{"database": "openregs", "table": "crs_reports", "rows": [["R49321", "Reforming the Energy Policy and Conservation Act: Balancing Costs and Benefits and Curating the Law\u2019s Energy Standards", "2026-08-26T04:00:00Z", "2026-08-28T13:08:35Z", "Active", "Reports", "Martin C. Offutt", "Electricity, Renewable Energy & Efficiency", "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA; P.L. 94-163), as amended, authorizes a national standards program in which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issues legally binding standards for the maximum rate or amount of energy used by appliances and industrial equipment. Divergent viewpoints on several issues surrounding how the program is administered and whether the costs and benefits are optimal have been expressed in DOE rulemakings, court cases, and congressional hearings and legislation. \nEPCA establishes a number of criteria for DOE\u2019s stewardship of the program including that DOE periodically review standards, typically six years after the final rule of the previous amendment process. A March 4, 2019, hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee\u2019s Energy Subcommittee drew attention to 16 standards that were overdue for EPCA-mandated review, as did a 2021 report to Congress by DOE.\nEPCA also requires that any new or amended standard issued by DOE be economically justified. A bill in the 119th Congress, H.R. 4626, as passed by the House, would amend the \u201ceconomically justified\u201d criterion to include a quantitatively defined, minimum amount of energy savings associated with a new or amended standard. DOE is also contemplating changes to the program at the administrative level. In May 2025, DOE announced that it would be \u201cproposing the elimination or reduction of 47 regulations,\u201d including 24 regulatory actions to amend efficiency standards, in many cases citing the current standard as not being economically justified. In contrast, the rulemakings amending the standards in the first place had found they were economically justified.\nRecent congressional action in response to certain efficiency standards includes three disapproval resolutions, per the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7801-808), revoking DOE\u2019s revisions to standards that would have made them more stringent.\nThe program could continue as currently authorized in law, or\u2014should Congress see a need to reform EPCA\u2014potential options could include the following: \namend the admonition prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from revising a standard that does not result in \u201csignificant conservation of energy,\u201d EPCA Section 325(o)(3)(B), to require instead a specified, quantitative amount of energy savings;\namend EPCA Section 325(n) to allow petitioners to request a review of a standard for evaluation by the Secretary of Energy for possible revocation, as is currently allowed for considering making standards more stringent, and allow the Secretary to initiate such evaluations at the Secretary\u2019s discretion;\nremove the periodic review requirement of EPCA Section 325(m)(1), in which the Secretary evaluates an amended standard for possible revision six years after its publication; \nrequire the Secretary to conduct an ex post evaluation, using updated information, of recently changed standards using real-world data and to consider revising those standards; or \nmaintain the periodic review requirement of EPCA Section 325(m), but give the Secretary the choice to evaluate the standard for possible revocation as an additional option. \nProvisions in H.R. 4626 in the 119th Congress, H.R. 6192 in the 118th Congress, and H.R. 8402 in the 117th Congress included some of the above options. \n", null, "https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R49321.html"]], "columns": ["id", "title", "publish_date", "update_date", "status", "content_type", "authors", "topics", "summary", "pdf_url", "html_url"], "primary_keys": ["id"], "primary_key_values": ["R49321"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.2160170115530491, "source": "U.S. government sources, plus a few identifier registries; each is listed on the methodology page", "source_url": "https://datadawn.org/methodology#data", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}