Alliance to Save Energy

Congress is revisiting the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), and one bill in particular, H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, (previously known as the “Don’t Mess With My Home Appliances Act”) could undermine the affordability of our household appliances.

Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in a nearly party line vote, the bill would upend years of bipartisan progress taming the energy wasted by our appliances and major HVAC equipment. Here’s why that matters, and why bad math and bad policy could cost consumers billions.

(Source: ASAP)

Why EPCA Exists and How it Works

EPCA is a cornerstone energy efficiency law that, among other things, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to set, and periodically revisit, minimum efficiency targets for appliances and equipment that we use most in our everyday lives. According to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), standards have saved a typical household $6,000 over the past decade.

Since its establishment under a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program has grown to cover more than 70 products, representing about 90% of home energy use, according to DOE.

Like compound interest, over time, those savings really add up. Standards put in place since 1987 helped save American households and businesses $105 billion on utilities in 2024 alone.

  Bad Math = Higher Utility Bills

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Rick Allen of Georgia, changes the seven-factor test DOE uses in its cost-benefit analysis when evaluating appliance standards. Under the proposal, DOE is required to account not only for the upfront purchase price of an appliance and any expected maintenance or repairs, but also for the cost of replacing that product at the end of its life.

The bill also limits the value of energy‑savings benefits to just three years, even though many appliances operate for a decade or more. This approach effectively counts the purchase cost twice and treats long‑lived appliances as if they were disposable.

Because it compresses long‑term, ongoing savings into an artificially short window while inflating upfront costs, the math does not provide a sound basis for economic justification.

Appliances Perform Better Than Ever

According to Congressional testimony from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM):

• The average dishwasher manufactured today uses 50 percent less water and 37 percent less energy than models made in 1998.
• The average refrigerator made today uses nearly 58 percent less energy than refrigerators built in 1980, with nearly 32 percent greater capacity.
• Clothes washers built today use nearly 78 percent less energy than clothes washers built in 1992 and have 60 percent greater capacity.

Furthermore, while performance has improved, the cost of appliances (according to AHAM), “has been flat or has even decreased,” a real selling point for the program.

How the Bill Breaks the System

Due to unprecedented executive powers and an arbitrary timeline for cost recovery, H.R. 4626 would have dire consequences for national energy consumption and affordability.

In the Committee Report that justifies advancing the legislation, the Energy & Commerce (E&C) Committee writes that it passed the bill (along party lines) in order to:

• “Prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible or economically justified.”

DOE’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program already requires the Secretary of Energy to consider several factors when updating energy conservation standards (per CRS): “Any standard must result in significant energy conservation and be technologically feasible and economically justified.”

 

Standards are Predictable and Transparent

Today’s appliance standards are consistent, based on a multiyear rulemaking schedule. Standards are promulgated through a transparent process that encourages public participation and expert engagement. Standards already must be achievable and cost-effective (42 U.S.C. §6295(o)(3)(B)).

Currently, standards are required by law to be reviewed every six years with rulemakings every eight. The Allen bill would allow the Energy Secretary to look back every two years to judge whether technical standards require revision (or not), or whether they should be eliminated entirely (a new power) all the while maintaining federal preemption over state authority.

Along with uncertainty for manufacturers who invest heavily in supply chains and bespoke manufacturing processes, this revision would result in appliances coming across American borders that don’t live up to current requirements, which is called “backsliding” and is currently against the law.

The Allen bill would give the Secretary of Energy the unprecedented power to eliminate standards that don’t meet the re-jiggered cost-effectiveness test, allowing less efficient, appliances and equipment to be sold on U.S. retail shelves.

We have learned, time and again, that energy efficiency is the cheapest, quickest, and cleanest way to meet energy needs, and that the United States should invest in more energy efficiency, not less.

Principled, Bipartisan Reform

Amending EPCA should be a bipartisan expedition. Increasing the energy waste of 90 percent of household appliances and 70 percent of commercial building energy equipment would have a staggering effect on affordability

The Alliance to Save Energy recommends these guiding principles for bipartisan EPCA reform:

1. Transparency
2. Consistency and predictability for manufacturers
3. Fuel neutrality
4. Technological feasibility
5. Economic justification rooted in sound analysis

These are the foundations of a functional energy efficiency framework. H.R. 4626 undermines each of them.

The Alliance will continue to work with energy efficiency champions in the U.S. Senate to support EPCA and the appliance standards program, which have a 50-year track record of reducing energy waste and delivering cost savings for all Americans.  

Energy prices in the U.S. can swing wildly during extreme weather like we’ve had this Winter across much of the nation due to supply–demand imbalances, and peak-hour stress on the system. Those spikes hit households, businesses and public budgets—often prompting calls for new spending or major infrastructure. During extreme heat or cold, the grid turns to the costliest peaker plants, and congestion fees pile up, amplifying volatility.

Efficiency and demand-side flexibility offer market-compatible ways to trim consumption during the most expensive hours—helping stabilize prices for everyone without new subsidies or mandates. Shaving even a few percentage points off the top of the load curve can avoid high-cost generation, dampen wholesale clearing prices that flow through to bills and defer capacity and transmission upgrades.

Tools range from smart thermostats and managed water heating to building automation and EV charging controls, all triggered by price or grid signals with comfort guardrails and easy opt-outs. Most solutions are software-first, verifiable with smart meter data and can compensate customers via based on their energy savings.

Price Stability Through Efficiency

As price volatility and grid stress persist, efficient, price-responsive buildings offer fast, scalable relief. By lowering peak demand, they help moderate wholesale prices, ease system strain, and reduce overall costs—turning existing buildings into responsive grid assets.

Work with ASE: contribute a case study, request templates/talking points, or join the Innovation Policy Committee to support education efforts with Congress on the benefits of energy efficiency.

Why Peaks Move Prices

In wholesale markets, prices are set by the last (highest-cost) increment of supply needed to meet demand. During typical hours, lower-cost resources may set the price. When demand surges, additional peaking generation is dispatched—raising clearing prices.

• A small share of hours can drive a large share of annual system costs.
• Weather events and seasonal patterns (e.g., cold snaps or post-solar evening ramps) intensify the effect.
   

Efficiency: A Low-Cost Way to Flatten the Curve

Cutting demand during peak periods keeps higher-cost resources offline and dampens market prices. Analyses from national labs indicate targeted demand-side measures can materially reduce wholesale prices during critical hours—while deferring or right-sizing future upgrades.

• Benefits include improved price predictability for customers and budget certainty for public agencies.
• Think traffic: removing a small number of cars from a jam can restore flow for everyone.

Program leads: if you have a 2–3 sentence example we can feature in ASE materials, send it to jrobinson@ase.org.

 

Smarter Efficiency with Real-Time Controls

Traditional efficiency lowers baseline use; modern controls add timing and automation:

• Adjust HVAC setpoints based on price or grid signals
• Pre-cool/pre-heat buildings ahead of peak windows

A Midwestern university used its building automation system to shift load away from peak hours—cutting summer energy costs and contributing to regional stability. This approach scales to schools, offices, and public buildings.
 

Why This Matters for Energy Efficiency—and ASE’s Work

Treating efficiency and flexible demand as measurable, dispatchable resources is central to ASE’s mission: lowering costs, improving reliability, and expanding accessibility to solutions that help customers participate. Through the Innovation Policy Committee and Active Efficiency initiative, ASE convenes utilities, technology providers, ESCOs, and policymakers to advance controls, interoperability, and demand-flexibility practices in real buildings.

Interested in shaping this work? Email jrobinson@ase.org with “Interested in IPC” to get the next meeting invite.

 

A Market-Compatible Path for Public-Sector Leadership

Public buildings—courthouses, hospitals, campuses, and offices—are ideal proving grounds for price-responsive efficiency. ASE recommends paired pilots that combine dynamic pricing with automation and practical measurement:

1. Test time-of-use and real-time pricing structures in willing facilities
2. Offer limited grants/credits for controls and automation to enable participation
3. Share results through DOE’s Better Buildings and Connected Communities programs

These efforts can demonstrate how efficiency enhances affordability, reliability, and accessibility—without new subsidies.

 

Resources & Further Reading

• EIA: Wholesale Electricity Dashboard
• LBNL: Demand Flexibility (report)
• ISO/RTO Council: Market Monitoring
• ACEEE: Utility Program Cost-Effectiveness
• DOE: Better Buildings
• DOE: Connected Communities