HWG LLP Energy Efficiency Rules (PDF)

BY: Sean A. Lev, John A. Hodges, Jason E. Neal, and Daeyeong Kim

In 1973, members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) imposed an oil embargo that had huge effects on energy. In response, Congress in 1975 passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)[1] reflecting a “comprehensive national energy policy.”[2] A significant part of this has been the federal energy efficiency program, including efficiency standards for products and equipment, test procedures, labeling, and preemption of state requirements.[3] Over the years, there have been significant shifts in approach to the program, often turning on the composition and mood of Congress and which administration is in power—as well as the weighing of such factors as the need for energy security, environmental concerns, the large increase in energy usage due to data centers, perceived regulatory burden, and consumer choice.

A bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, if enacted into law, would dramatically curb the federal efficiency program. Due to the potential implications for products and equipment subject to the efficiency program, the bill warrants vigilance by industry and other stakeholders.

Sponsored by Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA), H.R. 4626, The Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act,[4] formerly known as The Don’t Mess with My Home Appliances Act, passed the House 217-190 on February 24, 2026. Passage was largely along party lines, with 210 Republican and seven Democratic yeas.  The bill has now gone to the Senate and been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.[5]

The bill reflects a reaction to prior federal energy efficiency policies. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce report accompanying the bill asserts that the Department of Energy (DOE) “acted beyond the scope of its statutory authority by setting efficiency standards, especially under the Biden-Harris Administration,” that do not satisfy the statutory criteria that a standard is economically justified, technologically feasible, and results in a significant conservation of energy.[6] The Committee further states that DOE, seeking to implement the climate policies of the Biden-Harris Administration, created efficiency standards that discourage the use of natural gas in favor of electric appliances.[7]

Key features of H.R. 4626 include:

  • The bill (§ 2(a)) would eliminate the so-called “lookback” requirement that DOE review standards every six years for periodic rulemakings for new standards (or publish a notice that standards do not need to be amended).[8] Instead, it provides that DOE “may” propose a rulemaking for new standards.
  • The bill (§ 2(b)–(c)) contains provisions for revoking standards. Even after they are revoked, however, the federal action would preempt the states and prevent them from filling the regulatory gaps.
  • The bill (§ 2(c)) contains a number of requirements for the issuance of standards, including the following:
    • DOE would be required to conduct a quantitative economic impact analysis prior to prescribing any new or amended standard.
    • DOE may not determine that imposition of a standard is economically justified unless it determines that compliance will result in a reduction of at least 0.3 quads[9] of site energy over thirty years or at least a ten percent reduction in energy or water use of the covered product.
    • DOE may not determine that imposition of a standard is economically justified unless it determines that imposition of the standard will not result in any lessening of the utility or the performance of the product.
    • DOE may not determine that imposition of a standard is economically justified unless it determines that it is not likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of a type (or class) of products based on what type of fuel the product consumes.
    • In determining whether imposition of a standard is economically justified, DOE shall prioritize the interests of consumers; may not consider estimates of the social costs or social benefits associated with incremental greenhouse gas emissions; and shall consider the economic impact, including any regulatory burden, of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products.

The Committee report contains a statement of Minority Views, signed by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ranking Member of the Committee. The Minority argues that the bill will raise electricity costs and threaten the nation’s ability to compete with China in the artificial intelligence space. Additionally, it states that the bill does not address how the new authority to revoke existing standards “interacts with EPCA’s anti-backsliding provisions, thus creating statutory ambiguity.”[10]

The anti-backsliding provision states that DOE “may not prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum allowable energy use, or, in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets, or urinals, water use, or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product.”[11]  In this Administration, DOE has issued numerous proposals to rescind or amend a broad range of efficiency rules.  Those proposals remain pending. Some include interpretations of the anti-backsliding provision that would, for example, allow for eliminating current standards set by DOE and returning to the statutory levels set in EPCA.[12]

*****

For more information please contact Sean A. Lev, John A. Hodges, Jason E. Neal, or Daeyeong Kim.  Sean Lev has served as Acting General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel for Environment and Nuclear Programs at DOE and as General Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission. John Hodges regularly counsels clients on energy efficiency issues, including standards, testing and labeling, legislation, rulemaking, litigation, and enforcement, and on data centers. Jason Neal counsels clients on regulatory issues in DOE proceedings and represents clients in appellate challenges to adverse decisions. Daeyeong Kim counsels clients on regulatory issues related to energy efficiency standards and data centers.

Abigail T. Phillips, a Legal Analyst at HWG LLP, contributed to the preparation of this advisory under the supervision of John Hodges.

This advisory is not intended to convey legal advice. It is circulated publicly as a convenience and does not reflect or create an attorney-client relationship.

[1]        Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. No. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (1975).

[2]      S. Rep. No. 94-516 (1975) (Conf. Rep.).

[3]       See 42 U.S.C. § 6291 et seq.; 10 C.F.R. Pts. 429–431; 16 C.F.R. Pt. 305.

[4]        H.R. 4626, 119th Cong. (2026).

[5]        H.R.4626 – Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4626 (last visited Mar. 10, 2026).

[6]       H.R. Rep. No. 119-470, at 7 (2026).

[7]      Id. at 7–8.

[8]       42 U.S.C. § 6295(m)(1)–(2).

[9]       A quad is a unit of energy equal to 1015 (a short-scale quadrillion) British Thermal Units (BTU).  “Site energy” is measured at the point of use.  This contrasts with “source energy,” a measurement that accounts for the generation, transmission, and distribution of the energy.  See Federal Energy Management Program, DOE, Reporting Guidance for Federal Agency Annual Report on Energy Management at 6 (2023), https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/fy2023-annual-reporting-guidance.pdf.

[10]       H.R. Rep. No. 119-470, at 90–91.

[11]      42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(1).

[12]      See Sean A. Lev, John A. Hodges, and Jason E. Neal, New Trump Administration Proposals Target DOE Energy Efficiency Rules, HWG (May 29, 2025), https://hwglaw.com/2025/ 05/29/new-trump-administration-proposals-target-doe-energy-efficiency-rules/.