S-720-114
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 210.
What it does
This bill would direct the Department of Energy (DOE) to update model building energy codes, provide grants for workforce training in energy-efficient construction, and expand industrial energy efficiency programs for manufacturers. It would require federal agencies to adopt energy-saving information technology strategies, extend energy reduction targets for federal buildings through FY2017, and establish rebate programs for efficient electric motors and transformers. It would also direct HUD to develop mortgage underwriting guidelines that account for home energy efficiency savings.
Who benefits
Small and medium-sized manufacturers who receive free on-site energy assessments and access to efficiency programs; students and workers who gain access to federally funded training and certification programs in energy-efficient construction; homeowners and mortgage applicants whose energy savings would be factored into loan underwriting; schools seeking guidance on energy efficiency and renewable energy projects; companies in the energy services and technology sector that would see increased demand for their products; federal agencies that could reduce long-term operating costs through efficiency upgrades; residents of multifamily housing units covered by HUD's performance-based conservation agreements.
Who is hurt
States and Indian tribes that would face new compliance measurement and certification requirements for building energy codes, potentially incurring administrative costs; building product manufacturers whose products do not meet updated energy codes and may lose market share; third-party certification bodies whose role in the Energy Star program would be reduced or made optional; construction firms and contractors that may face higher upfront compliance costs under stricter building codes; taxpayers who would fund grants, rebates, and federal program expansions, though the bill requires appropriations to be provided in advance; manufacturers of less energy-efficient electric motors and transformers who may face reduced demand due to the rebate programs favoring competitors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this bill would reduce energy costs for American households, businesses, and the federal government by setting clear efficiency standards and providing the tools to meet them. They contend that updated building codes and industrial efficiency programs would lower utility bills over the long term, making American manufacturers more competitive globally by cutting operating expenses. Supporters also argue that workforce training grants would create skilled jobs in a growing sector, and that the bill's voluntary and incentive-based approach — using rebates, grants, and technical assistance rather than mandates — respects the role of states and the private sector. They point out that the bill is budget-neutral under PAYGO rules and requires congressional appropriations before any funds are spent, limiting fiscal risk.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that this bill expands the federal government's role in areas — building codes, manufacturing practices, and mortgage underwriting — that have traditionally been managed by states, localities, and the private market. They contend that requiring states and tribes to measure and certify compliance with federally influenced building codes shifts regulatory burden onto state governments without guaranteed federal funding to cover those costs. Opponents also argue that the rebate and grant programs represent federal spending that may distort market competition and favor certain industries over others, and that the efficiency targets for federal buildings may prove costly to meet in practice. They further suggest that voluntary programs like Energy Star already function without this level of federal involvement, and that reducing third-party certification requirements could weaken product quality assurance for consumers.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, Sec. 8), as energy production, manufacturing, and building products all involve interstate commerce. The Spending Clause supports the grant and rebate programs. The Tenth Amendment is relevant because the bill directs states and Indian tribes to certify compliance with building energy codes, raising potential anti-commandeering questions under New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), though the bill frames compliance as a condition rather than a direct command. DOE's authority to set and update model codes implicates the major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and post-Chevron judicial review (Loper Bright, 2024), meaning courts would independently assess whether statutory text clearly authorizes broad agency rulemaking on building standards.
Checks and balances
The bill expands executive branch authority, primarily through DOE, EPA, HUD, GSA, and OMB, by directing those agencies to create new programs, issue guidelines, and set performance standards. Congress retains a check by requiring that all funding authorizations be enacted through separate appropriations bills (Sec. 502), preventing automatic spending. The legislative branch also sets the specific efficiency targets and program deadlines directly in statute, limiting agency discretion. The judiciary's role is relevant post-Loper Bright, as courts would independently review whether agency actions under this bill stay within the bounds of the authorizing statutes.
Historical precedent
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 similarly directed DOE to update appliance and building efficiency standards, expand industrial efficiency programs, and set federal building energy targets. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 first established federal support for model building energy codes.