Ken Calvert: “The committee still has concerns about the costs, technology requirements, and compliance periods in the final rule. It…”

“The committee still has concerns about the costs, technology requirements, and compliance periods in the final rule. It is not clear why EPA divided some categories into subcategories and provided different deadlines for similar products. The EPA clearly chose winners and losers. For the losers, the timetables remain unworkable. Manufacturers need time to implement engineering and technology changes and address new risk and safety challenges. Historic experience with the Montreal Protocol indicates that manufacturers need approximately 6-plus years to successfully transition between new materials. This new rule will particularly be hard on small businesses. The large businesses that the gentleman mentioned have the resources and the technologies available to them to comply quicker. These smaller businesses will find it very difficult to comply with DOE's energy conservation standards. EPA's proposal is not being driven by a statutory mandate, so the committee believes additional time is warranted. The EPA left critical decisions regarding energy, efficiency, and system performance up to the manufacturers; and they need time to get this right. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”