{"id":255339,"date":"2023-04-30T10:38:48","date_gmt":"2023-04-30T08:38:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255339"},"modified":"2023-04-30T10:38:51","modified_gmt":"2023-04-30T08:38:51","slug":"doe-vs-gas-cooking-a-review-of-critical-comments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255339","title":{"rendered":"DOE vs. Gas Cooking: A Review of Critical Comments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Mark Krebs<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 April 27, 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

The filed comments exceeded expectations. The free-market commenters were especially prevalent and displayed great content. Some trade associations also deserve special recognition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden\u2019s \u201cwhole of government\u201d Department of Justice is becoming far less likely to challenge DOE on matters of fuel neutrality.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Good news! Filed comments opposing the U.S. Department of Energy\u2019s \u201cEnergy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products (Ovens)<\/a>\u201d beat the other side in quantity, quality and range. The sheer volume of opposition comments makes a summary difficult, as does the new format of the regulations.gov website (requiring each numbered comment be opened one-by-one to identify the sender\u2019s identity). There are 2,650 comments in this docket, dating back to Feb 24, 2014. [1]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following table is provided to give examples of some of the more thorough yet diverse comments opposing adoption filed in the last few days before the comment period closed on April 17th:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Submitter Info<\/strong><\/td>Comment ID<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)[i]<\/sup><\/a><\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2287<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
ONE Gas (utility company)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2289<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2288<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2270<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Heritage Foundation<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2281<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0071<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Institute for Energy Research (IER)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2274<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
American Public Gas Association (APGA)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2283<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
American Gas Association (AGA)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0007<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
CO2 Coalition (Happer Lindzen Wrightstone)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2275<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Joint States Attorneys General (1 of 2)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2277<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Joint States Attorneys General (2 of 2)<\/td>EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2264<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Review of Comments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The filed comments exceeded expectations. The free-market commenters were especially prevalent and displayed great content. Some trade associations also deserve special recognition.  For example, I commend Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers<\/strong>. AHAM surprised me by soundly rebuking EERE\u2019s appliance electrification objectives. AHAM (and others) also pointed out that EERE is making it difficult for manufacturers to comply, including the use of obsolete test procedures for demonstrating manufacturer compliance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example; two days after the April 17th<\/sup> comment deadline, the Federal Register<\/em> published a \u201cnotification of petition for rulemaking; request for comment\u201d regarding AHAM\u2019s request for updating cooking product test procedures<\/a>.\u201d A little belated perhaps? I think so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

American Gas Association<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

AGA\u2019s comments and press release<\/a> also warrant kudos. In short, AGA succinctly commented:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026 by DOE\u2019s estimates, the SNOPR would render 50%-96% of the gas cooktop models currently in the marketplace non-compliant and illegal to manufacture and sell if the proposal is finalized. According to DOE\u2019s analysis, this extraordinary regulatory action would result in consumer cost savings for gas cooktops amounting to a scant $1.51 per year.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

From AGA\u2019s Press Release, quoting president and CEO Karen Harbert. <\/em>:\u201cIt goes without saying that the government should not be in the business of prescribing how everyday Americans cook their meals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The whole of government approach to ban natural gas ignores consumer preferences and pocketbooks and the facts that clearly show how natural gas is helping our nation achieve our energy and environmental goals. The natural gas industry is a champion of energy efficiency, but this rule is not an energy efficiency measure as advertised, rather, it is an effort to remove gas appliances from the market and a clear violation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

These powerful words need to be followed by equally powerful actions. I pray that AGA does not let the complacency of some combined (gas and electric) utility members dissuade them from taking on the unprecedented hostility of the Biden Administration towards the direct use of natural gas, the primary appliance energy source alternative to electricity. And of course, propane is also a leading alternative to electricity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

American Public Gas Association<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

APGA also provided exceptionally concise comments.  This is especially true regarding summarizing the many problems associated with DOE\u2019s test procedures. EERE\u2019s test procedures tend to be especially onerous for small manufactures; forcing concentration of manufacturing into ever fewer but larger manufacturers, who tend to be more cozy with Federal government largesse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National Association of Home Builders<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 I was also pleased to see that the NAHB comments argued for consumer choice via gas appliances. My concern was<\/u><\/strong> that NAHB might give-in to the obscene electrification incentives being offered by the so-called \u201cInflation Reduction Act<\/a>.\u201d But NAHB held strong. Good on NAHB!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ONE Gas<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The comments of the utility ONE Gas also stood out for both their historical depth and technical breadth. For just one example, they cited the unambiguous congressional intent for maintaining regulatory \u201cfuel neutrality,\u201d a bedrock principle that DOE has plainly abandoned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spire<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My ex-employer, Spire, also submitted strong comments (based upon a requested copy that was forwarded to me on April 18th).  However, searching docket comments for Spire yielded nothing recent. As of this morning, it\u2019s been a week since the last comment was posted (from CEI\u2019s Ben Liberman). I\u2019ve advised Spire to check with regulations.gov on the status of their comments per the \u201creceipt\u201d number issued upon successful comment submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My Comments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also filed comments<\/a>.  Most of these reiterated points that fellow commenters filed: that DOE is making a mockery of ostensible fuel-neutrality policies through its overt promotion of electrification.  My comments also cautioned DOE against outsourcing anti-competitive concerns to an equally woke Department of Justice (DOJ). So far at least, the DOJ has never questioned DOE\u2019s pro-electric biases despite numerous attempts to get them to do so (with AGA\u2019s filed comments referencing the latest).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the DOJ also provides DOE\u2019s litigation services, should someone choose to sue DOE, this represents a massive conflict of interest.  Read the attached letters to my filed comments for more information regarding how the DOJ chronically shirks its duties by myopically restricting its evaluation of anti-competitive behavior to that within the appliance manufacturing marketplace (via \u201cHerfindahl\u2013Hirschman Indices<\/a>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The much bigger picture of eliminating competition and consumer choice has only expanded in scope through the now official Biden Administration policies of total societal electrification and its \u201cwhole of government\u201d war against the direct use of fossil fuels<\/em>. Biden\u2019s \u201cwhole of government\u201d Department of Justice is becoming far less likely to challenge DOE on matters of fuel neutrality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also in the same vein as other commenters, I discussed the negligible energy cost reductions being proposed. When energy savings amounts are broken down to the individual consumer component level, the dollar value appears to be even more negligible. Even still, anemic savings amounts are inflated due to chronically inaccurate life-cycle costing estimating of energy costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another point I emphasized is that DOE overall savings amounts include social costs of carbon benefits and nebulous health benefits; both of which are controversial and biased.\u00a0 The following table, extracted out of DOE\u2019s \u201cTechnical Support Document\u201d (TSD) illustrates how their \u201cTechnical Support Document\u201d (TSD) savings for SCC and health, bolster energy cost savings.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

While DOE can \u201cconsider<\/u><\/strong>\u201d such matters, the congressional intent of the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) is based upon reducing consumer energy expenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generally Speaking<\/strong> \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opposing comments to DOE\u2018s proposed rule demonstrates a broad commonality of purpose that everyone supporting consumer choice should read and understand. To the extent feasible, all the comments listed in the first table are worthy of review so that commenters opposing adoption can better understand each other and, in the process, sharpen future comments and build consumer-oriented networks to put these comments into action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I fully realize that this article is overlooking the contributions of many commenters opposing DOE\u2019s over-reaching and illegal objectives.  I apologize for not giving proper recognition to every commenter that deserves it; but such a review would probably be too heavy for most people to lift, let alone read.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calling DOE guilty of \u201cnanny state\u201d behavior insults the inherent maternal (but forgivable) instincts of nannies everywhere to make us do what\u2019s best for us.  Increasingly dystopian policies to ostensibly fight the \u201cexistential threat of anthropogenic global warming\u201d are far worse. The terms \u201croad to serfdom\u201d or perhaps \u201cyou will own nothing and be happy\u201d come to mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So where do we go from here?<\/em> Those supporting free markets, based upon informed consumer choice, can litigate. Or they can lobby congress to curb the administrative state\u2019s self-serving penchants for control.   Or both.  If litigation avenues are pursued, detailed technical analyses and citations are advised, to ensure a robust record.  If Congressional intervention avenues are pursued (a.k.a., lobbying), perhaps more weight should be given towards the readability of filed comments.  Of course, these options are not mutually exclusive and filed comments can be \u201crepurposed\u201d for other objectives as well; like building public support  to expand the wide ranging  and growing discontent with heavy-handed and over-reaching energy\/environmental power grabs.  In short, the gas stove regulatory debacle makes an effective \u201cposter child\u201d for regulatory abuse of consumer choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These regulations are no longer \u201cmoving the market\u201d to higher levels of efficiency.  They are simply moving the market to higher levels of electrification based upon physics\/economics-defying myths of a cleaner and more affordable future via all-renewable power generation (so-called deep decarbonization).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Victory: California Restaurant Association<\/em> v. City of Berkeley<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You may have heard about the California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley<\/a> case.  On April 17th<\/sup>, 2023 (the same day comments were due for this docket), the Ninth Circuit court struck down a local ordinance banning natural gas in newly constructed buildings, concluding that federal law preempts the ordinance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bluntly summarizing the case, Judge Bumatay stated that \u201cEPCA preempts building codes, like Berkeley\u2019s ordinance, that function as \u201cenergy use\u201d regulations.  In short, EPCA does not permit States and localities to dodge preemption by hiding \u201cenergy use\u201d regulations in building codes\u201d and \u201cBerkeley can\u2019t bypass preemption by banning natural gas piping within buildings rather than banning natural gas products themselves.\u201d For additional reference, a very thorough review is \u201cNinth Circuit Appeals Court Overturns Berkeley\u2019s Ban on Gas Stoves<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How much the \u201cCRA v. Berkeley\u201d decision will slow down deep decarbonization regulation zealotry is yet to be seen.  It could be a little or it could be a lot. And it may also apply to what DOE is proposing within this Docket. Regardless of how much it helps, we should recognize it was a gift.  Be grateful and let\u2019s not squander it. Rather, let\u2019s apply it to expose and take on the morbidly over-funded opposition (via unwitting taxpayer funded powerplays contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CRA v. Berkeley is indicative of increasingly electrocentric building \u201cenergy efficiency\u201d codes.  Natural gas and propane positions are being overrun by environmental zealots, underwritten in large part by DOE.  They have packed the bleachers and corrupted the building energy code referees under the guise of \u201cconsensus.\u201d  These efforts will multiply as the \u201call you can eat\u201d buffet of IRA funding is distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is Next?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once DOE finalizes a proposed rulemaking, under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a rule can be challenged in court on the basis that it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion that it is contrary to the Constitution or a statute; or that the agency failed to follow required legal procedures. I believe the period to do so is 30 days (if it hasn\u2019t changed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If not appealed within 30 days, under the APA\u2019s provisions, a \u201cFinal Rule\u201d becomes law and EPCA provisions prevent \u201cbacksliding\u201d (regardless of anti-consumer severity). If this happens, reversing it may literally take an Act of Congress. However, I am not a lawyer.  Therefore, I am not qualified to provide legal advice. Statements in this paragraph are merely my reflections upon the two appeals under the APA that I have been involved in.  Such appeals can and do take years. The latter instance, APGA v. DOE<\/a> (for commercial boilers), is still ongoing after several years of litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The greatest risk to consumers is that the direct use of natural gas is forced into permanent exile if not extinction.  And that is the path to which the Biden Administration and their electrocentric cronies intend to \u201clead\u201d us.  Perhaps this course can be reversed by \u201cExecutive Order\u201d (EO) edict if the next President is willing.  But EO\u2019s can and are easily reversed upon Presidential regime change.  A more lasting result will likely require Congressional action accompanied with massive pruning of Federal agencies who are increasingly self-serving and apparently intend to control every possible aspect of public behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In closing, this work is not suitable for the complacent or the faint-of-heart.  Keep in mind that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

many assume that half efforts can be effective.  A small jump is easier than a large one, but no one wishing to cross a large ditch would cross half of it first.<\/em> (Karl von Clauswitz)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At MasterResource, readers are encouraged to ask questions or add comments to articles as shown below. I\u2019ll stop writing here for that reason but will do my best to address all questions or comments. So please feel free to chime in with either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional reference links:<\/p>\n\n\n\n