S-5484-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by James Risch (R-ID)
What it does
The bill would declare that the Department of Energy's May 31, 2022 final rule on energy conservation standards for manufactured housing (87 Fed. Reg. 32728) has no force or effect. It would also amend Section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 so the Energy Secretary may recommend revisions to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) preemptive energy standards for manufactured homes. Any recommendation would have to rest on a cost-effectiveness finding, estimate the effect on purchase price, and consider factory construction limits, climate zones, alternative methods, and payback periods.
Who benefits
Manufactured-home buyers who could face lower upfront prices if the 2022 rule's requirements would otherwise have raised costs. Manufactured-home producers and retailers, who would avoid compliance and redesign costs. Lower-income and rural households, who buy a large share of manufactured homes and are sensitive to purchase price. Supporters of HUD, rather than DOE, as the lead standard-setter for manufactured housing.
Who is hurt
Buyers and occupants of manufactured homes who might have had lower utility bills under the 2022 standards, particularly in colder climates. Energy-efficiency advocates and makers of insulation, windows, and HVAC equipment that could have sold more under stricter standards. Communities and utilities that might have seen reduced energy demand and emissions. DOE, which would lose authority to enforce its own standards and could only recommend changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that manufactured homes are a main source of lower-cost housing, and that the 2022 rule would add upfront costs when affordability is already strained. They contend that requiring cost-effectiveness, price-impact estimates, and payback analysis before any change ensures standards are tied to real costs and benefits, and that placing HUD in the lead avoids overlapping federal requirements.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that stricter efficiency standards lower household energy bills over time, and that DOE's own analysis found lifetime savings that outweigh added purchase costs for many buyers. They contend that voiding a finalized rule and limiting DOE to recommendations removes a congressionally mandated standard-setting role and could leave lower-income occupants paying higher utility bills.
Constitutional context
Congress may legislate under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and may repeal or nullify an agency rule through ordinary bicameral passage and presentment, as it does with Congressional Review Act disapprovals. The bill raises no major constitutional question beyond this ordinary legislative power over agency authority; it does not turn on cases like West Virginia v. EPA or Loper Bright.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain power by nullifying an executive branch rule and narrowing DOE's role, while DOE would lose enforcement authority and HUD would keep the binding standards; the President's signature or veto and later legislation remain checks.