star Reform Act of 2017" 

Statement of Greg Merritt 

Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs 

Cree, Inc. 

November 7, 2017 

I'd like to thank the committee, Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush for the opportunity to 

speak with you today. 

Cree is a U.S.-based developer and producer of advanced technology LEDs, LED lighting solutions and 

power and wireless semiconductor components. We are headquartered in North Carolina with facilities 

in Wisconsin, Arkansas and California and over 6,000 employees worldwide. 

Our technology, products and solutions are focused on advancing energy efficient improvements in our 

lighting, communications, electric transportation, renewable energy and energy storage industriesdriving productivity improvements. 

We helped launch the LED lighting revolution over 10 years ago, and have witnessed firsthand the 

important role ENERGY STAR has played in helping guide consumers to higher quality, high-efficiency 

products, driving adoption by facilitating rebates and incentive programs and providing a trusted brand 

among the confusion of new technologies and many unknown manufacturers- which included Cree in 

those early days. 

ENERGY STAR continues to be a trusted brand to consumers and a valued partner to suppliers like Cree. 

The program's remarkable success is undeniable. As a marketing executive, I will tell you there are many 

companies around the world that would love to have the 90 percent brand recognition that ENERGY 
55 


28284.040

STAR enjoys. That brand is an incredibly valuable asset that should be fiercely protected, particularly 

given the economic and environmental benefits that result from improved energy efficiency. 

As a participating ENERGY STAR company with many ENERGY STAR-rated products, Cree is supportive of 

changes that will improve the program and help to secure its future, and we are wary of those that may 

do otherwise. 

Our foremost interest is to ensure that ENERGY STAR is funded fully, retains experienced and capable 

staff and management and continues to deliver multiple valued programs for product certification, 

commercial buildings and homes. Furthermore, we would advocate specific authorization of funding to 

the EPA to ensure that appropriated levels going forward are adequate to keep the program strong and 

viable. As others have proposed, we believe a funding authorization of $75 million is appropriate. As 

you know, ENERGY STAR is facing significant potential funding cuts, including here in the House, and we 

believe those cuts would not just harm ENERGY STAR but also the broader economy given then 

enormous savings that ENERGY STAR helps to create for consumers and businesses. 

Among the proposals included in the discussion draft we're addressing today, we are particularly 

concerned by the proposed transfer of the program to DOE and the proposal to apply the Administrative 

Procedures Act to the development of ENERGY STAR specifications. 

We believe a wholesale transfer of the program to DOE threatens to severely disrupt funding, staffing 

and operations. And while there are always improvements that can be made, we believe ENERGY STAR 

is running smoothly and is well-managed at EPA. EPA has a talented team of professionals and 25 years 

of institutional knowledge and experience not to mention established and strong working relationships 

with 16,000 ENERGY STAR partners. Again, the results speak for themselves in terms of ENERGY STAR's 

market penetration and impact. We are therefore opposed to moving ENERGY STAR to another agency 
56 


28284.041

that does not have budget authority, appropriations or staff who are trained and experienced in the 

critical marketing, brand management and partnership aspects of the program. 

As for the proposal to apply the APA to ENERGY STAR specifications and program structure, we are 

adamantly opposed. This proposal would add unnecessary, time-consuming and burdensome regulation 

to a voluntary program that by its very nature must be nimble, flexible and responsive to rapidly 

changing products, technologies and markets. Imposing APA will eliminate the ability of program staff to 

make quick adjustments to the specifications in response to technology evolution, and the program will 

forever be chasing technology and market evolutions, making it ineffective or even irrelevant because it 

would be so far behind the market. I would also note that recent experiences with ENERGY STAR have 

reflected improved engagement of product manufacturers in the specification process, in response to 

earlier requests to EPA. 

We also are opposed to providing exemptions for specific manufacturers or products from third-party 

certification. Third-party certification was added to the program for good reason after bad actors were 

found to be misusing the program with products that didn't meet ENERGY STAR standards, and we 

believe allowing exemptions would create the opportunity for this to happen again. While external 

testing creates a longer process and adds costs, we believe it's a necessary and worthwhile tradeoff. The 

trustworthiness of the ENERGY STAR certification and label is the most valuable attribute of the 

program, and it should not be risked for convenience. 

Finally, while we don't have a firm position on the warranty provision, we oppose it if it is paired with 

exemptions from third-party certification. Allowing self-certification and removing liability would only 

increase the risk of bad actors abusing the program and harming ENERGY STAR's credibility and 

reputation. 
57 


28284.042

Again, thank you for your time today and for your interest in Cree's perspective on this important issue. I 

am happy to answer questions you might have. 
58 


28284.043

Summary of Key Points- Greg Merritt, Cree, Inc. 

Cree is a U.S. based company, headquartered in North Carolina, with locations in Wisconsin, Arkansas 

and California. We are a developer and producer of LEOs, LED lighting solutions and advanced power 

and wireless communications semiconductors. 

We have a long, successful history of working with the ENERGY STAR program, and fully support any 

changes that will improve the program. 

Our foremost interest is to ensure that ENERGY STAR is funded fully, retains experienced and capable 

staff and management and continues to deliver multiple valued programs for product certification, 

commercial buildings and homes 

Among the proposals included in the discussion draft we're addressing today, we are particularly 

concerned by the proposed transfer of the program to DOE and the proposal to apply the Administrative 

Procedures Act to the development of ENERGY STAR specifications. 

We are opposed to moving ENERGY STAR to another agency that does not have budget authority, 

appropriations or staff who are trained and experienced in the critical marketing, brand management 

and partnership aspects of the program. 

We are adamantly opposed to the proposal to apply the APA to ENERGY STAR specifications and 

program structure. 

We also are opposed to providing exemptions for specific manufacturers or products from third-party 

certification 

Finally, while we don't have a firm position on the warranty provision, we oppose it if it is paired with 

exemptions from third-party certification 
59 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Merritt. 

The chair now calls upon Mr. Christopher Drew, the executive 

vice president and chief marketing and strategy officer for the Air 

Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 

You have 5 minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER DREW 

Mr. DREW. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rush, and members 

of the subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on possible reforms to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program. 

My name is Christopher Drew and I am the Executive Vice 

President for Burnham Holdings. I am also Chairman of the Air 

Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, an organization 

representing more than 320 manufacturers. 

Currently, our industry as a whole represents 1.3 million employ- ees and generates $257 billion in economic activity. AHRI represents over 90 percent of the domestic HVACR and water heating 

industry and more than 70 percent of the global industry. 

Today, 160 AHRI members participate in the Energy Star program. I am pleased to say Burnham Holdings participates in the 

Energy Star program and has about a hundred products listed. 

From our experience, we have enjoyed a positive working relationship with the EPA and we would like the program to continue as 

a resource consumers can rely on and trust for information on the 

efficiency of the products they are considering for purchase. 

My comments as chairman of AHRI reflecting the concerns held 

by the HVACR manufacturers are covered in greater detail in the 

testimony submitted for the record. The industry’s concerns are related to the approach taken to move the program, compliance burdens that should be addressed, as well as ensuring the program is 

able to continue as a valuable and informative tool for educating 

consumers. 

AHRI and its members have concerns about the draft’s suggestion to move the program from the EPA where it is currently 

housed to the Department of Energy. The industry would prefer to 

maintain the program as it currently stands at the EPA where it 

has been able to operate successfully for our products since 1992. 

Though no doubt well intentioned, the draft does not provide details as to how moving the program could be accomplished without 

disruption. It is currently operated by a knowledgeable and dedicated staff in a way that generally ensures stakeholder input and 

successful outcomes. Furthermore, if moved, the draft language 

leaves much of the administration of the program to the discretion 

of the Secretary of Energy. 

Energy Star’s credibility and success over the last 25 years has 

been partially driven by its stability within the EPA’s portfolio and 

the certainty it provides to consumers that what they are purchasing is government certified. There is no false advertising. 

Therefore, if the program is to be moved, which is not what our industry would prefer, we would like the committee to provide more 

details on how it will be managed. 

Reduced compliance burdens, the AHRI has also urged the federal government to recognize voluntary certification programs as a 

60 

way to comply with federal energy efficiency standards and the Energy Star program. Relying on industry consensus certification programs reduces duplicative efforts between the federal government 

and industry, encourages compliance with energy efficiency regulations, reduces regulatory burdens, and saves taxpayer dollars, all 

while enhancing market surveillance. 

AHRI is currently an EPA-designated certification body. This allows AHRI program participants to realize significant savings as 

they are able to meet Energy Star requirements without any additional testing on the products they wish to have labelled. The draft 

does include a promising improvement to allow for good actors— 

those participants have met all requirements of the program for a 

period of at least 18 months to be eligible for reduced compliance 

burdens. Unfortunately, the draft makes this available only to certain products. We believe this section should be broadened to include all products as a stated policy is to recognize those who are 

compliant with the program to prove themselves trustworthy, not 

based on a specific product type. 

Additionally, while the Administrative Procedures Act is the 

most commonly used method of ensuring stakeholder input, Energy 

Star is not a regulatory process. It is a voluntary program and applying a full APA process could create an unnecessary burden for 

a program like Energy Star. Ensuring proper stakeholder input 

and notification could easily be achieved through agreeing on a 

process that is transparent and predictable without the burdens 

APA would place on the agency and participants. 

Another area of concern for our industry, related to moving the 

program from EPA to DOE, is the potential disruption it might 

cause to highly successful and impactful Energy Star building programs like Portfolio Manager. Portfolio Manager is EPA’s tool for 

building owners and managers to understand how their properties 

operate and how to improve their economic performance. Fifty percent of U.S. commercial floor space uses Portfolio Manager and it 

is also used by the commercial real estate industry to comply with 

the numerous state and local laws. 

In addition, under Energy Star’s New Homes program, houses 

are designed and built with a system-wide approach in mind so 

that all energy efficiency systems and features work together to deliver better performance. Quality installation of these products is 

essential for consumers to gain the full benefits of their highly efficient equipment. 

Finally, sufficient funding for Energy Star is vital to the continued success of the program no matter where it resides within the 

federal government. 

I would like to thank the committee members and staff for being 

so inclusive of stakeholders and inviting comments on this discussion draft. 

We look forward to working with you to improve the Energy Star 

program and the regulatory environment for HVAC-R and water 

heating manufacturers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Drew follows:] 

61 


28284.044

Alfl·CONDITIONING. HEATING, 

& l'!l!'l'fltClERATION liiiSTITUTI!' 

Testimony of Christopher Drew 

Executive Vice President of Burnham Holdings Inc. 

and 

Chairman of the Board of Directors, 

Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 

Before the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Hearing on 

Discussion Draft, ENERGY STAR Reform Act of 2017 

November 3, 2017 
62 


28284.045

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today on possible reforms to the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) ENERGY STAR program. My name is Chris Drew, and I'm the Executive Vice President for 

Burnham Holdings, Inc. I'm also Chairman of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI), an organization representing more than 320 manufacturers of residential, commercial, and 

industrial air conditioning, space heating, water heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment and 

components for sale in North America and around the world. As an internationally recognized advocate 

for the industry, AHRI develops standards for, and certifies the performance of, many of these products. 

The heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration (HVACR), and water heater industry serves many 

basic requirements of the household, industry, and commercial sectors. These include home and 

building climate control, supply of hot water, and refrigeration for food, beverage, and industrial needs. 

Currently, the manufacturing part of the industry employs 125,000 people in the United States providing 

over $10 billion in labor compensation annually and is responsible for $44.6 billion in total industry 

output.' When coupled with upstream suppliers, downstream distributors, and the contractor jobs 

associated with related installation, construction, and maintenance of this equipment, our industry 

represents 1.29 million employees, and generates $256.7 billion in economic activity.2 As the 

association for manufacturers of HVACR and water heating equipment, AHRI represents over 90 percent 

of the domestic industry and more than 70 percent of the global industry. 

The EPA's ENERGY STAR program was established in 1992 to promote energy efficient products, 

including heating, air conditioning, water heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment. In various 

1 An Economic Analysis of the U.S. HVACR ond Water Heating Industry, The Center for Manufacturing Research 

in Partnership with lnforum, July 1, 2017, pgl-6 

'" 

2 
63 


28284.046

categories, highly efficient products that meet the applicable ENERGY STAR specification can be 

recognized by the program and earn the right to use the very well-known yellow ENERGY STAR label. 

ENERGY STAR itself has become its own brand, and 8S percent of consumers recognize it as a 

trustworthy brand.' More than 7,400 partner organizations- including 160 of AHRI members, 

participate in the ENERGY STAR program. Products within our membership covered under the ENERGY 

STAR program include boilers, central air conditioners and air source heat pumps, commercial boilers, 

commercial ice makers, commercial refrigerators and freezers, commerciai water heaters, furnaces, 

geothermal heat pumps, light commercial HVAC, and non-solar electric and gas water heaters. The 

specifications for ENERGY STAR designation are continuously updated by the EPA in collaboration with 

its partners and various stakeholders to ensure energy and financial savings for businesses and families 

buying ENERGY STAR products. 

As a manufacturer of thermal and interior comfort solutions used in a wide range of residential, 

commercial, and industrial applications, Burnham Holdings participates in the ENERGY STAR program. 

Together with its subsidiaries, our company is a market leader in the design, manufacture, and sale of 

boilers and related HVAC products and accessories, including: furnaces, radiators, and air conditioning 

systems. Products are manufactured at company operated facilities in the East, South, and Midwestern 

United States. I personally have found our working relationship with EPA to be generally positive and I 

would like the program to continue as a resource consumers can rely on and trust for information on the 

efficiency of the products they are considering for purchase. 

3 https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab index%20 

3 
64 


28284.047

Central to today's discussion is a discussion draft (hereafter referred to as "draft") to reform the ENERGY 

STAR program, on which I will focus my comments today as Chairman of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI). 

Administration of ENERGY STAR 

AHRI believes the ENERGY STAR program should continue largely in its current form, but there are 

improvements in the implementation of the program the Committee should consider. While the draft 

contemplates moving the program from the EPA where it is currently housed to the Department of 

Energy, AHRI and its members have concerns about that approach. Chief among those concerns would 

be the disturbance of a successful program with a sudden re-assignment to a new agency. Though no 

doubt well-intentioned, the draft does not provide details as to how this could be accomplished without 

interruption or disruption. It is currently operated by a knowledgeable and dedicated staff in a way that 

generally ensures stakeholder input and successful outcomes. There are several questions we could not 

answer with the draft in its current form, such as how the responsibilities of the program could 

successfully be transferred from one agency to the other? What office within the Department of Energy 

(DOE) would take ownership? Would current institutional knowledge held by those who have run this 

program be lost? Would the current approved products and procedures be maintained? 

The HVACR industry would prefer to maintain the program as it currently stands under the Office of 

Atmospheric Programs at the EPA, where it has been able to operate successfully for our products since 

1992. 

4 
65 


28284.048

The draft language also leaves much of the administration of the program to the discretion of the 

Secretary of Energy, which raises questions about the level of predictability this arrangement could 

mean for manufacturers. Most concerning is the prospect of the program bouncing back and forth 

between agencies depending on the prerogative of the agency head or the President of the United 

States, when stability and certainty are so important to ENERGY STAR's success. lfthe program is to be 

moved, which is not what our industry would prefer, the Committee should provide clarity rather than 

ambiguity. 

To continue to ensure robust participation from equipment manufacturers, it is imperative that any 

reforms improve the program, and allow for it to continue where successful with as little disruption as 

possible. A great deal more specificity is needed as to the arrangement between the EPA and DOE, if the 

current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies were rescinded or amended. 

HVACR manufacturers would oppose any arrangement that leaves us without the predictability of 

knowing where the program is to be housed from one Administration to the next. 

Certification of Equipment 

AHRI has long urged the federal government to recognize voluntary certification programs for air 

conditioning, furnace, boiler, heat pump, refrigeration, and water heating products as a way to 

demonstrate compliance with federal energy efficiency and conservation standards and the ENERGY 

STAR program. Relying on industry-consensus certification programs reduces duplicative efforts 

between the federal government and industry, encourages compliance with energy efficiency 

regulations, reduces regulatory burdens, and saves taxpayer dollars-all while enhancing market 

surveillance. 

5 
66 


28284.049

To maintain the program's success, the EPA relies on accredited third-party voluntary certification 

programs to validate manufacturers' efficiency claims. These certification programs save businesses 

time and money, while ensuring a robust ENERGY STAR program and safeguarding consumer protection. 

As part of its effort to strengthen the ENERGY STAR program, the EPA created a path for recognizing 

these certification programs as Certification Bodies (CB}4 to assist manufacturers with the EPA 

requirements for testing and reporting ENERGY STAR products. AHRI is currently a designated CB (See 

Qualification Chart below for process}. This allows AHRI program participants to achieve significant 

savings by serving various certification needs through AHRI verification testing. AHRI certification 

program participants can meet EPA ENERGY STAR certification and verification requirements without 

any additional testing on the products they wish to have ENERGY STAR labeled (see Table 1 for 

illustration of ENRGY STAR categories and AHRI certifications}. 

Qualification Process 

Step 1: Establish partnership with EPA 

Step 2: Submission to AHRI 

Verification 

Fees 

Table 1: 

AHRI shall select at least 10 percent of each Participant's ENERGY STAR Basic Model Groups or 

BMGs (that are registered or certified with AHRI} as part of the AHRJ Annual Testing 

Requirement, with a minimum of one (1) model tested annually depending on the requirement 

of the AHRI Certification Program. 

Annual testing for ENERGY STAR program requirements is included in the AHRI Annual 

Participation Fee Invoice. 

Participant laboratory audit fees are not included in the AHRI Annual Participation fee. The 

Participant shall be invoiced separately for the audit. 

4 https:/lwww.energystar.gov/index.<;fm?c=third party certification.tpc cert bodies 

6 
67 


28284.050

o >"V \' ~ ~§" "' '~ ~' ' 

,J~~~ ' ~*~"cc:"f~-:(.-r~ ':'p ~>:~!B~ \'""",~"" ~:~ ~~« '""h" 'k"'« 

Boilers Resi-dential Sollers (RSLR) 

c.ntmAirCondltklnersandAirSoura!- Pumps Unitary /JJ.r Co.~itioner & Heat Pump Equipment (USACIUSHP) 

Commefd~ Bollen .. Commercial B<lilers (CBLR) 

Commeldallce-... Autom.'Jt:c Commerda! Ice-Makers (AOM) 

Com~atRefrlgetamts.ndffeMers Commercia! Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets 

(CRM) 

Commerclolwater- Commercial Warer Heaters {CWH) 

Fumoces Residential Fuma::es (RFRN} 

G--IHeatPumps Geo-thermal Heat Pumps (WSHP/DGX) 

"~ Unitary Large Equipment (UI..E) 

Unitary Air Cond;tioner & Heat Pump Equipment {USACIUSHP) 

Variable Refrigerant Row {VRF} 

Woter-NonSoiH ~rfcandNonSolorGu Resfdential Wa~er Heaters {RWH} 

The draft neglects to specify how the reassignment of the program would affect successful partnerships 

between voluntary industry certification programs and ENERGY STAR moving forward. This is central to 

ensuring we do not disrupt a successful program and maintain current participation levels within the 

HVACR industry. These type of arrangements, as noted earlier, also save taxpayer dollars by avoiding 

duplicate testing and certification. 

The draft does include a promising improvement to allow for "good actors"- those that are ENERGY 

STAR participants and have complied with all requirements of the program for a period of at least 18 

months-- to be eligible for an exemption from additional EPA certification requirements as long as they 

remain in good standing. Unfortunately, however, this only applies to products in the consumer, home, 

and office electronics product categories. 

As an industry that prides itself on maintaining world-class voluntary performance standards and 

certification programs, we would hope this approach would be made available to all the "good actors" 

that participate in the ENERGY STAR program. If one of our goals is to preserve the partnerships that 

7 
68 


28284.051

industry currently utilizes for compliance, we see this area as an alternative option to improve it. Were 

this section to be broadened to include all products, as the stated policy within the provision is to 

recognize those who are compliant with the programs and proved themselves trustworthy, and not 

based on a specific need of a product type, this would be a reasonable path to ensuring HVACR 

manufacturers do not receive disruption in this reform process. 

AHRI would also suggest "grandfathering" those products that have been in compliance for at least 18 

months prior to the enactment of this language. Compliance assistance proposals such as this are 

beneficial to encouraging participation in the program, particularly for small businesses. 

One ofthe purposes of ENERGY STAR is to aid consumers in purchasing of energy efficient products, and 

rewarding innovation and encouraging the manufacture of those products. The program can and should 

recognize participants that have demonstrated a sustained commitment to achieving this objective by 

providing relief from additional compliance burdens unless or until an infraction is found. 

Additional Regulatory Burden 

As participants in the ENERGY STAR program, we have often found the partnership with EPA to be 

productive and collaborative. Yet, HVACR manufacturers have had circumstances when information was 

transmitted without time to provide substantive input. AHRI believes that public participation in the 

agency decision-making process is an essential mechanism to ensuring accountability and good results. 

As an industry, we value a predictable and transparent regulatory process that allows for robust industry 

engagement. 

8 
69 


28284.052

While the Administrative Procedure Act is the most commonly used method of ensuring stakeholder 

input, ENERGY STAR is not a regulatory process. It is a voluntary program, and applying a full 

Administrative Procedures Act {APA) process would likely create an unnecessary burden for a program 

like ENERGY STAR. 

Ensuring proper stakeholder input and notification could easily be achieved through agreeing on a 

process that is transparent and predictable, without the burdens APA would place on the agency and 

participants. Use of APA would slow the process and make it more adversarial rather than cooperative, 

which would have an adverse effect on having products labelled and available to consumers in a timely 

manner. Applying the APA could also have the unintended consequence of opening up to lawsuits all 

determinations made by the ENERGY STAR program. 

Beyond Equipment 

The ENERGY STAR buildings programs and their focus on promoting a switch to higher efficiency 

equipment in homes and commercial buildings has been a great success. These programs should not be 

overlooked when considering reforms to ENERGY STAR because of their incredible impact on the 

industry. In the most recent Energy Information Administration {EIA) Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey {CBECS), of the 5.557 million commercial buildings in the United States, 2.094 

million buildings constructed before 2008 have been renovated in some way, with HVAC upgrades being 

by far the most common building renovation project to improve energy consumption (1.101 million9 
70 


28284.053

more than half- have had an "HVAC equipment upgrade").' One tool HVACR and water heating 

manufacturers believe has been an important catalyst to this renovation trend is Portfolio Manager. 

Portfolio Manager is EPA's free, online tool for building owners and managers to understand how their 

properties operate and how to improve their economic performance. Fifty percent of U.S. commercial 

floor space uses Portfolio Manager to track energy use, water consumption, and waste. Approximately 

500,000 buildings, representing 44 billion square feet of commercial floor space, use EPA's 

benchmarking tool. Half of the Fortune 100® as well as the largest U.S. healthcare organizations, major 

league sports teams, colleges and universities, and even entire cities use Portfolio Manager.• EPA's 

Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool is the industry standard for commercial real estate to comply with 

numerous "mandatory benchmarking" laws enacted at the state and local level. Without Portfolio 

Manager, hundreds of thousands of buildings would lack a uniform, nationwide standard to comply with 

state and local energy regulation mandates.7 

The ENERGY STAR label also has tremendous value for real estate businesses to gain competitive 

advantage in markets across the U.S. by branding their assets as leaders in innovation and energy 

efficient building technologies. Currently, 29,500 buildings, representing 4.34 billion square feet of 

buildings, are ENERGY STAR certified. 

5 https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/bc/odf/b8.odf. Renovations in buildings constructed 

before 2008 

'https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager 

7 https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/ES Government-Factsheet 09292017.odf: and 

https;ljwww.energystar.gov/buildings/program-admlnistrators/state-and-local-governments/see-federal-stateand-local-benchmarking-policies 

10 
71 


28284.054

The ENERGY STAR New Homes program helps families save on energy costs by offering a labelling 

designation to ensure application of rigorous requirements to new home construction, giving consumers 

standards to deliver on better durability, better comfort, and reduced utility and maintenance costs. 

ENERGY STAR-certified homes are designed and built with a system-wide approach in mind, so that all 

energy efficiency systems and features work together to deliver better performance. Quality installation 

of these products, in accordance with ACCA's 2015 HVAC Quality Installation Standard, is also essential 

for consumers to gain the full benefits of their highly efficient equipment. The EPA has been working in 

concert with contractors and industry to ensure consumers receive the full benefits of highly -efficient 

equipment by ensuring proper installation and maintenance of their mechanical and water heating 

systems. 

The ENERGY STAR Buildings and Plants program plays an important role in helping to encourage those 

energy saving renovations and overseeing the labelling program favored by real estate, while the New 

Homes program gives consumers guidelines to help make more efficient system-wide choices. The 

current draft does not specify the administration of this program. ENERGY STAR is so much more than 

just consumer electronics, appliances, and HVACR equipment standards. HVACR manufacturers have 

concerns about how these building programs would continue in their current form were they to be 

shifted to DOE. 

Stable Funding for ENERGY STAR 

Sufficient funding for ENERGY STAR is vital to the continued success of the program no matter where it 

resides within the federal government. For U.S. manufacturers, the many employees involved in 

11 
72 


28284.055

producing and installing energy-efficient equipment, and consumers that rely on these products daily, 

adequate funding to improve and protect the program must be ensured in legislation. 

Other ENERGY STAR Program Improvements 

HVACR manufacturers are pleased to see the draft included the "no warranty" language, which had 

been previously negotiated between industry and efficiency advocate representatives. It has been a 

long-held position that the ENERGY Star program was not intended to expose manufacturers to costly 

class-action lawsuits, and we believe this provision should remain in future versions of any ENERGY STAR 

reform legislation. 

There are provisions not included in the draft that HVACR manufacturers believe should be considered 

as the Committee considers ways to improve the current program. 

For instance, If the goal of ENERGY STAR is to recognize top performing products, there should be a 

justification process established to determine when and at what level the ENERGY STAR program sets a 

new specification for products. This process could be focused on capturing a specified percentage of the 

marketplace that would justify its placement into the ENERGY STAR program. Reliance on industry input, 

vetting, and certification directories to establish the new specification ratings would help in capturing 

the desired percentage of the market. A cost- benefit analysis may also be helpful in this 

determination. 

Secondly, current warranty requirements for ENERGY STAR products should be removed. Specifically, 

ENERGY STAR has certain warranty requirements established for qualified water heaters that do not 

12 
73 


28284.056

directly impact the ENERGY STAR rating or the performance of the product. ENERGY STAR should 

maintain its focus on promoting high energy efficiency and saving consumers money rather than involve 

itself in business decisions such as warranty requirements on products. 

Finally, the agency responsible for administration of the ENERGY STAR program should be required to 

use industry consensus test procedures for certification testing to ENERGY STAR specifications when 

available. In addition, duplicative test procedures should be removed where they exist. This would make 

the ENERGY STAR testing process more streamlined and less burdensome on manufacturers. 

Conclusion 

The ENERGY STAR program is a proven and successful tool in advancing the development and use of 

energy efficient technologies. The program provides real value to consumers in the form of energy 

savings, a universally recognized brand to help consumers make educated decisions about the products 

they purchase, and the financial incentives tied to ENERGY STAR equipment by utilities that reward the 

installation of high efficiency equipment. All of these factors help manufacturers, consumers and the 

environment. 

I want to thank the committee members and staff for being so inclusive of stakeholders and inviting 

comments on this discussion draft. We look forward to working with you to improve the ENERGY STAR 

program and the regulatory environment generally for HVACR and water heating manufacturers. 

13 
74 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Drew. 

And our final witness is Mr. Doug Johnson, and Doug is the vice 

president of Consumer Technology Association. 

Mr. Johnson, you have 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Vice Chairman Olson, Ranking Member Rush, 

members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Consumer Technology Association, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide feedback from our membership on how best to improve the Energy Star program. We thank the committee and Congressman 

Latta for their work on this discussion draft. 

CTA’s membership includes 2,200 companies, 80 percent of which 

are small businesses and startups. CTA also owns and produces 

CS, the global stage for innovation in Las Vegas in January. A 

large number of our members are partners in the Energy Star program and some of them are award-winning partners. As of 2015, 

more than half of the electricity savings in the Energy Star products program came from electronics. 

Regarding energy efficiency policy, we advocate for approaches 

that are national, voluntary, market oriented, globally harmonized, 

flexible, collaborative, and friendly to innovation and economic 

growth. Most recently our efforts have included groundbreaking industry-led voluntary agreements for energy efficiency in set-top 

boxes and small network equipment. 

This is a great time to identify and pursue regulatory reform opportunities related to energy efficiency programs. Based on our 

members’ experience with the Energy Star program, we have six 

recommendations we’d like to make regarding the discussion draft. 

First, we support the balanced and bipartisan solution to third 

party certification that is part of the discussion draft bill. This solution maintains Energy Star third party certification authority but 

allows electronics manufacturers with a demonstrated track record 

of compliance to earn their way out of the burdensome requirement. If there is noncompliance, then the more draconian costly 

third party certification requirements reapply. It is important to 

keep in mind that the rigorous post-market verification system that 

exists today would stay in place. 

Second, regarding moving program leadership to DOE, we know 

our members’ experience with EPA and Energy Star has been collaborative in some categories and less so in others.If program leadership were to move to DOE, which is used to traditional regulatory rulemakings, we would need assurances that DOE would 

work collaboratively in partnership with industry in the voluntary 

Energy Star program. 

Third, regarding application of the APA to Energy Star, our view 

is that some changes are needed to ensure Energy Star program 

transparency and accountability. Something elective and less restrictive than full-blown application of the APA may be best since 

we want to avoid encumbering the program and undermining its 

ability to keep pace with the tech industry. But APA could apply 

in some measure to ensure due process, transparency, and rational 

decision making in the administration of the program and the development of product specifications. Increasing Energy Star proVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:34 Jan 09, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-74 CHRIS
75 

gram transparency and accountability also could include a review 

of program decisions by the Office of Management and Budget. 

Our fourth recommendation concerns the provision about application of Energy Star to products of various sizes and capabilities. 

A few years ago, EPA decided it could impose a cutoff based on 

product size for participation in the program. We think Energy 

Star’s specification should be scalable, giving models across the 

board no matter size and performance something realistic to shoot 

for and giving consumers an Energy Star option across the board 

as well. 

Our last two points concern topics not addressed in the discussion draft but relevant to the Energy Star program and its administration. At times over the years the EPA has attempted to broaden the scope of Energy Star to cover non-energy factors such as 

greenhouse gas emissions of manufacturing processes and supply 

chains not related to the energy efficiency of the product itself. This 

Energy Star mission creep has appeared in past EPA proposals for 

new Energy Star specifications for computers, displays, and televisions. 

We think Energy Star should stay focused on energy efficiency. 

Our final point concerns standard test procedures on which Energy 

Star and other programs depend. DOE and EPA have hired consultants to develop test procedures for measuring the power consumption of products being considered for Energy Star specifications and, if applicable, DOE standards. This use of consultants is 

not only costly but also less transparent than the open private sector’s consensus standards development process. We think Energy 

Star program administrators should rely on these existing and less 

costly opportunities already developed by the private sector. 

In conclusion, I would reiterate that this committee’s focus on 

Energy Star reform and improvement opportunities is important 

and necessary. 

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute our industry’s views 

and ideas and we look forward to further engagement with the 

committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

76 


28284.057

INTRODUCTION 

Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

United States House of Representatives 

Written Statement of Douglas K. Johnson 

Vice President, Technology Policy 

Consumer Technology Association 

November 7, 2017 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush and members of the subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Consumer Technology Association (CT A), thank you very much for the 

opportunity to provide feedback from our membership on how best to improve the Energy Star 

program, and we applaud the committee for its work on this discussion draft. 

This voluntary energy efficiency program began a quarter century ago with a specification for 

computers, a product of our industry. Over the years, Energy Star grew to become the 

preeminent public policy for advancing energy efficiency in the consumer technology sector, not 

only in the U.S. but also in several other countries and regions. As of2015, more than half of the 

electricity savings in the Energy Star products program came from electronics. Based on our 

history of involvement and contribution, we would like to explain what we value in the Energy 

Star program, what works well for our sector, what should be improved through legislation, and 

our specific feedback on the discussion draft. 

CTA's membership- 2,200 companies, 80 percent of which are small business and startupsspans the breadth of the consumer tech industry and includes component suppliers, device 

manufacturers, software companies, retailers, distributors, installers and service providers. All of 

these players have a role regarding energy efficiency, and a large number of our members in 

these various segments of our industry are partners in the Energy Star program, and some of 

them award-winning partners. CT A also owns and produces CES® -the world's gathering 

place for all who thrive on the business of consumer technologies. Profits from CES are 

reinvested into CT A's industry services. 
77 


28284.058

CTA has been at the vanguard of energy efficiency for many years. Innovation is producing 

lighter, thinner, more energy-efficient products even as the number of tech products we own 

has increased, their share of U.S. household electricity has declined. 

For example, today's televisions are consuming less energy and saving consumers more moneyeven as TVs increase in size and resolution capabilities- according to a recent study 

commissioned by CTA. The study finds that LCD TVs from 2015 consume 76 percent less 

energy (per screen area) than they did in 2003, now costing consumers on average only six cents 

a day to power one TV. The study also confirms that voluntary, market-driven initiatives, such 

as Energy Star, have been most effective in promoting energy efficiency while also keeping up 

with the rapid pace of innovation. Today, more than 70 percent of the TVs sold in the U.S. 

satisfy the Energy Star program's increasingly stringent voluntary efficiency requirements. 

Regarding policy, we advocate for approaches that are: national, voluntary, market-oriented, 

globally harmonized and flexible to keep pace with technology; involve close collaboration 

between the public and private sectors; and friendly to innovation and economic growth. Most 

recently, this has included groundbreaking voluntary agreements for energy efficiency in set-top 

boxes and small network equipment. Our association also produces peer-reviewed studies of 

energy use of consumer tech products, and we use our standards development capability to create 

needed standards for measuring power consumption. We have also invested in consumer 

education initiatives, including promotion of Energy Star to consumers. 

Energy Star covers a broad range of electronics products and equipment in the residential and 

commercial markets, and it has worked very well for the electronics industry as a voluntary 

energy efficiency program. A government-industry partnership, Energy Star succeeds in our 

sector for several reasons: the program benefits from strong participation by manufacturers; it 

offers a competitive market incentive for energy savings; it takes a holistic approach to energy 

use by covering all power modes of a product; and it has high brand recognition by consumers. 

COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT 

Regarding public policy, this is a great time to identify and pursue regulatory reform 

opportunities related to energy efficiency programs. Based on our members' experience with the 

Energy Star program, we have identified significant opportunities which incorporate principles 

2 
78 


28284.059

of modern regulatory reform while supporting energy efficiency, reducing regulatory burdens 

and disincentives, saving consumers money, and facilitating innovation and economic growth. 

Following are CTA's comments on several topics addressed in the discussion draft legislation: 

Third-party certification 

In 20 II, EPA mandated a third-party certification regime for products in order to participate in 

the Energy Star program. Although this benefits for-profit laboratory companies around the 

world, for consumer tech products this was neither necessary nor justified based on the 

industry's uniformly successful track record of Energy Star compliance. 

As a result of the EPA's decision, the Energy Star product qualification process is significantly 

more expensive and time-consuming to manufacturers than the successful self-certification 

system which existed previously, particularly for smaller companies and new entrants to the 

market. Many consumer technology products carry very low margins of profit and face 

significant time-to-market requirements to maintain competitiveness. Third-party certification 

increases costs for manufacturers, slows the introduction of new models in the marketplace, and 

thereby creates a disincentive to participate in the program. Third-party certification also 

disrupted harmonized adoption of the Energy Star program internationally, which both EPA and 

industry have worked many years to achieve. 

We are very concerned about EPA's current approach to third-party certification as it applies to 

our products, and we support the balanced and bipartisan solution for our sector that is part of the 

discussion draft bill. This solution maintains Energy Star third-party certification authority, but 

allows electronics manufacturers with a demonstrated track record of compliance to earn their 

way out of the burdensome requirement. If there is noncompliance, then the more draconian, 

costly third-party certification requirements reapply. It is a mechanism of appropriate regulation 

and should be a model for future regulatory efforts. Companies that act in good faith and with 

demonstrated track records avoid excess regulation. Companies that fail to meet their 

obligations require greater regulation. 

Please keep in mind that the rigorous post-market verification system that exists today would 

stay in place. 

3 
79 


28284.060

Moving program leadership from EPA to DOE 

We recognize the tremendous success of voluntary programs such as Energy Star for the 

electronics industry during the past 25 years, and we do not want to disrupt continued success. 

Our members' experience with EPA on Energy Star has been collaborative in some categories, 

but less so in others. If program leadership were to move to the Department of Energy (DOE), 

which is used to traditional regulatory rulemakings, we would need assurances that DOE would 

work collaboratively in partnership with industry in the voluntary Energy Star program. Under 

the discussion draft bill, it is feasible DOE takes the lead but delegates to EPA certain sectors 

within the program, which of course could include electronics, but what gets delegated is not 

proscribed in the discussion draft. 

Applying the APA to Energy Star 

Participation in the Energy Star program is practically mandatory given its incorporation in 

federal and state government procurement requirements, in addition to private sector initiatives. 

Yet, EPA is under only the barest of procedural requirements. Changes are needed to ensure 

Energy Star program transparency and accountability. Something selective and less restrictive 

than full-blown application of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to Energy Star may be 

best, as we want to avoid encumbering the program and undermining its ability to keep pace with 

the tech industry. APA could apply in some measure to ensure due process, transparency and 

rational decision making in the administration of the program and the development of product 

specifications. Increasing Energy Star program transparency and accountability also could 

include review of program decisions by the Office of Management and Budget. 

Ensuring the scalability of Energy Star specifications 

In 2009, EPA stated that "for product categories with large variations in product size (with 

impacts on energy use), overall limits for energy use may be incorporated into Energy Star 

specifications." In other words, EPA arbitrarily decided to impose a cut-offbased on product 

size for participation in the Energy Star program. This amounts to a social judgement on 

appropriate product size, rather than a move to support energy efficiency. 

The Energy Star program, following DOE's approach in regulatory standards, has set 

specifications focused on efficiency that are scalable, giving models across the board, no matter 

4 
80 


28284.061

size and performance, something realistic to shoot for -and giving consumers an Energy Star 

option across the board as well, no matter product size and performance. For example, while 

larger televisions should be encouraged to be more efficient, these larger TV s, often with the 

latest additions and features, will use more energy than smaller TVs with fewer features. For 

such TVs, government should accommodate consumer choice, rather than attempt to dictate it. 

With EPA's decision to impose a cap or cut-off, Energy Star seemed to abandon its focus on 

energy efficiency at a time when it was more important than ever. Having the program become a 

subjective judgment on power consumption, product size and features (in other words, program 

administrators deciding what uses "too much" energy) means Energy Star would become 

focused on the smaller, less-featured, less-capable products over time. Under this approach, if 

less energy consumption regardless of efficiency is better, no energy use or de-featured products 

must be best, which is an absurd goal for the program. 

Other issues 

We offer the following additional comments on topics not addressed in the discussion draft, but 

relevant to the Energy Star program and its administration: 

Energy Star "mission creep" 

At times over the years, EPA has attempted to broaden the scope of the Energy Star program to 

cover non-energy factors, such as greenhouse gas emissions of manufacturing processes and 

supply chains, not related to the energy efficiency of the product itself. This Energy Star 

"mission creep'' has appeared in past EPA proposals for new Energy Star specifications for 

computers, displays and televisions. EPA's action could be based on recognition that in some 

product categories, the straightforward energy paybacks for higher efficiency levels are 

questionable. It also could be based on the agency's desire to move beyond its limited 

congressional mandate toward a more comprehensive sustainability or climate program. 

The EPA's efforts to go beyond energy use by including multi-attribute criteria in Energy Star 

specifications is not what Congress had in mind, and it effectively duplicates the private sector's 

existing EPEA T ceo-labeling program, which EPA actually helped to fund several years ago. 

Another concern about EPA's effort to include non-energy criteria in the Energy Star program is 

that measurement methodologies for some criteria of previous interest to EPA, such as 

5 
81 


28284.062

"embedded" carbon in products, are not well developed and suffer from the same problems as 

the use of "social cost of carbon" in regulatory programs. 

Reliance on international and domestic consensus standards, and the overuse of consultants 

Energy Star program administrators should defer to private-sector voluntary consensus 

standards, as opposed to hiring consultants to develop test procedures, which represents wasteful 

government spending. 

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTT AA) (15 U.S.C. Section 

3701) and OMB Circular A-119, U.S. law and policy evidence clear preference for voluntary and 

market solutions for standardization. Under the NTTAA, DOE and EPA are required to use 

technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless 

these standards are inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The law codifies 

OMB Circular A-119, which also explains that the term "use" means incorporation of the 

standard in whole, in part or by reference for procurement and in regulations. Congressional 

findings in NTTAA state that the legislation is intended to enhance technological innovation for 

commercial public purposes and to promote the adoption of technological innovations. 

Similarly, OMB Circular A-119 notes the use of voluntary consensus standards is aimed at 

encouraging long-term growth for U.S. enterprises and promoting efficiency and economic 

competition through harmonization of standards. 

DOE and EPA appear to spend significant sums hiring unnecessary consultants to develop test 

procedures for measuring the power consumption of products being considered for Energy Star 

program specifications and, if applicable, DOE standards. This use of consultants is not only 

costly, but also less transparent and open than the consensus standards development process. 

Importantly, standards development organizations are accredited by national bodies and are open 

to all interested parties, including government, NGOs, manufacturers, retailers and others -as 

well as government consultants. Energy Star program administrators should rely on these 

existing and less costly opportunities with private sector standards development organizations for 

the development and maintenance oftest procedures for measuring power consumption of 

consumer tech products. 

6 
82 


28284.063

CONCLUSION 

The committee's focus on Energy Star reform and improvement opportunities is important and 

necessary. As policymakers consider ways to encourage the efficient use of energy, we urge 

Congress to support innovation and promote voluntary, market-oriented programs including 

Energy Star. Policies such as these are what workbest to advance energy efficiency in our 

highly innovative and fast-moving sector. Traditional regulation that depends on governmentmandated limits just does not work for consumer tech. Thank you for the opportunity to 

contribute our industry's views and ideas, and we look forward to further engagement with the 

committee. 

7 
83 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and I thank all of you for 

your testimony, and now the fun begins. 

We’ll move into member question and answers, 5 minutes per 

member. I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes, and my 

first question is for you, Mr. Johnson. 

One of the provisions this bill changes is third party verification 

rules in Energy Star. It creates exemptions for electronics manufacturers that are in good standing with the program. 

Can you go into some detail on why this is important and how 

we can make sure companies don’t abuse this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are three thoughts along this line that I 

have. One is why just electronics, as was mentioned earlier, and 

the Energy Star program covers something like 60 different product categories across various industry sectors. 

We are rather unique in the sense that we have extremely competitive time to market pressures in this industry, product life cycles that may only be a few months long, and to take the time and 

the cost at the pre-market stage to test products is a particular 

burden in the case of our sector. 

The second point I’d like to make is the track record of industry 

performance under Energy Star. Our industry has an excellent 

track record of compliance in the program. EPA acknowledged that 

several years ago when they imposed third party certification on 

everybody in order to tackle discrete problems that could have been 

tackled in a discrete way. But the blanket went over everybody and 

we were covered as well and have been ever since. I think a tailored approach would have been better, but what we are talking 

about here is a balanced approach to let the good actors earn their 

way out of the burden and if they mess up then they’re back in for, 

as the language says, at least three years. 

The third point I’d like to make is that post-market verification 

stays in place and that’s really important. That’s testing products 

off the store shelf to make sure that they adhere to the requirements of the Energy Star program. We don’t touch that. 

So I think that the tailored and balanced approach we are looking for is in this discussion draft. It is also reflected in the Senate 

and has been for the past couple Congresses. So we are happy to 

see it here and we look forward to supporting it as it advances. 

Mr. OLSON. And more fun for you, Mr. Johnson. I know that one 

controversial issue is class action lawsuits in the Energy Star program. 

Can you give an example of how one of your members was impacted by a class action lawsuit and whether you think that lawsuit was appropriate? No names. Just one member. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. Actually, this question may be best directed 

to another witness. This is a provision that we are not agnostic 

about in the sense of understanding what it’s trying to accomplish 

and that it would cover actually all sectors in the program. But 

this is not part of the discussion draft that we are particularly advocating. 

Other witnesses may have a different view. 

Mr. OLSON. I was going to say, that witness is Mr. Drew. Any 

comments, sir, about how was one of your members impacted by 

a class action lawsuit and whether you think that was appropriate. 

84 

And no names. But just has this happened. I suspect it has but an 

example of how this has gotten out of whack with class action lawsuits. 

Mr. DREW. I admit, I am not familiar that any of our members 

have been caught up in a class action lawsuit specific to Energy 

Star at this point in time. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. Another question for—well, the first one for Mr. 

McGuire. 

In your testimony about EPA and Energy Star, you mentioned 

the problem of mission creep and Mr. Johnson mentioned mission 

creep and some examples are climate change and other sorts of focuses. 

Energy Star’s primary purpose is to help consumers save money 

on energy bills by identifying those products that go above and beyond mandatory efficiency standards. Give some examples like Mr. 

Johnson did about climate change about mission creep happening 

under Energy Star. Any example of mission creep? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. There have been instances where the EPA has 

added performance requirements to the Energy Star specifications. 

In the case of dishwashers, they wanted to not only control the energy and the energy used to heat water but how the product would 

perform, and they have done that in the case of clothes dryers too 

and have attempted to do that in other products. They also, in the 

case of clothes dryers, wanted to include requirements for warranty 

terms. 

So our view is that the law that underpins the appliance standards program itself requires that maximum energy is saved, its 

cost effect to the consumer, and the requirement does not jeopardize the product’s functionality and performance. That’s what is 

left up to the manufacturer dealing with the customers. They want 

to compete on performance and quality. 

This is not an area for the government to be laying on top of the 

energy efficiency requirements. So we’ve experienced it firsthand 

since the program was moved to EPA. 

Mr. OLSON. Sorry, sir. I missed you at first. Any example of class 

action lawsuit for your members that’s happened because of overreach of the Energy Star program? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. The Energy Star program has a very robust penalty system to it where partners can be eliminated from the program. They can be required to pay compensation to consumers if 

the energy efficiency requirement was incorrect, and this is all put 

on the Energy Star website. 

It is very visible to consumers, to retailers. The penalty is fit to 

the infraction. Having a class action lawsuit on top of that is another layer of penalty that is totally unnecessary and is not going 

to make the company—the partner, if you will—change its behavior 

because it’s already doing that with regard to the penalty requirements of the program. It is double jeopardy. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, sir. I am 50 seconds over so I recognize 

the ranking member of the subcommittee for 5 minutes and 50 seconds. Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Callahan, as stated previously the Energy Star program is 

one of the more popular and trusted programs that’s out there and 

85 

also is a voluntary program. So this bill that we are considering is 

not only unnecessary but it would also turn a good program into 

a bad program and I oppose disrupting this program by moving it 

from EPA to DOE. I am opposed to making this voluntary program 

to APA. I oppose undermining the integrity of the program by limiting accountability for manufacturers and I oppose revising the 

third party certification requirements that lead to fraud and abuse. 

That said, Ms. Callahan, in your opinion, if this bill were to become law and these changes to Energy Star were to go into effect, 

how would this impact the integrity of the overall Energy Star program and how would it impact consumers’ confidence in the program? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Thank you for your question, Mr. Rush. 

I think our concern as an energy efficiency organization is if this 

discussion draft as it’s currently crafted were written into law, that 

it would have very, very significant damaging consequences on the 

program and on consumers’ ability to have confidence in that program. 

You mentioned several things that we are very concerned with. 

One is a wholesale movement of the program for EPA over to DOE. 

Some of my fellow witnesses have talked about this as well as 

members that there’s 25 years of history of brand management, of 

partnership relations, of IT and databases that have been built 

that won’t be easily moved. And there is not appropriations at DOE 

to support that size of program. It is about $42 million at EPA currently. There is not the expertise and the staff that is there to do 

the brand management and the marketing and we are very concerned that the program, even for the period of time to dismantle 

an infrastructure and rebuild it over in another agency will take 

away from the focus on the program. 

So we are very, very concerned. With respect to certification, 

third party certification resulted from a GAO study that found that 

there were folks that were not self-certifying appropriately and 

were basically cheating the system. So there are very good reasons 

for putting in that third party certification. We are open to looking 

at ways to minimize burdens and costs on manufacturers but we 

have to protect the integrity of the program. If consumers cannot 

rely on that blue label to indicate that there are energy savings in 

that product as top of the market then we really lose what we have 

and what we have built over 25 years. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

I want to move to Mr. Merritt. Mr. Merritt, Energy Star is a 

completely voluntary program but yet the legislation full force will 

apply the APA specification to the program. What impact would 

that have on the Energy Star program overall and on your industry 

specifically? 

Mr. MERRITT. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rush. 

So as I mentioned in my testimony, the application of APA, we 

believe, would limit the ability of the program to be nimble and responsive to changes in technology and the market. 

Currently, the Energy Star program is able to make what we will 

refer to as tweaks and specification based on developments in the 

market without going through a long process of formal notification, 

comment period, posting, et cetera. 

86 

We believe the current structure of the program allows the program to work effectively with partners and participating vendors to 

revise these specifications. 

We are concerned about making the process so long and burdensome that we are unable to keep up with the changes in the market and the technology. 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Callahan, as you know, the president’s FY 2018 

budget zeroes out the Energy Star program. But a proposal put forward by the majority would enact major cuts to it. Currently, the program is operating at $42 million pursuant to 

the most recent continuing resolution. What level of funding do you 

think is appropriate for the Energy Star program to effectively operate at and what type of return will we see if Congress funded the 

program at its optimal level? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Thank you again for the question, Mr. Rush. As you mentioned, the current appropriations are about $42 million over at EPA and DOE also contributes funding for some of 

specification and the technical work that they do to support EPA. 

We believe that that funding is insufficient to continue the program and to look at including more products, more different ranges 

and sizes of products. 

We’ve suggested in our testimony an authorization level and ap- propriation levels of up to $75 million. Historic levels for the program have been $50 million but that’s historic, and there has been 

increase in funding for the 14 years that I have been at the Alliance to Save Energy. It has been, roughly, stable to falling and we 

believe that there have been increases, of course, in cost of living 

and programs going forward. 

So we believe that this program should grow and should have 

more funding than it does and have direction from the Congress for 

what those levels should be, which is not currently there. 

The other thing that I would add to that is on the return. I think 

the EPA studies show that for every dollar invested there are about 

$4.50 in energy savings that are realized, and as I mentioned in 

my oral statement, this little program that could at $42 million a 

year has driven $165 billion in private sector investment in new 

technology and innovation. 

So I think dollars here are very well spent and it’s penny wise 

and pound foolish to continue to decline the funding when really 

it should go the other way. 

Mr. RUSH. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the pride of Ennis, Texas, the vice 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You’re in fine form 

today. 

I appreciate this hearing and the witnesses being here. I want 

to make sure I am clear on this. 

Mr. McGuire, this is a voluntary program, right? Manufacturers 

don’t have to participate if they don’t want to. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. It is a voluntary program. However, over its 21 

years in existence for home appliances it has become in effect mandatory in the marketplace. Utility rebate programs specified, buildVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:34 Jan 09, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-74 CHRIS
87 

ing code specified, federal procurement specifies it, and many retailers will not carry your products if you don’t have Energy Star. 

So while it is voluntary, manufacturers have to have Energy Star 

products and what we are saying may be different from the rest 

is appliances began their Energy Star career at DOE. The very reason that the test procedures that allow manufacturers to test a 

product to see how much energy it uses are changing all the time 

because of technology. And so those test procedures are needed to 

determine if you meet Energy Star requirements. When it went to 

EPA and they began experimenting with performance and warranty terms and other non-energy features, that’s where disruption 

and confusion occurred. 

So Energy Star has been great for consumers. We just want it 

to be stable and provide certainty so that our companies can comply with it. 

Mr. BARTON. All I really needed was a yes. 

[Laughter.] 

I got a lot more than I bargained for. Let me go to part two of 

the question. The reason I wanted to get on the record explicitly 

that it was voluntary is because I don’t think you need to have a 

voluntary program subject to class action lawsuits. Do you agree 

with that? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I do. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. That’s a—— 

Mr. MCGUIRE. That would be yes. 

Mr. BARTON. That’s a good answer. All right. And I will come 

back to you one more time. The draft discussion draft makes the 

Department of Energy the primary agency and it, to some extent, 

redefines the responsibilities of the Department of Energy and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

I happen to believe, and this will surprise my friends on the 

Democratic side, that we need a strong enforcement capability at 

EPA. 

But I think EPA should focus on enforcement and not on setting 

policy, and as you pointed out, EPA more and more has used the 

role under the current system to move into policy areas that they 

really don’t have a, in my opinion, a legitimate reason to move into. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I would, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARTON. Good. So you’re getting better at it. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I am coachable. 

Mr. BARTON. If we were starting over and we had never had an 

Energy Star program and we created an Energy Star program, why 

would you not make the Department of Energy the standard setter 

and EPA the enforcement oversight? Why wouldn’t you do that? 

What’s wrong with that? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, that’s the way it did begin, and that made 

total sense because of the technical nature of the standards and the 

test procedures. And all the verification testing that’s done for Energy Star today is overseen by DOE because of the complicated nature. 

We do the verification testing. So it made total sense to have it 

there at the beginning. It makes total sense to have it there now, 

for consumers and for manufacturers. 

88 

Mr. BARTON. I will go to Mr. Johnson for my last question. How 

long does it take to go through the system and get a product certified for Energy Star right now under the current system? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for the question. 

Our members report that it can take a few days or a couple of 

weeks. But, again, for an industry whose product life cycles are relatively short and measured in months, that’s a significant amount 

of time to be off the store shelf. 

Mr. BARTON. Is there anybody that would state under the current system it takes an excessive amount of time to get certified? 

Anybody? 

So in terms of actually submitting your product for review, once 

you do it, the Department of Energy and the EPA act expeditiously. 

Is that a fair statement? Not a fair statement? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If I may, I think once you are certified there are 

steps after that take less time. 

But it is the time out of the product development cycle to send 

your product to a third party to have it tested, information to be 

sent to another and back to EPA. 

It takes a while and, certainly, in contrast to self-certification, 

which, again, worked for us quite well for many years under Energy Star and in other regulatory arenas. It is a relative burden. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon a gentleman who doesn’t share Mr. 

Rush—my admiration for the Houston Astros’ victory, the man 

from California, home of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Mr. McNerney, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. You’re right, I don’t. But we can move on 

from that, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses and I thank the chairman this morning. 

Mr. Johnson, what determines an adequate track record for companies on the Energy Star program and who should determine this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. When we talk about third party certification improvement, I would stress that we are not talking about eviscerating the EPA’s capability to have this. 

I think it was important for EPA to recognize, and they did, 

when they instituted third party certification that we had an excellent track record and we’ve maintained that after third party certification as well. 

The problem we are trying to avoid is the burden that is too 

much for a company that wants to maybe put a product on the 

market that qualifies for Energy Star but doesn’t want to take the 

time and cost involved with testing. So we’ve heard feedback from 

our manufacturer members who tell us that they may not want to 

pay the bill or take the time. They’ll just meet the spec and get the 

product to market. So we end up with the store shelf where you 

have Energy Star labelled products and products that meet the Energy Star spec but don’t have a label because they didn’t want to 

take the time and I don’t think that’s very good for the program. 

And we would still support EPA oversight, obviously, and in the 

case of companies that violate and they would, of course, be subject 

to the requirements of third party certification once again. So I 

think, if anything, we have weighted this in this language toward 

89 

penalty. But I think the track record speaks for itself in this industry. We were not the problems that they were trying to address 

when they instituted this and we would sure welcome a good actor’s opportunity to earn our way out. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Callahan, the 2008 memorandum of understanding between 

the DOE and the EPA helped the program. Is there any room for 

improvement on that MOU? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I think that it’s a good thing to go back and review the memorandum of understanding regularly and it’s my understanding that EPA and DOE are in discussions now about that 

MOU and changes that may be made. Current law gives them the 

ability, just as it did to put in force that MOU in 2008—I think it 

was 2009, actually. 

They can rewrite that and change and move around elements of 

the program to make it most streamlined and most cost effective. 

So we are encouraging stakeholders, and this is in my testimony, 

to work with the agencies to seek improvements to the program. 

We are not convinced as the Alliance to Save Energy that it 

takes a statutory change. We believe that the program can be improved and that the agencies are motivated to improve the program. So we would like to see it happen there first. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, we don’t have the agencies in front of us 

today. But you’re saying that there may be a new MOU in the 

works? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I said they are in discussions about ways to improve the program, sir. I wouldn’t want to overstate. I have had no 

conversation to indicate that they are looking at and rewriting the 

MOU. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So how would you go about increasing the predictability in Energy Star specification settings, as you’ve suggested? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I think working with the stakeholders and with 

EPA and DOE to look at best practices and maybe regularizing 

time frames between product specifications in a way that makes 

sense. I think it’s a bit tricky. As Doug Johnson has indicated, 

some of these products are changing so dramatically the technology 

in the marketplace. 

So I think we have to preserve the flexibility and that’s working 

with the agencies and with the program administrators and putting in place some best practices and guidelines, to me, makes a 

lot more sense to keep that program flexible and nimble rather 

than trying to codify something into law. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. McGuire, you seem to be the only one that is favorable toward moving this back to the DOE. How would you address the 

concerns of the other panelists that that would be disruptive of a 

very successful program? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, I am also the only one representing an industry sector whose life at Energy Star began at DOE. All the 

other products started at EPA. 

So what I am saying is that there was disruption when our appliances were moved to EPA in 2009—and some of the examples I 

cited with that—created diversions and inefficiencies. I think they 

90 

should be back at DOE where they can be tied more to the standards and test procedures work and make it more predictable for 

our members and for the customers. 

And so this can be done administratively, as Kateri indicated, 

through a change to the memorandum of understanding. We would 

support the memorandum being changed to bring home appliances 

back to DOE. We would all support—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You’re just saying bring the home appliances, 

not the whole program, back to the DOE? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I am speaking only for home appliances. We believe they should be back at DOE. I am not speaking for the other 

products of the other industries. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from the land of Lincoln, 

Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be with 

you all. I may be the fly in the ointment. 

I have always struggled with the Energy Star issue. First of all, I think the budget is, I was told, $50 million. It has been cut to 

$41 million, and the president proposes zero. And Ms. Callahan, you think it should be $75 million. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Up to. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So then it’s really a fundamental debate about government and kind of government’s role and manufacturing and consumer choices and education. So that’s why I always struggle with 

it. Yes, I understand that eventually consumers will get a lower 

cost but there’s a lot of gaming of the system that I don’t like. 

I don’t like the fact—and you can disagree—building new homes 

today costs more because of these standards. Would anyone disagree with that? If you’re going to purchase a new home, that cost 

of that home is more expensive based upon efficiency standards. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Can I respond to that? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, quickly. But I—— 

Ms. CALLAHAN. OK. Well, studies have shown that there is an incremental cost—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Correct. 

Ms. CALLAHAN [continuing]. In terms of the mortgage, reduction 

in the payment of the energy costs applied to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. That gets me to my other point. 

Then I don’t like the ROI—return on investment of 20 or 30 

years from the supposed energy savings that really makes that initial purchase somewhat affordable. 

What will be the debate. How much energy do you save—how 

much money do you save. So you’re willing to take the initial upfront cost. And then my problem is what’s government doing—why 

is government involved with this to begin with. Why isn’t it buyers 

and manufacturers? 

So has anyone heard of the National Institute for Automotive 

Service Excellence? Anyone know what that is? 

All right. So ASE—when you see ads, when you go to get your 

car repaired, you want to go to an ASE-certified mechanic—or at 

least that’s what this institute says—because what? They’re 

trained. 

91 

Now, the ASE is short for the National Institute for Automotive 

Service Excellence. Since 1972, our independent nonprofit organization has worked to improve the quality of vehicle repair and service 

by testing and certifying automotive professionals. 

Why does government have to do energy? Why can’t we have a 

National Institute for Energy Efficiency, funded by you all, to certify and to advertise? We’ll even give you the label if you want. 

Why is it government’s role to do this? Anyone want to answer 

that question? Mr. McGuire. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, our members probably agree with you philosophically but we have gone through decades of energy efficiency 

policy at the national level that has resulted in significant energy 

savings. 

The dilemma is that if we were to wipe that federal program 

away, including Energy Star, you would have a patchwork of regulations throughout the country which we experienced in the 1980s. 

So—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So let me just—so, like, California may continue 

to go a certain route. Not picking on my Californians. They’re very 

all into this, right? 

And because there is such a huge market they may drive the rest 

of the country to move in that direction based upon the state standards, where if another state may not be. 

The other issue I have is when the median income of your dis- trict is $47,000 and they want to buy a home appliance and that 

home appliance is now disproportionately increased for two 

things—one is the efficiency standards, the other one is what Mr. 

Johnson was talking about, I think, and this is that DOE/EPA debate is if you start putting other new concerns in the standardization and your testing, you’re just going to increase the costs of the 

goods. 

So a short story. Many people know I own a townhouse. I have 

renters, and I had to get a new washer. I bought the cheapest 

washer I could buy and that’s what we are using because I wasn’t 

willing to pay—and I paid probably $2,400 less than if I would 

have bought the top of the line energy super efficient save-theworld piece of equipment. 

So I am worried about the people who can’t afford these government standards, which I don’t think are needed. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time is expired. The chair now calls 

upon a gentleman from California who is not happy again that my 

Astros won the World Series over his Dodgers, Mr. Peters, has 5 

minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. First of all, that is a total misread. You cannot call 

a San Diegan a Dodger fan without their permission. I think you’ve 

misread this one, Mr. Chairman, and this is something on which 

we should be able to agree on actually. 

Mr. OLSON. I stand corrected. 

Mr. PETERS. To respond to Mr. Shimkus, I actually think this is 

about the least intrusive way for government to promote energy efficiency by sort of setting the table for consumers to have the information that they need to make a decision about whether they want 

to invest in energy efficiency. 

92 

And Mr. Shimkus decided on his own—nobody required him to 

buy a fancy washer machine. But you had the information to make 

that choice yourself. 

I think it’s actually very valuable and nonintrusive. So my question goes to that, though, which is about the certification. 

And Mr. Johnson, I got to read over your testimony and you said 

that in 2011 they switched to this self-certification. We don’t have 

the agency here. Can you tell me if, if they were sitting here, why 

they would explain that they did that in 2011, to switch away from 

self-certification? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. As—— 

Mr. PETERS. Mandated a third party certification regime for 

products. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. As Kateri Callahan referenced earlier, EPA 

around that time was dealing with a couple of challenges or issues 

with the program. 

One had to do with the database that was used at the time to 

administer the list of Energy Star qualified products and that database essentially was fooled by a third party audit that uploaded the 

famous gas-powered alarm clocks, right. So it was an egregious and 

well-publicized situation with the database on the administrative 

side of the program. 

The other challenge, as I understand, had to do with a product 

category outside of our industry in the refrigerator category. Perhaps Mr. McGuire can shed further light than I can. 

But in any case, it was a discrete issue in a category of product 

outside of our industry. The response by EPA was very public and 

very broad and the blanket of third party certification went over 

everybody even though at the time in their press release EPA acknowledged that electronics had this 100 percent track record of 

compliance. 

Mr. PETERS. Let me ask you, though, about—so what would you 

do in the case of fraud? So let’s just say that there’s no—that selfcertification, someone pats themselves on the back for meeting a 

spec that they don’t in fact meet. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So I think the penalties should be there. 

Mr. PETERS. What would be the penalty? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In the language in the discussion draft or—— 

Mr. PETERS. In your mind, what would be the right thing? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think we favor the approach that’s in this 

discussion draft, which on one hand allows the good actors to earn 

their way out but if there’s a screw up I think in at least two instances then they are back under third party certification for at 

least 3 years. So I think—— 

Mr. PETERS. So there’s no penalty to them for all the products 

that they sold potentially fraudulently? In other words, just next 

time you have to have a certification, is that the way you’d advocate it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in terms of allowing focus on the new market entrants or the bad actors, I think that’s really important. But 

for the good actors who’ve had that demonstrated track record of 

compliance, allow them to earn their way out. 

I think EPA will or DOE would maintain the oversight of the 

program and essentially kick the parties out that would violate. I 

93 

think there’s also the consumer response as well and there are a 

lot of publications and other parties that watch this space and 

please note that the manufacturers have equity in this brand as 

well. It is a partnership, fundamentally. 

Mr. PETERS. I am very sympathetic, actually, particularly in your 

industry where things turn over so fast. My concern is that without 

the certification, and I am not trying to answer the question—I am 

trying to ask it—without certification, as we go forward with this 

draft, how can we be confident that the standards will actually 

have been met? And I guess that’s what I’d look at, too. 

For myself, I also don’t understand why this is not an Energy 

Department program. It does seem to me that is where the expertise relies. I don’t have an objection to that part of the bill. I am 

not sure why EPA is the better one to set standards than the Department of Energy. 

But I am—I just—with the limited amount of time I have I just 

express the concern I have about compliance and not that I am an 

advocate for litigation but if you left the third party certification 

out there why you wouldn’t want to have some sort of hammer, I 

don’t know. Do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. The other note I wanted to make was 

with respect to marketplace verification postmark. When the products are on the store shelves, labelled as Energy Star, very important to keep that going and the solution to third party certification, 

which is a premarket exercise, is distinct and separate from postmarket verification. So that would be the random testing of products on store shelves. 

Mr. PETERS. And I think there would have to be some sort of 

penalties in place for actual fraud. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. There are penalties. The EPA—— 

Mr. PETERS. I am out of time, ma’am. So I am sure maybe someone else can ask you. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the author of the Energy Star Reform 

Act of 2017, Mr. Latta from Ohio, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks to our 

panelists. I think it’s a really good discussion that we’re having and 

that’s why we are here today to talk about this discussion draft. 

And Mr. Drew, if I could just start with you. I think that everyone here believes that the Energy Star program is something that 

needs to be preserved. But the question is how can we improve 

upon it. And so my question to you was what improvements would 

you see or want to do to Energy Star to make it a better program 

for the consumer across this country? 

Mr. DREW. Thank you, sir. 

In general, the products that are covered by AHRI are all highly 

regulated. They’re certified to not only performance standards, 

they’re also certified to numerous safety standards just due to the 

nature of the piece of equipment that we are manufacturing and 

then having installed in people’s homes. 

The Energy Star program as it stands we believe is a useful tool 

for educating consumers but products that they don’t buy very 

often during their tenure as even homeowners or even if they’re 

renters or building owners. 

94 

We find that the processes that we have in place to report the 

status of these products to Energy Star works extremely well at 

this point in time. Not burdening them further with any additional 

requirements for reporting, we believe, would be beneficial. The energy savings that we provide through our products from a high efficiency perspective, as stated earlier, is a consumer choice. We believe it provides real value to the consumer. 

The fact that numerous third party organizations, not necessarily 

government-affiliated are providing incentives to purchase these 

products we also view as a significant benefit to our industry as 

well as the validation that moving towards higher efficiency equipment and achieving some reasonable return on that investment is 

a positive thing. 

Regarding this discussion, again, we believe strongly that not 

moving it away from the EPA is the appropriate thing to do. It has 

been in EPA for a number of years—works very well. 

We deal with other issues at DOE. We like the separation between EPA and DOE as it pertains to this particular program. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, I saw in your testimony some of the manufacturers 

have said that EPA have made it more difficult for the larger 

versions of some of their products for qualifying for Energy Star. 

One of the examples that you cite in your testimony is wide screen 

televisions. 

Can you explain how EPA is making it difficult for the larger 

versions to qualify for Energy Star and carry the Energy Star 

label? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. From the EPA’s perspective, I think they 

were concerned about a program all about energy efficiency applying to large products that would use more energy than small products. 

But our feeling was that if you’re going to put a bogey out 

there—if you’re going to put a specification out there for the market to shoot for, don’t you want manufacturers up and down the 

product line, no matter the size of the product that consumers 

want, to strive for that specification? 

So yes, this artificial cap or cut off for televisions in an earlier 

television spec came up. I forget the exact numbers but it was 

something like, say, a 50-inch TV. All TVs above that would have 

to still meet that 50-inch TV spec even if they were 70 inches. 

So it was rather unachievable because, the bigger the product 

the more energy. But there should still have been a scalable specification for those larger TVs to shoot for. 

And, again, consumers demand what they demand. We love Energy Star. We think it should provide a scalable spec up and down 

the product line. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. McGuire, I’d like to go back and revisit the warranty language and its importance. Can you expand on that warranty language and why it’s so important? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Warranty language in the draft bill? 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Yes, sir. 

95 

Well, we think it’s a great provision which would take manufacturers, Energy Star partners out of double jeopardy. As has been 

said already here today, when partners are disqualified for a particular product, have a rating that doesn’t qualify, there are significant penalties that they pay in terms of being pulled out of the program for a period of time, restitution to consumers for utility costs 

that should have been avoided. 

This is all made very, very public and that’s why these partners 

take it very, very seriously. To be exposed to a class action litigation on top of that, just additional punitive damages to the company really doesn’t do anything as far as the behavior of the company. 

It is simply a double jeopardy and it can actually disincentive 

companies to want to participate in the Energy Star program. So 

we think the penalty portion of the program of enforcement makes 

sense. There’s no need to lop on top of that. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Thank you very much and my time has expired 

and I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now calls upon the biggest fan of the Houston Astros— 

we are the world champions—except for me in Congress, Mr. Green 

from Houston, Texas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—you and ranking member for having this hearing. For more than 20 years, Energy Star 

program has formed a foundation for energy savings and assistance 

for Americans of all economic statuses. 

Energy Star program has resulted in millions of dollars of kilowatts saved through the highly efficient appliance manufacturing. 

Unlike my good friend from Illinois, I think the Energy Star program is probably one of the best programs that we have. 

Over the years, we have realized in this committee that energy 

efficiency is really an important issue and to have a regulation like 

we have that’s a self-regulation we just want the manufacturers to 

be accurate in what they say the energy will be used. 

And the consumers pick it up. I think it should be if not a goal 

of the national government to give that information to folks but 

also use that energy efficiency so we may not have to build another 

electricity-generating plant. 

So because I know my colleague from Illinois—maybe it’s because 

even in Texas our energy prices are fairly low right now. But I 

would probably not go by the lowest price because I look at that 

and see how much I can save over the life of this refrigerator, for 

this washer and drier or whatever. But it is a voluntary program. 

That’s why I think this is a good example of it, and transferring 

it to the Department of Energy I think is reasonable because it fits 

in with what the Department of Energy ought to be doing. And 

EPA is a regulatory agency but they should be regulating my dishwater or whatever. 

The third party certification for Energy Star programs is initiated after that GAO report and I think that’s such a greater improvement in the program. I’d like to believe companies do the 

right thing but—in compliance in this space but it’s not always 

been the case. 

96 

My first question to the entire panel, how did we strike a balance 

when it comes to self-certification in the consumer electronics space 

where we don’t inhibit innovation under the Energy Star program 

but also make sure the benchmarks that are required are being 

met? 

I know that’s a tough one because how do you balance it? Does 

any of the panel have—let me start with you, Mr. McGuire. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, I won’t speak for consumer electronics but 

I will simply say that to meet a DOE energy efficiency standard— 

the mandatory standard, which is the base and Energy Star is 

above that—manufacturers have to self-certify to DOE in a very 

prescribed testing method that they have to provide all the data to 

DOE to prove that there’s a reasonable chance they will be in compliance and then DOE does verification surveillance testing on top 

of that. So self-certification, government verification testing after 

market. 

For Energy Star, it’s third party testing up front and verification. 

One way you can make the program more efficient would be to tie 

it more in with DOE for home appliances so that the certification 

to meet the standard and to meet Energy Star was the same process and then you’d have third party verification. That would be one 

way to do it. 

Mr. GREEN. Any other suggestions? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I guess what I would say to that is that there has 

to be a balance. You mentioned yourself you need consumer protection. They need to have confidence in this. So third party certification was put in place by EPA in response to manufacturers not 

being in compliance. 

I think what’s really important here are the penalties that accrue 

that Joe McGuire indicated earlier. So EPA can delist products and 

they can require companies to make restitution to consumers who 

didn’t realize the energy savings that were promised to then. 

So I think as the committee looks at it, making sure that those 

protections remain while we lower cost of compliance for manufacturers is really the trick and the balance that needs to be made 

there. But we need that accurate certification because consumers 

need to be able to count on the energy savings that they assume 

come with that Energy Star label. 

Mr. GREEN. Anyone else? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

We agree with the idea of balance but balance is actually reflected in this provision that’s in this discussion draft concerning 

third party certification. 

We think it’s a great solution. Again, EPA retains the third party 

certification authority, or DOE, should it move. But the program 

administrators retain that authority. We are just talking about balancing a solution here, essentially, targeting resources where they 

should be targeted, to new market entrants or bad actors. But if 

a good actor has demonstrated compliance for a period of time, why 

not let that good actor earn its way out? And, again, penalize that 

good actor should that good actor screw up a couple of times— 

they’re back in. 

So I think that’s the kind of balance we need here and especially 

in the era of limited resources or perhaps smaller budgets. Let’s 

97 

hone in on what the problems are. Let’s recognize where the problems are not. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am out of time. 

Mr. OLSON. My friend’s time has expired. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from the Magnolia 

State, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 

each of you for being here and giving us your insight and assistance as we look at this discussion draft. 

And Mr. Johnson, I have got a few questions and things I want 

to cover with you, if I can. The discussion draft contains provisions 

providing for an exemption from the third party certification requirements for electronic manufacturers in good standing with the 

Energy Star program. 

I know we touched on it but give us a short background on why 

these third party certification requirements came into being and 

why you may think they have maybe gone too far. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. They came into being 6 or so years ago—6 

or 7 years ago in response to discrete problems in the Energy Star 

program outside of our sector. One set of problems related to the 

way the program was being administered in the database. 

There was an opportunity certainly at that time to have a targeted approach to dealing with those problems but the easiest approach, the quickest way out was to apply premarket third party 

certification to everybody in the program. So we’ve lived under that 

regime since that time. All we are talking about here is a balanced 

way to earn your way out of that burden and I think that’s the 

right way to go. 

It is also interesting to note that at the time EPA was proposing 

third party certification for Energy Star the European Commission, 

a major partner in the program over in Europe, was like-minded 

with industry in the United States in saying we don’t think this 

third party certification is necessary for electronics, and the European commissioner were partners in a couple of the electronics categories. So it was a strange situation for European regulators and 

industry in the U.S. to be allied but we both recognized that maybe 

a more tailored approach would have been better at that time. 

Mr. HARPER. And give me a little insight. Why is it or what is 

it about the electronics products and electronics industry that 

makes that third party certification troublesome or more difficult? 

Mr. JOHNSON. So what members have told us that there are a 

couple of reasons why it’s relative burden for them. First, it takes 

some time out of the product development cycle. 

It takes a few days or maybe a couple of weeks for testing and 

paperwork to clear, and for an industry such as ours, again, with 

products that have relatively short product life cycles, maybe 

they’re on the market for only a number of months. Two weeks is 

2 weeks of sales, right? So we are an industry in the tech industry 

that’s used to self- certification in various regulatory realms including electromagnetic compatibility, FCC requirements and so forth. 

So that’s what we were used to. That’s what we had in Energy 

Star, and with self-certification we had an excellent track record. 

So the time to market penalty that comes with taking something 

out of the product development cycle for a period is a concern. The 

98 

cost is there, too, and I suppose for big companies the cost isn’t 

such a big deal unless you have a big product line under the Energy Star program. Then it really adds up. For a smaller company, 

a startup that wants to be Energy Star compliant, shouldn’t we 

make it easier for that startup to be in the program? 

Mr. HARPER. And sometimes critics of the provision say that 

sometimes could allow manufacturers to perhaps cheat and to 

produce products that had the Energy Star label on them that 

maybe don’t meet the Energy Star requirements or standards. How 

do you respond to somebody making that assertion or allegation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think for problem actors there should be 

penalties, certainly removal from the program, removal from the 

database. 

Penalization through this provision and this discussion draft that 

you would now then be back under third party certification for at 

least 3 years, that’s actually weighted toward the more onerous 

side, I would say. 

But there’s another angle to this, too. If the burdens to participate in the Energy Star program are too great, you could actually 

have companies manufacturing products that meet the spec that 

don’t carry the label—just they didn’t want to trouble with it. They 

get it to the store shelf. That was a point I made earlier. 

But essentially how are we supporting the Energy Star brand if 

the store shelf is full of products that meet the spec but some carry 

the label, some don’t? I don’t think that’s good for the brand 

strength. 

Mr. HARPER. Is it correct that the proposed exemption only applies to the initial certification testing and that the ongoing 

verification testing of compliance with the Energy Star is not effective? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That’s absolutely the case and a very good point 

as well. We are not changing post-market verification. That’s really 

important. Get out there, test the products on the shelves. 

Our members do that to each other. But there’s also organized 

ways of doing that now today under DOE and EPA and that should 

continue. It is not touched by this proposal. 

Mr. HARPER. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. You almost did it again. 

Mr. OLSON. Almost caught myself. 

Ms. CASTOR. There is one female here on the committee. It is not 

really a very good reflection of the country or even the Congress 

to have only one female and not many minorities. So I take this 

responsibility seriously to represent. 

And what I want to say is the Energy Star program has been a 

real success story for Americans and American families and businesses. Since its inception in the 1990s, it has saved consumer substantial moneys. It has helped us conserve energy, which is important at a time where we want to control carbon pollution and other 

greenhouse gases. 

99 

I thought Mr. Peters was right on when he said this is probably 

one of the least intrusive ways we can help put money back into 

the pockets of consumers and businesses, because after all it’s voluntary. 

And to answer Mr. Shimkus’ concern over the return on investment, the return on investment for Energy Star has been impressive. Since its inception, Energy Star has cumulatively saved $2.5 

billion in energy costs. In 2015, homeowners saved $360 million in 

energy costs, approximately 30 percent of their energy bill. 

Since 1995, 1.7 million Energy Star homes have been constructed 

and in 2016 approximately 92,000 Energy Star-certified homes 

were constructed in the U.S. America is a leader here, globally. 

The Energy Star program is internationally recognized as a proven standard for energy efficiency. A lot of the other countries are 

catching up but America has been the leader and we need to continue to be the leader. 

But my takeaway today from the expert testimony is just kind 

of what was stated at the beginning. If it’s not broken, why fix it? 

With all of the other pressing issues here before the Congress this 

is one that I think, based upon the testimony when you look at the 

track record, the savings for consumers, why fix it? 

But we do have to be on guard because the Trump administration did propose a total elimination of Energy Star in its last budget. I strongly oppose that. This has been a vital lifeline for cost savings for consumers and helping us conserve energy. 

So I want to make sure all of the witnesses are on record on that 

today. I’d like all of you just to answer yes or no. Do you support 

or oppose the Trump administration’s proposal to totally eliminate 

Energy Star? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Oppose. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Strongly oppose. 

Mr. MERRITT. Oppose. 

Mr. DREW. Oppose. 

Ms. CASTOR. So you would oppose elimination as well? I hear 

what you all are saying about the shift to the DOE. Most here are 

opposed to that as well. I took Mr. Merritt’s comments very seriously that they lack experience at the DOE to do this. I wonder, 

there also are going to be some significant costs if the Congress 

were to make this move. 

Ms. Callahan, do you know what it would cost to shift the program entirely from EPA to DOE? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I do not know what that would cost. I know what 

the budget at EPA is now. It is $42 million. I know that the entire 

budget at the EERE office, which is probably where it would land, 

is about $2 billion. 

The president proposed almost an 80 percent cut to that budget 

and the House has recommended about a 40 percent cut to energy 

efficiency programs over there. 

So we don’t see where the money comes from to support that cost 

and that change. 

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Merritt, do you have any information on what 

you think it would cost to shift DOE entirely? 

Mr. MERRITT. I do not, but I would support Ms. Callahan’s comments. 

100 

Ms. CASTOR. Does anyone else want to comment on the potential 

cost of shifting and the loss of professional expertise that’s currently at EPA? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. We don’t think the cost to the federal government 

would be any more if the program for appliances were at DOE than 

EPA. I agree with the adage if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. 

I think it is broke when the appliance portion went over to EPA 

and there have been inefficiencies there. So I would make the argument that if they were shifted back to DOE there would be more 

efficiencies and less cost for running the appliance portion of Energy Star program. 

We want the program to be funded. 

Ms. CASTOR. Do you have any hard data on that? Any studies? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I don’t have hard data. I don’t think—— 

Ms. CASTOR. I think it’s an open question right now and, because 

you would clearly incur significant costs including hiring and training of new staffers, standing up new online data systems comparable to those at EPA to collect certification data, that allows 

building owners to track their energy waste and waste consumption. It is not as simple as just snapping your fingers, especially in 

this budget arena where—and I think Ms. Callahan’s comments 

are very well taken. The proposed decimation of the EERE budget 

at DOE and then you’re going to increase costs by the shift and 

then probably put all of Energy Star at risk when DOE subsumes 

it all. I would be very concerned for consumers and our ability to 

put money back into their pocket. 

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentlelady yields back and, ma’am, if you’re the 

only member of this committee that’s female we are proud of that 

because you are the MVP. I see you chase down a ball in center 

field like George Springer from Astros. He’s an MVP. You’re an 

MVP. 

The chair now calls upon the member from West Virginia. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Callahan, it’s good to have you here. I have enjoyed working 

with you over the years I have been here in Congress. It is good 

to be able to continue a discussion on energy efficiency and I particularly appreciated the work over the last 7 years with you and 

also Peter Welch. What a great champion of that and I think it has 

been beneficial for us to be able to team up. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. And we’ve appreciated your leadership tremendously. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

So one of the questions—I guess I am having some concerns as 

well about creating an exception under the verification. I am a 

strong advocate of IV&V—independent verification and validation—that we’ve used in NASA and elsewhere where we have 

someone else looking at it. 

I am also familiar, having come from the construction industry 

on efficiency, of dealing with UL, the Underwriters Laboratory, and 

Factor Mutual—FM. 

Can any of you give me an indication, because they’ve been 

around for decades—is there an exception to UL ratings or FM? 

Can anyone share—— 

101 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am being looked at so I will respond. 

This is different than product safety. Energy efficiency is different than product safety and I would note that in product safety, 

of course, there is third party certification that’s very important. 

But there’s actually no post-market verification for product safety. 

With Energy Star, we are talking today about an approach that 

includes premarket certification and post-market verification. It is 

relatively more burdensome than product safety. 

Should that be the case in all cases? I think we need that balance. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Maybe we are just picking nuances of this. But 

I am just curious. I am not sure that I am going to embrace the 

idea of an exception on this. 

I have come from an industry that we depend on it. When you 

see a UL rating you know it’s good. You know it has been done 

independently, and the same thing with FM. 

Maybe, Mr. McGuire, go back to you on some of your comments. 

What was broken that Ms. Castor made that remark? What was 

broken in 2009 that caused the administration back in 2009 to 

switch from DOE over to EPA? What was broken then that they 

were intending to fix? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Sir, I don’t know the answer. I don’t know what 

was broken. I would submit that nothing was broken and what 

happened was the program that oversees Energy Star for appliances at EPA today became diverted from the energy efficiency 

mission and got into things like warranties and procurement rules 

and performance. 

So we’d like to fix it. We’d like to have it go back and be part 

of the whole appliance efficiency policy apparatus where you have 

the minimum standards and Energy Star above that and they can 

be coordinated as they used to be. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I just don’t want anything to come in between 

the government or whatever and energy efficiency and Energy 

Star. We’ve made great strides with this and I am looking to see 

what’s going to facilitate it the best and that’s why I was trying 

to understand. 

Can any of the rest of you share with me what was broken in 

2009 that caused the administration to switch it or to flip it? 

OK. Thank you and I yield back my balance of my time. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. 

Welch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much and thank you for this hearing. The witnesses have been tremendous. 

What I’d like to do is just lay out some of my concerns and then 

I have questions for each of you. 

The question of moving the program from EPA to DOE, I am agnostic about things so—what department does it, but the concerns 

I have are, number one, it’s very disruptive to make a move. 

You’ve got established expertise in one place than the other. Second, there’s a real funding question that is really active because of 

the policies of the Trump administration and that’s without passing 

judgment on them. 

102 

And then third, the continuity of this system is really important. 

So that’s a concern I have. Will this on a practical level work, even 

if you think on a theoretical level it might? 

And I have got the APA standard issue is really about maintaining the flexibility and the agility of the current program. If you get 

into the APA, you get lawyers involved, and it becomes a contested 

hearing. 

And what has been tremendous, I think, about Energy Star in 

general has been the voluntary nature of it and the cooperative nature of it. 

And then third, the third party certification, we had that problem with LG when the voluntary part of it wasn’t also consistent 

and honest, quite frankly. So how do you have confidence in the 

program if you’re leaving it up to the applicants without review to 

make that decision? 

So those are the concerns I have in addition to the funding issue 

that across the government with the new administration is all in 

doubt—25 percent cuts pretty much across the board. 

So that’s where I am coming from. I think maybe we can work 

these out. But let me ask Mr. Drew, first of all. You’ve focused on 

the impacts of moving Energy Star to DOE. I know in the commercial building side of the program a number of home and commercial 

building organizations are supportive of EPA running Energy Star 

and do prefer the status quo. Can you elaborate on your experience 

with EPA’s operation of these building programs? 

Mr. DREW. We are referring specifically to that portfolio manager 

program. For commercial buildings when you’re buying large equipment that consumes a significant amount of energy, the ability to 

go in and model the Portfolio Manager program, how the purchase 

of higher efficiency equipment, potentially Energy Star, is going to 

impact the overall energy usage and the potential cost savings for 

that building owner is significant for our members. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. I don’t have a lot of time. Let me ask 

you, Ms. Callahan, about your thoughts on the APA process as opposed to the current process. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I agree with you completely that it could add significant time and cost and complication. You’re putting a formal 

process design for regulatory programs that have the force in law 

in place on a voluntary program and we think that that’s very troubling. 

Mr. WELCH. Do you have any changes that you would support in 

the process? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Yes. We should support working with the committee, working with the agencies and the other stakeholders to 

look at ways that we could put in place more transparency and perhaps more discipline to the program. And so by dint of guidelines, 

best practices, policies to be—there’s a lot that we can do that’s 

short of what I think is a really over step. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Merritt, let’s go on this requiring APA procedures. Can you 

suggest some changes EPA has recently made to facilitate manufacturer input? 

Mr. MERRITT. Yes, thank you. 

103 

We’ve seen recent changes in the process to include more reliance 

on industry standard test procedures and standards as opposed to 

creating their own, which may not be as generally accepted. 

We’ve also seen some recent changes in terms of what I mentioned earlier, having multiple rounds of specification open for comment which allows manufacturers to be fully heard. 

I would support Ms. Callahan’s comments that perhaps making 

that more consistent across the board to allow more transparency 

would be a good thing. I think we should do that. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Thank you. I have got time for one more 

but that, I appreciate. 

Mr. Johnson, the cost and the timeline of third party certification 

is a burden. You think it slows product development. But I have 

heard the third party certification body states it only takes about 

2 weeks to certify new product and $3,500 to do the necessary 

work. Is that accurate, in your view? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The cost and the time can certainly vary. But I 

think it sounds about right and I would stress that that 2 weeks 

is a big deal when your product is out on the market for only a few 

months. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. I thank all the witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I think we’ve got a lot to work 

with here. 

Mr. OLSON. You betcha. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the member from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank my friend very much and appreciate it. 

Mr. McGuire, I have heard you testify today that the Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers’ position is to move Energy Star 

for home appliances from EPA to DOE. 

I have a constituent glass company that has had a very positive 

experience with the windows program at EPA. Do you see any challenges in keeping certain programs like the windows program at 

EPA while moving the home appliances program to DOE? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Sir, my answers would be that for 13 of its 21 

years of existence Energy Star program for home appliances—home 

appliances were at DOE and not EPA. So I don’t see any issues 

with appliances being shifted back to where they started from. 

Other products are not. 

EPA and DOE both have had responsibilities in the program and 

the important thing about appliances is that the efficiency levels 

and the testing is so integrally tied to the standards and test procedures. The expertise at DOE is there to deal with that. So we may 

be a unique case in terms of how our standards and Energy Star 

requirements are intertwined. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I am going to go a little off the subject matter but 

I am going to ask you some questions based on some communication I have gotten from a constituent who has spoken to me numerous times about this problem and it deals with our Energy Star 

program and that is that she’s not completely convinced that what 

we are doing is actually beneficial in the long term and she brings 

up her washing machine. 

That is her issue. Anita of Tazewell County has asked me to ask 

these questions over the course of the last year or so because she 

104 

believes that in order to get a higher efficiency rating that her top 

loader washing machine was designed so that it didn’t put as much 

water into the machine and she didn’t feel like her clothes were 

getting as clean. 

And so what happens when somebody doesn’t feel like their 

clothes are getting as clean you figure out some way. I have heard 

stories of other people who have done more loads of wash so they 

put less clothes into the machine. 

In her case, she babysits the machine, as she told me, and she 

has a contraption hooked up with her garden hose and she adds 

additional water to the washing machine because the machine—apparently if you interrupt the cycle at a certain point doesn’t realize 

that you’re putting more water in and it’ll heat all the water. 

And it seems to me that maybe we ought to be looking at a total 

efficiency and not just the energy rating because if people are doing 

more loads of laundry or stopping the machine after it’s gotten 

started and filled up to a certain point and adding additional water 

to the machine doesn’t seem to be very efficient. 

I should note that I do have a picture here—probably can’t get 

picked up on the camera—of Anita with her device filling in the 

washing machine with additional water. 

So what do you say to folks like Anita who say, wait a minute? 

In fact, the heading on her email was, get the EPA out of my laundry room—it’s destroying our consumer washing machines. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, we take her concerns very seriously and, as 

I mentioned earlier, the law that governs how the standards are 

set says you have to balance energy efficiency with cost effectiveness and the performance of the product. 

And so this problem can occur at both the standard level and Energy Star. At some point, there is a diminishing return on the energy savings and the performance of the product. 

We saw that 3 years ago with dishwashers where the proposed 

standard level would not clean a load of dishes. And so to have Energy Star level above and beyond that made no sense. 

That’s why those decisions need to be made at DOE and be based 

on fact. So we want consumers to be happy with our products. We 

want our products to work, and that requires that people who set 

standards and develop test procedures understand how these products work and the laws of physics. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Johnson, I think you touched on this a little bit in some of 

your testimony earlier too, not directly but close to it. Do you have 

something to add to that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Only that our products are using zero amount of 

water today. 

[Laughter.] 

We are very efficient in the energy sense, of course, and take 

great pride in this program. I want to make sure it continues. Are 

open minded if Congress should decide to move this energy efficiency program to the Department of Energy. We will work hard 

to make sure it’s successful. 

We do have questions. We have relationships. We are used to 

doing business with the EPA. But, again, these relationships can 

105 

be redeveloped. There’s a lot of passion behind the program. We 

want to carry that wherever it goes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate it and yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from the home of the 

Hawkeyes, Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and they had a great victory over Ohio State last weekend, too. 

I didn’t realize when I got elected to Congress that there would 

be so much levity at these hearings sometimes. Thank you for your 

comment about water. I appreciate that. 

I do want to follow up with one of my previous colleague’s questions, if I may, Mr. Johnson. I am not sure that you completely addressed Mr. McNerney’s question about what’s a good track record. 

How do we define that, in your case? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. A good track record of compliance in my 

mind is certainly one where there’s no egregious examples of failure—of producing Energy Star-qualified products but not quite 

meeting the requirements. And I am not talking about paperwork 

violations. I am talking about egregious acts. 

So when I say 100 percent track record of compliance, I am taking that characterization directly from EPA at the time it instituted third party certification for everybody. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. Does anybody else want to comment on 

that particular issue? Your thought about that? Because that’s part 

of what we are talking about here. Did you want to say something, 

Mr. Merritt? 

Mr. MERRITT. I would just add that we have seen instances in 

the lighting industry, of vendors claiming Energy Star compliance 

that did not have Energy Star compliant bulbs or products. So we 

consider the cost and timing of third party certification to be worth 

it in order to protect the brand. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. To avoid fraud and abuse in the first instance, 

right? I have to say, I think the Energy Star program has saved 

consumers money. It has lowered greenhouse gas emissions, as was 

mentioned by Ms. Castor. I think it’s been a great program. I have 

a lot of appliances that are Energy Star and they save us a lot of 

money every month. Part of the issue, of course, is the up front 

costs for some of these. 

But, I think it’s a great idea. And one of my colleagues already 

mentioned UL—Underwriters Laboratories. It is a company that 

does third party certification. We can’t forget that they’re in some 

people’s districts as well and UL is in my district. 

They’ve got a lab in Newton, Iowa, and they employ over a hundred folks, and I think that’s something that we do need to take 

into account when we are making policy. Obviously, we are talking 

about energy savings. We are talking about making sure we are 

doing the right thing from a regulatory standpoint. 

But I think we do have to look at the bigger picture, too, when 

it comes to jobs. After all, that’s a big part of what we are trying 

to do here in the Congress—make sure that we create jobs, save 

jobs and do the right thing as far as our constituents are concerned 

and the country is concerned on that front, too. 

106 

So I did want to bring that up as well. I also want to agree with 

some of my colleagues that, I guess to use the word agnostic that 

I think Mr. Welch used, that’s how I am about sort of transferring 

this to the Department of Energy, so long as we can do the right 

thing, so long as we can make sure that we have compliance and 

that there isn’t the fraud and abuse. 

I think that’s the most important thing and I do want to reiterate, you know, when we talk about the cost of regulations and 

the cost of government, moving from one agency to another there 

can be a lot of costs associated with that and I just want to make 

sure that we understand that before any decision gets made to 

move these obligations from one department to another. It is not 

simple. It may be theoretical but we have to thinking about it pragmatically as well. 

Ms. Callahan, did you want to address also the issue of transparency and discipline? I know that Mr. Merritt did but would you 

like to add to that at all? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Sure. What I would like to say in front of that, 

though, is I was looking through my papers to see how many jobs 

are actually in your district that are related to energy efficiency. 

There are 2.2 million jobs in the U.S. that are within the energy 

efficiency arena. So I think you make a very good point there. 

With respect to transparency and certification, we want to make 

sure that there’s a balance and that consumers are protected and 

that they can continue to trust in the label. If we can find ways 

to make the program less costly for compliance and relying on third 

party certifications on industry standards versus having EPA or 

DOE create their own, we want that. 

We want to take down the cost in the program. But it has to be 

balanced with making sure that we keep the integrity of that Energy Star label intact. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Ultimately for the sake of consumers. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Right. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. That’s the bottom line here. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Exactly. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate the 

panel and thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, how 

are you feeling today? 

Mr. OLSON. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. LONG. How are your math skills today? 

Mr. OLSON. They’re what they were when I walked in here. So 

I thought they were pretty good but you’ve got something for me. 

Mr. LONG. I have been working on a mathematical equation 

here. Eleven minus one would be how much? 

Mr. OLSON. I believe that is 10. I am sure you’re talking about 

the World Series. 

Mr. LONG. Ten. That’s what I have gotten to and I was just trying to figure out how many more World Series championships the 

St. Louis Cardinals have won than the Houston Astros. 

107 

[Laughter.] 

You have now answered my question. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

I want to start down on the end with Mr. McGuire and I have 

a question for everyone. I just want to move down the row and get 

a quick response to my question. 

One of the goals of the voluntary Energy Star program it set out 

an energy policy after 2005 is to reduce pollution, which we all 

want. Like Johnny Morris Bass Pro Shops in the Seventh District 

of Missouri says, we all live downstream—we all want to reduce 

pollution. 

Mr. McGuire, start with you and coming down the line. Can any 

of you tell me what effect or how it would hurt if to move from EPA 

back to DOE where this program was originally? And there’s been 

a lot of talk today about moving it and why they moved it in 2009 

and how hard it would be to move it back when the ones that are 

arguing to not move it back are the ones that moved it in 2009. 

But can you give me any reason why moving it to the Department of Energy for an Energy Star program would have any effect 

on pollution, good or bad, compared to EPA? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. It would not impact it. 

Mr. LONG. OK. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I want to make sure that we are clear. Joe and 

the appliance manufacturers are looking at moving back the appliance portion. Energy Star program is much bigger and broader 

than that. 

We believe that it would do damage to move the entire program, 

which is what’s in the discussions draft now, back over from EPA 

to the DOE program. 

Mr. LONG. In what regard? What way? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Well, because there’s 25 years of history, of databases, of partnership relation and management, brand management that are going on and people are relying on that program and 

on how it’s being administered. And to pick that up and move it 

will have costs associated with it. 

Mr. LONG. It was the 25 years administrated under—right? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Pardon? 

Mr. LONG. It was the 25 years you’re talking about? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. With the EPA. This has been a shared program 

since it was created—— 

Mr. LONG. Right. 

Ms. CALLAHAN [continuing]. In 1992 and that—a large portion of 

the program has been always over at the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Mr. LONG. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. MERRITT. So as I mentioned during my testimony, our primary concern is continuing the viability and smooth operation of 

this program. We would be concerned that any change that would 

disrupt that operation and the implementation of the specifications 

of the marketplace could actually reduce its effectiveness, which 

would increase electrical consumption, which would affect pollution, if you want to make that connection. 

Mr. DREW. From AHRI’s perspective, our comments would echo 

those of Mr. Merritt and Ms. Callahan. We’ve successfully operated 

108 

this program within the EPA’s structure for numerous years and 

the idea that if it was disruptive moving it from DOE to EPA initially, why wouldn’t it be just as disruptive moving it back if not 

more so at this point in time with a much larger program at stake? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t have a view on the pollution impacts. I 

tend to doubt it would have an impact. We are not agnostic about 

moving it to DOE. We understand the reasons why. 

If Congress decides to do so we’ll work hard to make sure it’s 

successful. We are used to doing business at EPA. That’s where our 

relationships are. That’s not to say we can’t recreate success over 

at DOE. 

Mr. LONG. Mr. Johnson, the discussion draft and change of provision that would make the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act apply to actions taken under Energy Star. The critics 

of this provision say it could damage the program by slowing it 

down. As the maker of products that need to get to the market 

quickly do you see this as a problem? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I see it as a potential problem. We certainly want 

to maintain program agility and flexibility. That’s really important 

for the fast-moving consumer tech sector. But I think there are 

ways to do that while bringing on perhaps a few more checks and 

balances. Process aspects of the APA perhaps could be applied to 

the program. Third party oversight within the federal government 

such as a role for OMB is something to consider as well. 

So on this provision we’d welcome working with the committee 

to maybe target this a little more appropriately for our sector. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you, and thank you all for being here, for 

your testimony today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back and I want to inform the gentleman that I just got a text from Mayor Allen Owen of Missouri 

City, Texas, the Show-Me City. He says, please come down to our 

victory parade this Saturday barbecue in Missouri City for our 

Houston Astros, the world champs. He said yes, it’s our first but 

we have to start somewhere. 

[Laughter.] 

I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the panel. 

I was curious what happens other places. I am sure you’re familiar with these kinds of incentive programs or Energy Star like initiatives in other countries or have some sense of that and I am interested how we compare to that, whether the analogous regime 

around labeling energy efficient products is mandatory in other 

places, voluntary. So I just want to get some context for that as we 

kind of figure out what the best way to do this is here. 

And then I am also interested in any interplay that occurs in 

terms of manufacturing products that get an Energy Star rating 

here pursuant to this program as those products go into Canada or 

into Europe or other countries what’s happening—is Energy Star 

being converted into some other rating that’s given in those countries, et cetera. 

109 

So I am just trying to get a little bit of a peripheral vision on 

the issue and anybody who feels competent to answer the question 

I invite them to do that. Yes? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. So the Energy Star program is really recognized 

globally as the gold standard for public-private partnerships in this 

area and in fact it is licensed and used in the European Union, 

Canada, Japan, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and 

Thailand, and the government of Canada has weighed in to encourage the Congress to continue the program and continue funding to 

the program. They’re in opposition to the administration’s request 

to eliminate the program. It really is the gold standard around the 

world. 

Mr. SARBANES. Any other comments? Yes. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. The Energy Star program in Canada is licensed 

to the NRCAN, Natural Resources Canada, by the Energy Star program. So they will adhere to the specifications for the most part 

that happen in the U.S. 

Our members are very familiar with it. I would note that in Canada the Energy Star program is housed within the appliance standards program of Natural Resources Canada, similar to what we are 

suggesting be again the case for DOE. 

Mr. SARBANES. Go ahead. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. It is very important to us, the consumer 

technology industry, to have policies and programs for energy efficiency that are generally aligned and harmonized around the 

world. Energy Star is an example of something like that. We also 

have these industry-led voluntary agreements that have been 

picked up in three regions of the world as well. So we appreciate 

when there is that globalization of an approach that, again, for us 

is innovation friendly. 

Mr. SARBANES. Sounds like the U.S. and the Energy Star program is a global leader in setting standards like this and driving 

that kind of label other places. Is there any competing? I mean, you 

mentioned some countries and some parts of the world. 

Are there some competing energy efficiency labelling programs 

out there? Or would you say that Energy Star is up here and everybody else is down here? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can respond to that. There are a large number 

of standards in labelling programs around the world and that is actually part of the challenge that we have. 

Look in the back of a product, you see examples of many different kinds of labels, maybe not for energy but that’s what I am 

talking about is a proliferation of labels. 

It is so much easier for either a small or a large company that 

wants to sell around the world to have one test, one designation, 

one label, an aligned program. That’s what we strive for in the tech 

industry. 

Mr. SARBANES. Has Canada, for example, or other countries that 

use the Energy Star rating, have they offered up any testimony 

that you’re aware of or perspective? Have they weighed in at all 

about the discussion that we are having here in terms of the—any 

changes to the program? Do they have anxieties about it or are 

they just kind of sitting back and watching? 

110 

Mr. MCGUIRE. We’ve discussed it with NRCAN and they don’t 

have any anxieties that I know of. They were more of in a listening 

mode. But they certainly are aware of what we’re suggesting. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. We’ve had no discussion with them on the discussion draft. Where I know their concerns lie is in keeping the program funded and not eliminating the program. 

Mr. SARBANES. Great. Thanks very much. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now calls upon the gentleman with the home of the 

Hidden Lake Gardens, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. You’ve done your homework on the victorious 

Michigan State Spartans as well. 

I appreciate the hearing today. Mr. McGuire and Mr. Johnson, 

I’d like your comments on what has been the experience of your 

member companies when it comes to having opportunities to comment on actions taken under Energy Star and access to the data 

used by the government on which to base its decisions and is there 

room for improvement? 

Mr. McGuire. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Thank you, sir. 

It has been our experience that at EPA they are very inconsistent with demonstrating the data that they have used to make 

their decisions and responding to suggestions and data that we 

have submitted and providing a consistent amount of time for us 

to comment. 

So there are question marks left at the end of the day and that 

is why we feel that applying some Administrative Procedure Act 

process improvements would make it more repeatable and understandable for the people that have to make the investments in 

their products for the consumers to benefit from the energy efficiency gains. 

Mr. WALBERG. Be a little more specific. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, where would you go with that? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. A specified period for comments—that you have 

this many days to comment and that if a decision is reached that 

it might result in you—a specification you feel unwarranted or not 

justified by the facts that you would have the ability to appeal that 

to someone else in the agency other than the person that made the 

decision. 

We are not talking about loading up litigation. We are talking 

about due process so that we can understand how the decision was 

made. 

Mr. WALBERG. OK. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have similar comments. Our members’ experience in some Energy Star product categories has been good and not 

so good in others. I think there definitely is room for improvement. 

We want data-driven outcomes. We have experienced outcomes 

with Energy Star specifications that don’t seem linked so much to 

the data as to maybe a feeling or a passion in a different direction. 

So some amount of the rigor of the APA may be appropriate to 

guarantee certain checks and balances and time lines. However, as 

I mentioned earlier, we don’t encumber the program. So we have 

to be, I think, selective at least for our sector in determining what 

111 

of the APA makes the most sense and then what else might be a 

good check or a balance against outcomes here. 

Mr. WALBERG. But you believe that we could improve upon the 

opportunities for the manufacturer input without slowing the program down? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think we can. Yes. 

Mr. WALBERG. OK. Mr. McGuire? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I think with certain processes added that are included in the Administrative Procedure Act it can be improved. 

Mr. WALBERG. OK. What’s your reaction to the administration’s 

FY 2018 budget request which zeroed out the Energy Star program? If you answered that earlier before I got here, forgive me. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I did. We oppose zeroing out the program. We 

want it to be maintained and appropriately funded. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. CTA doesn’t have a position on budgetary matters 

but in the situation where on one hand you have elimination of the 

program, on the other hand you have status quo, don’t touch a 

thing, we are kind of in the middle. 

There’s room for improvement. Let’s work on that. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

We’ve saved the best for last. The chair calls upon Mr. Tonko of 

New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate that assessment. 

Welcome to our witnesses. Energy Star is a program that benefits consumers, manufacturers, and the environment. We’ve heard 

all the statistics about the program’s success so I won’t belabor the 

point. 

But it is clear that the Energy Star label, which is recognized by 

90 percent of consumers, is trusted. Supporters of the discussion 

draft have discussed how increasing transparency and accountability are important to the future of the program. But I believe the 

most important issue to maintain the integrity of the program is 

without a doubt upholding its well-respected brand with consumers. 

We should not take consumer support for the brand as a given. 

Ms. Callahan, a question for you—and before I do that, let me state 

what an honor it is to serve on the board of Alliance to Save Energy in my pre-congressional days and now in my congressional 

tenure. So I thank you for that. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Thank you. We really appreciate your leadership 

up on Capitol Hill but we miss you a lot. When you were a fiduciary board member we saw a lot more of you. 

Mr. TONKO. There you go. 

So the question, and I will ask this of all, if we could kind of 

stick to a yes or no—do you agree that upholding the integrity of 

the Energy Star label is essential to the success of the program? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. McGuire? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Yes. 

Mr. DREW. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

112 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And in March 2010, GAO found the Energy Star program in a report that was shared to be vulnerable to 

fraud and abuse. In this report, there were many concerns expressed and at that point many products were able to be self-certified. 

So in 2011, EPA responded to GAO’s report and required third 

party certification. Ms. Callahan, if we go back to self-certification 

and these issues reemerge, do you think a future report like this 

one I am holding would hurt the Energy Star brand? 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I absolutely believe it would hurt the Energy 

Star brand to have a report like that. It hurt it the last time. It 

would hurt it again. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Merritt, do you agree? 

Mr. MERRITT. I do. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Drew, the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute is a certification body for testing products. Are 

certification bodies also responsible for conducting after-market 

verification testing? 

Mr. DREW. We do not only certification testing for all new products entering the market. We also do annual verification testing 

done on a random basis selected from that manufacturer every 

year. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And there’s been a lot of discussion at this hearing about third 

party certification and the removal of third party certification. If 

that were done, who would be responsible for market surveillance? 

Anyone. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. I guess I will answer. The market surveillance 

and after-market verification is currently the responsibility of the 

EPA and I would presume that that would continue. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. So if we didn’t have that third party certification falling to the EPA, that would require additional spending 

for the EPA, which has already been threatened with some budgetary cuts. So I think we need to see that one or what it is. 

Mr. McGuire, were you going to—— 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I was just going to say EPA’s third party 

verification requirement is a responsibility they put on their partners. So that AHRI and AHAM do the verification—third party 

verification testing with independent laboratories each year. So 

those costs are being borne by the manufacturers, the partners, not 

the public, not by EPA. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. Can I clarify that? 

Mr. TONKO. Sure. 

Ms. CALLAHAN. There are significant costs, though, that EPA 

does bear to certify these third party accreditors and also the 

verification of the project in the marketplace. So there are very significant costs and EPA has that up on its website. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And in the 2010 GAO report, EPA officials stated that limited resources made it difficult to do after-market product verification, not 

to mention at that point consumers may have already bought a 

fraudulent product. 

Mr. Merritt, is that why you do not support removing third party 

certification in conjunction with the warranty provision? 

113 

Mr. MERRITT. That’s very much part of it. Essentially, third 

party certification prior to listing ensures the integrity of the results. Relying on post-market certification, then there’s a lottery 

that many bad actors are willing to enter. Their odds of getting 

caught are very low. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I will just add that according to one certification body some types of products failed about 15 percent on 

first time model submissions. So Energy Star succeeds because it 

is truly a partnership between industry and our government. 

Removing third party certification would place all the burden on 

the government review submitted information, potentially conduct 

after-market verification, and could result in eroding trust in the 

program. Decades have been spent building consumer recognition 

and confidence in the Energy Star label. I would encourage us not 

to put that at risk. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

Seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask questions, I’d like to thank all of our witnesses again for being here 

today and thank you for your patience. Lots of comments about my 

love for my Houston Astros and also an impromptu math lesson 

from Mr. Long. 

[Laughter.] 

I have 18 documents I would like to submit for the record and 

very briefly, statements in support of H.R. 3777 from Congressman 

Buddy Carter, EPA testimony of the Energy Star Reform Act discussion draft, DOE’s statement on ESTAR of Acting Secretary Daniel Simmons, a letter from the American Council of Independent 

Laboratories, a letter from the U.S. Green Building Council, a letter from the American Public Gas Association, a letter from the 

U.S. real estate industry, a letter from the Underwriters’ Association, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, comments 

on the Energy Reform Act discussion, a letter from Spire, 

e4TheFuture comments on the Energy Reform Act Discussion 

Draft, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association— 

NEMA’s—comments on the Energy Star Reform Act, NEMA’s comments on proposed language changes, a letter from the High Performance Building Coalition, a letter from Lowe’s, a letter from the 

Air Conditioning Contractors of America, a letter from the ranking 

members to the chairman, and the Geostudy on the Energy Star 

Program. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. OLSON. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that 

they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record. As for the witnesses, have the responses to us within 10 

days as well upon receipt of the questions. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

114 


28284.064

Statement of Support by Congressman Buddy Carter 

"Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, Ceiling Fan Energy 

Conservation Harmonization Act" 

Mr. Chairman, we're here today to review legislation that will undertake common sense 

reforms to ensure businesses are not unnecessarily subjected to onerous and burdensome 

regulations that will impact their ability to comply with federal law. One example of legislation 

tackling these concerns is H.R. 3477, the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act. 

This bill would do something very simple; it would align the dates of compliance for two 

separate efficiency regulations covering the same products. 

Those two regulations, one impacting ceiling fan light kits with a compliance date of 

January 2019, and one for ceiling fan motors with a compliance date of January 2020, only 

create confusion. This difference in dates will only result in an additional burden on businesses 

to comply, leading to countless hours of work in order to avoid being fined for noncompliance. 

All of this works will lead to less focus on the customers while providing no additional benefits. 

The changes proposed under this legislation are good governance, allowing businesses to 

comply in a manner that limits unnecessary actions. Additionally, low-income households will 

be impacted by these regulations as providers move to meet disjointed deadlines. My good 

friend, Rep. Hudson, introduced this bill to provide certainty, to ensure businesses aren't 

unnecessarily penalized, and to give consumers continued options that they deem are best for 

their families. 

I want to thank my colleagues for their introduction of this legislation and I want to thank 

this subcommittee for their efforts to bring this up. This legislation is a step in the right direction 

in correcting guidance that would only seek to negatively impact our communities without a 

benefit in sight. I ask that you join me in supporting this legislation. 

Earl L. "Buddy" Carter 
115 


28284.065

Statement for the Record 

Administrator Scott Pruitt 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Hearing: Discussion Draft, ENERGY STAR Reform Act of 

2017 and H.R. 3477, Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation 

Harmonization Act 

Energy and Commerce, Energy Subcommittee 

United States House of Representatives 

November 7, 2017 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to provide written testimony on the ENERGY STAR Reform Act of 2017 

Discussion Draft. Although the Administration does not have an official position on the 

specifics of this bill, I am appreciative of the committee's interest in improving the 

ENERGY STAR program. 

ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program, implemented by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), that provides consumers and 

businesses with information identifying the most energy efficient choices in products, 

homes and buildings. The ENERGY STAR program was established by EPA in 1992, 

under the authority of Section1 03(g) of the Clean Air Act. In 2005, Congress enacted 

the Energy Policy Act. Section 131 of the Act amended Section 324 of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act and directed EPA and DOE to implement "a voluntary 

program to identify and promote energy-efficient products and buildings in order to 

reduce energy consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution through 

voluntary labeling of or other forms of communication about products and buildings that 

meet the highest energy efficiency standards." 

In September 2009, EPA and DOE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

that redefined roles and responsibilities for EPA and DOE in response to industry 
116 


28284.066

concerns and to enhance and expand the various aspects of ENERGY STAR. The 

division of responsibilities established by the MOU resulted in significant improvements 

to the program including standardized program approaches, reduced duplication of 

effort and it helped resolve market confusion. Under the MOU, EPA and DOE work 

together to implement the ENERGY STAR program, leveraging the strengths of each 

agency. EPA manages the ENERGY STAR Products, New Homes, Commercial, and 

Industrial programs. DOE provides technical support, including test procedure 

development for products and some verification testing of products. DOE's role 

leverages DOE's complementary regulatory work on minimum efficiency standards. Due 

to DOE's Recovery through Retrofits program, DOE also manages Home Performance 

with ENERGY STAR for upgrades to existing homes. 

Over the last 25 years, EPA has developed and fostered relationships with thousands of 

market actors across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of the American 

economy. EPA developed and manages ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, an online 

energy tracking and benchmarking tool, which has become an industry accepted tool 

that has benchmarked close to 50% of U.S. commercial floor space. EPA built and 

manages IT systems that share product data in real time to thousands of retailers, 

manufacturers, and utilities; an average of over 800,000 ENERGY STAR certified 

products were sold each day in 2015. Nearly 700 utilities (serving roughly 85% of 

American households) partner with EPA to leverage ENERGY STAR as a common 

national platform, investing billions in energy efficiency programs each year. 

EPA and DOE remain committed to improving the ENERGY STAR program in response 

to stakeholder feedback as well as improving coordination between the two agencies. 

• For example, EPA has aligned ENERGY STAR testing requirements with DOE 

standards to allow testing for ENERGY STAR to also be used for purposes of 

federal efficiency standards. 

• In addition, when standards are updated on a different timeline than ENERGY 

STAR specification revisions, EPA updates existing specifications and data 

requirements to align with DOE definitions, metrics and test procedures. 

2 
117 


28284.067

• To further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our collaboration, EPA and 

DOE are initiating an effort to reduce manufacturer reporting burden by avoiding 

duplicative submittal of product information. EPA and DOE will convene 

stakeholders to explore this proposal as well as other ways ENERGY STAR can 

leverage current IT functionality to increase program efficiency. 

• In response to recent stakeholder discussions and to address any potential 

confusion about the transparency and inclusiveness of EPA's processes, EPA is 

creating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for setting ENERGY STAR 

product specifications. The new SOP will include specifics on minimum public 

comment periods, procedures for sharing proposals with stakeholders, and a 

detailed, step-by-step description of the entire process. EPA will continue to 

explore with stakeholders areas where EPA can improve transparency. 

To improve the oversight of ENERGY STAR certified products, homes, and commercial 

facilities, EPA has implemented independent certification requirements. In response to a 

finding by the U.S. Government Accountability Office that the program was vulnerable to 

fraud, EPA implemented third-party certification of ENERGY STAR products starting in 

2011. Prior to 2011, ENERGY STAR products were self-certified by partners. 

In conclusion, EPA stands ready to work with Congress and our industry partners to 

ensure the Energy Star program continues to work well for those partners and American 

consumers. I appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony as I support the 

committee's interest in improving the ENERGY STAR program. The Agency stands 

ready to provide technical assistance to the Committee should the Committee have any 

further questions. 

Thank you. 

3 
118 


28284.068

Statement of Acting Assistant Secretary Daniel R Simmons 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Submitted to 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

United States House of Representatives 

November 7, 2017 

ENERGY STAR 

In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced ENERGY STAR, under 

the authority of the Clean Air Act Section 103(g), as a voluntary labeling program designed to 

identify and promote energy-efficient products. Computers and monitors were the first labeled 

products. Throughout 1995, EPA expanded the program to additional office equipment products 

and residential heating and cooling equipment. In 1996, EPA joined with the Department of 

Energy (DOE) to expand the labeling program to additional product categories. 

Today, ENERGY STAR remains a joint EPA-DOE program that encompasses more than 75 

product types (e.g., clothes washers, refrigerators) grouped into 10 product categories (e.g., home 

appliances, lighting). There are numerous synergies between ENERGY STAR and DOE's 

Appliance Standards Program for setting minimum energy efficiency standards. For example, 30 

of the more than 75 product types covered under ENERGY STAR are also covered under DOE's 

Appliance Standards Program. ENERGY STAR also includes efforts to improve the efficiency 

of new and existing homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities. 

In 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act (EPAct). Section 131 of the Act amends 

Section 324 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and directs EPA and DOE to implement 

"a voluntary program to identify and promote energy-efficient products and buildings in order to 

reduce energy consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution through voluntary 

labeling of other forms of communication about products and buildings that meet the highest 

energy efficiency standards." The Act further directs EPA and DOE to work jointly on the 

program and states that the responsibilities under the program "shall be divided between the 

Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the terms of 

applicable agreements between those agencies." (42 USC Section 6294a) 

ll/2/17 
119 


28284.069

On September 30, 2009, DOE and EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 

designating EPA as the lead agency and brand manager for the ENERGY STAR program. EPA 

is also tasked to work with program partners to increase public awareness of and access to 

ENERGY STAR labeled products. Under this MOU, DOE's primary role is to work with the 

EPA, develop Federal test procedures, and administer a product verifying testing program. 

DOE and EPA coordinate regularly on these elements through weekly calls as well as periodic 

meetings. In addition, DOE and EPA jointly develop an annual work plan for upcoming test 

procedure and specification revisions. DOE reviews all updates to ENERGY STAR 

specifications prior to release by EPA, ensuring that the specification aligns with DOE energy 

conservation standards, where applicable. DOE also shares test data and technical information 

with EPA to ensure that both agencies have the best set of data to use in the ENERGY STAR 

product development process. Finally, DOE and EPA coordinate on verification testing to ensure 

there is not a duplication of government resources. 

We look forward to working with Congress to ensure our efforts provide value to American 

families and businesses. 

11/2/17 2 
120 


28284.070

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Enhancing Public Health and Safety 

Through Quality Testing and Engineering 

November 7. 2017 

ACIL 

2125 Rayburn House Otlice Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

2322A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone: 

On behalf of the American Council oflndependent Laboratories (ACIL), we write in strong support of 

independent third party certification within the ENERGY STAR program; thereby we strongly oppose the 

Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 Discussion Draft, which allows self-certification for electronics manufacturers 

in good standing within ENERGY STAR. This language eliminates the requirement of third party certification 

to certain electronic products. 

The ACIL is an association representing independent commercial scientific and engineering firms with 

over 1,000 facilities across the U.S. engaged in testing, product certification, consulting, and research and 

development to enhance public health and safety. 

As you know, the ENERGY STAR program is a voluntary initiative that is broadly supported by 

manufacturers, retailers, utilities, energy efficiency advocates, and consumers. Over the past two decades 

America's families and small businesses have realized estimated savings of more than $239 billion on utility 

bills and prevented more than 1.9 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the program. 

The ENERGY STAR program has grown to represent products in more than 65 different categories, with more 

than 4.5 billion products sold over the past 20 years. More than 1.4 million new homes and more than 20,000 

facilities proudly carry the ENERGY STAR label, all of which allow Americans to make smarter choices on 

how to use less energy and realize greater savings. 

The U.S. government relies on private sector resources and third-party certification to ensure products 

entering the market are safe, reliable and efficient. To ensure safe products are used in the workplace, the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recognizes private sector testing, inspection, and 

certification organizations through the "Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory" program (NRTL). NRTLrccognized laboratories perform certification for certain products to ensure that they meet both construction 

tequirements and industry standards. 

The current ENERGY STAR program was modeled on a similar approach after a 2010 Government 

Accountability Office investigation called into question the integrity of the program. Under the current rules, 

ENERGY STAR products must be independently certified based on testing from recognized laboratories. In 

addition to up-front testing, a percentage of all ENERGY STAR products are subject to "off-the-shelf" and 

post market verification testing each year. The goal of this testing is to ensure that changes or variations in the 

manufacturing process do not undermine a product's qualification for ENERGY STAR. 

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES 

1875! Street NW • Suite 500 • Washington, DC 20006 "'TEL 202.887,5872 • FAX 202.887.0021 • www.acil.org • lnfo@aca.org 
121 


28284.071

2 

This public-private partnership has created a competitive marketplace for testing, inspection, and 

certification (TIC) organizations that manufacturers leverage to meet ENERGY STAR compliance needs. The 

program's flexibility allows for manufacturers to shop for services based on price, speed, or location, and not be 

restricted to a single organization to review products. 

We respectfully request that you and your committee continue to support the independent third party 

certification within the ENERGY STAR program and we remain in strong opposition to the Energy Star 

Reform Act of 2017 Discussion Draft. 

Thank you for your time and attention regarding this important issue and please do not hesitate to call 

upon me. 

Sincerely, 

Richard Bright 

Chief Operating Officer 
122 


28284.072

USGBC 

2101 L STREET, NW 

SUITE 500 

WASHINGTON DC 20037 

202 828·7422 

USGBC.ORG 

November 6, 2017 

Chairman Greg Walden 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

2185 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Ranking Member Frank Pallone 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

237 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone, 

On behalf of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a national nonprofit representing 

more than 12,000 member companies and organizations committed to cost effective 

and energy-efficient buildings, I write to provide comments on the Energy Star Reform 

Act. Sound policy solutions can be achieved when interested parties have the ability to 

work with the committee and stakeholders in a collaborative fashion. USGBC 

appreciates the ability to comment on this draft proposal. 

We want to commend the committee for its work this Congress in advancing important 

environmental and energy legislation including H.R. 3017, "The Brownfields 

Enhancement Economic Redevelopment and Reauthorization Act of 2017", H.R.627-

"The Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act of 2017" and H.R.306 "The Energy 

Efficient Government Technology Act." 

USGBC would like to provide the following comments to the ENERGY STAR discussion 

draft. 

USGBC does not support a move of responsibilities or duties from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agencv (EPA) to the U.S. Department of Energv (DOE). 

USGBC has a long working relationship with the ENERGY STAR program. Through our 

interaction and collaborations with the program we have found ENERGY STAR to be a 

vital public-private partnership that helps businesses, consumers, as well as state and 

local governments save money by investing in efficiency and reducing negative 

environmental impacts. Indeed, with a long track record of cost effective success, 

ENERGY STAR is the most widely recognized symbol for energy efficiency, with a brand 

awareness of about 90%. In 2015 alone, American consumers and businesses saved over 

$34 billion with the help of ENERGY STAR. Since 1992, ENERGY STAR has assisted 

companies and consumers save $430 billion on utility bills. 

ENERGY STAR serves a critical role in real estate across the country. About 45% of the 

commercial building floor space in the U.S. has been bench marked for tracking and 
123 


28284.073

analyzing utility consumption using ENERGY STAR's Portfolio Manager. Since 1999, 

ENERGY STAR has certified more than 28,000 buildings and more than 5 billion square 

feet of space. ENERGY STAR also counts more than 3,100 home builder partners who 

have constructed almost 1.8 million certified new homes since 1995. Many of these 

properties also pursue additional third-party certifications like the LEED rating system 

which USGBC administers. 

EPA's program activities, in particular, have stood out for their transparency and their 

commitment to proactively seeking and considering stakeholder input, as outlined 

below. 

Given the track record of results and the economic impact of the program USGBC would 

encourage that further study be unto ken, perhaps by the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO), on the potential advantages and disadvantages of relocating a program of 

this importance before such an action is taken. 

New funding would be needed for DOE to adequately support the existing ENERGY 

STAR program. 

While, at this time, we do not support moving the core operations of ENERGY STAR, we 

would note that relocating the ENERGY STAR program would require additional 

resources at DOE to address existing market engagement and program activity. This is 

especially true when the Administration and the House of Representatives are in 

support of funding reductions" and realigning the programmatic activity of the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at DOE3. To that end we support an 

annual authorization to support the important work of the program. 

USGBC does not support adding bureaucracy and cost to the ENERGY STAR 

development process. 

USGBC has a long working relationship with the ENERGY STAR program. Our experience 

has been open and inclusive as technical content has been refined and new ratings have 

been offered. We do not support the application of Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

requirements to the ENERGY STAR program, which is a voluntary public-private 

partnership in nature, rather than a regulatory program for which the APA is intended. 

USGBC works with a number of other voluntary rating systems administered by the 

federal government and is unaware of other voluntary programs having APA 

requirements in place. 

1 EERE's FY 2018 Congressional Budget Request available at: 

https://www5.eere.energy.gov/office eere/program budget fonnulation.php 2 H.R. 3354 "Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018." Page 1612, 

available at: https://www.congress.gov/115/billslhr3354/BILLS-115hr3354pcs.pdf 3 The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Report for fiscal 

year 2018 Page 80 available at: https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfileslhrpt·l15-hr-p2.pdf 
124 


28284.074

Over the years it has implemented key elements of the ENERGY STAR program, EPA's 

management of the program has matured and the agency has become a valuable 

partner to market stakeholders. Notably, in 2012, EPA adopted the ENERGY STAR 

Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles, in which the agency sets forth "a systematic 

framework built on a foundation of transparency and collaboration with a range of 

stakeholders." 4 The agency also provides public information on potential standards in 

development or revision, 5 and does not limit stakeholder engagement to formal 

comment processes. In our view, these principles and the agency's demonstrated 

commitment to following them, adequately address stakeholder protections. 

Moreover, the APA requirements would certainly have the consequence of adding time 

and money to the development process, 6 and are unnecessary in light of stakeholder 

involvement processes that EPA has set for the ENERGY STAR program. For example, as 

part of "The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 20157

" EPA was authorized to 

develop a voluntary program to recognize commercial building owners and tenants that 

use high-performance energy efficiency measures in the design and construction of 

separate spaces. In late 2016 EPA solicited stakeholders' input on the development of 

this program using a notice and comment process (not the full APA process) and by 

summer of 2017 had already begun piloting the program with private sector partners. 

APA requirements would likely not have allowed the process to move as quickly in 

response to congressional direction and interest from private industry. 

Clarify application of no warranty provisions. 

We would note that the language of the discussion draft appears to have ambiguity as 

to what types of ENERGY STAR "products" would apply. We would suggest the section 

be clarified sa that ENERGY STAR certified devices and buildings would be covered. 

Thank you again for the ability to provide input on the draft proposal. Please contact me 

if I can be of assistance as you the committee looks to update the draft proposal. 

4 Available at; 

https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod development/downloads/ENERGY STAR Strategic 

Vision and Guiding Principles.pdf?6e8a-9lf4. 5 https://wvrw.energvstar.gov/index.cfm?c-prod development.prod development index 6 For example, one study found formal rulemakings to take from l to 14 years, depending on 

complexity. See GAO, Federal Rulemaking.· Improvements Needed to Monitoring and Evaluation 

of Rules Development as Well as 10 the Transparency ofOMB Regulatory Reviews (2009), 

available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/288538.pdf. Additionally, we note that APA processes 

do not in themselves ensure adequate or meaningful consultation. GAO, Federal Rulemaking: 

Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Respond to Public Comments (20 12) available at 

http ://w"w.gao.gov/assets/660/651 052.pd f. 7 The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of20 15 available at: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg!PLAW-ll4publll/pdf/PLA W-ll4publll.pdf 
125 


28284.075

Sincerely, 

Bryan Howard 

Legislative Director 

U.S. Green Building Council 

Cc: Energy Subcommittee, House Energy and Commerce Committee 
126 


28284.076

AMERICAN PUBLIC GAS ASSOCIATION 

November 7th, 2017 

The Honorable Greg Walden and Fred Upton 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Subject: Comments for Hearing on the Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, 

Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act 

Dear Chairman Upton, Representative Walden and Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Power: 

On behalf of our 730 members, the American Public Gas Association (APGA) appreciates 

this opportunity to submit comments for the record on the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 

Discussion Draft. 

APGA is the national association for publicly owned natural gas distribution systems. There 

are approximately 1,000 public gas systems in 37 states, and over 730 of these systems are APGA 

members. Publicly owned gas systems are not-for-profit, retail distribution entities owned by, and 

accountable to, the citizens they serve. They include municipal gas distribution systems, public 

utility districts, county districts, and other public agencies that own and operate natural gas 

distribution facilities in their communities. 

The primary focus of public gas systems is to provide safe, reliable, and affordable service 

to their customers and communities. Our members serve homeowners and small businesses that 

rely on affordable natural gas to heat their homes, cook their meals, and power their restaurants, 

schools, hospitals and businesses. 

Because public gas systems are so tightly ingrained in the community, it is our responsibility 

to ensure we offer our communities the highest level of service at the lowest possible price. A key 

path to successfully lowering our constituents' energy bill is by promoting the most efficient 

equipment through programs like Energy Star. Energy Star enjoys significant market recognition 

and is considered the benchmark for energy efficiency. Because of the expertise and acceptance of 

the program, APGA believes that the Committee should consider requiring the establishment of an 

Energy Star Standard for all equipment before the Department of Energy considers mandating or 

revising minimum efficiency standards. 
127 


28284.077

Clearly, the Energy Star Program is one of the most successful energy efficiency programs 

to date and it is our opinion that this success is based on the fact that it is a voluntary program 

focused on saving consumers money on their energy bill. This program, as well as other energy 

efficiency programs, becomes less effective when the focus is diverted away from achieving energy 

savings for consumers and replaced with the pursuit of broader environmental aspirations. It is 

critical that any agency involved in developing and promoting the Energy Star Program focus on 

furthering energy efficiency and the economic benefits that provides to consumers. 

Because the Energy Star Program is based on partnerships between the federal government, 

manufacturers and utilities, it is imperative that the program's standards be developed through an 

open and transparent process. It is in the best interest of all to ensure that the public and interested 

stakeholders are given the necessary protections to allow for full participation in the process. 

We would also recommend expanding the use ofthe primary energy matrix. Currently, the 

primary energy matrix is being used in the Energy Star Commercial Buildings Program and the 

Portfolio Manager tool. The inclusion of this form of energy accounting methodology gives both 

the consumer and policy makers a more accurate analysis of the overall energy savings. For 

example, by including the use of primary energy numbers in the appliance program, the consumer 

would be able to fully compare equipment, understand the appliance's true energy use and its cost 

to operate. The inclusion of an appliance's actual "energy footprint" will give the consumer another 

vital piece of data to help make a smart purchasing decision. 

Finally, we commend the authors of the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 for recommending 

that the Energy Star Program be inclusive of all equipment. We believe it is critical that all types 

and sizes of equipment are eligible for an Energy Star standard. Given that the Energy Star 

Program enjoys a high level of recognition by consumers APGA sees this as an important 

opportunity to ensure that manufactures are able to offer the consumer a wide range Energy Star 

products. 

APGA appreciates the Committee's attention, interest and commitment to ensuring and 

improving the Energy Star Program. If any members of the Committee or their staff have any 

follow up or questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. 
128 


28284.078

November 6, 2017 

U.S. Real Estate Industry's Perspectives on 

EPA's ENERGY STAR Program for Buildings 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Energy Subcommittee of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bobby Rush 

Ranking Member 

Energy Subcommittee of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House ofReprescntatives 

Re: November 7, 2017 Hearing, 

"Discussion Draft- Energy Star Reform Act of 2017" 

Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush: 

Our undersigned organizations represent the U.S. real estate industry. We represent 

members involved in almost every aspect of commercial and residential real estate development, 

design, construction, ownership, management, finance, brokerage, contracting, renovation, and 

building product supply. Our members provide the homes, apartments, offices, health care 

facilities, hotels, shopping malls, data centers, and industrial sites where the American people 

live, work, heal and play. 

We appreciate this opportunity to provide our perspectives for the hearing scheduled for 

November 7, 2017, "Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017." As there are no 

witnesses from the real estate community to offer our experiences over nearly 20 years regarding 

the building aspects of EPA's ENERGY STAR program, we ask that you include this letter in 

the hearing record- to emphasize the importance of this platform to our industry, and to consider 

our comments on the discussion language as presently drafted. 

L Background 011 EPA's ENERGY STAR Buildi11gs Program 

Since EPA certified the first ENERGY STAR building in 1999,1 our organizations have 

enjoyed a cooperative relationship with the agency. We have collaborated with EPA to increase 

our industry's participation in this voluntary, non-regulatory program. Our members have 

provided "real world" technical input to improve EPA's free, on-line tool- known as Portfolio 

Manager- that has become the standard in the United States for buildings to measure and 

1 See EPA, Celebrating a Decade of ENERGY STAR Buildings /999-2009, available at 

bttps://www.ener_gntar.gov/buildings/tools-and-resources/celebrating·decade·energy-star-buildings. 
129 


28284.079

Real Estate Industry Perspectives on ENERGY STAR 

November 6, 2017 

Page2 

manage energy, water and waste consumption. We have encouraged ENERGY STAR's broader 

market penetration so more real estate categories have opportunities to obtain voluntary labels 

that recognize optimal energy design, construction and performance. And, to implement a law 

passed by Congress in 2015, our groups have closely coordinated with EPA to improve 

ENERGY STAR in a manner that uses market signals to incentivize commercial landlord-tenant 

collaborations on strategies to reduce energy waste in leased office spaces within buildings. 

• ENERGY STAR certified buildings are located in all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and other 

territories. Members of Congress can find where these buildings are located in their states or 

districts with EPA's easy-to-use on-line locator tool.2 

• The real estate sector has continually assisted EPA in growing and evolving the ENERGY 

STAR platform for commercial and residential buildings. Our industry has helped the 

agency reach the following milestones:' 

Veal' ' Milestone: · . · •• ... ...... ; .... · 1999 ENERGY STAR label extends from appliances to office buildings. 

t 2cOOO Portfolio Manager tracking tool released; ENERGY STAR label extended to schools. 

·.~IJ01<' ENERGY STAR label extended to acute care hospitals, supermarkets and grocery stores. 

2002 More than I 00,000 new homes awarded the ENERGY STAR label for above-code 

construction, while the commercial label is extended to hotels. 

2003 50% of top U.S. homebuilders participate in ENERGY STAR for New Homes. 

2004 Nearly I in 10 new homes built certified as ENERGY STAR, while the commercial label is 

extended to warehouses, financial centers, and bank branches. 

·'2006 12% of new single-family home starts earn the ENERGY STAR. 

2007 ENERGY STAR label extended to retail buildings. 

2.008 ENERGY STAR label extended to distribution centers. 

.2009 ENERGY STAR homes achieve a market penetration of 17%, as the number of certified 

< .. :··; homes surpasses I million. Commercial label extended to certain manufacturing plants. 

2010·',• ENERGY STAR label extended to data centers and senior care communities. 

2011 Market share for ENERGY STAR homes reaches 25%. 

1'-i-:zo .·. 

Upgraded Portfolio Manager tool debuts to the real estate marketplace. 

ENERGY STAR label expands to multifamily buildings using Portfolio Manager. 

ENERGY STAR implements design and construction (D&C) pilot program to implement 

·. C\ 2015 "Tenant Star" law. 

2018 (anticipated) ENERGY STAR to award Charter Tenant labels for high performance tenant 

spaces leased within office buildings, completing "Tenant Star" D&C pilot. 

• Today, an estimated 40% of the U.S. commercial real estate market is involved with the 

ENERGY STAR buildings program in some manner. This is primarily through EPA's 

2 http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=labeled buildings. locator. 

3 Compiled from "ENERGY STAR Major Milestones," available at 

https://www.energystar.gov/about/historv!major-milestones. 
130 


28284.080

Real Estate Industry Perspectives on ENERGY STAR 

November 6, 2017 

Page3 

Portfolio Manager platform,4 which has become the real estate sector's standard to measure, 

benchmark, and manage energy consumption in buildings (as well as water use and waste 

generation). Based on the thousands of Portfolio Manager accounts administered by the 

ENERGY STAR program, as of December 31, 2015: More than 450,000 commercial 

buildings covering 40 billion square feet of space actively use EPA's on-line tool to 

measure and track energy use. 5 

• Measuring and tracking energy consumption using EPA's Portfolio Manager- as the 

foundational strategy to improve a building's energy efficiency and lower its utility costshave significant consequences for real estate's profitability, the economy at large, and the 

nation's energy security. 

> The U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2012 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS)6 shows that commercial buildings used 6,963 trillion Btu 

of total site energy (from electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and district heat steam 

combined). While there was a 22% increase in total commercial floorspacc between 

2003 (the year of the last CBECS data set) to 2012, building energy use went up just 7% 

during that nine-year span. In other words, how buildings are constructed and managed, 

and the systems and equipment installed in them, have become considerably more energy 

efficient. This data would not be available without EPA's Portfolio Manager toolwhich allows individual buildings to provide a snapshot of their energy use, which is then 

aggregated to provide critical information that guides national energy policy, planning, 

and private sector investments in energy efficiency innovations. 

> For building owners and managers, the best practice of using Portfolio Manager to track 

energy usage results in significant dollar savings for businesses. Benchmarking resulted 

in a 7% energy savings across 35,000 buildings that consistently used EPA's tool over a 

three-year period.? As utility costs are frequently the highest expense for building 

operations- about 20% of total operating cost.sB- energy savings identified through 

4 EPA's Portfolio Manager landing page: https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility::Pwners-andmanagers/existing-buildingsluse-portfolio-manager. 

5 See https:liV>lWw.energystar.govlbuildingslabout-us/facts-and-stats. 

6 CBCES is "the only comprehensive source of detailed infonnation on energy use in the wide variety of 

commercial buildings across the United States." See 

bttps://www.eia. gov/consumption/commercial/reports/20 12/energyusage/. 

7 See EPA, "Benchmarking and Energy Savings -Data Trends," available at 

https:/lwww.energystar. gov/sites/defaultlftleslbuildin gsltoo Is/Data Trends Savings 20 J 21 002.pdf. 

'Total operating expenses for private sector U.S office buildings are reported at $8.07 per square foot. Of that 

amount, utilities are the highest cost, reported at $2.16 per square foot. See Building Owners and Managers 

Association (BOMA) International, 2016 Office Experience E<change Report" available at 

http://www.boma.orglresearch/newsroom/press-room/PRJ6/Pages/BOMA-lnternationals-Offtce-and-lndustrialBenchmarking-Reports-Released-.aspx. 
131 


28284.081

Real Estate Industry Perspectives on ENERGY STAR 

November 6, 2017 

Page4 

Portfolio Manager analyses can have a significant impact on a real estate asset's 

profitability. 

o One industry study showed that a one dollar per square foot savings in office building 

energy costs increased the building's cash flow by $0.95 and asset value by $14 per 

square foot. 9 

> Portfolio Manager is also the key compliance tool for building owners and managers to 

meet the requirements of numerous state and local energy disclosure laws. A growing 

number of states, cities, and municipalities across the U.S. require building owners to use 

EPA's platform to meet such disclosure regulations. Without Portfolio Manager, there is 

no readily available, feasible means for our members to comply with these laws. 10 

• In addition to using Portfolio Manager as an energy management tool, many buildings 

owned, managed and financed by our members opt to go further to earn EPA's ENERGY 

STAR label and distinguish their assets as "top performers" in real estate markets across the 

country. 

> An ENERGY STAR certified building must meet strict energy performance standards 

and use less energy and operate less expensively than its peers. 

> To qualify for an annual ENERGY STAR award, a building must be verified to earn a 

score of75 or higher on EPA's l-100 energy performance scale, indicating that the 

building performs better than at least 75% of similar buildings nationwide. 

> In this regard, EPA has awarded the ENERGY STAR label to more than 25,000 

commercial buildings in a range of asset classes, covering 3. 7 billion square feet. 

These high performance, energy efficient buildings have been estimated to save building 

owners and tenants $3.4 billion on utility costs. 11 

9 See EPA, "ENERGY STAR Certification- Data Trends," available at 

https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/buildings/tools/DataTrends Certification.pdf. 

10 State and local jurisdictions that require some private sector commercial buildings to use Portfolio Manager to 

measure, report and/or disclose energy use include Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Berkeley, CA; Boston, MA; Boulder, 

CO; Cambridge, MA; Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; Evanston, !L; Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, CA; Minneapolis, 

MN; Montgomery County, MD; New York, NY; Orlando, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, ME; 

Portland, OR; Salt Lake City, Utah; San Francisco, CA; Seattle, W A; South Portland, ME; St. Louis, MO; and 

Washington, D.C.; and the States of California and Washington. Even more states and jurisdictions compel public 

buildings to measure, report and disclose energy use using Portfolio Manager. See EPA, "Benchmarking Programs 

and Policies Leveraging ENERGY STAR" (Sept. 2017), available at 

https:/ /www .energystar. gov/sites/ default/files/too IslES Government -Factsheet 092920 17 .pdf. 

11 https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/about-us/facts-and-stats (through December 31, 2015). 
132 


28284.082

Real Estate Industry Perspectives on ENERGY STAR 

November 6, 2017 

PageS 

~ A number of studies have evaluated the added market value of ENERGY STAR certified 

buildings. These real estate assets boast higher tenant rents, better leasing occupancy 

rates, and higher sales prices compared to non-EPA labeled buildings. 12 

• ENERGY STAR is the basis for bipartisan legislation that Congress passed last session. The 

signature energy policy of the I 14th Congress is the "Energy Efficiency Improvement Act" 

(H.R. 2126/S. 535), which passed the House in 2014 by an overwhelming bipartisan margin 

(375-36), and then the House again and the Senate by simple voice votes in each chamber in 

2015Y The bill creates a program called "Tenant Star" intended by Congress to amplify 

ENERGY STAR's impressive successes at the "whole building" level and translate the 

platform to leased spaces within commercial buildings. This tenant-based evolution of 

ENERGY STAR responds directly to our industry's requests for policies to help overcome 

the so-called "split incentive" problem, where building owners may lack the incentive to 

invest in energy efficiency innovations if the cost savings primarily accrue to tenants paying 

lower utility bills. EPA's "ENERGY STAR for Tenants" is a critical step to commend 

commercial tenants with their own label for energy efficiency investments within spaces they 

lease, and thereby align with technology retrofits and whole-building innovations 

implemented (and paid for) by owners. 

II. Comments on "Energy Star Reform Act of 20I 7" Discussion Language 

Considering the real estate industry's longstanding participation in and support of 

ENERGY STAR, we are concerned that legislative efforts to reform the appliance side of the 

program may have unintended, negative consequences for EPA-certified buildings. In this 

regard, we are pleased to offer these comments on the discussion draft language for a potential 

"Energy Star Reform Act of2017." 

• The discussion draft, consistent with the underlying Jaw that it would ame11d, should use 

text that carefully distinguishes ENERGY STAR applia11ce reforms from the buildings 

platform. The draft language would amend section 324A of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. § 6294a). This section ofEPCA, which authorizes 

ENERGY STAR, establishes a "voluntary program" within DOE and EPA "to identify and 

promote energy-efficient products and buildings .... " (Emphasis supplied). Thus, the very 

underlying statute that the draft language would amend makes clear that the program covers 

both buildings and appliances. While the discussion draft is apparently directed toward 

reforms for ENERGY STAR appliances, real estate stakeholders do not believe the potential 

bill sufficiently considers the impact of such reforms on our industry's buildings. 

Respectfully, we strongly believe that greater pains must be taken during further drafting to 

ensure that any new statutory language intended to improve EPA's appliances program does 

not cause collateral damage to the buildings aspects of ENERGY STAR. 

12 See "The Value ofENERGY STAR Certification," at: https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility·owners-and· 

managers/existing-buildings/leam-benefits/value-energy-star-certification. 

ll See https://www.congress.gov/billlll4th-congress/senate-billi5351text. 
133 


28284.083

Real Estate Industry Perspectives on ENERGY STAR 

November 6, 2017 

Page6 

• We prefer that ENERGY STAR for buildings continue to operate with EPA in the leading 

role, with support from DOE. The discussion language would have the opposite result, and 

shift ENERGY STAR's programmatic implementation and management to DOE. Our 

members report excellent customer service with regard to EPA's operation of the ENERGY 

STAR buildings program. Of course, we recognize that appliance stakeholders have a 

different experience with the products-side of ENERGY STAR. DOE's assumption of a lead 

role may indeed make ENERGY STAR/or appliances run more effectively. However, we 

believe that confusion and inefficiency would likely result if that same outcome were 

pursued for ENERGY STAR commercial buildings, where we prefer the status quo be 

maintained. That is- insofar as commercial buildings are concerned- we request that EPA 

continue to take the lead with DOE in a supporting role. 

We have asked our members, and have not identified any harms or problems to be addressed 

or fixed by moving ENERGY STAR for buildings over to DOE as the lead agency. Rather, 

over almost two decades, EPA has built its own infrastructure to efficiently maintain 

thousands of Portfolio Manager accounts; issue certifications and quality reviews for its 

ENERGY STAR building labels; and conduct regular trainings and webinars for transparent 

outreach to real estate stakeholders so our input is gathered and our requests considered as 

consumers of their program. Relationships have been built between our rank-and-file 

members, and our associations' leaders, to coordinate with EPA staff running the ENERGY 

STAR buildings program. We are concerned that these efficiencies will be lost if ENERGY 

STAR for buildings shifts to DOE, which does not have the same history, culture and 

resources to run the buildings program. (Rather, DOE serves an important role to research, 

develop and innovate new and emerging energy deployment and generation technologies, 

which helps advance the building efficiency sciences as a key but relatively secondary role 

within DOE's larger portfolio.) 

Accordingly, we recommend that the shift in roles and responsibilities set forth in Section 2 

of the draft be expressly limited to "products"- and expressly not pertain to 

"buildings." Alternatively, language could ret1ect that the "Administrator, in consultation 

with the Secretary" continues in the lead for ENERGY STAR buildings. 

• Delegation of EPA and DOE responsibilities, as set forth in the 2015 Tenant Star law, 

should be expressly preserved. We noted above Congress's passage in 2015 of the "Energy 

Efficiency Improvement Act," also known as "Tenant Star" 14 (sincere-branded by EPA as 

"ENERGY STAR for Tenants"). 15 The bipartisan bill overwhelmingly passed the House 

twice last Congress on suspension votes. We continue to thank the Energy and Commerce 

Committee staff for their excellent work in building support for the bill and ultimately getting 

it to the President's desk for signature. 

"Tenant Star" set forth a detailed timeline to implement this law over several years- with 

EPA's and DOE's respective roles carefully and specifically balanced and delineated in the 

14 See supra note 13. 

15 See https://www.energystar.gov/buildingsltenants/about tenant space. 
134 


28284.084

Real Estate Industry Perspectives on ENERGY STAR 

November 6, 2017 

Page 7 

statutory text. As major aspects of the "Tenant Star" program fall within EPA's ENERGY 

STAR responsibilities, we are concerned that the discussion draft could upset the deliberate 

allocation of spheres to EPA and DOE, as they are in the midst of successfully and 

cooperatively implementing the 2015 taw. 

Accordingly, we recommend that any possible re-allocation of ENERGY STAR roles 

through the discussion draft makes clear that it does not alter the balance of EPA and DOE 

responsibilities set forth in "Tenant Star." In fact, insofar as the Subcommittee is considering 

greater clarity and specific delineation of the agencies' respective roles regarding ENERGY 

STAR generally, we recommend using "Tenant Star" as a successful guide to allocate 

responsibilities in a manner that garnered widespread bipartisan, industry, and NGO 

support. 

The "No Warranty" section should cover buildings and products. Page 3, tine 20 of the 

discussion language states: "Any disclosure relating to participation of a product in the 

Energy Star program shall not create an express or implied warranty, or give rise to any 

private claims or rights of action under State or Federal law ... " Because this text is 

expressly limited to products, we are concerned that an implication could be created that 

Congress left open warranties/private rights of action with regard to buildings that may lose 

their ENERGY STAR ratings from one year to the next (or see their scores drop). Indeed, in 

August 2018, scores for ENERGY STAR buildings are expected to change in response to the 

latest building-related energy consumption data obtained by the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration through the most recent CBECS data set. Current ENERGY STAR scores 

are based on 2003 CBECS data, and to remain current, EPA is updating ENERGY STAR 

building scores with the most recent 2012 CBECS data set. Plainly, buildings became more 

energy efficient in the nine years that lapsed between these data sets; what was "energy 

efficient" in 2003 may not be "energy efficient" when compared against 2012 data. EPA is 

already forecasting: "[T]he ENERGY STAR scores for every property in Portfolio Manager 

may change when EPA releases the updates" next August. 16 These anticipated changes in 

building scores should not create even the spectre of inadvisable, frivolous suits. We thus 

request that, if any bill precludes warranties and private lawsuits for ENERGY STAR 

certified appliances, certified buildings should receive those same legislative protections. 

* * * 

16 See EPA, "Updates to ENERGY STAR Scores with CBECS Data," available at 

https://www.energystar.gov/buildingslfacility-owners-managerslexisting-buildings/use-pottfolio-manager/updateenergy-star-scores-cbecs. 
135 


28284.085

Real Estate Industry Perspectives on ENERGY STAR 

November 6, 2017 

Page 8 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments for the record of the November 7, 

2017 hearing, regarding the "Energy Star Reform Act of2017." We look forward to continuing 

our collaboration with the Subcommittee to provide input on the discussion language. 

American Hotel & Lodging Association 

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International 

CCIM Institute 

Institute of Real Estate Management 

International Council of Shopping Centers 

NAIOP, Commercial Real Estate Development Association 

Nareit® 

National Apartment Association 

National Association of Home Builders 

National Association of REALTORS® 

National Multifamily Housing Council 

The Real Estate Roundtable 

Cc: 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chair, U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, U.S. House Energy & Commerce Comm. 

Members of the Energy Subcommittee of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee 
136 


28284.086

November 7, 2017 

House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush: 

On behalf of Underwriters' Laboratories (UL) we appreciate the House Energy & Commerce 

Committee's continued interest in the ENERGY STAR program and ensuring it continues to function 

in a way that serves the intentions of the program and offers benefits to consumers, without being 

overly burdensome to manufacturers. 

UL is an independent, product certification organization that has been writing product standards, 

testing products, and certifying product performance for over a century. This unique experience in 

providing a range of compliance solutions for manufacturers, consumers and government regulators 

globally for over 120 years has provided our organization unique insights into how laboratory 

accreditation, testing and certification, and ongoing surveillance can be structured to prornote 

conformity. Some of the services offered by UL include: inspection, advisory services, education and 

training, testing, auditing and analytics, certification software solutions, and marketing claim 

verification. 

While we appreciate the Committee's interest in the ENERGY STAR program, we have concerns 

over one of the provisions being contemplated in the ENERGY STAR Reform Act discussion draft 

that would remove the third-party certification requirement for a specific segment of the ENERGY 

STAR prograrn. This move appears to be a solution in search of a problem and threatens to return 

ENERGY STAR to a time when concerns over the validity of the efficiency claims of its products 

called the entire program into question. This provision will undermine the ENERGY STAR program. 

Program Integrity 

ENERGY STAR is a longstanding initiative that is broadly supported by manufacturers, retailers, 

utilities, energy efficiency advocates and consumers. While the program is very popular with both 

manufacturers and consumers, it was only a few short years ago when the ENERGY STAR program 

was subject to a GAO investigation that found significant issues with the program's oversight. That 

2010 report led EPA to work with industry and companies like UL, to establish third-party certification 

as a way to provide program oversight and integrity without creating additional bureaucracies. 

The U.S. government relies on the resources of the private sector to provide third-party certification to 

ensure products entering the market are safe, reliable, and efficient. To ensure safe products are 

used in the workplace, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recognizes private 

sector organizations through the "Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory" program (NRTL's) to 

perform certification for certain products to ensure they meet both construction requirements and 

industry standards. In order to earn the ENERGY STAR label, a similar approach is prescribed. UL, 

and companies like it, had their labs accredited by EPA and began to fulfill this obligation and quickly 

re-established trust in the program. 
137 


28284.087

Since then, the program has been operating smoothly, and without any additional cost to the federal 

government. In fact, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment & Related 

Agencies noted in the report language that accompanied its FY2018 Appropriations bill: 

"In addition, the Committee continues to support the ENERGY STAR program and does not terminate 

the program as proposed ... In addition, EPA appropriately took action to restructure the program in 

2011 following questions about program integrity. The Agency established third party certification 

requirements that directed many product review responsibilities to outside vendors ... Further, the 

Committee does not support the termination of voluntary programs such as Natural GasSTAR, 

AgSTAR, and other partnership programs where EPA works collaboratively with non-governmental 

entities to identify beneficial methods to reduce emissions, pollution, and increase efficiency."1 

It is worth noting that in addition to providing up-front certification of products to the ENERGY STAR 

criteria, accredited Certification Bodies also provide after-market surveillance on products to ensure 

continued compliance. In doing so, we ensure that products that earned the ENERGY STAR mark 

continue to perform at or beyond the levels specified in the criteria. 

The proposed provision would also only impact one segment of the ENERGY STAR program, 

consumer electronics. The other product categories- from lighting to home appliances- would still 

be required to utilize the third-party certification structure set up by EPA to demonstrate compliance. 

Manufacturers selling products in multiple categories would have different processes for having their 

products listed on ENERGY STAR, creating additional confusion and an uneven playing field in 

managing the program. 

Time and Cost 

We have heard concerns that the third-party certification process is too time-consuming and costly. 

We believe these concerns to be unsubstantiated. The provision in question would remove third-party 

certification for the consumer electronics category of products within the program. From a 

manufacturer's perspective, the most expensive product category for testing and certification within 

this category of products is televisions which average approximately $3,200 to run a full certification 

testing program. When considered in-line with the volume of television sets sold this is a small 

amount of the total cost of production. Per the ENERGY STAR program rules, that cost can be 

spread across multiple product variations. For instance, manufacturers can select one sample to 

represent an entire family of products of multiple sizes. Basically, a manufacturer would pay UL the 

$3,200 for the testing of a 40" LED television and if it me the criteria, the manufacturer would be able 

to list it's 45", 50", 55", 60" versions of that LED television based on that one test report. Furthermore, 

if a manufacturer has their own accredited laboratory, they can conduct their own efficiency testing. In 

those instances, the manufacturer would only need to share their test results with a third-party 

certification body and their product would be listed on the ENERGY STAR website. The cost of simply 

certifying accredited test results falls to approximately $500. 

1 House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment & Related Agencies. Full 

Committee Report. https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/23918.pdfP. 56 
138 


28284.088

We have also heard that the process is too time-consuming and that products need to be taken to 

market faster. For UL, our expected turnaround time is approximately two weeks to test and certify 

products, provided that they do in fact meet the efficiency standard on the first try. If the product fails 

the standard, which occurs about 15% of the time in the case of televisions, then that timeframe is 

certainly extended as the manufacturer makes improvements to meet the criteria. 

For both issues, it should be noted that there are currently 24 EPA-Recognized Certification Bodies 

from which manufacturers can shop for services based on their needs (price, turnaround time, ease 

of working with). This competition helps to keep prices low and turnaround time quick allowing 

manufacturers to switch to providers that best meet their needs. Removing 3"' party certification 

would remove the private sector from this role and result in either the program going unchecked or a 

government agency (whether it is EPA or DOE) to fund staff to review submissions. 

Finally, let's remember that the program is voluntary. No manufacturer has to participate in the 

program. Manufacturers do participate because they know that consumers recognize and seek out 

the ENERGY STAR label. Those consumers seek out ENERGY STAR qualified products because 

they believe that those products are held to a higher efficiency standard. If confidence in that mark 

wanes, the program will begin to lose its value to both consumers and manufacturers. 

Conclusion 

UL opposes efforts to remove third-party certification from the ENERGY STAR program. The program 

has enjoyed broad, bi-partisan support over its existence because of its ability to reduce electricity 

costs for consumers while providing manufacturers with additional brand recognition that they 

leverage in the development and sales of their products. Changes to this conformity assessment 

approach threatens to undermine the long-term viability of the program. 

Given the recent history of the ENERGY STAR program and the improvements made to ensure the 

program is not subject to fraud and abuse, it is concerning that an effort would be made to undermine 

the integrity of the program. 

Sincerely, 

Derek Greenauer 

Director, Global Government Affairs 

UL,LLC 
139 


28284.089

Dr. Lowell Ungar 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) 

U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy 

Regarding the Energy Star Reform Act Discussion Draft 

November 7, 2017 

ENERGY STAR is a vital voluntary program that is recognized and used by nearly all 

consumers to reduce waste and save money. It also is a key building block for local, state, and 

utility energy efficiency programs around the country and thus for meeting local energy needs. 

Its success has been remarkable: over 4.5 billion ENERGY STAR products purchased, 1.8 

million ENERGY STAR new homes, 450,000 commercial buildings benchmarked, and 16,000 

partners. The program estimates $430 billion in net savings for consumers and businesses 

through 2015. 

The success relies on the government as an independent administrator and on a history of 

successful marketing and partnerships. Continued savings rely on essential elements: 

• Consumer trust in the label as ensuring energy bill savings and a "green" product 

• Skill in marketing and partnerships as well as expertise in product and building efficiency 

• A multi-faceted program ranging from consumer electronics labels to commercial 

building energy use benchmarking to industrial plant efficiency programs 

• Responsiveness to changing technologies and market conditions 

Nonetheless, this successful program is under threat as the administration has proposed to 

eliminate it, and the House has proposed to slash its funding. Changes to the program must 

recognize and address this threat, or they risk helping to eviscerate or end the program. 

It also is important to recognize that ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program, not a government 

mandate (except for federal purchasing). Market penetration rates for ENERGY STAR products 

range from I% to 100%, but for most product categories are under 50%. To the extent retailers 

favor ENERGY STAR products, it is a reflection of the program's success. 

Thus, we are concerned that major changes to the program authorization are another threat to a 

successful program. We do not see the need to change the authorizing language at this time 

(except the narrow change in 5. below), but we always stand ready to work with other 

stakeholders and the program to address any real concerns. 
140 


28284.090

Comments for the Record, Dr. Lowell Ungar, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

November 7, 2017 

We offer the following specific comments: 

I. Shift from EPA to DOE is likely damaging and should not be legislated (paragraph 2) 

l. We are concerned that shifts in administration of the program would disrupt its success. 

A shift would need to have a strong justification, which we have not seen. The agencies 

would need to transfer funding and staff, or at least ensure adequate funding and staffing 

levels and maintain staff expertise. [~!~] 

2. Current EPA staff has expertise in marketing and brand management that is essential to 

the program. In addition, it could be difficult to mesh the more flexible process for setting 

ENERGY STAR specifications with the formal and more rigid process of the DOE 

standards program (see below). Tt also is important to consider not just labels for products 

for which DOE also sets standards, but all the other ENERGY STAR components 

including new homes, home retrofits, commercial building benchmarking, industry 

programs and more. 

3. Given the complexities, and the need for flexibility if shifts create problems, any shifts 

are better worked out jointly by DOE and EPA with substantial stakeholder input, and 

should not be legislated. In addition, an authorizing bill cannot provide the needed 

funding at DOE. Given funding cuts, this would be a severe threat to the program. 

II. Requiring a full rulcmaking process would severely harm the program {4:e) 

l. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program that does not impose mandates but does rely on 

consumer trust and nimble response to technological and market changes. The current 

process allows for minor revisions and updates to be made quickly; it also allows the 

flexibility for the specification development schedule to be tailored to fit specific product 

categories and circumstances. The program already seeks input from partners and the 

public on specification updates and other program changes. Furthermore, in response to 

prior complaints, EPA is doing a much better job recently seeking input and documenting 

how it is responding to comments. 

2. However, requiring formal rulemaking procedures would severely slow program 

operations and increase costs, threatening the integrity of the brand if the program is 

unable to keep up with market changes, and preventing timely response to manufacturer 

concerns (such as tweaks to definitions or test procedures to account for new 

technologies). It could subject the program to endless lawsuits that further impede the 

program and add costs. 

3. If there are still problems with the process, we would be happy to work with the agencies 

and other stakeholders to address those specifically, rather than applying a blanket 

regulatory mandate. 
141 


28284.091

Comments for the Record, Dr. Lowell Ungar, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

November 7, 2017 

III. 270 days lead time (3.D) 

Although significant lead time is generally appropriate for revisions to product specifications, 

shorter lead times may be necessary in some cases, such as closing loopholes, or appropriate 

to clarify confusion or account for new products. We think the balance in current law is 

appropriate. We should not tie the program's hands with an inflexible mandate. 

IV. Requiring coverage of all sizes, capacities, and features (3.B) 

This restriction could make it difficult to set specifications for some products, could require 

labeling inappropriate or inefficient products (e.g. when there is not an appropriate test 

procedure for large commercial products), or could require spending funds the program does 

not have to label niche products. We also are not aware of any need for this provision; 

although efficiency criteria frequently vary with size, we are only aware of size cutoffs based 

on different product categories (e.g. commercial vs residential products). 

More broadly, we are opposed to detailed legislative prescriptions for ENERGY STAR. It is 

important that the program be designed to meet consumer needs, not to respond to political 

influence or narrow stakeholder agendas, and that it be flexible to address different markets 

and technological developments. 

V. No warranty language (4:t) 

ACEEE and some (not all) other efficiency groups support the language in HR 1682 in order 

to prevent class action lawsuits from reducing manufacturer interest in the ENERGY STAR 

program while maintaining consumer protections. However, the discussion draft would 

change the agreed language, extending the shield from lawsuits to some products that do not 

receive third-party testing. This eliminates an important consumer protection, and we oppose 

the change. Even ifthere is reason not to require third-party testing for some products, that 

does not mean program oversight for those products is sufficient to limit access to the courts. 

VI. Exceptions to third party certification requirements for electronics ( 4:g) 

ACEEE and other stakeholders worked on this language (HR 1443 Sec. 401) to reduce the 

risk that an earlier proposal posed to program compliance, while still meeting the concerns of 

manufacturers. It is important to recognize the threat to consumer trust in the program from 

compliance problems and enforcement weaknesses. We have nonetheless accepted this 

language when included as part of a broader efficiency bill (McKinley-Welch), but ACEEE 

has not taken a position on this provision in this bill. 
142 


28284.092

Comments for the Record, Dr. Lowell Ungar, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

November 7, 2017 

Additional Provisions 

Authorization of funds 

Although we do not see the need to amend the ENERGY STAR authorization at this time, if 

there is to be authorizing legislation, we would urge the inclusion of a specific authorization 

of funds. Given proposed funding cuts, it would be important to support robust funding for 

the program. We recommend authorizing $75 million a year at EPA and DOE (combined) for 

five years, roughly the funding level of 15 years ago (when the program was much smaller) 

in real terms, followed in subsequent years by an authorization of such sums as may be 

necessary. 

In summary, we recommend the following: 

• W c strongly oppose the current draft language on shifting agency lead and on APA 

rulemaking as threats to the viability of the ENERGY STAR program. We do not mean 

to preclude targeted changes by the agencies in the administration or process of the 

program with full stakeholder input. 

• We oppose inflexible mandates on lead time and on product coverage that could prevent 

the program from responding to market changes and meeting consumer needs. 

• We support the original agreed language on warranty from HR 1682, but not the change, 

which weakens consumer protection. 

• We support authorizing funds for the program to help ensure adequate resources. 

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEk), a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) 

organization. acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, 

investments, and behaviors. 

Contact information: Lowell Ungar, Senior Policy Advisor, ACEEE (lungar@aceee.org) 

(phone 202-507-4000); Pasha Majdi. Federal Policy Manager, ACEEE (pmajdi@aceee.org) 

(phone 202-507-4037); 529 14th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20045. 
143 


28284.093

s ire C) 

formerly The Laclede Group 

November 7"', 2017 

The Honorable Greg Walden and Fred Upton 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Spire Inc. 

700 Market Street 

St. Louis, MO 63101 

Subject: Comment for Hearing on Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, 

Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act. 

Introduction 

Spire Inc. ("Spire") is a holding company with 3,300 employees providing natural gas to 1.7 million 

customers across Missouri, Alabama and Mississippi. Spire has previously submitted comments to this 

Committee for the following hearings 

June I O"', 2016: "Home Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards Under the Department of 

Energy- Stakeholder Perspectives." 

September 14'\ 2017: "Powering America: Defining Reliability in a Transforming Electricity 

Industry." 

Comments 

Spire's comments herein only address ENERGY STAR. Spire agrees that ENERGY STAR could be 

moved out of EPA. However, Spire is very concerned that moving ENERGY STAR to DOE's Office of 

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) may work against the best interests of American energy 

consumers and President Trump's An America First Energy Plan. 1 A more appropriate home for 

ENERGY STAR would be in a less biased and more objective agency. EERE, through its self-stated 

"global clean energy" mission' is prejudiced against the direct use of natural gas. This prejudice against 

traditional natural gas-fueled appliances would likely be extended to ENERGY STAR ifEERE was given 

control of it. A more consumer oriented agency, such as Federal Trade Commission (FTC), would be a 

better choice. However, before ENERGY STAR is transferred anywhere, its impediments described 

herein should be assessed and corrected. 

EERE has further demonstrated its bias towards electricity, via "renewable" (wind and solar) energy, 

through its report titled "Accounting Conventions for Non-Combustible Renewable Energy Use."3• This 

report, published in October of last year is intended for use across EERE programs and was developed 

1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy 

2 https://energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy 

3 https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/downloads/accounting-methodology-source-energy-non-combustiblerenewable-electricity 

SpireEnergy.com 
144 


28284.094

outside of normal administrative procedures. This report bypassed public notification and comment 

processes; especially when considering ramifications have a potential economic impact of over $100 

million. Consequently, these proceedings should have been treated as a "major rule" and subject to the 

due process that all "major rules" require. 

The core of the issue is summarized by the following conflicting positions: 

Renewable position: 

a. The engineering conversion factor from I kWh to Btu is 3,412 Btu per kWh (assuming I 00% 

conversion efficiency) 

b. Fossil-fueled electrical power generation is about 34% efficient; for a "heat rate" of roughly 

10,000 Btu per kWh. (3,412/34%). 

c. Those supporting EERE's new "accounting convention" argue that not enough credit is given 

for the increased role of"zero emissions" renewable energy entering the grid and that the 

number should be lower than 3,412 Btu per kWh. Per the report, NRDC, NRECA, EEI and 

APPA believe that renewable should be considered as 0 BTU perkWh. 

Non-renewable position: 

a. "Zero emissions" renewable electricity generation requires backup and "spinning reserves" 

which is (generally) not renewable. 

b. The grid average heat rate is steadily improving and that trend is likely to continue; if coal 

plant closures continue and natural gas combined-cycle turbines take up the demand. 

However, the role of renewables in that improvement is (and should be) debatable and 

requires independent research; which means not by one of DOE's National Labs. 

c. When all electrons are color coded and passed through an electron filter that only allows the 

"green" ones to get through, then and only then should there be a departure from sourcebased grid average "heat rates." 

For further infom1ation see: 

Federal Energy Efficiency Mandates: DOE's End Run vs. the Public Interest: Part!'& Part II. 5 

The upshot of the EERE report is that they adopted the positions of the renewable/electric energy 

advocates by settling on metrics that ostensibly accounts for "captured energy." The premise is "that 

(captured energy] would decrease current estimates of source energy saved by 7. 7% and would 

continue to decrease as RE [renewable energy] penetration increases in the foture ." The concept 

further establishes that energy efficiency metrics for electricity would decrease in predetermined 

values extending to at least 2040 based upon an assumption of rapidly increasing RE market share. 

Whether the House Energy & Commerce Committee moves ENERGY STAR out of EPA, Spire urges the 

energy efficiency metric be standardized to that of"full fuel-cycle" energy. This metric is well-defined by 

the ENERGY STAR for Commercial Buildings Program 6and Portfolio Manager' tool. 

The diametrically opposing energy efficiency me tries of "site" versus "source" has been debated 

continuously ever since the 1975 passage ofEPCA. A site-based energy efficiency won that struggle and 

4 https:/lwww.masterresource.org/conservationism/eere-end-run-i/ 

5 https://www.masterresource.org/department-of-energymoniz/eere-end-run-ii/ 

• https:/lwww.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfoliomanager/understand-metrics/difference 

7 https:/lwww.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager 

SpireEnergy.com 
145 


28284.095

remains in EPCA to this day. What this metric provides is a "head start" for electricity by limiting the 

scope to on-site (metered) energy in which electric resistance is considered 100% efficient (i.e., 3,412 

Btu/kWh). For example, many energy efficiency programs call for reducing metered energy consumption 

by some percentage goal based on Btu per square foot. Such is the case for Section 433 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of20078 titled "Federal building energy efficiency performance 

standards." Within such programs, replacing gas hot water heaters with electric resistance can provide a 

30% improvement of site-based energy efficiency. Conversely, on a source basis, switching from electric 

resistance to natural gas water heaters can result in nearly a 50% reduction in energy consumption. 

This debate was eventually addressed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) per Section 1802 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation required the DOE to commission NAS to study whether 

site-based or source-based energy measurements are more appropriate. On May 27, 2009, the NAS 

published its study titled Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards. 9 The NAS recommended that DOE's 

measurement of energy use should be based on full-fuel cycles, which takes into account the amount of 

energy losses from the fuel's initial extraction, all the way through to the final point of use. By accounting 

for the full fuel-cycle, consumers are provided with more complete information on energy use and 

environmental impacts. 

On July 22,2009, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Board of 

Directors adopted a resolution in support of the NAS recommendations. 10 'Full-fuel-cycle' represents 

source energy (as currently defined in the ENERGY STAR for Commercial Buildings technical 

materials) plus losses during energy extraction. While energy extraction losses are less significant than 

losses attributable to power plant fuel-to-electricity conversion losses as well as downstream energy 

transportation & distribution losses, extraction losses are still significant and need to be accounted for. 

Thus, continued and broadened use of source energy as defined by ENERGY STAR for Commercial 

Buildings (which is essentially equivalent to full fuel-cycle efficiency) would represent a significant 

improvement in Federal government energy policy and public understanding of overall efficiency than 

continued use of site energy (which is tantamount to professing beliefs that energy is somehow created 

inside of utility meters). 

In the August 18'", 2011 Federal Register (Volume 76lssue 160), the DOE announced a "Statement of 

Policy" (SOP) for implementing the NAS's full fuel-cycle conclusions. 11 In this SOP, the DOE stated it 

"intends to modifY the methods it uses to estimate the likely impacts of energy conservation standards and 

will work to expand the energy use and emissions information made available to consumers." DOE 

further discussed how it intends use full-fuel-cycle energy and emissions impacts to refine its existing 

source energy-calculated impacts within its present framework of minimum efficiency standards for 

appliances. 

8 https:/lwww.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf 

9 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record id=12670&page=l 10 http:/lwww.naruc.org/Resolutions/Resolution%20on%20NRC%20Energy%20Efficiency%20Standards.pdf 11 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-18/pdf/2011-21078.pdf 

SpireEnergy.com 
146 


28284.096

DOE should not be allowed to renege on its previous commitments to use full-fuel-cycle mctrics in 

order to advance back-door policies to implement "deep decarbonization" objectives of the "Paris 

Accords" (a.k.a., COP-21). 

Any action taken by Congress to update and reform ENERGY STAR should make clear that full fuelcycle energy is the best metric to use. If renewable forms of electric generation do eventually come 

dominate, their impact will be objectively reflected in declining grid-averaged heat rates. 

2. Insure that previously identified problems within ENERGY STAR have been corrected 

Whether ENERGY STAR is moved out of EPA, to DOE or elsewhere, certain reforms should be 

prioritized in early rulemaking, to ensure the public's concerns and technical issues are resolved in public 

forums and under APA procedures. Numerous reports and articles have been published by various entities 

regarding ENERGY STAR performance issues. These problems should be independently investigated to 

determine the extent that they are still problems. The following is a synopsis for your reference: 

a. Get Ready For Stricter Energy Star Enforcement" 

A key response to deficiencies in ENERGY STAR performance verification was requirements for 

third party testing. A companion recommendation for legislative reform might be adoption of 

requirements of third party analysis of energy savings and competitive impacts. 

b. Covert Testing Shows the Energy Star Program Certification Process Is Vulnerable to Fraud and 

Abusell 

The above GAO report raises the issue of potential violations of the federal "False Statements 

Act" (Title 18, USC Section 1 001 ), which may raise an issue of needed reform to avoid false 

claims associated with inaccurate energy cost savings, missing installation costs additions, and 

even incomplete energy savings estimates when associated only with site-based energy savings 

accounting. 

c. No star for Energy Starll 

Subtitled: "Appliance makers that place this Ia bel on their products have very little 

oversight" 

Essentially, the above is media coverage of the previously cited GAO investigation. 

d. Energy Star Climate Change Claims Misleading, Audit Finds" 

The above article raises issues of how ENERGY STAR accounts for greenhouse gas reductions 

and calls for consistency of calculation methods. This, plus the need for transparency and linking 

energy savings to greenhouse gases through source energy savings calculations, supports our 

proposal for a change in energy metrics to source energy. 

e. Report: Improvements Needed to Validate Reported ENERGY STAR Benefitsli 

The above report from EPA's Office of Inspector General (OlG) "found the ENERGY STAR 

12 https:/lwww.law360.com/articles/459869/get-ready-for-stricter-energy-star-enforcement 

"http://www.gao.gov/new.items/dl0470.pdf 

14 https:l/lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/21/no·star-energy-star/ 15http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/green/Energy Star Climate Change Claims Misleading Audit Finds.ht 

m!. 

16 https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general(reoort-imorovements-needed-validate-reported-energy-starbenefits 

SpireEnergy.com 
147 


28284.097

program's reported savings claims were inaccurate. 

f. ENERGY STAR Label Needs to Assure Superior Energy Conservation Perfonnancell 

Finally attached is the EPA's "Corrective Actions Plan" for ENERGY STAR in response to the 

just cited OIG report. 

Spire is concerned that the problems identified in the above references may still linger. For example, 

EPA's response in February 2011 to the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for EPA's 

"Corrective Action Plan" was to address two recommendations: 

"Recommendation 1: Develop a strategic vision and program design that assures that the 

ENERGY STAR label represents superior energy conservation performance." 

"Recommendation 2: Develop a set of goals and valid and reliable measures that can accurately 

inform shareholders and the public benefits of the program." 

In neither case, did EPA provide adequate replies to these recommendations, instead focusing on 

EPA/DOE continuing coordination of ongoing program efforts, status of those efforts, and by other non 

sequitur statements. These recommendations should be revisited if a comprehensive reform of the 

ENERGY STAR progran1 is to be implemented. Spire's recommendations under "Process and procedural 

improvements," shown below, represents a tlrst attempt of the gas utility industry to address the OIG 

recommendations in a more direct manner. Spire hopes that these recommendations can initiate further 

discussions to support legislative and program reforms. 

Accordingly, Spire suggests that legislative efforts focused on ENERGY STAR and/or DOE 

"restructuring" should independentlv address the extent that these issues have or have not been effectively 

corrected; noting the EERE and DOE labs should not be considered as independent. 

3. Process and Procedural improvements to ENERGY STAR 

Many of the shortcomings of the ENERGY STAR program are the result of process and procedural 

deficiencies of the program as (mis)implemented by DOE and/or EPA. These issues have been raised by 

various stakeholders over the years in public comments on ENERGY STAR proposed criteria. Some of 

these deficiencies may be addressed by logical and straight-forward modifications to current activities as 

suggested below: 

a. ENERGY STAR can be improved by providing to the public quarterly reporting of product 

sales and market share penetration by product and end use fuel type. To date, ENERGY 

STAR has not been sufficiently documented in detailed data on appliances, equipment, and 

buildings holding the ENERGY STAR mark. From an energy supplier perspective, lack of 

data on product end use fuel type represents a critical shortcoming in \mderstanding the 

impacts of ENERGY STAR. For example, a prior year FOIA request for ENERGY STAR 

Homes market penetration by fuel type showed that the program did not maintain details 

sufficient to provide this information. This situation can be easily remedied by 

17 ENERGY STAR Label Needs to Assure Superior Energy Conservation Pertormance 

SpireEnergy.com 
148 


28284.098

implementation of more detailed reporting requirements for ENERGY STAR-certified 

manufacturers and builders and compilation of quarterly reports. 

b. The value to consumers of the ENERGY STAR label can be further enhanced by providing 

estimates of product costs, as delivered for retail sale, and energy cost savings over baseline 

model or building costs. For products, Federal minimum efficiency or other baseline 

performance, such as FTC label ranges of operating cost performance, can be quoted to 

illustrate to consumers the potential savings that might accrue from purchase of ENERGY 

STAR appliances, equipment, and homes. For building energy efficiency and cost, rated 

performance compared to baseline model energy code performance can be used for operating 

cost. However, missing from FTC labels and other sources of consumer cost performance are 

estimates of installed product costs. These costs are needed by consumers to evaluate the 

value proposition of ENERGY STAR rated products relative to other products providing the 

same utility (when compared to operation cost savings) and pricing of ENERGY STAR 

products. 

c. In following with the recommendations above, consumers should have product cost 

information (i.e., beyond pricing} to make purchase decisions on ENERGY STAR rated 

products. Operating cost savings and product costs can be delivered through data linked to 

UPC barcode or QR matrix bar code, alleviating the need to develop complex documentation 

or physical labels. Of course, developing these estimates imposes additional burdens upon the 

ENERGY STAR program to conduct additional cost analysis to generate this consumer 

information. However, it is incumbent upon ENERGY STAR, as a program intended to serve 

the interests of consumers, to disseminate reliable cost information. In the case of products 

covered by Federal minimum efficiency standards, delivered product cost information is 

regularly calculated during rulemaking on revisions of minimum efficiency standards. 

d. To help ensure a level playing field for ENERGY STAR products, clear quantitative criteria 

for energy and market performance should be codified. Among the criteria requiring firmer 

definition include: 

i. A threshold energy performance improvement over baseline models (calculated on a 

source energy basis), 

ii. An energy performance improvement threshold over products using comparisons 

across competing end use fuels. 

iii. A threshold range (maximum and minimum) for current market penetration, a 

product availability test (and avoidance of ENERGY STAR labels for unavailable 

products or R&D concepts). 

e. To maintain transparency in implementing consistent energy and cost performance criteria for 

ENERGY STAR products and homes, DOE and EPA should implement public workshops 

and a rule making solely addressing proposed criteria covering these products and buildings. 

Consistency of criteria will provide consumers with greater confidence in the ENERGY 

STAR label. To date, the experience with the use and public review of ENERGY STAR 

criteria across products has demonstrated an ad hoc and inconsistent approach to setting or 

SpireEnergy.com 
149 


28284.099

revising criteria. The approach ENERGY STAR uses is invariably influenced by objectives 

other than consistency or saving energy and potentially. These distortions include the 

unwritten objective of maximizing the market penetration of the ENERGY STAR label. 

These distortions can be substantially reduced by promulgating consistent energy and cost 

performance criteria. 

f. In the setting of ENERGY STAR criteria, analysis of installation costs and the need to 

minimize ancillary installation cost should be performed. Additionally, and where criteria 

might incentivize a switch in end use fuel in providing the same consumer utility, a test of 

energy supplier neutrality of the criteria ought to be performed. Specific mechanisms for 

evaluating installation cost "adders" and energy supply neutrality tests should be developed 

through formal rulemaking involving workshops prior to proposal of formal procedures. 

Consumers need protection from the setting of ENERGY STAR criteria that might penalize 

the use of end use fuels already employed in installed products and when consumers are 

incentivized to install ENERGY STAR products providing the same consumer utility. 

Penalties of this type may arise from installation costs beyond the product costs themselves 

and include costs such as electrical system modifications, combustion appliance venting 

system changes, and other installation costs. 

To put it forthrightly, the economic value proposition from ENERGY STAR rated products depends upon 

the objectives of a given stakeholder. There is employment value to bureaucrats who manage ENERGY 

STAR. There is marketing value to manufacturers of ENERGY STAR rated products, who can charge a 

premium for such products. And there is promotional value for "energy efficiency" advocates. But what's 

in it for consumers is debatable. In many cases, cost premiums charged for ENERGY STAR rated 

products results in unattractive consume paybacks. This is problem is even more evident if "consum~ 

marginal energy rates" 18 are employed correctly. Again, an independent evaluation of these issues would 

he appropriate to insure the best interests of consumers are served under the ENERGY STAR brand. 

This concludes Spires comments for today's hearing. In case there are any questions regarding these 

comments, please direct such inquiries to me. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Krebs (Mark.Krebs@spireenergy.com) 

Energy Policy & Standards Specialist 

Copy: Rep, William Long, Ben Lieberman, Peter Spencer, 

18 https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/fS/marg eprice 0799.pdf 

SpireEnergy.com 
150 


28284.100

Stephen Cowell, President, E4TheFuture 

and 

Keith Aldridge, President & CEO, Home Performance Coalition 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy 

Comments on the Energy Star Reform Act of2017 Discussion Draft 

November 6, 2017 

In light of current interest to reform the Energy Star program, we respectfully urge you to 

consider the following comments, which we have made on 3 of the 5 main proposals 

encompassed in the recently circulated discussion draft. 

On a broader level, we ask that you recognize how successful Energy Star has been in 

empowering consumers to make educated decisions and save money. It has also been vital for 

states and utility programs as they work to meet energy waste reduction goals and deliver better 

services. The success of this voluntary program bas been its flexibility, which bas allowed it to 

respond to technological innovation and develop strong partnerships with the private sector. As 

such, we strongly discourage detailed legislative prescriptions. 

Our comments on the specific legislative proposals included in the discussion draft are as 

follows: 

1. We oppose shifting the lead for the program to DOE. 

Moving programs between agencies is complicated and involved. As such, any proposed shift 

should be accompanied by strong justification. At present, we do not believe such justification 

exists, as it is our understanding that a large majority of Energy Star partners are satisfied with 

EPA's administration of the program, and the program has achieved great success under EPA's 

roof. While we have heard that a very small segment of Energy Star partners would prefer the 

program to be run through DOE (to assist with speedier certification for their products), we do 

not believe that warrants moving the whole program. 

Furthermore, we are very concerned that shifting Energy Star from EPA to DOE will not be 

accompanied by adequate funding and staff. Given current proposed budget cuts to EPA and 

DOE, we believe moving the program could essentially kill the program if the legislation does 

not authorize appropriations of at least $75 million per year for Energy Star. Staff expertise is 

also a concern, as EPA staff have developed and demonstrated invaluable marketing expertise 

vital to the success of the program. This level of expertise in Energy Star program activities does 

not currently exist at DOE, and we anticipate major disruptions to the program during any 

transition. 

Page 1 
151 


28284.101

2. We oppose applying the Administrative Procedure Act to actions taken under Energy 

Star. 

The Energy Star certification has always been, and continues to be, entirely voluntary. As such, 

it is inappropriate to apply the APA, as the APA is meant for standards. It is important to 

recognize that standards represent the minimum, while Energy Star represents a stretch goalsomething to strive for. The Energy Star label should not be given out like a participation trophy; 

it should be awarded only to those products that really reduce energy use, save consumers 

money, and embody the highest level of technological innovation. 

Aside from the inherent difference in the voluntary Energy Star label and minimum product 

standards, applying the APA would fundamentally hinder the program's ability to remain 

flexible in the face of market changes and technological innovation. Requiring formal 

rulemaking procedures under the AP A would be overly burdensome, increase costs, and 

significantly slow the program's revision and update process, which is currently nimble and has 

been increasingly successful at responding to market/technological changes as well as 

manufacturer and other stakeholder input. 

Again, a vital part of Energy Star's success has been its ability to keep up with the rapid changes 

and innovation across market sectors. That ability would be significantly reduced- if not all 

together eliminated- if the APA was applied to the program, and would severely harm the 

integrity of the Energy Star brand. 

3. We oppose requiring that Energy Star specifications be set for all sizes and capacities of 

products under the program. 

We believe this proposal is overly prescriptive for a voluntary program. Furthermore, placing 

this requirement on the program would impose additional costs, which we are not confident 

could be covered given the current political environment. This requirement could also result in 

the labeling of inefficient products due to the lack of appropriate testing procedures for larger 

products. 

E4TheFuture is non-profit 50lc3 organization which collaborates with industry stakeholders to 

provide expert policy solutions, education, and advocacy to advance residential clean energy 

and energy efficiency solutions on the federal, state and local level. 

The Home Performance Coalition (HPC) is a national non-profit 50lc3 organization that works 

with industry leaders in the home performance and weatherization industries to advance energyefficient, healthy and safe homes retrofit policies, programs and standards through research, 

education, training and outreach. 

Page 2 
152 


28284.102

Contact Information 

Kara Saul Rinaldi 

President and CEO, AnnDyl Policy Group 

On behalf ofHPC and E4TheFuture 

717 Kennebec Ave, Takoma Park MD 20912 

Phone: (202) 276.1773, Fax: (202) 747-7725 

kara@anndyl.com 

Page 3 
153 


28284.103

The Association of Electrical Equipment 

and Medical Imaging Manufacturers 

www.nema.org 

Comments of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

On the Discussion Draft Regarding "The Energy Star Reform Act of 2017" 

Before the Committee of Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

November 7, 2017 

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) represents nearly 350 manufacturers of electrical 

equipment and medical imaging technologies. Our combined industries account for more than 360,000 

American jobs and more than 7,000 facilities across the United States. Domestic production exceeds $106 billion 

per year and exports top $36 billion. 

NEMA appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on the discussion draft regarding the ENERGY STAR1 

program. NEMA Members have an extensive history with the ENERGY STAR program dating back to 1992 and 

with the operation of the program by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy 

(DOE). 

Our Members believe that the ENERGY STAR label has a beneficial effect in assisting consumers comparing 

various products and their respective energy efficiency and energy cost saving benefits, particularly at point-ofsale retail shopping situations. In this setting, the ENERGY STAR label can be a valuable tool for energy-conscious 

consumers to identify and select from a wide range of products, whose performance in backed not only by the 

respective manufacturers' representations, but also in part by the ENERGY STAR brand. 

NEMA Members have participated actively in the establishment and updating of various ENERGY STAR product 

specifications and guidance documents for this voluntary program. We look forward to working with the 

Committee and all stakeholders in improvements to the ENERGY STAR voluntary program as one tool to 

promote energy savings and energy efficiency. 

ENERGY STAR Program Operations: 

Section 2 of the discussion draft proposes changes to the roles of EPA and DOE regarding the program. In 

Section 131 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress codified the ENERGY STAR program, and EPA and DOE 

entered into an updated memorandum on their respective program responsibilities in 2009. Our NEMA 

members' experience with the current ENERGY STAR program is collaborative and positive, and we support the 

current arrangement of responsibilities between the two agencies and do not support the proposed language. 

One of the main reasons the program has been generally successful for our industry segment is because EPA has 

solicited and been open to industry input in specification development resulting in inclusion of industry 

consensus test procedures, standards, and best practices. By adopting or referencing industry methods and 

1 ENERGY STAR is the registered mark of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900- Rosslyn, VA 22209 
154 


28284.104

standards, the resulting specification has support and buy-in from the impacted stakeholders and which aides in 

the adoption of the specification. 

Understanding that collaboration with the program varies product-to-product, NEMA offers language for the 

development of best practices in the attached document as a way to provide a more consistent approach to 

collaboration by the program office, manufacturers, and other stakeholders. This is important for not only 

industry, but for the credibility of the program and the ENERGY STAR brand. 

We believe that the use of "best practices" by the program office precludes any perceived need for the program 

to follow the strict notice-and-comment process of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA should be 

reserved for federal regulatory programs, instead of a voluntary program such as ENERGY STAR. Therefore, we 

recommend the Committee remove the APA language and instead give consideration to inserting the NEMA 

"best practices" language in its place. 

NEMA Members' experience with the ENERGY STAR program office has demonstrated flexibility regarding 

establishing the effective date for a new or significant revision to a product category specification or criteria. 

We believe that it is important for the program office to have such flexibility so that they can be responsive to 

stakeholder needs and market conditions, and therefore we do not agree with the draft bill text that would 

require at least 270 days for changes to come into effect. NEMA proposes new language in our support 

document that would amend the current text to keep the flexibility in the program. 

Reducing Costs: 

As NEMA has done so in the past, we support the "no-warranty" clause for the de listed products. Having this 

language helps reduce risks and costs to manufacturers. 

When it comes to third party certification proposal in the draft, we appreciate the effort to reduce costs for 

manufactures who have complied with the program requirements and are "in good standing" with the program. 

Third-party testing costs can be significant, and the provision could provide industry the opportunity to focus 

more resources on product development and promotion. Our reading of the text in the draft bill suggests that 

the provision would only apply this "special treatment" to a subset of the products in the ENERGY STAR 

program. We recommend that the draft language be removed and we look forward to working with the 

Committee and stakeholders to address this topic. 

Additional Issues to Consider: 

NEMA suggests that the Committee consider several additional areas for consideration in the draft bill. 

First, the ENERGY STAR program provides value to building and facility owners and managers with certification 

and benchmarking tools with which to measure and reduce their facility's energy and water consumption. Used 

in more than 40 percent of all commercial building space, ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager not only allows 

building operators to measure, track, and reduce energy and water use across an entire portfolio of buildings, it 

is also referenced in many state and local policies as an industry-approved approach to benchmarking building 

performance. NEMA would like to work with the Committee to better understand how the bill would affect the 

ENERGY STAR Building program. 

The second area of the program that is not mentioned in the current draft concerns the scope of products 

addressed by the program. Over the past several years EPA program office has proposed developing ENERGY 

STAR product specifications for non-consumer products, such as medical imaging (like MRI machines) and 

utility-grade distribution transformers. These are highly engineered products built in many cases to specific 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900- Rosslyn, VA 22209 
155 


28284.105

customer requirements. The "customers" of these products are sophisticated purchasers. An ENERGY STAR label 

on such products provides questionable value and NEMA posits is a waste of both government and private 

sector resources. In the attached document, NEMA has proposed language that would ensure the focus of the 

program remains focused on consumers who benefit the most from an ENERGY STAR label at the point of sale. 

Finally, NEMA believes the program could do a better job of defining success and what it means to "transform" 

the market. In our supporting document, NEMA offers new language that would require the program 

administrator to define success and what the program should do when a metric of success is reached. 

On behalf of NEMA Members who are involved in the ENERGY STAR product and building programs, we 

appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and we look forward to working with the Committee as it 

considers legislation regarding the ENERGY STAR program. 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Joseph Eaves at joseph.eaves@nema or 703-841-3221. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900- Rosslyn, VA 22209 
156 


28284.106

The Association of Electrical Equipment 

and ~ledical Imaging Manufacturers 

\VWw.nema.org 

NEMA Proposed Language Changes to the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 

Amendments to statute under Subsection C Duties: 

"(X) to ensure proper management and administration of the ENERGY STAR program and its product 

programs, the Administrator or Secretary shall establish a uniform set of "managerial best practices" for 

its managers at every level, to be developed with public input in an open and transparent process." 

"(X) when possible the program should use industry consensus test procedures, standards, and "best 

practices," 

"(X) product specifications shall focus on energy-efficiency attributes, and shall not include non-energy 

attributes which otherwise do not impact energy-efficiency, unless the inclusion of specific non-energy 

attributes are broadly supported by industry to promote improved market adoption." 

Amendment to Page 3, Line 3-7 of Draft Bill: 

(D) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by striking "(which shall be 270 days, unless the Agency or 

Department specifies otherwise)" and inserting "(which shall not be less than 270 days in the case of 

specifications or other requirements, unless the Agency or Department specifies otherwise following 

consultation with impacted manufacturers)"; and" 

Amendment to current statue: 

'SEC.324A. (a) IN GENERAL-There is established within the Department of Energy and the 

Environmental Protection Agency a voluntary program to identify and promote 

(1) energy-efficient products that are predominantly designed and sold at retail for the 

household consumer market; and, 

(2) energy efficient buildings 

in order to reduce energy consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution through 

voluntary labeling of, or other forms of communication about, products and buildings that meet the 

highest energy conservation standards. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900- Rosslyn, VA 22209 
157 


28284.107

Amendment to the current statue: 

New Subsection "(E) Success Metrics"- For each product category the Administrator shall develop and 

establish in consultation with industry partners market penetration targets in terms of the share of 

ENERGY STAR labeled products within an overall product category for the purpose of defining a 

successful program outcome. 

(a) The Administrator shall review annually and report on progress made in achieving market 

penetration targets for each product category. The Administrator may consider in consultation with 

industry partners adjusting the market penetration target or sunsetting the program for the product 

category after achieving a successful program outcome. 

(b) An ENERGY STAR program shall not be sunset without the consent of the majority of its industry 

partners. Until such time, the Administrator should include partners' inputs on methods to continue 

the program without undue burden." 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900 ·Rosslyn, VA 22209 
158 


28284.108

~ 

Ill ~ High 

~ Performance 

~Building ~Cool~., Support the ENERGY STAR Program 

November 7. 20 17 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chainnan 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Fred Upton, Chairman 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chaitmen Walden and Upton, and Ranking Members Pallone and Rush: 

As your committee considers legislation at today' s hearing to amend the popular Energy Star 

program, we ask for your attention to our urgent concerns. 

As organizations involved in a wide array of activities across the building industry, including 

manufacturing, design, technology and standards development, we write to express our strong 

support for the Energy Star program and its current management. The partnership between the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has 

enabled each organization to bring its strengths to successful administration of the program. 

Further, with EPA as lead agency, the Energy Star program has achieved a number of winning 

outcomes: 

• Over 30,000 commercial buildings are Energy Star certified, using 35 percent less energy 

than standard commercial buildings and commanding higher prices and rental rates, 

reflecting the lower operating costs of these buildings. 

• Since 2016, 1.7 million homes carry the Energy Star label, meaning they are 15% to 30% 

more efficient than typical new homes, saving costs for homeowners year after year. 

• For existing homes, 79,000 homeowners invested in technologies and materials to 

improve energy performance. 

• For commercial and residential buildings combined, the Energy Star program has helped 

businesses and homeowners save over $146 billion in energy costs. 
159 


28284.109

Clearly, this voluntary program is a success. The Energy Star label has become the symbol for 

energy efficient products and buildings across the United States. The government-backed 

Energy Star program, now in its 25'h year, has helped drive investments in high-performing 

building technologies and materials, which is the focus of our organizations. 

Many of the building industry organizations that have worked with Energy Star are concerned 

that the proposed changes could result in an unnecessary reorganization of the program that 

would disrupt its operation and stifle its positive impacts. Few if any programs, government or 

private sector, have been as successful as EPA Energy Star in educating consumers about the 

value of energy efficient buildings, and therefore we do not support the language as currently 

drafted. Given the program's track record of successful results and positive economic impacts, 

we would encourage that further study be undertaken, perhaps by the Government 

Accountability Office, on the potential advantages and disadvantages of relocating a program of 

this importance before such a decision is made. 

Further, we are concerned that applying a formal rulemaking process through the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), could hinder progress. Technologies are advancing rapidly and EPA 

needs to be nimble in requiring higher-performing standards for Energy Star products and 

buildings. We suggest that the committee remove the APA language and instead develop 

language that would encourage the program to adopt best practices that could solve many of the 

issues some industry partners have had with the program. 

Finally, we are concerned about the changes to third-party certification in the bill, even though 

they are currently aimed only at electronic products. The current ENERGY STAR third-party 

system of certification and market surveillance was adopted after a 20 I 0 Government 

Accountability Office investigation called into question the integrity of the program.1 That report 

concluded that the former system of manufacturer self-declaration of products opened the 

program up to fraud and abuse. Certification controls were deemed ineffective primarily because 

the program did not verify energy-savings data reported by manufacturers. 

Under the current rules, implemented after the 20 I 0 GAO investigation, ENERGY STAR 

products must be independently certified based on testing from recognized laboratories. 

Removing the requirement for third-party certification would re-expose the program to fraud and 

abuse at worst, and at best, would take a program function that the private sector is currently 

fulfilling and shift to EPA, at a time when the Agency is expected to narrow its scope. We want 

to ensure continued public confidence in the Energy Star program, and ask for removal of the 

third-party certification language from the bill. 

As your committee tackles a number of pressing issues for our nation, we ask that you support 

and strengthen the Energy Star program. We would be happy to work with you to advance 

changes that would improve the program, but unfortunately some of the current proposals under 

consideration would weaken the program instead. Please let us know how we can provide any 

assistance as you consider important energy legislation, in particular that which would impact the 

built environment of our nation. 

1 http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-470 

2 
160 


28284.110

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

The High Performance Building Coalition 

ACPA- College Student Educators International 

AGC Glass Company North America 

Alliance for Water Efficiency 

American Institute of Architects 

APPA: Leadership in Educational Facilities 

Armstrong Filtration 

ASHRAE 

Associated General Contractors of America 

Association of Energy Engineers 

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 

E4TheFuture 

Energy Management Association 

Environmental and Energy Study Institute 

Green Business Certification Inc. 

Home Performance Coalition 

Higher Education Associations Sustainability Consortium 

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials 

Illuminating Engineering Society 

Institute for Market Transformation 

International Code Council 

National Association of College and University Business Officers 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

National Insulation Association 

NIRSA 

NSF International 

Passive House Institute US 

Pilkington North America, Inc. 

Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors -National Association 

Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA) 

The Stella Group, Ltd. 

SUN DAY Campaign 

ULLLC 

U.S. Green Building Council 

US Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development 

3 
161 


28284.111

LDWE"S 1000 Lowe's Blvd, Mooresville, NC 28117 

November 6, 2017 

U.S House of Representatives 

Energy & Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen Walden and Upton and Ranking Members Pallone and Rush, 

I am writing on behalf of lowe's Companies in support of H.R. 3477, the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation 

Harmonization Act 

Lowe's is a Fortune 40 home improvement retailer with 290,000 employees in stores and facilities in 

every state, serving more than 17 million customers a week. 

This bipartisan bill would align the compliance dates for two efficiency regulations on the same 

product. Ceiling fans will be subject to two DOE efficiency requirements with compliance dates one year 

apart: ceiling fan light kits (bulbs) in January 2019, and ceiling fan motors in January 2020. 

These misaligned dates will create a series of duplicative burdens- such as doubling thousands of 

display changeouts, unproductive employee busywork, supply chain and inventory model changes, and 

compliance testing and labeling- that creates a burden for low income families who want a proven 

way to save money on their utility bills, while also lowering emissions of greenhouse gases and other 

pollutants. 

This legislation makes one simple change to upcoming regulations that will help save millions of 

American consumers from an unnecessary cost increase on a product they need and depend on. 

Because of the widespread demand for residential ceiling fans and the lead times required for the 

supply chain, this change needs to happen by the end of this year to prevent the cost increase to these 

households. 

Please support H.R. 3477, the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act. Thank you for your 

consideration of our views. 

With warm regards, 

Lou Hayden 

Director of Government Affairs 

Lowe's Companies, Inc. 
162 


28284.112

ACC~. Air Conditioning Contractors of America 

2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22206 • 703.575.4477 • 703.575.4449 (F) • www.acca.org 

November 5, 2017 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Fred Upton, Chairman 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking 

Member 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen Walden and Upton, and Ranking Members Pallone and Rush: 

Thank you for your leadership on energy efficiency programs. As your committee considers 

legislation to amend the ENERGY STAR program, we wanted to share with you our support for 

the current management of the program as well as our perspective on the program, as the 

national trade association representing more than 600,000 heating, ventilation, air conditioning, 

and refrigeration (HV ACR) professionals in every state. 

For more than fifty years the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) has played a 

leadership role in energy efficiency issues, and has worked side-by-side with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). We have developed numerous 

HV ACR industry standards recognized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) -

that are widely accepted industry practices. Many ACCA standards are included in national, 

state, and local building codes. 

ACCA strongly supports investing in energy efficiency. However, unlike other groups who 

champion energy efficiency by simply work to create a new standard or believing that 

exchanging older HV ACR systems for the newest ENERGY STAR efficient units, ACCA has 

long recognized that increased energy efficiency in HV AC equipment is not so simple. HV ACR 

systems are not "plug-and-play" appliances like a refrigerator, dishwasher or even a ceiling fan, 

and the singular focus on lab-tested efficiencies has gone on far too long for non-plug-in-play 

equipment like HV AC systems and must be addressed. 

For energy efficiency investments to work, the focus and mindset must change from the 

misguided lab-tested efficiency to realized, or installed efficiency ofHVACR equipment. These 

mechanical systems are very complex and require skilled technicians to properly size equipment, 

ensure the ducts are designed to deliver precise airflow, and to provide adequate refrigerant 

charges. If these basic elements are not followed, then indoor air quality is jeopardized, the 

The Essential Partner for Contractor Excellence. 
163 


28284.113

intended performance gains are not realized, and a significant amount of energy is wasted- even 

by highly efficient ENERGY STAR products. 

The EPA believes that half of U.S. homes suffer from HV AC systems not being installed to the 

equipment manufactures minimum installation requirements. This lack of consumer focus on 

HVAC installation has resulted in the average home and light commercial HVAC system being 

2x the size it needs, and ducts Y2 the required size, which has resulted in the average 14 SEER 

system operating at just 8-10 SEER. 

Despite our best efforts DOE continues to not recognize this problem, and help consumers 

understand the importance of proper installation when it comes to equipment which is the largest 

consumer of energy in our country. HV AC manufacturers are producing highly efficient 

products, meeting and exceeding DOE's regulatory demands. However, DOE does not require 

minimum installation and design standards that manufacturers recommend. Despite DOE 

knowing that not properly installing, a new air conditioning unit or heat pump, it will consume 

30 percent more energy than it should, and its lifespan will decrease significantly, they have 

done nothing to address the problem tbr consumers. 

The problem of poor HVAC installations is rampant in part due to many public officials at DOE 

believing that industry-recommended installation standards and training programs are 

aspirational and do not require trained technicians. If DOE would educate and incentivize 

homeowners to demand that HVAC systems are installed according to the industry's 

recommended minimum standards, including proper equipment sizing, ducts re-design and 

sealing, and appropriate refrigerant charges then our industry would immediately be able provide 

a 30 percent improvement in efficiency for the equipment that is the largest consumer of energy 

in our country. 

Thankfully EPA, has taken a proactive approach to addressing the installation issue. EPA 

established the ENERGY STAR Verified Installation (ESVI) Program highlighting the 

importance of quality HVAC installation practices. This understanding that EPA has that even 

cutting-edge ENERGY STAR heating, ventilation, and air conditioning technologies, if 

improperly installed, may fail to realize important benefits for homeowners has been critical. 

EPA's program follows the ANSI I ACCA 5 QI Standard (HVAC Quality Installation 

Specification) - the minimum design and installation requirements for residential and 

commercial HV AC applications- to address the efficiency problems caused by improper 

installations ofHVAC systems. 

Perhaps efforts to move the ENERGY STAR program might be better served helping ensure 

EPA has the resources to better promote quality installation practices, and getting to the bottom 

of why DOE has not been working to address this. These quality installation practices are 

supported by the 11-member HV ACR Industry Alliance, made up of engineers, manufacturers, 

contractors, and distributors, all who support properly installing HV ACR equipment- which will 

provide lasting benefits to consumers and tax payers. 

ACCA's members are serious about promoting energy efficiency and helping consumers realize 

the benefits of their investments in highly efficient ENERGY STAR HV ACR products. In fact, 

21Page 
164 


28284.114

this has become the top priority for our members, and our association. Just last month, we held a 

HVAC 101 For Congress breakfast briefing here in this very Committee, in an attempt to shine a 

spotlight on the need to focus on realized efficiency, and installation when it comes to HVAC 

equipment. 

As your committee tackles a number of pressing issues for our nation, we ask that you and all the 

members of this committee become advocates for quality installation practices ofHVACR 

systems, and help ensure consumers get what they are paying for when investing in ENERGY 

STAR HV AC equipment. Despite all the work that needs to be done to address the installation 

issue, we are confident any change to DOE for management of the ENERGY STAR program 

would further weaken or completely dismantle the progress EPA has made to help consumers 

address HV AC installation. 

Please let us know how we can provide any assistance as you consider important energy 

legislation, in particular that which would impact the indoor energy efficiency environment, and 

the HV AC industry. It would be an honor to work with you to advance changes that would 

improve and expand EPA's ESVI Program. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Barton C. James 

Senior Vice President of Government Relations 

Air Conditioning Contractors of America 

3IPage 
165 


28284.115

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Ms. Kateri Callahan 

President 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

€ongrt~~ of tbt ltnittb ~tate~ 

~oujje of l\tprtjjtntatibtjj 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority {202)225-21l27 

M!norttv \202)22&-3641 

December 20, 2017 

Alliance to Save Energy 

1850 M Street, N.W.; Suite610 

Washington DC, 20036 

Dear Ms. Callahan: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on November 7, 2017, to testify at 

the hearing entitled "Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, Ceiling Fan 

Energy Conservation Harmonization Act." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (l) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, January 10, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Allie.Bury@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

j?.e£ eJ?L_ 

Pete Olson 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
166 


28284.116

Questions for the Record- November 7, 2017, Hearing on ENERGY STAR 

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy 

Rep. Pallone: 

American consumers have come to value and trust the ENERGY STAR brand. Having EPA as 

one of the entities responsible for managing the program is valuable in ensuring the program has 

credibility for protecting the environment and the public's health. 

Question: Do you think shifting all of the programmatic responsibilities to DOE would 

undermine this credibility? 

Answer: EPA has successfully managed ENERGY STAR since its establishment in 

1992. My testimony recounted the significant benefits-including $430 billion in utility 

bill savings alone-realized by American consumers as a result of the work of EPA, 

DOE, and the network of ENERGY STAR partners. As I discussed in my written 

statement and testimony, a shift of programmatic responsibilities from EPA and DOE 

would be tremendously disruptive to the program, and could undermine its credibility and 

reputation in the eyes of consumers. 

Industry partners have voluntarily complied with the requirements for the ENERGY STAR 

program, and provided EPA with product information, because they acknowledge the benefits of 

participating. 

Question: Is there a concern regarding the unwillingness of industry partners to share product 

information with DOE, who is also tasked with setting efficiency standards? 

Answer: No, none that I can cite specifically. The Alliance is committed to working 

with our industry partners to ensure a close working relationship between EPA and DOE 

so as not to overburden manufacturers with duplicative or competing paperwork, 

information requests, or other requirements. 

Question: Are industry partners more willing to share ENERGY STAR -related product 

information with EPA because of the current division of responsibility between DOE and EPA? 

Answer: For many manufacturers and trade associations, the current division of 

responsibility for ENERGY STAR between DOE and EPA is optimal in part because it is 

familiar and comfortable. EPA manages ENERGY STAR, the voluntary program. And 

DOE sets mandatory minimum efficiency standards for residential and commercial 

appliances and equipment and lighting products. That split seems reasonable, and it 

tracks with two approaches--one voluntary, another mandatory-to advance efficiency. 

There could, however, be areas of improvement in how the two agencies share 

information for products covered or regulated by the two programs to reduce reporting 

burdens on manufacturers. The issue of information sharing could be addressed by an 

update of the memorandum of understanding between EPA and DOE. 

Question: Do you believe the program will continue to thrive if the entity responsible for 

regulating industry partners, DOE, has full control of the program? 

Page 1 of4 
167 


28284.117

Questions for the Record- November 7, 2017, Hearing on ENERGY STAR 

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy 

Answer: No, not in the current political environment when the program is targeted by the 

administration for elimination and by Congress for severe funding cuts. The potential for 

disruption is simply too great to justify a shift of program responsibilities from EPA to 

DOE. The administrative challenges-including reporting and data collection-would 

likely be too much for the program to overcome without adequate resources, which are 

scarce. As I testified, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies in the case of ENERGY 

STAR. 

Rep. Welch: 

During the hearing, there was a debate as to whether it would be beneficial to have the 

Department of Energy, rather than EPA, run ENERGY STAR. Some members also suggested 

that it might make sense to privatize ENERGY STAR. 

Question: Do you believe EPA is the right "home"for ENERGY STAR? Why is running this 

program an appropriate role for the federal government? 

Answer: The long list of achievements realized by ENERGY STAR over the past 25 

years should be proof enough that EPA, in its current arrangement with DOE, and with 

the support of its 16,000 partners, is a good "home" for the program. Consumers have 

come to expect a lot from ENERGY STAR, and according to recent surveys 90% of 

consumers recognize the brand and most consider it when making purchases. This 

suggests a high level of confidence in the program. It is appropriate for an agency to 

manage ENERGY STAR, and for a relatively small outlay of public funds most 

consumers and businesses realize direct and indirect benefits. EPA takes its 

responsibilities to ensure the integrity of ENERGY STAR very seriously and I think 

consumers appreciate the independence and impartiality that governmental program 

management offers. 

When a consumer or business chooses to purchase an ENERGY STAR-certified product, there 

might be an upfront incremental cost. 

Question: In your opinion, what factors influence these purchase decisions? What role does the 

expectation of cost-effectiveness play? For different purchases, what does it mean for something 

to be cost-effective? 

Answer: As a consumer, I consider the cost of products I purchase along with many 

other factors, including energy efficiency and an expectation of lower utility hills. I also 

know that energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting provide other benefits, 

too, whether indirect such as greater overall reliability of the electric grid, or whether 

non-energy such as materials sourcing or recyclability. ENERGY STAR is a useful 

reference point for consumers and helps them differentiate top performers in energy 

efficiency from standard models. With respect to energy efficiency, when a product is 

considered "cost-effective" it can be expected to deliver savings over its useful life that 

are greater than an incremental upfront cost. 

Page2of4 
168 


28284.118

Questions for the Record -November 7, 2017, Hearing on ENERGY STAR 

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy 

During the hearing, many members and witnesses used the terms "codes", "standards", 

"specifications", and "certifications" many times, and often interchangeably. 

Question: What do these terms mean? When we talk about ENERGY STAR, which of these 

terms apply? What are the relationships between these terms? When taken together, do 

"codes", "standards", "specifications", and "certifications" generate a cumulative energy 

efficiency benefit to homeowners, consumers, and businesses? 

Answer: "Codes" is most often is shorthand for "building energy codes" and refers to the 

energy efficiency requirements for residential and commercial building construction and 

renovation that are adopted by states and local governments. "Standards" refers most 

frequently to the minimum energy efficiency requirements established by DOE, based on 

statutory authority provided by Congress, for a wide range of residential and commercial 

appliances, equipment, and lighting products. "Standards" may also refer to a series of 

commercial building sector performance criteria developed and published by ASHRAE, 

but this was probably not intended during the November 7 hearing. "Specifications" 

refers to the voluntary energy efficiency requirements for products to earn the ENERGY 

STAR label. "Certifications" refers to the demonstration of compliance with an 

ENERGY STAR specification or other program requirement (e.g., performance criteria 

for ENERGY STAR buildings and plants). Many times codes reference standards, and 

vice-versa, in order to achieve building-level or building systems efficiency. ENERGY 

STAR specifications for a given product are often set at a certain level above the 

minimum energy efficiency standard in effect at the time. These terms, and the 

underlying policies and programs, combine to form a more holistic approach to energy 

efficiency and deliver compounded savings that far exceed what can be achieved on an 

individual basis. 

Question: What is the extent of utility company and state and local government involvement in 

ENERGY STAR? How do utilities, states, and local governments leverage this program? If 

ENERGY STAR were eliminated, what would the likely effect be on utility companies, states, 

local governments, homeowners, consumers, and businesses? 

Answer: ENERGY STAR is widely referenced and leveraged by utility companies, 

states, and local governments. As a national program, ENERGY STAR specifications 

and requirements transcend state boundaries and provide a uniform, nation-wide 

approach to energy efficiency that is valued by consumers and businesses. This is 

particularly important to utility companies as they often have vast and diverse service 

territories within and among many different states. About 700 utility companiesserving about 85% of U.S. households-use ENERGY STAR to some degree to 

implement energy efficiency programs. For example, ENERGY STAR might be the 

basis for a rebate, incentive, or financing program aimed at encouraging investments in 

energy efficiency. Residential programs frequently leverage Home Performance with 

ENERGY STAR when carrying out whole-house retrofits and ENERGY STAR 

certifications for new construction. And two states and 23 local governments rely on 

Portfolio Management for commercial benchmarking programs that have become 

increasingly prevalent as information technology has advanced. In total, about 500,000 

Page 3 of4 
169 


28284.119

Questions for the Record- November 7, 2017, Hearing on ENERGY STAR 

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy 

properties-about half of U.S. commercial building floor space-have used Portfolio 

Manager to manage energy and water consumption and assess new opportunities for 

investments in even greater energy efficiency. IfENERGY STAR were eliminated, or 

severely disrupted, it would be a huge loss to utility companies, states, and local 

governments that would be forced to do without-to the detriment of their customers and 

constituents-Qr spend resources "reinventing the wheel" again and again. And 

homeowners, consumers, and businesses would lose an important source of trusted 

information when making purchases, considering retrofits and renovations, and buying 

homes and leasing office space. 

Page4of4 
170 


28284.120

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Greg Merritt 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR .. NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

~ongre~~ of tbt Wnittb ~tatt~ 

1!)ou~e of 1\epte~entatlbe~ 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 MaJority {2021 225-2927 

Mirmrity {202!225-3641 

December 20, 2017 

Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs 

Cree 

4600 Silicon Drive 

Durham, NC 27703 

Dear Mr. Merritt: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on November 7, 2017, to testify at 

the hearing entitled ''Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, Ceiling Fan 

Energy Conservation Harmonization Act." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, January I 0, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn Hol!se 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Allie.Burylalmail.lmuse.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

f?d'tfY_ 

Pete Olson 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
171 


28284.121

CREE 

Mr. Pete Olson 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6115 

Dear Mr. Olson, 

4600 Silicon Drive 

Durham, NC 27703 USA 

Main: (919) 407-5300 

January 8, 2018 

Thimk you for sending the additional questions for the record resulting from my November 7, 2017 testimony 

before the Committee at the hearing entitled "Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, 

Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act." Attached is my response. 

Regards, 

Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs 
172 


28284.122

Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Frank Pallone. Jr. 

1. Mr. Merritt, I have concerns about the warranty relief language included in the 

draft language of the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017. This provision exists 

because a number of customers purchased mislabeled Energy Star products that 

failed to provide the energy savings required. Manufacturers should be held 

accountable for their products, and this provision would limit consumers' ability 

for redress when products are improperly labeled. 

a. In your testimony, you mentioned that you also have concerns with the 

warranty provision. Could you please elaborate? 

1. Yes, and thank you for the opportunity to expound upon my prepared statement and 

testimony. As I stated, Cree does not have a firm or final position on the warranty 

provision on a stand-alone basis. We appreciate that there are valid arguments in 

support and in opposition to this provision. However, Cree strongly opposes a pairing of 

the warranty provision with an exemption from third-party certification. In the LED 

lighting Industry, third-party certification is critical to help prevent bad actors from 

abusing ENERGY STAR and selling deficient light bulbs, which hurts consumers and 

damages the overall reputation of the program. Removing liability for products that fail 

to live up to expectations along with an exemption from third-party certification goes too 

far and would make it harder for Cree to do business. 
173 


28284.123

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!Congtt!)!) of tbe Wntteb ~tate!) 

;!}omit of l\eprt~tntatibt~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 2051&-6115 

The Honorable Scott Pruitt 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Pruitt: 

Majortty !202!225-2927 

Minority !202) 225-3641 

December 20,2017 

Thank you for submitting testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy on November 7, 2017, for 

the hearing entitled "Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, Ceiling Fan 

Energy Conservation Harmonization Act." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text ofthe question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, January 10, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Allie.Bury@mail house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and·effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Pete Olson 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
174 


28284.124

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Pete Olson 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Vice Chairman Olson: 

January 16, 2018 

OFFICI! OF 

CONGReSSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAl 

RELATIONS 

Enclosed please find the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's responses to the 

Subcommittee's questions for the record following the November 7, 2017, hearing titled 

"Discussion Draft, ENERGY STAR Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, Ceiling Fan Energy 

Conservation Harmonization Act." 

I hope this information is helpful to you and the members of the Subcommittee. If you have 

further questions, please contact me or your staff may contact Patricia Haman in the EPA's 

Ofticc of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at haman.patricia@epa.gov or at (20i) 

564-2806. 

Deputy Associate Administrator 

Enclosure 

cc: The Honorable Bobby Rush 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

lr.terr.et Addrass (URL) • http ttwww epa gov 

Reeyeied/Recyelable • Prmteo Wlltl V€>ge~i1bfe 01! S-<>se-d ~~k~> on 100?:, Po:<>k:tm"'iumer, P1oce-ss Ghl(itrre- F1~~ Recyd.ed Paper 
175 


28284.125

Attachment-Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Pete Olson 

1. The 2011 GAO study led to the requirement of near-universal third party testing. Based 

on what we now know, is it possible that there may be circumstances where requiring 

third-party testing in all cases not optimal, such as testing of products that need to get to 

market quickly? 

A: To improve the oversight of ENERGY STAR certified products, homes, and 

commercial facilities, EPA has implemented independent certification requirements. 

In response to a finding by the U.S. Government Accountability Office that the 

program was vulnerable to fraud, EPA implemented third-party certification of 

ENERGY STAR products starting in 2011. Prior to 2011, ENERGY STAR products 

were self-certified by partners. Manufacturers continue to have the option to use 

their own labs for testing. We would be willing to consider alternative approaches 

that provide a comparable level of verification. 

2. The 2009 Memorandum of Understanding made EPA the lead agency for Energy Star. 

Were there any serious disruptions, in adopting this policy change? If not, do you think 

the policy could be adjusted again, either legislatively or through another Memorandum 

of Understanding, without serious difficulties? 

A: In September 2009, EPA and DOE signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) that redefined roles and responsibilities for EPA and DOE in response to 

industry concerns and to enhance and expand the various aspects of ENERGY 

STAR. The division of responsibilities established by the MOU resulted in 

significant improvements to the program including standardized program 

approaches and reduced duplication of effort. It also helped resolve market 

confusion. Under the MOU, EPA and DOE work together to implement the 

ENERGY STAR program. Further adjustments to achieve additional 

improvements might be possible. 

3. Under the Obarna administration, EPA made explicit its desire to reshape Energy Star 

into a global warming policy tool. For example, it began to take into account the carbon 

emissions attributed to the manufacture of products, even though this metric has no 

bearing on the core purpose of Energy Star which is to save consumers money on their 

energy bills. Do you agree that global warming considerations that have no direct benefit 

to consumers should not be a part of Energy Star? 
176 


28284.126

A. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program that helps businesses and individuals 

save money and protect our environment through superior energy efficiency. The 

program reduces energy use through voluntary action, thus helping to decrease 

emissions associated with energy production including greenhouse gases. But, we do 

not consider ENERGY STAR to be a "global warming policy tool." 

4. EPA has stated that it is creating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Energy Star. 

Why has the agency waited so long to do so? Would EPA be legally bound to adhere to 

the SOP, and if not wouldn't it make more sense to legislatively mandate the 

Administrative Procedure Act for at least some steps of Energy Star specification setting 

and enforcement? 

A. In response to recent stakeholder discussions and to address any potential 

confusion about the transparency and iuclnsiveness of EPA's processes, EPA 

created a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for setting ENERGY STAR 

product specifications. The new SOP includes specifics on minimum public 

comment periods, procedures for sharing proposals with stakeholders, and a 

detailed, step-by-step description of the entire process. EPA will continue to explore 

with stakeholders areas where EPA can improve transparency. 

5. As the law now stands, each administration can divide responsibilities under Energy Star 

between DOE and EPA. In 2009, the Obama administration chose to shift many 

responsibilities to EPA. The current or a future administration may choose to again 

restructure the program. Would it make sense to give Energy Star a permanent structure? 

A. EPA remains committed to improving the ENERGY STAR program in response 

to stakeholder feedback as well as improving coordination between the two agencies. 

EPA stands ready to work with Congress and our industry partners to ensure the 

ENERGY STAR program continues to work well for those partners and American 

consumers. 

6. EPA has stated that it will refrain from developing Energy Star Standards for larger 

versions of some products- in other words, creating arbitrary caps on energy use. Is it 

appropriate for the agency to influence consumer choice in this manner? 

A. The ENERGY STAR Program is generally inclusive of all product sizes and 

capacities unless constrained by practical considerations such as the lack of a 

relevant test procedure, insufficient available performance data, or associated 

performance trade-offs. 

7. In EPA's Statement for the Record, Administrator Pruitt characterized Energy Star as a 

voluntary program, but given the fact that there are federal purchase requirements for 

Energy Star products, that many rebate programs only apply to Energy Star products, and 

2 
177 


28284.127

that retailers have been pressured to only carry Energy Star, isn't it true that Energy Star 

is a de facto mandatory program in many instances and thus should be treated as one? 

A. ENERGY STAR has been a voluntary program since its inception. 

8. Is EPA working with DOE on a new Memorandum of Understanding to revise or replace 

the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding? 

A. No such work is underway. 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

1. I am aware that DOE and EPA have worked together in recent years to ensure parts of the 

Energy Star program are mirrored in both agencies to minimize programmatic and 

reporting duplication. However, I am worried that there will still be significant costs 

associated with shifting the program to DOE. 

a. Please provide an estimate of how much it will cost EPA to shut down the Energy 

Star program, and transfer the agency's current responsibilities to DOE. 

A: We do not have an estimate of the costs that might be associated with 

transferring the entire program to DOE. 

3 
178 


28284.128

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

~ongtess of tbe 'llntteb ~tates 

j!)ouge of l\epregentatibeg 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAvsuRN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Daniel R. Simmons 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Majority {202)225-2927 

Mlnorlty {202) 225-3641 

December 20, 2017 

Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

!000 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Acting Secretary Simmons: 

Thank you for submitting testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy on November 7, 2017, for 

the hearing entitled "Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 and H.R. 34 77, Ceiling Fan 

Energy Conservation Harmonization Act." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows:(!) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

hold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, January 10,2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Allie,Bllrv@mail.housc.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Pete Olson 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
179 


28284.129

The Honorable Pete Olson 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

March 1, 2018 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House ofRepresentatives 

Washington,DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Vice Chairman Olson: 

On November 7, 2017, Acting Secretary Daniel Simmons testified regarding a hearing 

entitled "Discussion Draft, Energy Star Reform Act of2017 and H.R. 3477, Ceiling Fan 

Energy Conservation Harmonization Act." 

Enclosed are answers to questions submitted by Ranking Member Pallone and you. 

If you need any additional information or further assistance, please contact me or Fah.iye 

Yusuf, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 586-5450. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, 

Marty Dannenfelser 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for House Affairs 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 
180 


28284.130

QUESTIONS FROM VICE CHAIRMAN OLSON 

Ql. The Department of Energy (DOE) sets the mandatory minimum standards for appliances, 

while Energy Star identifies those models that go above and beyond the minimums and save 

consumers additional money. Aren't there synergies between the two programs that make 

DOE a better fit than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be the lead agency for 

Energy Star for appliances? 

A I. There are synergies between the standard setting of the appliance and equipment standards 

program and setting levels for appliance models to earn the Energy Star designation. DOE 

and EPA have an interagency agreement- a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)-

assigning roles and responsibilities under the program. The current MOU went into effect on 

September 20,2009. DOE and EPA have the ability to revisit that agreement to determine if 

a different assignment of roles and responsibilities might be preferable. 

Q2. At our October 12, 2017 hearing with Secretary Perry, the Secretary stated repeatedly that it 

makes sense for Energy Star to be run by DOE. Is the agency taking any concrete steps to 

strengthen its role in Energy Star? 

A2. Within DOE we've had some discussions about Energy Star, but to date, DOE and EPA have 

not begun to revise or replace the existing MOU. 

Q3. As the law now stands, each administration can divide responsibilities under Energy Star 

between DOE and EPA. In 2009, the Obama administration chose to shift many 

responsibilities to EPA via a MOU. The current administration may choose to again 

restructure the program. Would it make sense to give Energy Star a permanent organizational 

structure? 

A3. The 2009 MOU realigned roles and responsibilities at EPA and DOE for the Energy Star 

program in a budget neutral manner, focusing DOE more on the underlying technical work 

and consolidating the consumer outreach, retail industry partnerships, utility partnerships, and 

related efforts at EPA. The Administration has not determined whether Congress should 

legislate a permanent organizational structure for Energy Star. 

Q4. In DOE's Statement for the Record, Acting Assistance [sic] Secretary Daniel Simmons 

referenced the voluntary nature of the Energy Star Program, but given the fact that there are 

federal purchase requirements for Energy Star products, that many rebate programs only 

apply to Energy Star products, and that retailers have been pressured to only carry Energy 
181 


28284.131

Star products, isn't it the case the Energy Star is a de facto mandatory program in many 

instances and thus should be treated as one? 

A4. There is currently no statutory or regulatory requirement for any party to participate in the 

Energy Star program. We believe that is appropriate. Participation in ENERGY STAR 

reflects a business decision based on anticipated return on investment in technology 

progression. Significant market demand continues to be fulfilled by products that do not earn 

the ENERGY STAR. 

Q5. Is DOE working with EPA on a new MOU to revise or replace the 2009 MOU? 

A5. DOE and EPA have not initiated any actions to revise or replace the 2009 MOU. 

2 
182 

Æ 


28284.132

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER PALLONE 

Q I. The Energy Star program has been a tremendous success since its inception in the 1990s, 

saving consumers money and reducing energy usage, which leads to less greenhouse gases 

being emitted into the air. Given the success of the program, I look with great skepticism at 

any plan to uproot how, and where, the program currently functions. 

Qla. Please provide an estimate of how much it would cost DOE to transfer, assume, and fully 

operate the Energy Star program responsibilities currently delegated to EPA. 

AI. DOE does not have an estimate of these costs. Over the past several years, the combined cost 

between DOE and EPA of the EnergyStar program was approximately $45 million annually. 

Q2. The Administration's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request moved to terminate the Energy Star 

program all together. I worry not only about the costs to make the shift from EPA to DOE, 

but also whether the program would get the yearly funding it needs to be successful at DOE. 

Q2a. What do you consider an appropriate funding level for the Energy Star program to be 

successful if all programmatic functions are shifted to DOE? 

A2. An estimate of required funding would need further study. 

3