Biden Administration Now Wants to Ban Furnaces

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/biden-administration-now-wants-to-
ban-furnaces/ar-AA1hL5wd

In an attempt to force Americans to conserve energy, the Department of
Energy is banning a whole class of popular furnaces, eventually raising
heating costs and reducing product choices for families and businesses
alike. And it is using an outdated law to give itself the authority to do
so.

While the DOE did recognize many of the comments that I submitted arguing
against its attempt to regulate gas furnaces, it did little more than
brush them off. Unfortunately, higher costs and less choice won’t be so
easy for American families and businesses to ignore.

Furthermore, the DOE relied on outdated congressional authority to devise
its final rule, and the law itself doesn’t require the department to
tighten standards for gas furnaces when there is no good reason for it to
do so (and there isn’t).

The new rule does not simply alter standards; it would effectively remove
a technology from the marketplace and reduce competition. This is
antithetical to Congress’ wishes expressed in the 1975 Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, which makes clear that maintaining a competitive market
for products the law covers is an essential element of the cost-benefit
calculation. Yet ultimately, the rule would have a tremendous effect on
the furnace market by eliminating an entire technology, namely
noncondensing gas furnaces.
While the DOE determined that noncondensing furnaces do not constitute a
separate marketplace offering relative to condensing models, which it
prefers, its conclusion is based on an overly narrow definition of
separate product categories. Essentially, the department concluded that
because both technologies are used to heat homes, they are not competitors
and thus should not be considered separate product categories for
regulatory purposes.

While both condensing and noncondensing furnaces heat homes, they have
different costs, perform differently, and have different installation
requirements. Condensing furnaces cost more and entail installation
expenses that can be significant.

These differences matter to consumers, and this is why both technologies
are sold in the marketplace. Indeed, the DOE estimated that noncondensing
furnaces would represent 42% of furnace shipments in 2029, prior to its
proposed rule taking effect, demonstrating the enduring value that
American consumers find in noncondensing furnaces.

Congress, right or wrong, sought to improve consumer product efficiency
when it passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act nearly 50 years ago,
but it was not seeking to empower the DOE to in effect ban a product that,
according to the department’s own estimate, represents 42% of the market.

Congress also expressed a deep concern with ensuring that any conservation
measure be supported by an underlying need for energy conservation. In
fact, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking specified when the “DOE may not
prescribe a standard.” Among other factors that the notice stated the
secretary must consider is “the need for energy and water conservation.”

Indeed, the value, if not the underlying legitimacy, of government
imposing its will on the American consumer when considering this
conservation factor could only be relevant when there is a current and
pressing problem concerning conservation. Such a scenario does not exist
now, and, in fact, there is energy abundance, even though much remains
untapped largely due to government constraints.

According to the Energy Information Agency, in 2020, the United States
held over 373 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude oil
reserves, which would provide the U.S. with over 50 years of supply. The
same is true for natural gas. The agency also estimated in 2020 that the
U.S. held more than 2,925 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable
natural gas. At current consumption levels, that equates to nearly 100
years of supply.

Of course, new discoveries are always occurring that would expand this
supply over time, which is demonstrated by the growing availability of
unconventional sources like oil shale. According to the Energy Information
Agency, the U.S. currently holds an additional 195.5 billion barrels of
crude oil and 1,712 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in unconventional
reserves. According to the Institute for Energy Research, conventional and
unconventional reserves combine to provide nearly 300 years of energy
supply at current consumption levels.

These energy resources do not even account for uranium deposits, which are
widely spread throughout the U.S., nor for advancements in other energy-
generating technologies.

This era of energy abundance is different from the early 1970s when the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act was passed.

Given that the relevant context of any imposed energy efficiency mandate
is, at a minimum, some demonstrable condition of energy scarcity and that
the U.S. obviously does not meet that condition, the justification for
this or nearly any other efficiency rule is clearly weakened.

Further, within the context of establishing the need for energy
conservation, the DOE’s underlying analysis for the rule attempted to
justify it based on alleged emissions benefits.

But according to the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. air quality has
been improving for decades. The EPA reports that nationally, air pollutant
concentration levels have declined significantly since 1990, including
levels of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur, and
particulate matter.

By almost any measure, America’s air quality is clean and getting cleaner.
Thus, to argue that this regulatory action’s alleged air quality benefits
outweigh the substantial costs to American consumers is weak.

The legitimacy of any policy, especially those that restrict Americans’
ability to pursue their own happiness, requires policymakers to balance
all of the costs and benefits of a particular action. Thus, a reasonable
assessment of the impact on consumer choice, family finances, and broad
inconvenience weighed against the alleged air quality benefits should have
provided the secretary of Energy adequate information to stop this
regulation in its tracks.

The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act was borne out of time of
perceived energy scarcity. In justifying the policies that the act
ultimately set in place, President Gerald Ford laid out three broad policy
objectives. These included reducing oil imports, ending American
vulnerability to economic disruption by foreign suppliers, and developing
energy technology and resources to supply a significant share of the free
world’s energy needs.

In each case, the United States has achieved Ford’s objectives. In 1975,
net imports of crude oil exceeded 5 million barrels per day. By 2020, the
United States had become a net exporter. Additionally, American
technologies like fracking and commercial nuclear reactors are helping to
power modern economies around the world.

Geopolitical shocks and cartels, specifically the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, which produces about 40% of the
world’s crude oil, can still have a near-term impact on American energy
prices. But due to the large amount of energy produced in America and
traded on global markets, energy disruptions do not present the sort of
systemic threat that policymakers feared in the 1970s. The extent to which
the United States economy remains vulnerable is purely a function of
energy restriction policies created by our own government and have nothing
to do with energy efficiency.

Thus, while efficiency certainly remains an important piece of the energy
calculation for American consumers, it is no longer something that needs
to be imposed at the systemic level.

Though the 1975 act clearly authorizes the DOE to place restrictions on
industry and consumer choice at the behest of the secretary of Energy, the
department should recognize that the environment that gave rise to the act
has changed drastically, given advances in technology and energy
discovery. While this does not diminish the authority of the secretary to
impose standards, it does dramatically diminish the impact of those
standards relative to the overall purpose of the act, which is to secure
adequate energy resources for the American economy.

In other words, saving a slice of a small pie has much more impact than
saving the same size slice of a much larger pie. As detailed above, the
United States has hundreds of years of known energy reserves, and new
technology is allowing for new discoveries and more efficient use of
existing reserves all the time.

Further, appliances of all sorts, including furnaces, are becoming more
efficient. While the consuming public considers many attributes of the
purchases they make, including capability and upfront cost, efficiency is
clearly something the American consumer values. Indeed, as energy becomes
more expensive, the value of the efficiency in a free market will most
assuredly increase.

Put succinctly, the value proposition for energy efficiency has shifted
dramatically since 1975 due the broad availability of energy. Thus,
forcing Americans to purchase certain products based on efficiency within
an environment of energy abundance no longer has the same impact on energy
availability as it did during times of perceived energy scarcity. The new
standards do not meaningfully advance the intent of Energy Policy and
Conservation Act and do not justify the restrictions the rule will impose
on American consumers’ choices.


--
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.

Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem. It has none.

No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.