Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove a Department of Energy rule. If both chambers of Congress pass the resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the named rule is void and cannot take effect. It also prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. The text declares the DOE commercial water heating efficiency standard to have no force or effect.
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Water Heating Equipment (final rule published at 88 Fed. Reg. 69686 on October 6, 2023).
Department of Energy (DOE)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval joint resolutions are considered under expedited procedures in the Senate and are not subject to a filibuster, so they need only a simple majority there. If both chambers pass the resolution, it is sent to the President for signature or veto; a signed resolution invalidates the rule and bars reissuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation.
This joint resolution disapproves and nullifies the Department of Energy final rule titled "Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Water Heating Equipment" (88 Fed.
Reg. 69686, Oct. 6, 2023) under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8).
If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect.
Content is narrow and administratively simple, which helps; but overcoming Senate procedural hurdles and possible executive pushback makes enactment uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill performs a narrowly focused substantive policy action (statutory disapproval of a specific agency rule) with clear operative language but minimal explanatory, fiscal, or implementation detail beyond invoking the disapproval.
Progressives emphasize climate and long-term consumer savings.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize climate and long-term consumer savings.
Likely views the resolution negatively as a rollback of energy-efficiency standards that reduce emissions and save energy costs.
Sees congressional disapproval as undermining administrative technical rulemaking and climate policy.
May accept narrow fixes if rule genuinely flawed, but overall opposes nullification.
Approaches the resolution pragmatically: wants clear evidence that the DOE rule's benefits do not justify costs.
Would prefer targeted fixes, a delay, or a properly documented cost‑benefit review over blunt repeal.
Open to compromise if rulemaking process was procedurally flawed.
Likely supports the resolution as a necessary check on federal overreach and costly regulation.
Views nullifying the DOE standard as protecting businesses, reducing regulatory burden, and preserving market flexibility.
Favors returning decisions to manufacturers or states if appropriate.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administratively simple, which helps; but overcoming Senate procedural hurdles and possible executive pushback makes enactment uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate and long-term consumer savings.
Content is narrow and administratively simple, which helps; but overcoming Senate procedural hurdles and possible executive pushback makes…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill performs a narrowly focused substantive policy action (statutory disapproval of a specific agency rule) with clear operative language but minimal explanatory, fiscal,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.