SJRES-50-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Jon Husted (R-OH)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a Department of Energy (DOE) rule published on October 9, 2024. That rule updated certification, labeling, and enforcement requirements for certain consumer products — such as washing machines and dishwashers — and commercial equipment — such as computer room air conditioners — to align reporting requirements with current energy conservation standards and to give DOE better information for classifying products under applicable efficiency standards. If this resolution passes, the rule would be voided and could not be reissued in substantially the same form without new congressional authorization.
Who benefits
Manufacturers of covered appliances and commercial equipment who would face fewer or less updated reporting and certification obligations. Retailers and distributors who sell these products and may face reduced compliance paperwork. Businesses operating commercial equipment (e.g., data centers using computer room air conditioners) that would avoid updated labeling requirements. Opponents of expanded federal agency rulemaking authority broadly.
Who is hurt
Consumers who rely on energy efficiency labels to make informed purchasing decisions, as the updated labeling requirements would be voided. Environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations whose policy goals depend on updated DOE standards. Utilities and grid operators who may benefit indirectly from reduced energy consumption driven by efficiency labeling. Manufacturers who had already begun investing in compliance with the new rule and would face uncertainty about future requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the DOE rule imposes updated certification and reporting burdens on manufacturers and businesses without a commensurate public benefit, adding regulatory compliance costs that may be passed on to consumers. They contend that the rule represents administrative overreach — expanding DOE's information-gathering authority beyond what is necessary — and that Congress, not an executive agency, should set the terms of energy efficiency oversight. They further argue that the CRA provides the appropriate democratic check on agency rulemaking that exceeds its core mandate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the DOE rule was a routine administrative update designed to align certification and labeling requirements with already-enacted energy conservation standards, not an expansion of regulatory scope. They contend that nullifying the rule creates a gap between existing efficiency standards and the reporting infrastructure needed to enforce them, potentially undermining compliance oversight. They further argue that voiding the rule under the CRA would bar DOE from issuing any substantially similar rule in the future, locking in outdated administrative procedures and hampering the agency's ability to enforce congressionally mandated efficiency programs.
Constitutional context
The DOE's energy efficiency rulemaking authority rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and congressional delegation under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts no longer defer to agency interpretations of their own statutory authority, meaning any future DOE rule in this space would face independent judicial scrutiny of whether Congress clearly authorized the specific regulatory action.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by nullifying an executive agency rule; the CRA's "substantially similar" bar limits DOE's ability to re-issue the rule without new legislation, shifting ongoing power over these requirements from the executive branch to Congress.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify dozens of agency rules since 2017, including several DOE and EPA energy and environmental regulations, establishing a clear pattern of legislative use of the CRA to reverse late-term administrative rules.