No Flame, More Pain: How State and Local Bans on Natural Gas Increase Costs

Ready? This hearing of the subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy and Regulatory Affairs will come to order. I wanna welcome everyone today, and without objection the chair may declare a recess at any time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. Um, again, welcome to this hearing. Um, hosted today by the subcommittee for oversight. Today, this subcommittee will examine energy choice, focusing on the consequences of bans and restrictions on the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels. These are policies long championed by congressional Democrats that are being pursued by blue states and localities. High electricity costs are one of the top affordability concerns that Americans have today. Since twenty twenty, electricity prices have skyrocketed, straining the budgets of everyday Americans. Meanwhile, natural gas has remained an affordable and reliable form of energy for American households. Americans across our country rely on and prefer natural gas to heat their homes, cook their meals, and often to operate a small business. Natural gas is also a key component of our electrical power generation. Over the last several years, the Biden administration and congressional Democrats sought to force Americans away from natural gas and other fossil fuels and towards electrification. The Biden administration s finalized sweeping environmental regulations which pressured utilities to retire fossil fuel electric power generation capacity, which ultimately strained our electric grid. The Biden administration also adopted a slew of burdensome regulations that aimed to ban many gas home appliances. Additionally, the wasteful inflation reduction act, championed by congressional Democrats and the Biden administration poured billions of dollars into incentivizing electrification. At the subcommittee's previous proceeding, we discussed how such policies play into the strengths of our foreign adversaries and fail to benefit working American families. Congressional Republicans have successfully repealed a number of these regulations and repealed the IRA's wasteful spending. The Trump administration is likewise rolling back appliance killing standards and regulations that aim to eliminate fossil fuel fired power generation. And courts have overturned the Biden administration's natural gas powered appliance bans calling them attempts to make home appliances more expensive and less useful however to help achieve their nationwide aims Democrat-led states and localities spurred on by radical climate activists are still implementing their own bans on natural gas in many types of buildings. For example, the city of of the gov- uh the city, this city, Washington DC, our nation's capital, is planning on implementing at the end of the year a ban on natural gas in new commercial buildings certain newly constructed residential buildings, and large renovations. This is highly concerning, and I hope that this committee can do something about it. Our federalist system, of course, gives states the authority to make such ignorant laws, including ban bad laws governing inter interstate energy. In fact, when I was a Missouri State Senator, I led the effort and passed legislation to ensure that Missourians were not subject to natural gas bans or other limitations to energy choice. However, those sorts of bans have broader effects beyond just those states. These bans are being litigated in the courts with the ninth circuit ruling that federal law preempts states, building codes and restrictions on energy sources. These bans are projected to massively increase electricity demand, shifting the entire energy demand burden for heating and cooking during the winter months to an already stretched power grid. Such bans will not only raise energy prices in the states in which they are enacted, but they also will increase demand for electricity from neighboring grids and regional transmission organizations, raising already high prices in those other states. Importantly, these bans will hurt families, particularly poor families who are struggling with their energy bills. Additionally, natural gas bans will limit appliance choice for many American families increasing costs and altering the broader app appliance marketplace. They will also make housing construction more expensive, which is exa- which will only exacerbate the existing home affordability crisis, which is well documented to spill over from one state into the other. According to the analysis from the National Association of Home Builders, in colder climates, full electrification adds fifteen thousand dollars to the cost of constructing a new home. During this past winter, nationwide households with electric heating saw average seasonal bills of more than twelve hundred dollars to keep their homes warm, compared to just over seven hundred dollars in homes that were heating with natural gas. Additionally, the American Gas Association estimates that households save more than sixty-six dollars per month when using gas versus an electric appliance. Republicans believe in energy choice. Appliance freedom and energy affordability. While Democrats are trying to ban reliable and affordable energy sources like natural gas and force green energy mandates upon Americans to satisfy radical climate activists while these vi- various blue state policies may seem isolated, these mandates are really a coordinated nationwide effort to work around Democrat failures to impose such mandates at the federal level. Simply put, a nationwide workaround dressed in local clothing. At a time of sky-high electricity prices and increasing threats to the reliability and security of America's electric grids, the last thing the American people need is a wave of natural gas bands. And with that, I yield to Ranking Member Frost for his opening statement.

Thank you so much, Mister Chairman, and thank you so much to our witnesses for being here today. I'm glad to be here to have the opportunity to discuss a very important subject, rising energy costs. and the role on the crisis and the fact that no one can afford anything in America. My Republican colleagues need to face the facts. Energy costs are not drastically increasing because of a small handful of stance uh states and localities that have implemented laws that promote electrification and reduce the use of fossil fuels. It is the Trump administration and corporations that are driving up energy costs for Americans. Despite claiming to want to lower costs, President Trump has spent billions of dollars to cancel energy projects that would have lowered costs for the average family. The Trump administration has canceled funding for clean energy projects that would have produced enough electricity to power the equivalent of seventeen million homes. Canceling these projects don't just push prices higher, it cuts jobs and threatens our nation's long-term energy security. And to make matters worse, the one big beautiful bill ended the residential tax credits that we're lowering energy bills for millions of working families across the country. Without clean energy from domestic sources, we are exposed to global energy shocks and changes within the market, which families are feeling today. And while President Trump is increasing costs for the average American and threatening our security, he is working to make his friends richer. The Trump administration's latest deal to cancel offshore wind projects and drive investment into a liquefied natural gas project is going to generate a massive payday for one of his friends from Mar-a-Lago. As we discussed in this subcommittee last year, the growing use of AI is powered by data centers that use an incredible amount of electricity. This electricity's demand constrains cities' grids, and data centers can jeopardize the quality of life for Americans who live near them. But President Trump sees no problem with this. In fact, earlier this week, he posted that all communities should embrace data centers, and if they do not, they will end up, quote, "backwards and poor." President Trump is either completely unaware or completely ignoring the fact that data centers can significantly drive up a community's energy costs. One grid operator which covers a region with data center hubs saw their prices increase by over a thousand percent because of the increased demand, a price increase that will pass be passed along to working families. President Trump wants to " let data reign", prioritizing corporations and AI companies over making sure our communities are affordable and the health and security of Americans, an incredibly unpopular take, by the way, from both Democrats and Republicans across the country. Since the start of Trump's second term, household electricity bills have increased sixteen percent nationally. And President Trump's reckless decision to have this war in Iran continues to have consequences that harm the American people. Fuel prices have skyrocketed thanks to Trump's war, and Americans are paying the price at the gas pump. Gas prices are averaging over four dollars a gallon as of August. Diesel prices have been going up even higher, averaging around five dollars a gallon. And since the war's start, American consumers have shouldered almost ninety-five billion dollars in additional fuel costs. Besides the tremendous human toll this war has taken, there's a real cost on families here at home. And this war is not the only source of increasing costs for Americans. President Trump also, uh, pushed forward this failed tariff policy that's been wreaking havoc on our economy. While the president has repeatedly insisted that foreign countries pay the price for his Liberation Day tariffs, American consumers and businesses are actually footing about ninety percent of the bill. And some of the biggest corporations in this nation got to double dip. They charged us more for all these products. Courts ruled that the tariffs were illegal. Then the government gave those same corporations checks. for what we paid. These tariffs drive up energy and food costs, and American households can expect to pay over a thousand dollars extra cost per year as a result. President Trump's, President Trump recently announced that fifty percent tariffs on goods from Canada will continue to drive up prices for Americans. Tariffs on lumber and other building materials will increase construction costs and make housing affordability crisis even worse. These tariffs and trade wars impact energy prices by freezing investments in new energy projects, tri- driving up construction costs and delaying projects. But this seems to be exactly what the president wants since he has cut clean energy projects that would have helped alleviate costs for consumers. President Trump and congressional Republicans pretend to care about affordability for the American people, but they simultaneously implement reckless tariffs, starting illegal wars, cutting critical projects and making energy costs soar. Costs have not gone down for working families since Trump has taken office. They've gone up. And if this administration and congressional Republicans actually care about lowering costs for energy, instead of sitting here talking about a few states that have implemented a few rules, they should be bringing back tax credits that were lowering energy bills for millions of families. They should bring back clean energy projects that were making energy more affordable and more accessible. They should stop trying to force data centers on our communities across the country. They should stop imposing reckless tariffs and just end uh that just end up costing American consumers and businesses even more money and they should stop supporting illegal foreign wars that raise prices here at home. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you, thank you, member Frost. First I want to welcome our witnesses. We have Michael Fazio. who is the executive director of the New York State Builders Association, where he leads advocacy efforts to expand housing production, promote homeownership and housing affordability, and strengthen New York's residential construction industry. He also had has held several leadership positions with the National Association of Home Builders, who he is representing in his testimony today. Next we have James Condie, a partner at Boyden Gray, specializing in energy, Environmental and Administrative Law and Regulation. Mister Condi is representing the Prime Mover Institute in his testimony. And today and next we have Patrick McCormick, who served as Chief Counsel to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate from the t- one hundred and twelfth to the one hundred and nineteenth Congress. During his tenure, he provided expert counsel on legislation and uh agency oversight related to energy policy, and all other committee matters. And lastly we have Doctor Piet Weikauf, who is the Vice President for Policy at Evergreen Action. Thank you gentlemen for all joining us today and I look forward to your testimony, and with that um pursuant to the committee rule nine G will the witnesses please stand and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the inferno. Thank you and you can take your seats. Again, we appreciate you being here today and look forward to your testimony. Um, let me remind you, I think you all know that how the how the lights work. Um, please limit your oral statements to five minutes. And um, please remember to press the button. Otherwise, we will not be able to hear you and it will not be on on um watched by the millions who watch um these hearings on C-SPAN. And I now with that I will now recognize Mr. Fazio for his opening statement.

Uh, Chairman Burleson, Ranking Member Frost, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Michael Fazio, and I serve as the Executive Director of the New York State Builders Association, and I am here today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders. Our industry is on the front lines of a housing affordability crisis, Families are struggling to afford homes, and we simply are not building enough housing to meet that demand. Energy mandates that increase the cost of construction only make that problem worse. For a family trying to aff- to qualify for a mortgage, every dollar matters. NHB estimates that just a one thousand dollar increase in the cost of a median new home would price approximately one hundred and fifty-six thousand families out of the market. That is why energy choice matters. NHB supports improving energy efficiency. Today's new homes are substantially more efficient than homes built in prior decades and builders continue to incorporate it new technologies and construction practices. When it comes to how a home is powered, governments should not be picking winners and losers. Families should be able to choose the energy sources and appliances that work best for their homes and their budgets. Some may choose electricity. Others may choose natural gas or propane. Those options should compete based upon cost, performance, reliability, and what families actually want. That choice is being taken away in in my home state. New York became the first state in the country to prohibit natural gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings. As someone who represents the state's home building industry, I see firsthand what that means for builders and homebuyers. In colder climates, fully electrifying a new home can add more than fifteen thousand dollars in construction costs. For a family already struggling to afford a home, that can be the difference between qual- qualifying for a mortgage and being priced out altogether. A family may want to build an all-electric home, and builders can certainly do that. But families should also be able to choose natural gas and other sources when it is more affordable or better meets their needs. Affordability is only part of the equation. Reliability matters as well. New York is already facing growing electri- electricity demand and constraints on its generation and energy infrastructure. As we ask the grid to power more of our homes and our economy, we need to be confident it can reliably meet that demand, especially when temperatures drop and energy needs are at their highest. The December twenty twenty-two Buffalo blizzard showed how serious the consequences can be when families lose power and heat during extreme weather. That storm brought extreme cold hurricane forced winds heavy snow and widespread power outages. Emergency responders struggled to reach people. And forty-seven people lost their lives in Buffalo as a result of this storm. That experience underscores why maintaining a diverse mix of energy sources is so important, and the lesson extends beyond extreme weather. As electricity demand grows, it has become increasingly clear that meeting our energy needs will require an all of the above approach. That includes renewables, nuclear power, natural gas, propane, and other technologies. We clearly need more energy. We need more reliable energy. We need more affordable energy. Families should be able to s- to decide how they heat their homes and cook their food. Builders should have the flexibility to meet the needs of their customers and their communities. We can make homes more efficient while preserving the choices families value, We should not make housing less affordable, less reliable, or less attainable in this process. Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have.

Now recognize Mister Condi for his opening statement.

Chairman Burleson, Ranking Member Frost, and members of the subcommittee. My name is James Condi and I'm a partner at Boyd and Gray PLLC. a boutique law firm in Washington DC. I'm testifying today on behalf of the Prime Uber Institute, a five O one C three organization that advocates to expand access to all technologies that power the American standard of living, including gas powered appliances owned by millions of American homeowners and businesses. In today's network home, American homeowners and businesses have a wide variety of choices in appliances. Americans generally choose whatever combination And often, but not always, that means choosing gas. In recent years, however, governments at all levels have been pulling every policy lever to squash full choice. Start with the Biden administration's misuse of the nineteen seventy-five Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA. EPCA authorizes the Department of Energy to set energy efficiency standards for most household and many industrial appliances. In recent years, however, the Department of Energy has misused this old law to push electrification by, as the chairman put it, making gas appliances less useful and more expensive. Let me give you a specific example. If you're like me or millions of other Americans, and you live in an old home and use gas for heating, you probably own a non-condensing gas furnace. These furnaces are already very efficient, about eighty percent efficient, And crucially for many Americans, these furnaces can vent their exhaust gases through an existing chimney, using natural draft. Condensing furnaces, the alternative, are more efficient because they pull additional heat from exhaust gases. But condensing furnaces cannot use an existing chimney. Instead, a condensing furnace requires a dedicated PVC vent and plumbing for the liquid condensation it generates. For many Americans, such as those living in row homes, installing a non-condensing furnace may be infeasible. For millions of others, it would require punching new holes through an exterior wall, sacrificing storage space, or undertaking costly home renovations. In twenty twenty three, the Department of Energy nevertheless promulgated an energy efficiency standard that effect effectively bans non-condensing gas furnaces from the market starting in twenty twenty seven as r- as a result, millions of Americans would be pushed to switch to electric heat pumps. Indeed, that was the goal of the rule, which the department touted as a regulatory benefit. That's not supposed to happen under EBCA as Congress enacted it. Congress wrote several guardrails into EBCA to protect consumer choice in appliances. First, the department cannot set standards that effectively ban gas appliances. Second, beyond this, the department cannot ban a class of products which features that consumers find useful. The rule mandating condensing gas furnaces violates at least the second requirement, if not the first. Venting through an existing chimney as opposed to punching a hole and venting through an exterior vent is obviously useful to many Americans, as the Department of Energy under the Trump administration has now conceded in the litigation. EPCA's legal protections are also relevant to the state and local gas bans we are discussing today. EPCA broadly prohibits, quote, " any state regulation concerning the energy use of a gas appliance." As the Ninth Circuit explained in the City of Berkeley decision, this preempts direct or indirect state and local efforts to ban gas appliances, including through the use of building codes. The issue is certainly important. Many state and local governments, not just New York, have adopted building codes that ban gas appliances. That includes DC, Montgomery County, Washington State, Denver, Colorado, and multiple other local governments. But these bans go beyond building codes. The air districts in the South Coast and Bay areas of California have pioneered a new type of ban now called a zero emission standard for appliances, that it applies to including to re- existing replacements. It's not just affecting new buildings. Because combusting gas inevitably involves some emissions, this is effectively the same as saying that appliances cannot use gas, which EPCU prohibits. These bans, these zero emissions bans, are now being considered

Thank you. We now r- recognize Mister McCormick for his opening statements.

Thank you. Chairman Burleson, Ranking Member Frost, and members of the subcommittee, I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you uh to contribute to your contribution of how bans on the use of natural gas increase costs. A few states and a and about a hundred units of local government have adopted such bans. Sponsors of these measures often attempt to deflect the coercive nature uh of their actions with euphemisms such as electrification or zero emission building initiatives. Local and state bans are raising economic and non-economic costs on Americans, as shown in my prepared testimony and in Mister Fazio's remarks. At the same time, these measures are denying people the opportunity to install appliances and equipment of their own choice. And the fact is, such bans have near zero effect on global carbon dioxide and methane emissions even though having such an effect is a major stated reason for their enactment. To be clear, when market-driven electrifying end-uses previously fueled by combustion can deliver greater convenience, and efficiency, among other benefits. It it it should and will occur. Electrification is happening naturally. Take home heating, for example. A study conducted by a University of California professor shows that the percentage of US homes heated with electricity has increased steadily since nineteen fifty one percent in nineteen fifty eight percent in nineteen seventy, twenty-six percent in nineteen ninety, and more than forty percent the professor found forty, but uh current data i- is higher than that, forty percent in twenty twenty. However, free customer choice should be the driving force here, not government mandates aimed to serve a false narrative of energy transition. As the chairman mentioned, I'm Pat McCormick, a member of the bar who stepped down last year as chief counsel of the committee on energy and natural resources in the senate. I'm expressing my person- my personal views and appearing in my personal capacity, although I serve as a senior fellow with the National E- Center for Energy Analytics, or NCEA. NCEA is a national energy ta- uh, think tank focused on data-driven analysis and the supply of energy essential for human flourishing. Separately, I also provide advice on energy policy matters. I'm not currently engaged in the practice of law and no commercial interest suggested to me that I should testify. Natural gas bans, zero emission building mandates burden people with low incomes, especially those who live where the weather is cold. They restrict customer choice, they distort competition, and they and as has been mentioned, they transfer additional demand to electric systems that are already facing rapid load growth and reliability challenges. And in most case- uh, pardon me, in many cases, They result in more natural gas being burned at electric generating plants than is reduced through end-use electrification, depends on the characteristics of the l- of the relevant grid. Concerning customer choice, a ban on natural gas excludes gas furnaces, boilers, water heaters, ranges, and related products. The home heating market illustrates the the scale of the choice being displaced. In twenty twenty four, natural gas remained the principal space-seeding fuel for forty-seven percent of U. S. households. Uh, any and as shown in my prepared testimonies, in twenty twenty five, manufacturers shipped more heat pumps than gas furnaces. But consider that according to these data, manufacturers shipped three point two million three point two million new gas furnaces last year alone. Coercive electrification measures rest on an asserted energy transition. Energy systems are always changing, but they evolve it slowly and are additive. In twenty twenty four, more than seventy five percent of global energy came from hydrocarbon sources. That percentage has changed comparatively little over the last thirty years despite massive intervention. Voluntary or natural electrification is happening, but applying the force of law to compel quicker or deeper market penetration is wrong and has many na- negative con consequences. Congress should protect the operation of federal energy law, especially now when federal circuit courts are split on whether federal energy law preempts local law. It should apply common sense and preserve the ability of households and businesses to choose the energy sources and equipment that best meet their needs.

Thank you. Now recognize Doctor Weikauf for his opening statement.

Good morning, Chairman Burleson, Ranking Member Frost, and subcommittee members. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Pete Weikauf, and I serve as Vice President of Policy at Evergreen Action. Until recently, I was Minnesota's Deputy Commissioner of Commerce for Energy. At Evergreen we focus on making sure American families can afford to heat their homes and keep the lights on. while cutting the pollution that harms our health and intensifies expensive, climate-driven weather disasters. As President Trump entered his second term, he promised to cut energy prices in half within a year. Instead, since January twenty twenty-five, average household electric bills are up fifteen percent nationwide and climbing, and gas for homes is up even more. And utilities have filed more than a hundred billion in rate increase request since he took office. Let me explain what and who is actually driving these increases. Hint, it is not a few localities with strong efficiency standards. From his first day back in office, President Trump has systematically obstructed the path forward for the fastest to build cheapest new electric generation we have. His tax bill killed clean energy tax credits for wind and solar. That decision alone will cost customers in my home state of Minnesota and in other states billions upon billions of dollars. Just two weeks ago, President Trump canceled three federally designated transmission corridors, slowing the build-out of desperately needed infrastructure that would re- lower costs and increase reliability, particularly as data centers ask for more and more electricity. His administration has also spent nearly four billion dollars in our taxpayer money to cancel offshore wind projects, and it has assembled bureaucratic blockades to the permitting of other projects. This is stopping affordable power that families were counting on to keep their bills in check from coming online. The math isn't complicated. When you deliberately choke off cheap new power while demand skyrockets, Americans will pay more. I guarantee it. Every one of these decisions follows the same pattern. Ask yourself, who benefits? First, President Trump's tax bill limited credits designed to help working families switch from inefficient appliances to highly efficient electric ones. cutting their bills and reducing their dependence on volatile expensive fossil fuels. Who benefits? Not the millions of working families denied relief, but it's fossil fuel allies who are cashing in. Second, the administration reversed appliance energy efficiency standards that would have saved Americans roughly forty-three billion dollars. Who benefits? Not your constituents who are now locked into even more expensive to own appliances. Third, President Trump is forcing aging coal plants to stay on-line far past their retirement dates at a cost to American rate payers of five hundred and twenty-eight million dollars thus far and counting who benefits. Same deal. Not American, the American people. And finally, President Trump's worn-around sent gas prices soaring, costing American drivers thus far a whopping seven hundred and twenty-five dollars in extra expenses per household. gasoline and diesel costs. These are the type of things raising energy costs. Now let me turn to what this hearing asserts is behind rising bills. The building code policies under discussion today apply primarily to new construction, not to current homes or appliances. And in new construction, the data is clear. Building all electric from the start is cheaper. If you just add electricity to a house and every house is going to have electricity, it is cheaper than adding electric and gas hookups. Both fro- up front and over time, all electric homes cost seventy-five hundred dollars to eighty-two hundred dollars less to build and additionally, new homes built to updated energy codes save owners up to fifteen thousand dollars over the life of the home. Stronger building codes have been shown to not slow down home building, but they do that ensure that homes are affordable and safe. I will acknowledge a real concern. For existing homeowners who want to upgrade, upfront costs can be a different - a genuine barrier to electrification. That is exactly why the Inflation Reduction Act created rebate programs to help families make the choice on their own timeline if they choose. But the administration has slow-walked those programs, delaying and denying relief to families who need it. In closure, picture a future where families live in efficient, affordable homes insulated from vol- volatile global markets. The technology exists, the economics are clear. What stands in the way are not efficiency standards in a few blue cities, and is an administration that is governed consistently and de- deliberately for its fossil fuel donors at the expense of working families, with considerable help from their allies in these halls. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes of uh questions. Um, Mister Conde, after hearing the remarks from Doctor Wyckoff, I I just wanted to give you an opportunity to respond. Do you i- the the the statement that the the they're requiring the homes be only built with electricity, that the adding all of the limitations of access to other re- fuel resources, that that actually keeps the cost down. What is your response to that?

So I think that's Orwellian. I doesn't make any sense. If it were so cheap and so good, why do you need to mandate it?

That's the obvious question, isn't it?

Yeah. It is.

They were so great, why would we n- why would you

Nobody actually believes this.

That that was my thought. I I actually thought it was the the statements were actually very absurd.

And and the idea that this is some form of relief for homeowners is it's insane. Makes no sense.

Thank you. Let my other question is who who actually is really benefiting from this like crony scheme of tax credits?

uh well uh

that was devised to ideally to help people who were poor that was the intent right that was the stated intent who is actually the ones that benefited from this from the from the tax credit schemes

it it depends on exactly what tax credits we're talking about but obviously corporations selling heat pumps are big beneficiaries of of the tax credits that were mentioned in the IRA so it it really depends but

yeah it was either rich people who had the discretionary income to pay for expensive like whether you wanted to put solar on your roof and get tax credits in that way or if you wanted to put a geothermal unit then and you had the resources to do it and then guess what you get to charge your neighbor who can't afford to do that,

That's right.

you get the tax deduction, they do not get that tax deduction.

Most low income Americans don't pay income taxes, so they don't get that.

That's right. In fact, I look I just looked it up. Most people, only nine percent of the population that makes below hundred thousand dollars actually itemizes their deduction. So if you make it less than a hundred thousand dollars,

Right.

odds are you're you're you're not itemizing and you're pro- really probably never going to install a geothermal unit. Right? But the guy that makes over half a million to a million is mor- is fifty percent likely to itemize and is the person that's going to be able basically take take taxpayer money to install a geothermal unit so that they can have cheaper electricity. This is the absurdity that I think that my well-intentioned friends ha- have made, but the irony is that the opposite has happened. It's almost like reverse Robin Hood. We basically created a system where we're robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. Would you agree with that statement?

I would agree with that.

Mister Fazio, um, could you explain to those of us who do don't build homes for a living, who who don't actually have to write the checks, actually figure out how to make something affordable. Can you explain what some of these well-intended, um, idealistic ideas, what what their impact really is on the cost of homes?

Sure, um. We would, and NHB has done a study that says it's fifteen thousand dollars more to build a new home, all electric, which you said in your opening statement. But we're seeing gas bans pop up all over the country, New York, Maryland, DC, Denver, Georgia even now and which will ultimately increase increased demand and increase electricity prices, which as a domino effect will all electric homes are more expensive to build and operate and more expensive for the consumer to buy. But I think more broadly, and more importantly, we're forgetting the cost to get - Now we're talking about um we build subdivisions, we build communities. We don't build high-rise buildings in the middle of the city.

Right.

We build suburban, rural,

The American dream.

the American dream for working families. So the cost to get the power for an all-electric community from the power substation, through the lines, through the transformers, I mean, i- it can be hundreds of thousand dollars, it can be billions of dollars, to get the proper capacity to the site. That is extremely expensive. Also, in the home itself, you're talking about many times having the electric panel go from two hundred to four hundred amps, not to get technical, for um an electric home. And also in addition to the cost of getting that upgraded power from the substation to the transformer to the site, maybe miles, the lead times we've been quoted from utilities in New York are eighteen to twenty-four months. That those are killers for these projects. These projects, they don't they won't pencil out, they don't get built. They cause uncertainty to the investors and the banks and the lenders to these home builders. So the uncertainty of this all is really troubling and uh we simply don't have the capacity in New York and around the country.

Thank you. My time has expired, and with that I yield to Ranking Member Frost for his questions.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair, and it and it's good to hear you talk about reverse Robin Hood because that's that's kind of what you guys did last year with the big beautiful bill. I mean, that's what the whole bill was. Most of the benefits went to the richest Americans. What I call reverse Robin Hood is ripping away health care from seventeen million people, cutting Medicaid from seventeen million people to give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. I call what I call reverse Robin Hood is taking away two hundred billion dollars from feeding hungry kids. to give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. So I'd love to talk about reverse Robin Hood because that is the big beautiful bill. I'm also very glad, though, that we're here to talk about increased costs in energy, because I'm paying the most in energy I ever have in my house. Um, I live in Florida. It's the summer. It's really hot. Um, there are families who just can't afford to turn off their AC to save, um, some money. And so they have to stomach the cost. This is going on around the entire country. So let's talk about increased costs, President Trump's tariffs, President Trump's trade wars, President Trump's war in Iran. Republicans control the White House and Congress, and they still can't bring costs down. In fact, it's going the other way up, it's going up. In fact, President Trump, since he took office, household electricity bills have risen sixteen percent nationally. And when temperatures reach dangerous levels, like I said, families can't just turn off their air conditioning to save money. Thousands of Americans die each year due to heat related uh re heat related illnesses. And people in Florida need electricity to stay safe, and it's the same for many states across this country. Um, Dr. uh, Bakof, what are consequences when families are forced to choose between paying their electric bill or paying for groceries, gas, and rent?

Of course, they're not good. Um, energy burden is a real thing. energy burden is something that is going up in many places. And as you hinted, this is at a time when we have increasing electric demand and we have increasing costs in our gas systems. I think thus far people have assumed that gas systems come for free, but electric systems cost. They both are two separate and costly systems. Both are going up. In the case of the electric system, demand is going up, but at the same time there are steps being taken to block the bringing on of the cheapest way to add electric generation, and that is wind and solar and storage to make it

Mm-hmm. I have a, yeah, I have a question about this too because, you know, a lot of times you hear people talk about, we shouldn't be picking winners and losers, losers, we shouldn't be picking win- winners and losers, um, as it relates to this. So has the United States of America never picked winners and losers or tipped or or gave billions of dollars in subsidies to any kind of energy production? Did that never happen?

Oh. I think you're setting me up there. We know that fossil fuels have been subsidized for years and years and years.

Oh.

It's permanently built into the tax code, so no one talks about it.

So fossil fuels have been subsidized using taxpayer dollars for a long,

Subsidies for, yes.

long time.

Yes, it is permanently built into the tax code, so it's not these things that come and go and expire.

Oh, okay, gotcha. All right, I just wanted to make sure we got that on the record. You know, part of the issue here is they're not making energy more affordable, they're too busy weaponizing it. Last October the Trump administration canceled over seven billion dollars in grants for clean energy projects which we we spoke about. And uh to, Mister Faso, to your comments, I agree, I mean we need to diversify our energy mix and this is part of doing that. Uh, Doctor Wyckoff, should the politics of a state play a role in determining whether a project receives federal funding or not?

Absolutely not. And as a former energy official from the state of Minnesota, I can say that we had grants, they were penciled out for being cut, while identical grants in other states that had voted for Donald Trump continued. That is un-American.

Yeah, and well, do the, uh, do the court documents, uh, these projects were in sixteen states that didn't vote for President Trump. And we know that the politics was used in determining what projects would be cut and which one- ones wouldn't. Um, on Monday, President Trump said that communities that oppose data centers wanna be backwards and poor. He said, " Let data reign." So, that's right, America, if you're concerned about the mass production of AI data centers in your backyard, President Trump says you want to be backwards and you want to be poor. If you're worried about your energy costs going up because of an AI data center being put in your community, President Trump says, " Shut up, let data reign." This is the policy, I guess, of the Republican Party right now. And we know that data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity. Um, look, we know that energy costs are going up right now, families are being asked to pay more, people are losing their jobs, the biggest corporations just keep getting richer and richer. Um, and next time we have a hearing on rising costs, let, let's talk about that. Let's continue to talk about the fact that costs are going up, not going down, for the average American. Thank you, Mr. Chair, yield back.

Thank you. And I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mister Higgins, for his op- for his questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. My, my, my. Not sure where to begin here, but in my limited time of five minutes, I'm gonna drill down into home building and home construction. Any options that Americans have or don't have, depending upon where you live and if you live in an area where government does not oppress your choices on how and what to build in your home, or how to prepare your home for independent living if you're interested independence at all and government oppression stopping your choices is uh on installing natural gas appliances is is quite a thing and to talk about to talk about um our the generations before. I mean, just to clarify what we're talking about here, you know, the natural gas is incredibly reliable. Depend upon how old you are, your your your grandparents or great-grandparents either had no electricity or very limited electricity, they had gas. They had gas stove, gas oven, they had gas heater in the bathroom. The the the first little house that my wife and I bought was a one thousand square foot, sixty five year old wood frame home in south Louisiana. And it it had like eight outlets in the whole house. The electricity was was was originally not installed in that home. It gradually was added like as an interesting accessory. You had these gas heaters, man, little gas heaters. The gas stove, gas oven. The old timers who were far more healthy than this generation is. I- i- if you don't agree with that, then if you watch some old videos. Those guys were way healthier than we are now. And they, on a a bitterly cold day they would commonly, grandma, grandpa would heat their kitchen with a with a turned on stove and a open lit oven. The access to having natural gas in your home. Mister Fossey, I'm gonna ask you to answer these questions as quickly as you can. Just to clarify for America, because nobody has mentioned this, if you have a gas appliance, natural gas appliance, like a stove or a barbecue pit, how easy is it to convert that to propane?

To convert it to propane?

Yes.

It's very easy.

Very easy. It's a valve. Let me just tell, in case you don't know, it's a low valve you can change. So if you're, if you're a homeowner in America, you wanna have reliable heat and the ability to cook without being dependent upon the government and a grid that can go down instantly, and leave you at the mercy of whatever the government is going to perform to restore the grid. If you wanna be able to actually warm the home for the family, cook food for the family. Natural gas is it. So if you're building a home or maintaining your home, it's, it's almost a requirement. A natural gas, a natural gas is, a natural gas appliance is a propane appliance. It's a change of a valve, very simple. Do it yourself. You can't convert an electric appliance to propane, can you, Doctor Weikopf? It's a simple no.

Nope.

No. If you say, well, you can have a diesel generator or gas generator, the kind of events that cause a grid to go down in the per- first place make it very difficult to buy gas and diesel. Whereas the reliability of natural gas lines run through the ground to your house, incredibly dependable. So we have home builders, mister Fazio, right now, that have to regionally deal with restrictions on installation of natural gas. Is that correct?

That is correct, and it it's as we speak, it is happening in real time.

And the and the the home builders themselves w- working for the homeowners, that homeowner, talk about fifteen thousand dollars, what are you talking about, they're probably on a house, man. That's, that's a blip in the price of a house. What that homeowner is really looking for is a dependable, reliable, safe and secure home for their family. Am I correct, Mister Fazio?

Well, the homeowner, the buyer is looking for choice. They want a choice of energy, they want a choice how they cook, cook their food and heat their house. They wanna be able to make that choice. And we say let the market determine that, determine that. Not a mandate.

Yeah, I would concur, the market should control this, not the government. Homeowners should make these choices, not politicians. Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, I yield.

Now I recognize Representative Anzari from Arizona.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Let's begin with a couple of very straightforward questions. Yes or no, Mister Fazio, is affordability a hoax?

Is affordability a hoax?

Correct. Yes or no.

I don't believe so, no.

Mister Conde, yes or no, is affordability a con job?

I don't really understand the question.

It's just a yes or no. Is it a c- is it a con job?

I I don't know what you mean by affordability.

Oh, okay, interesting. Mister McCormick, yes or no, is affordability a Democrat scam?

What is your definition of affordability, if I may ask?

The definition of affordability?

I don't know. Yeah, your definition.

Do you think the concept of something being affordable, affordability, is a democratic scam? It's a very simple yes or no.

Affordability as I see it isn't a concept, it's a fact that particular consumers in their own situation have to evaluate.

And is it a democratic scam?

Is affordability a democratic scam?

I know these sound like ridiculous questions. They they are. But this is what Donald Trump, the president of the United States, has been going around the country telling struggling Americans, all of these words that seem absurd to you all, which I agree, these are the words of the president. And this is a president who said that he would lower costs on day one. He said our grocery prices would fall. He said that the pain at the pump would go away. What happened to all of those promises? Well, here's what Donald Trump actually has done with his time in office. He's cut over a hundred and ten thousand good paying clean energy jobs, including thousands in my home state of Arizona. The projects that Trump has cut were a lifeline. They would have brought down energy costs and made life more affordable for Americans. I also agree with a all of the above energy approach, but that's not what this administration with control of the White House and Congress have done. These cuts are not just horrific for the planet, they're horrific for society and for our wallets. It is sheer stupidity and short-sightedness. Meanwhile, if we're going to talk about energy affordability, let's look at where Donald Trump has focused his time. He has launched an illegal, reckless war with Iran that has caused energy prices to skyrocket with literally no plan, no objective, and no plan to get us disentangled. He's also engaged in unprecedented levels of corruption. Let's not forget about him looking oil and gas CEOs in the eye and saying, if you contribute to my campaign, which they did to the tune of one billion dollars, I will give you unprecedented giveaways. And then we rolled back on the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, cut these clean energy jobs and literally took ourselves so far backward in comparison with our geopolitical rivals, China as one example. It's a catastrophic mess brought on by sheer incompetence of this administration and the president himself. Doctor Wyckoff, my Republican colleagues claim to care about lowering energy costs and making life more affordable for Americans. Do you think that cutting billions of dollars worth of clean energy projects does that?

No, I do not.

And, Doctor Wyckoff, also for you, Trump and Republicans' big ugly bill eliminated critical tax incentives for clean energy projects from the Inflation Reduction Act. Can you explain what that is doing to the landscape of clean energy projects and a clean energy future in the United States?

So, as I said in my opening remarks, just in Minnesota alone, the loss of wind and solar tax. credits will cost ratepayers billions upon billions of dollars in the coming year. But even without the tax credits, wind and solar with the help of batteries are the cheapest way to put new generation out there. So just removing the tax credits wasn't enough to get rid of wind and solar as the predominant way people would move forward on building new generation. Economics says keep doing it anyway. So then we keep getting these thumbs on the scale of well I will pay you to give you our the leases back for your wind projects, I'll use American taxpayer dollars to do that, or I will hold up federal permits for wind projects in Minnesota and elsewhere because just getting rid of the tax credits wasn't enough to change the economics, now you have to push on the scale if you want to get rid of wind and solar development? But what are you gonna get in its place? You're not gonna get anything. There's a backlog of years to build turbines, natural gas turbines, that weren't already scheduled. You already bought it. It's coming. You're not gonna build new gas turbines. You can't. There's no supply. The thing we can build right now is wind and solar. So, if you're saying, I don't wanna do that, you're saying, I don't wanna build new generation.

Thank you. I'll just end with this. The Trump administration is doing, in cal- inculpable damage to our economy and long-term prospects for a sustainable energy future. Whether we're talking about the cancellation or delay of two hundred and twenty-three clean manufacturing, energy and industrial projects, representing more than eighty-two billion in capital investment, and the loss of projects that cost up to one hundred twelve thousand manufacturing and construction jobs across the country, it is hypocrisy at its finest. It's appalling. Thank you.

Lady yields back, um, without, with, with unanimous consent, I wanna enter into the record the following statements in support of this hearing from the NFIB and from the American Gas Association, um, without objection. So ordered. With that, I wanna recognize Representative Palmer wi- for his line of questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Condie. Um, does it make sense when the United States has five hundred and eighty-three point nine trillion cubic feet of crude reserves of natural gas to be dependent on on a foreign nation, an adversarial nation, for our energy supply?

No.

Uh, does the United States in terms of its ability to produce power from solar or wind, are are we capable of of securing a one hundred percent of the supply chain necessary for building these facilities?

not under current permitting laws.

Uh uh who are we dependent on for uh things like solar panels and uh electrical steel and things like that that you have to have for the

People's Republic of China.

Uh does that concern you?

Absolutely it does, yes.

Absolutely does. Uh would the um and I'm I'm not against renewables. I I just think when when you're closing uh hydrocarbon facilities at the scale we've been closing them, literally losing hundreds of gigawatts of power and trying to replace it with uh intermittent renewables, we've done uh tremendous harm to our ability to provide the power that we're gonna need when we need to increase the base load power. Is that correct?

That's correct.

I thought so. Um Looking back over the last ten years, the prices of residential natural gas versus electricity, uh which has been more stable and generally lower uh for American households.

A natural gas.

Yeah. Uh Frankly, I'm uh I I'm again I I'm not opposed to any particular s source of power, I just think looking at our economic security and our national security uh it's insane to think that we can provide that for our country um um without uh any uh hydrocarbon part of of of the grid. I'm a huge proponent of small modular nuclear. I think that's that's where we need to go in terms of our future and and for those who are uh concerned about emissions that's they're once you get them uh constructed and installed that's zero emissions. Um. I'm also looking at at what Europe needs. Back in twenty thirteen I was on a panel out in Oklahoma City and I pointed out that Russia was using its energy resources to rebuild their military, basically uh modernization and and um that sort of thing, and and that Europe had put themselves in a very disadvantageous position. I think we find our we could find ourselves in that same position in regard to China. We already are in terms of uh critical minerals process and refine critical minerals from earth elements uh does that concern uh uh the the members of the panel and I'll let each one of you answer that we could be heading in the same direction that Europe did in terms of reliance on China

that that is a major concern congressman and it was good of you to raise it we've heard a lot in this hearing about the alleged benefits of uh certain sources of generation but when you move to those sources nothing is free and those materials that go into the solar panel or the wind uh source these these sources of generation are fine there's nothing wrong with them but we have to be honest about what's happening there and when you move to those those sources you're going to increase and we are in we have increased our uh dependence upon minerals and mineral processing and as you pointed out that's China is really leading the world in that in by using means by the way that would be uh illegal in the United States.

The absolutely they they have little regard uh for the environment, little regard for the safety and well-being of the people who work in these industries. Right now, ninety percent, over ninety percent of all of the mining, processing, refining of critical minerals and rare earth elements is controlled by China. And when you look at the recyclable materials for black mass, uh for uh uh ebe waste and and things like that, again, China controls over ninety percent of it. We put ourselves in a very difficult uh position. I've been working on this issue for over six years. I s- it started during COVID when China cut us off from PPP, PPE. uh, personal protective equipment, and I started looking at the other things that we were reliant on and realized that this is a national security crisis and the Biden administration did absolutely nothing about it. It wasn't until President Trump came into office that we began to take this seriously. And I think we're on a path to um to put ourselves where we we're not dependent on China and not only, is the United States not dependent on China? but our allies will not be dependent on China. Thanks for uh indulging a little extra there, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.

Thank you, with y- asking unanimous consent to enter into the record the following statements in support of this hearing. One written from the comments of the George or from the Washington Gas and Light Company, um and also from the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. Without objection, so ordered. And with that, I recognize Representative Min from California for five minutes.

Uh, thank you for holding this hearing. Now, I wanna follow up on the comments just made by my Republican colleague, Mister Palmer, who mentioned the national security threat that China poses, in particular with respect to their energy expansion. Uh, Doctor Weikopf, uh, I'm sure you know this, but China put out more than five hundred gigawatts of new energy last year. How much of that do you know was renewable?

China has gone heavily investing into the renewable.

Would it surprise you to know that four hundred thirty gigawatts over eighty percent of their new energy was renewable

that sounds about right

now i uh some of my republican colleagues uh talk about intermittent energy with renewables being in in intermittent and not providing uh energy constantly can you explain to them what a battery is

so yes solar panels only collect energy when the sun shines

mmm

you can store that energy in a chemical form in hydrogen you can store that energy in another chemical form in a battery you can store that energy in a in a gravity form by pumping water up a hill.

And I just installed a battery myself at my home with my solar panels earlier this year or last year but because the Republicans cut off the tax credits, I was able to get in just before those tax credits expired, and those allow me to provide a constant energy in my home. Um, now um, where is battery technology today, and where do you expect it to be in say ten years? Uh, is this gonna be enough to maybe like, you know, deal with the intermittency that my Republican colleagues are so concerned about?

so you can look to california or texas depending on which is your cup of tea and you'll see the future of battery storage um these two it is getting cheaper and cheaper they are installing

it's getting cheaper and cheaper right yep

massive quantities and they have uh basically taken solar and made it a uh

yep and and here in the united states we put up i just wanna point out uh just over fifty gigawatts of new energy last year that's about one tenth of what china put up do we and it was all oil and gas because the

yeah

No, they are not stupid, and we can develop the same

We Mm.

uh, supply chains, and we're working on it and are working on it in our country, to be able to produce these here.

And - and I - I'm sure you're all aware of this, but, uh, the Chinese are going around the world right now selling out-of-the-box solutions, renewable energy plus batteries, to countries in Africa, Asia, South America. And these countries, you've - if you talk to their leaders, they don't necessarily want to take Chinese technology. They're concerned about China's influence. Uh, but they're so much cheaper than the oil and gas infrastructure that we are providing, that we're offering, that they take these. And that is a national security threat to the United States of America. So if my Republican colleagues are so concerned about national security, they should be doubling down on this because China right now is eating our lunch around the world they're developing a lot of influence because of their emphasis on renewables. Now, um, I wanted to ask another couple questions. Um, you mentioned the massive subsidies for oil and gas, which includes not only tax credits but much of our military expenditures. But I want to talk about the oil and gas infrastructure. How does gas get delivered to our homes, Dr. Weikauf?

It gets delivered through pipes.

And are those pipes free to install?

Uh. No. Uh, in fact, it used to be that when you bought gas as a homeowner in Minnesota to heat, which is how most of us heat, um, about a third of the cost was the pipes. Now it's more than now it's more than two thirds of the cost is the pipes.

And do those pipes last forever? Oh, wow. Yeah. And h- h- do those pipes last forever?

Nope.

Uh, they have to be repaired and re- replaced periodically, right?

Yes.

In fact, I'm gonna just note that, um, I passed, I know something about this because I passed legislation in the state of California, twelve twenty tw- uh twelve twenty one uh which dealt with this issue and I talked with a number of utility companies uh in the state of California that noted that in many areas replacing the natural gas infrastructure was so much more expensive than moving to all electric that they could literally replace all of the uh gas burning appliances home heating uh ranges stoves et cetera with all electric they could replace that for free the consumer would actually have a lower cost so free appliances lower cost utilities, that sounds like a great deal right?

Sounds good to me.

But the reason that they couldn't do this was because that they have a duty to serve. And do you know what the duty to serve is? Could you explain that briefly?

So the idea is that if you have a gas facility, or you're a gas company in your area, it needs to be serving every customer. If you have an electric company in your area, it needs to be willing to serve every customer.

And so that means that they are required right now, under existing law in all fifty states, to replace that oil and gas infrastructure, even if it's more expensive, even if it doesn't make economic sense. Uh, and so this is um crazy, uh, and I would just note that right now what - what these witnesses on the Republican side are proposing is reinvesting in aging technology that is becoming more and more expensive day by day. As we move forward, it is clear that renewable energy is the future, it is going to be cheaper, in many places it ar- is - already is cheaper, and - and doubling down on aging oil and gas infrastructure is like doubling down on the horse and buggy or wood-burning stoves. And I'm sure that if this hearing were taking place in nineteen twenty six, instead of twenty twenty six, these witnesses

Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from Climate Power, which shows the rise in household electricity bills and loss for jobs for Americans.

Without objection. So ordered.

Also ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from the NRDC, which found that Trump's administration's energy agenda is increasing profits for fossil fuel companies.

Without objection. So ordered.

And then a new article from ABC entitled new york construction industry could hit be hit hardest as canadian us trade war continues

without objection so ordered and i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following statements supporting this hearing one written testimony from angela dingell who is the president and ceo of women impacting public policy um and then another statement from the energy equipment infrastructure alliance um and without objection they're submitted so ordered With that, I recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado, miss over for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Mister Fazio, uh Colorado is already seeing cities like Crested Butte, Boulder, Denver, uh they're using building codes that uh prohibit natural gas in in certain newly constructed buildings and from the pers- perspective of a home builder, what does removing natural gas um as an option due to the cost of uh the construction of a new home

well you're eliminating choice for the consumer so you're eliminating them to pick how they choose to heat their home heat their water or cook their meals and the cost is more expensive and i i mentioned earlier uh we have a study from nhp that states that it's fifteen thousand dollars more to build an all electric home today And you know, I didn't not realize that there were that many in Colorado. I thought it was just Denver, but thanks for mentioning that.

Mm-hmm.

But uh we believe an all the above energy approach will serve more Americans than any other strategy. To have that choice and not be mandated to tell the consumer, to tell the home builder what they have to put in the house for the buyer.

Yes. Uh I I'm really excited to hear you talk about um choice being taken away because so often on the other side of the aisle I hear how pro-choice my colleagues over there are and hear they're wanting government to choose and um be that that heavy lifter and have the heavy hand of government um choose the winners and losers now Mister Fazio in Colorado voters will have an opportunity this November to vote on initiative one seventy seven I'm not sure if you've heard of it or not yet um but this would enshrine a right to purchase natural gas in the state constitution. Now from your uh experience representing builders, why would this um ability to preserve, to choose natural gas um be important to Colorado homeowners and potentially even others, as as a person?

Well I wasn't aware of that, thank you again. Um again it preserves choice, I mean we have a we have our hands full in New York, we have an energy um capacity issue. Um and to have an all hands on deck, all the toolbox, all the all up above the approach serves our nation well, serves home buyers well, serves builders well, and I believe, we believe will drive the cost of housing. And as you all know we have an enormous need for housing in this country. And every additional mandate or cost has to be considered in that context.

Yeah, so I I speak with a lot of our co-ops throughout Colorado and uh, you know, uh, transmission lines are always an issue, how expensive that is, uh, uh, companies coming in using eminent domain and taking over private property rights, and I I think that there are better ways um to do things. Now what what concerns about forcing um additional heating demands um onto the electric grid uh during an extreme winter or an event with um electricity demands uh is is already when those demands are already elevated.

Well in my in my uh oral testimony earlier I spoke about a um a blizzard in Buffalo in December of twenty twenty two and I could tell you from uh some of our members' experience that uh one of our members' dad was uh holed up in his house they couldn't get to him he's ninety years old and he was able to keep himself warm because he put his gas stove on. So from that perspective, and w- also we have a builder in in Ithaca area who builds tiny homes, and he heats these tiny homes with these small open face kind of uh stoves, gas stoves that get us generated,

Mm-hmm.

and during a power outage you're able to heat that whole home with that one little, they c- he calls them open f- stoves.

Yes. Um, thank you very much. Mis- Mister McCormick, um, kind of along the same lines, if if buildings that are uh currently relying on natural gas,

Well, it will dramatically increase the demand on the electric grid at the time, just at the time when load is also growing. And so you're you're gonna stress these these grids, the the North American uh uh Electric uh Reliability Corporation, or NERC, has uh pointed out that the systems are already stressed and has expressed concern about the ability of the systems to maintain reliability.

Yes, and I'll ask this q- uh very quickly, Mister Condi, uh we're we're seeing cities across the country use building codes uh with zero emission requirements to restrict uh or effectively prohibit natural gas um how does Fed federal law particularly um uh prohibit um or excuse me um this policy um apply when local government is using these same building codes

Sure, so as the ninth circuit has said these laws are illegal uh the statute prohibits uh state and local laws concerning energy use and it's pretty difficult to say that banning energy use from gas appliances is not concerning energy use. So I think it's a pretty straight forward argument and I think uh we'll hear soon from the Supreme Court on this.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you. And with that, I recognize um first I wanna say thank you for the wit- to the witnesses all for coming today. I think this was a very informative hearing. And uh with that I now yield to Ranking Member Frost for his closing remarks.

Thank you so much, Mister Chairman. Um thank you so much to our witnesses for being here and sharing your perspectives. Um I think we can all agree that energy costs are too damn high, and we need to do something um to make this necessity more affordable for americans i have to say targeting pretty small scale local bands is not gonna be the solution and so my hope is as we have continue to have hearings on rising costs let's focus on a lot of the bigger things that are driving energy cost up because we hopefully we all know in this room that this is not it um there's a lot of issues uh impacting this and we should definitely get into it thank you and i yield back

Thank you. And in closing, I wanna thank the witnesses again for your time. Um, this is an important issue. Families are struggling with energy bills which have been climbing steadily since twenty twenty. Various elected officials in the progressive movement have waged a war on fossil fuels and natural gas and its use at from the federal level all the way down to the state level. And while the most aggressive attempt was under the Biden administration, which sought to phase out gas stoves and electrify the country at taxpayers' expense. After the Biden administration and congressional Democrats failed to zero out natural gas and forced electrification at the federal level, the fight continues, increasingly shifting to the state and the local level. Democrats across the country are working to ban natural gas and other gases through building codes and net zero mandates. And I personally have fought against these attacks on energy affordability and the grid reliability since my days in the Missouri Senate when I Look, these mandates hurt families, especially hardworking families and small businesses. And I personally oppose any kind of special tax incentive, even for the fossil fuel industry, for any industry whatsoever. At the end of the day, I I think we should be examining any of the tax codes that that unfairly pick a winner or loser and and um and be objective about it. Um. and make sure that that that uh that that those kind those tax taxes are actually going to the people to benefit the people and not some corporation. But these bans have a broader impact than just the jurisdiction that bans natural gas. Um the financial pain experienced by working families paying for environmentalist driven electrification is also felt in neighboring states because we're all on the same power pools. Right? The the the my community is sharing sharing a the same electricity power pool as neighboring states Oklahoma Kansas et cetera. And so many families such as mine rely on on multiple resources, including propane and other fuels to heat their homes. In fact, we choo we chose when we built our home to use propane because once you've cooked with gas, you will never wanna go back. um just it's just a personal choice um which is why I I can't stand these natural gas bans and elimination of these choices and and uh the choice of people on how they wanna choose to heat their home um natural gas bans also mean that summer and winter will now have electricity demand surges for example if Washington DC's natural gas ban had been in place during the harsh winter cold earlier this year poor residents already struggling to get by would have been hit with the massive electricity bills. Um this subcommittee has already covered the high cost of housing and we just heard from today from Mister Fazio natural gas appliances make new homes, a long-term energy cost more affordable. Republicans are offering a different solution work for working Americans, which is energy freedom. Americans ultimately should have the choice. Um, I'm gonna suspend, hold on. Um, thank you, Mr. Perry. I now recognize Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for being here. Question for me is centered on Pennsylvania. My bosses live there. They pay the rates there. But of course, Pennsylvania sits on a mountain of energy, and I'd just like any of the panel to comment on policies like REGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and how it impacts consumer prices for uh for heating and for energy in general, and also on policies like the Delaware River Bay Commission, which has banned fracking in the area of its jurisdiction across Pennsylvania, and then further to comment on states like New York who have have disallowed any of the pipelines that would take the natural gas from Pennsylvania to spots in New England that force us literally to buy Russian gas transported on Russian ships in Na- i- i- in New England at probably twice the price of gas in Pennsylvania and other states. If anybody would comment on those policies. Yes, sir, Mister McCormick.

Yes. Uh, well, first of all, with respect to uh uh the greenhouse gas initiative of of several of several states, um, Virginia has come in because come back into that uh that activity since the uh election of its a new governor uh and electric costs are projected to rise dramatically as a consequence there's there's a lot of data on that point uh with respect to the uh problem of uh there being too little natural gas infrastructure that natural gas in Pennsylvania, if it were available to serve in New England, would reduce electric cost in New England pretty dramatically and increase uh and frankly increase energy security there. It would also um it would also uh address the situation that New England New England is a is really in a very difficult energy situation. Uh.

But but, Mister McCormick, if you could please, if you could speak more plainly. So, I think I understand what you're saying, but for people that aren't living in this world and your world every single day, that, you know, they get up, they put their kids on the bus, and they go to work, and they pay their bills. What I think you're hear- what I hear you saying, what I want you to clarify is, is that there's not a shortage of natural gas. No, no indeed. Right? There's not a shortage of of of energy-producing, Pennsylvania is, no. um, traditional supplies that can be a- a- and generation can be done cleanly. These are policy decisions that the results of which drive the cost of of consumer energy higher. These are policy decisions.

Yes. They are policy decisions.

And in the it i- and if anybody wants to comment on that or this further, Pennsylvania's governor, current governor, Governor Shapiro, who plans to run for president, is blaming the PJM, the Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland, Intercept, the the power uh regulator across Pennsylvania and other states for the high cost of energy while simultaneously closing down base load generation like the governor before him would you comment on that

Yes the y- your analysis is correct the the problem the fundamental problem in the in the PJM area PJM being the regional transmission organization for this for this thirteen state region the fundamental problem is that there isn't enough electric capacity being built

But why?

for it being maintained.

Why?

Well because of the because of the many of the policy decisions that you've already identified. For example, I mean the the the uh problem frankly of of permitting and the and the w- and the war that that many special interest groups have prosecuted against the uh construction and and the and and the um installation of natural gas pipelines, for example.

If you don't mind, I don't mean to cut you off, mister Condie, did you have a comment?

Yeah, so my law firm was involved in some of the litigation involving proposed pipelines to New England, uh so the reason you know prices are so cheap in Pennsylvania and it's so expensive in New England is because of

They're not cheap in Pennsylvania, they're just much more

So, yeah, much less, uh, expensive. Uh, so the reason is that, uh, New York State Attorney General, environmental activist opposed and litigated the pipelines to death. So you can't build through New York. So there's a choke point right there. And instead we're importing from Russia.

So if I could summarize, at least my portion of the conversation with you gentlemen is is that what's not a lack of supply, it is a lack of or it is a wrong-headed policy uh, poor judgment that has caused the prices of generation and fuel in general in certainly in northeastern states to be high. These are policy decisions made by elected officials. Yes or no?

Yes.

Mister Condi.

Yes.

Mister Fosio. I yield back.

I gotta yield one minute to recommend Frost.

Um, Dr. Weikopf, I I saw your hand was on a thing, I don't know if you wanted to add something to that.

Oh yeah, it um, thank you. Um, it seems like an odd time to be paying offshore wind projects that were almost completed to go away when we have a supply limitation in the eastern part of the United States.

Thank you for making that point.

Thank you, and um with that I r- uh wanna say again thank you for to our witnesses for coming. Think this was a very valuable discussion, and with that and without objection all members have five legislative days within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses which will be forwarded to these witnesses and if there are no further business without objection the committee now stands adjourned.