Pfluger Calls Biden DOE Rules ‘Out-of-Touch,’ Warns of Impact on Bases, VA Hospitals

WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, participated in an Energy Subcommittee hearing to discuss bills that support consumer choice, reduce energy costs, and help strengthen the electrical grid.

During the hearing, Rep. Pfluger emphasized the need for flexible energy policies that allow the use of our most reliable resources to power federal buildings.

"This change is necessary because the Biden Administration's Department of Energy (DOE) imposed unrealistic and unfeasible requirements on federal buildings to switch to all-electric systems," information from Pfluger's office stated. "These out-of-touch requirements are especially concerning, as federal buildings like Veterans' Affairs (VA) hospitals and military installations are unable to meet these requirements while maintaining proper operating efficiency to care for individuals in need." 

Jeff Novak, Acting General Counsel and Principal Deputy General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Energy, testified before the committee.

Read highlights of the exchange below:

Rep. Pfluger: Almost 80 million Americans voted for a new energy policy because the last administration failed there. So, Mr. Novak, thank you for being here. You're doing a good job, and we appreciate the fact that you're trying to provide affordable, reliable energy to every American, in direct opposition to what we saw the previous four years. Natural gas plays a huge role in this equation, and not just in homes, but also in managing costs for businesses. So I want to look at what EPCA has required DOE to do to ensure that any new standards are both technologically feasible as well as economically justified. So my first question, which I know you've touched on a little bit, but I'll give you some time to expand: How does DOE weigh the projected energy savings against the upfront costs that consumers will bear when these savings might be modest or indistinguishable?

Mr. Novak: I think that points out why the bill is before the committee, which is the idea to sharpen the assessment of that trade-off there between utility and the energy efficiency gained to the consumer. It's something that, at least in a lot of people's experience, seems to be a bit off. Part of it is that the calculus now includes some things that are quite broad. Social cost of carbon, for example, greenhouse gases, which is something a little bit broader and different than what is the energy consumption compared to the usage of this particular device, and what's the utility of the device.

Rep Pfluger: I'll move to federal facilities in Section 433 implementation of the Energy Independent Security Act, which requires phasing out fossil fuel use in newer or newly renovated federal buildings by 2030, so how is DOE approaching this requirement while ensuring that critical facilities, whether they be federal courthouses or VA facilities or military bases, that they can continue to operate reliably, number one, but also in a cost efficient manner?

Mr. Novak: It is a challenge, to be blunt, and it's a challenge just not in regard to the existing federal footprint, but the addition of any new federal facilities, where the requirement here is to basically be all electric. So this is one of the things, again, that points out what's motivating the bill here is to, again, get some flexibility here, so that the energy solution, both for the existing footprint as well as any new facilities, is something that takes into account local delivery options as well as design specs, delivery time frames, etc.

Rep. Pfluger: I'm worried about, again, military bases, VA hospitals, the facilities that are providing care and help to people, that you mandate a switch to electrification, which is not feasible. Would DOE support clarifying or updating Section 433 to provide flexibility for installations when natural gas remains the most reliable option? 

Mr. Novak: We would.